Op-ed: Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

@silo (cont):

His closing comments were (and I remember his words verbatim): "There is no such thing as global warming and, if there is, it has nothing to do with what man is doing."

@silo:
"You claim there's many scientists that DO NOT believe in man made climate change and then fail to list even a single one.

Cite a scientist that does not believe in man made climate change."

I know of one. I don't remember his name but I attended a presentation he gave in the mid 1990's at the IBM facility in Tucson, AZ. He was a research scientist from IBM's research laboratory in Yorktown Heights, NY. This guy even looked like the stereotypical scientist: beard, bushy, graying, unkempt hair, etc.
He presented lots of charts, graphs, etc. He talked about how it is very difficult to derive averages and trends from what he described as "very noisy data". (Graphs of daily highs and lows from some particular monitoring station look a lot like radio static.) He talked about cases where simply moving the monitoring station from one location to another produced readings that differed from the previous location more than what global warming alarmists predict we will see in the future. Most weather stations are located at airports and growing cities, expanding urbanization has pushed the urban heat island effect closer to the weather stations.

I was sad to see such an apparently ignorant editorial posted in Deseret News, on such an important issue. I've spend a lot of time researching both sides of this, and it's clear to me that humans are causing climate change.

If you don't believe scientific experts, then who else are you going to believe? Oil companies? Political parties?

Listen to the science. It's our best tool for arriving at the truth about issues like these.

last post

silo: In 2017 alone, there were 485 papers written by scientists that case doubt on the claims made by climate change warriors. The articles, in fact, are not written by uninformed “climate deniers,” but by serious scientists who believe that the true nature of scientific inquiry is not to bow to some proposed “dogma”—especially where significant ideological, political and economic interests are at play—but to see where the facts lead on their own.

I bet you didn't see even one of them. There are none so blind as the man who refuses to see.

@worf
"Many scientists "Do Not" believe in man made climate change. Let's not leave them out of the conversation."

You claim there's many scientists that DO NOT believe in man made climate change and then fail to list even a single one.

Cite a scientist that does not believe in man made climate change. Reference a peer-reviewed study or published research by that scientist so we can see that scientists evidence, arguments, data and conclusions.

Just one. We'll wait.

Re 2 bits and barfolomew

My bad on semantics. Unfortunately my language skills are limited in the best of circumstances and drop dramatically when I’m tired.

I’m well aware inversions are naturally occurring events but the negative health effects associated with inversions are due to pollution (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong again). Without pollution we probably wouldn’t even notice inversions.

And for the record, I have read a lot of studies for and against man made climate change. No single study by itself, or even dozens of studies, are sufficient to draw conclusions. And I’m also confident what we know today about climate change will be different from what we know 10 years from now. But at this moment the evidence suggesting human factors have led to a change in the global climate far out weigh those that say otherwise.
There are no doubt agendas on either side of the debate and we should account for those when evaluating research. But even after doing that, I still see substantially more evidence suggesting man-made climate change is real and damaging our planet.

@Dhomas Jefferson

Everything in the universe is evidence of a higher intelligence and organization than mortal humans have. A school bus didn't come together by chance anymore more than the universe.

Many scientists "Do Not" believe in man made climate change. Let's not leave them out of the conversation.

There is evidence through out the world of our planet being once submerged in water. Judgements are often weak when people fail to find all the data. Check out the land between Moab and Monticello Utah.

Loved this article! If the climate is warming - which may or may not be the cause - why only focus on human causes? Is the sun producing more heat? Is the earth warming internally for natural reasons? Is volcanic activity in the sea warming the oceans? Explain why the earth has gone through previous cycles of warming and cooling without human causes? Who benefits financially by preaching climate warming? The jury is still out on this issue as far as I am concerned.

D&C 121:12-15 explains the reality of what is now termed 'climate change'. However, it also explains the dire results of those who misuse those changes to oppress, take advantage, get gain, control, etc. I'm also sure that God, who created the whole solar system and universe, does NOT need man to bring about changes to his creations. IT'S NOT US!!!

12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness;

13 Also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost;

14 That they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut off;

15 And not many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand by the wall.

airnaut: Pythagoras was ... wait for it ... a philosopher and religionist, not a scientist. Aristotle was a philosopher, not a scientist. Pythagoras founded a school founded on principles of an aesthetic, communal lifestyle - not science.

In essence, my claims are correct. Pythagoras is a perfect example of how religion provided the foundation, both in thought and education, for science.

(You kind of walked into that one. This is way too easy.)

Hey Thid Barker -

Re: "All science is fleeting, including climate science! As our grandparent's science is to us, so will our science be to our grandchildren, guaranteed! "

Oh really?

Huh . . . The science of my grandparents' generation included Newtonian physics, quantum physics, and the theory of evolution.

That's still around, isn't it? And you say that hundreds of years of scientific learning is all going away?

You mean? . . . We will soon be replacing Newton's laws of motion with what? . . . Trump's laws of Russian superiority? . . . Or what?

Please expound on your claim,

All science is fleeting, including climate science! As our grandparent's science is to us, so will our science be to our grandchildren, guaranteed! Everything we know about every science, including climate science, will eventually be proven to be either completely wrong or at least very incomplete! The real issue here is that the human race is not going to give up fossil fuels and live in caves because we can't, its simply not possible! People will never give up affordable food, medicines, clothing and shelter, all dependent upon fossil fuels! Sorry warmers, it isn't going to happen!

airnaut,
worf has a good point. Did humans cause the calamitous change in Noah's time?

Did man cause the many ice ages?

Did man cause Utah to have a tropical climate in the past? Ever seen fossils of tropical plants found throughout Utah?

Earth changes. Scientists can prove that.

Google "Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia"... According to scientists the earth's magnetic poles have flipped numerous times over earth's history with catastrophic results for life on this planet, and they predict it could happen again soon (Google "Why the Earth's magnetic poles could be about to swap places" - Phys dot org)

With all these even larger changes... Should it be a shocker that climate and the planet continues to change?

I don't know if all calamities fortold in scripture will be man's fault. Totally could be. But God probably knows what is going to happen (whether we cause it or not).

Even if we try real hard we can prevent what was foretold in scripture from happening?

If Al Gore can prevent God's revelations from happening... what does that teach us about God?

Not saying do nothing. Saying do everything. But it may not change what was revealed in scripture.

joe5 - South Jordan, UT
Jan. 10, 2018 1:25 p.m.

OMM: "1. Scientists since the ancient Greeks in 500 B.C. have ALWAYS said that the world was a sphere - it was ignorant NON-scientists, the uber-religious, and ordinary denialists who claimed it was flat."

That just isn't true. You need to study a little bit more history rather than just repeating old wives tales.

=====

I'm sorry, you are wrong -
and also 'easily' disputed --

"Pythagoras in the 6th-century BC and Parmenides in the 5th-century stated that the Earth is spherical, the spherical view spread rapidly in the Greek world. Around 330 BC, Aristotle maintained on the basis of physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical, and reported on an estimate on the circumference."

----

Like with the rest of the Climate Change deniers --
You need to study a little bit more before attacking the facts.

worf says:

"airnaut --so human behavior caused climate change during the days of Noah?--That's very very believable."

Noah is a fictional character. He never existed and there has never been a global flood.

USAlover says:

"Scientists had the world as flat, blood letting as cure, and electroshock as therapy for depression."

No, 'scientists' never said the world was flat nor that blood letting was a cure, that was religion telling you those lies. Electroshock therapy is still used today.

And to anyone making claims that 'they use to believe that an ice age was coming' please educate yourself on the subject. That was one article in a nonscientific magazine and it was debunked by...wait for it...SCIENCE!

OMM: "1. Scientists since the ancient Greeks in 500 B.C. have ALWAYS said that the world was a sphere - it was ignorant NON-scientists, the uber-religious, and ordinary denialists who claimed it was flat."

That just isn't true. You need to study a little bit more history rather than just repeating old wives tales.

The truth is that nearly every university in the world has religious roots. While churches were trying to advance the arts and sciences, the world of science was filled with people like the back room alchemists trying to make gold from other metals. You see, scientists have always chased wealth just like today.

Thanks to religion, education centers were established to bring order and rigor to the world of science. I don't believe you can even name one university more than a century old that was founded by a scientist.

In fact, it was often scientists who felt that anybody who disagreed with them should be killed (sound familiar? We've certainly heard that from climate warriors). Unlike Mormonism, for example, that invites people to "find out for themselves," climate warriors want to force you into their thinking without questioning.

joe5: "Several people posted that the authors of this article have an agenda. I find it hilariously naÏve that the implication in their comment is that climate warriors are pure of heart and have nothing to gain in their claims. It is also a sign of weakness that when you are not smart enough to dispute the message, you try to kill the messenger."

The agenda sword cuts both ways. Do you acknowledge that climate skeptics also have agendas and funding sources that make their motives and conclusions suspect? Would you favor an open accounting of everyone's income, on all sides of the issue, from Heartland and CFACT to NOAA and NASA? Let's see some spreadsheets.

BTW, most scientific papers from government and academic sources require attribution of funding and many require declarations of conflicts of interests. I don't see those sorts of statements in the skeptic think tank output.

airnaut --so human behavior caused climate change during the days of Noah?--That's very very believable.

USAlover - Salt Lake City, UT
Jan. 10, 2018 9:31 a.m.

Scientists had the world as flat, blood letting as cure, and electroshock as therapy for depression.

=======

1. Scientists since the ancient Greeks in 500 B.C. have ALWAYS said that the world was a sphere - it was ignorant NON-scientists, the uber-religious, and ordinary denialists who claimed it was flat.

2. Blood letting was the best Doctors could do 500 years ago. Science at least was trying to do something about it, while just like today -- others simply give up and said GOD caused disease and death and there is nothing we can do about it.

3. Electro shock therapy does work, and is still used today.

It won't hurt any of you to go to climate dot gov and check out the climate dashboard. I think this is solid data, though I suspect some of you will think it's all just fake.

@barfolomew - 11:11 a.m.
RE: @ Palmetto Bug " If you live in Utah in the winter you will no doubt see and feel pollution caused inversions"...
---
Might want to cut him some slack on that one.

Bug lives in SC. They probably don't have weather inversions there like we have here. He's probably more concerned about sea level issues than weather inversions we have in the high mountain valleys. So it's OK if he mis-spoke, or doesn't understand how weather inversions (AKA temperature inversions) work. He doesn't live in Utah. Probably doesn't even know what an inversion is.

We all know pollution doesn't cause inversions. I think he just mis-spoke there.

Weather inversions trap air pollution and keep it close to the ground and prevent it from dissipating. But pollution doesn't cause the inversion, the weather does (specifically high barometric pressure, and a warmer less-dense air mass overlaying a colder more-dense one)

Google "weather inversions explained"... or "Inversion (meteorology) - Wikipedia"...

Pollution doesn't cause inversions. But inversions make pollution worse.

@ delasalle

"NONE of the broadly accepted recommended actions by climate change scientists have a significant negative effect on our livelihoods, and yet for some reason some oppose them."

Problem is not the scientists' recommendations. The problem is that left-leaning governments and individuals manipulate and use the data to set policies that fit their ideological agenda. The UN's lead on this issue is an indication that they are willing to use the issue to promote their one world government view. Others like Al Gore use the propaganda to make themselves rich. Gore is a billionaire thanks to his books, movies and carbon credit schemes.

You say, "There is no harm in preparing early and often, even if that preparation ultimately never becomes necessary."

But their "plan" is not to "prepare" us for global warming but to make us think we can stop it by taking control of and redistributing the world's wealth while stepping on the sovereignty of independent nations. And if they have their way, it certainly will have a significant negative effect on our livelihoods.

And our freedoms.

The emperor has no clothes -- Al Gore feeds his pot-belly and flies his fat Lear jets to Swiss banks and deposits billions he has swindled off the global warming hoax.

Follow the money. "Scientists" paid to report global warming report global warming. Meanwhile, the east coast shivers in record breaking cold.

@ Palmetto Bug

" If you live in Utah in the winter you will no doubt see and feel pollution caused inversions."

Another bright AGW proponent who knows nothing of what he speaks. Another victim of the "groupthink" to which the editorial so accurately refers.

"pollution caused inversions."

Quick lesson for you, Bug. Pollution doesn't 'cause' inversions. Inversions in our valleys are a natural phenomenon by which colder air is trapped between the mountains by warmer air above it. Since warm air rises, the colder air remains trapped below. The pollution that is produced in the valley is now trapped along with the air and tends to build up causing the hazy conditions. The pollution is an affect of the inversion, not the cause.

When you show that you have little knowledge of simple environmental concepts, it's really hard to lend credibility to anything else you have to say on the subject. I believe that you simply repeat what you've heard from the left about global warming.

@Thid Barker
"But never mind that, do you deny that cold temperature records are being broken in many places, this year!"

Nope. Do you deny that record highs are being set much more frequently the past decade than record lows? (An analysis of US cities found a 5:1 ratio of record highs:lows since 2010, every city had more than a 1:1 ratio).

@Redshirt1701
"According to the 1997 data, 1997 was the hottest year. Since then they have changed the data to make it colder."

When temperatures get adjusted due to changes in interpolation/etc, it shows in the form of the entire dataset shifting up/down with little change in the year to year. If they kept it the old way 2016 would've been a bit higher than the-1997 reported value.

"only 36% of scientists believe in man caused warming."

Do you ask all science degree holders about your dog's health issue? No. Why do it for climate?

@procuradorfiscal
"water vapor -- accounts for more than 95% of the earth's greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for about 0.28%."

That's a comparison of their mass in the atmosphere. Their radiative effects are different. CO2 is ~10-15% of the greenhouse effect.

Re: “ . . . CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. “

So what? That’s not even the issue. That's just another red herring. Global warming is the issue. The Greenhouse Effect is the issue, isn’t it?

The glass in a greenhouse allows electromagnetic energy to enter. The resulting heat is retained within the greenhouse, but the glass isn’t hot. It doesn’t retain heat any better than the high CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere.

The highly concentrated layer of CO2 in the upper atmosphere allows electromagnetic energy (light) to pass through, but once that light is absorbed by the earth as heat, that same CO2 layer does not allow that heat to pass back into space.

Why? . . . Because, . . . CO2 loses the ability to absorb or transmit heat as its concentration increases.

Light gets in, but the resulting heat doesn’t get out. The next time you get in your car on a hot day, feel the window glass. The glass isn't hot even though it's scorching inside.

. . . The Greenhouse Effect.

@What in Tucket

"It is sad that CO2 may not have any affect on global temperature."
No, what is sad is that you came away with that even though these bought and paid for biased and non scientific writers didnt say that at all. Read the very biased article again.

"It would be nice to know as the long term tendency of our climate is toward colder eras."
According to what source? I have no idea where you got that but I think you are mistaken.

"A warmer planet would be nice, but record cold spells in the northeast seem unusual if we are in a period of global warming."
You are again mistaken. 'A warmer planet' would have huge consequences. You think its hard to fight immigration now? Just wait until Mexico is unlivable and Indonesia is under water.

"Moreover a Univ of Alabama study funded by the energy dept said no warming for 23 years."
You are being fooled by what is called cherry picking. The people trying to fool you in this case specifically pick 1998 to make it seem that there is no warming because that was an El Nino year. Fact is there has been warming all along. Go to any reputable site to explain this further.

Several people posted that the authors of this article have an agenda. I find it hilariously naÏve that the implication in their comment is that climate warriors are pure of heart and have nothing to gain in their claims. It is also a sign of weakness that when you are not smart enough to dispute the message, you try to kill the messenger.

Several people posted that it is conclusive science with no credible detractors. However, 2017 saw 485 published papers that undermine the "consensus" claim. They offer skepticism in four areas: 1) Greater natural impact than credited; 2) Current changes and trends are NOT unprecedented; 3) Computer models are unreliable, little more than speculation; 4) Current green policies are not just ineffective, they may in fact be harmful to the environment.

Some of the claims posted here by climate warriors are so laughable that they should stay completely out of the discussion because they do more harm than good to the credibility of their position.

A special callout to the people who didn't even want to see this article published. How threatened are you by discussion that you cannot even tolerate a position other than your own echo chamber?

God said there would great calamities in the last days --

Whirlwinds
Floods
Draught
Famines
Earthquakes

He never claimed HE would do it,
but he did say we would bring it upon ourselves.

I believe God and the Scientists,
over politicians, corporations, lobby groups and ignorant denial-ists....

I am going to sound like a real psychopath but through my years of college I have had numerous professors sound off on climate change and how it is real. I believe that it is happening, but everyone of those professors never made a claim on how to fix it. One professor said that cutting beef out of the diet will do more than anything else. I can tell you one thing, that isn't going to happen in my grandchildren life time (my only child is 3 months old).

I honestly think that there is nothing we can really do to cut down on carbon emissions unless one of two things happen. 1) we (the human race) fully embrace Nuclear Energy because even electric cars need the burning of fossil fuels to function. 2). Mass killings of people. (this is the psychopath part). Less land needed for humans allowing for more plant life to grow as well as less carbon burned for them. So maybe Trump and Kim are really earths saviors if war comes about because of their egos.

Emmanuelgoldstein: "Wrong. The past four years have been the warmest average global temperatures ever recorded." Can you prove that? But never mind that, do you deny that cold temperature records are being broken in many places, this year! Consider this:

According to the average of the five( not one or two) reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase and from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. How can that be? Albert Einstein said, "All knowledge comes from experience." Believe what you want but if you need convincing, go pay a visit to where the cold temperature records are being broken and ask those people actually experiencing record breaking cold if they believe in global warming!

Mother Nature has checks and balances. Any animal species that has had an impact on the carry capacity of their environment has seen dramatic affects. Humans will be no different, no matter what God or religion you believe in. If man is having a negative affect on the climate of Earth, history shows Mother Nature will compensate and it may have dramatic affects on our race.

Global warming is much more complex than most people realize. In addition to the information in this opinion, there is also "Global Dimming" which has most likely masked the effects of global warming, but varies widely by location. Global dimming has actually been researched longer than global warming, especially using data from Israel.

Personally I don't doubt that global warming is real, but climate/weather change is much more complex than most people realize, and we don't understand it very well yet, just look at how much difficulty we have predicting climate and weather changes.

@Thomas Thompson
RE: "Yet, we continue to do nothing about it"...
---
You can only speak for yourself.

You don't know what I'm doing. Because I've made a LOT of changes in my life to lower my carbon footprint. And I'm often stereotyped as a "denier".

You say "WE" continue to do nothing. "We" includes you. Are you doing nothing? If so... why complain until you are doing your part?

Do you drive a car? Why?

Do you use power from the grid (from coal)?

If you say we continue to do nothing, that means you are doing nothing. Why do you do nothing and just expect others to change or fix it for you?

That's just ridiculous IMO.

I have to change before I criticize others or expect them to change. Have you made the changes you expect others to make?

===

RE: "Many of us are old enough to know we'll be dead before the truly catastrophic effects of global warming affect our children and grandchildren"...
---
Don't assume you know people's motivations. You can't read minds.

I'm not uncaring about my grand children. But I've been around long enough to see many of these tempests come... and go. Without the promise calamity happening. Heard them cry wolf too many times.

Scientists had the world as flat, blood letting as cure, and electroshock as therapy for depression.

In twenty years, when the ice caps are back to normal and Al Gore is sipping Mai Tai's on an Island somewhere, let's continue this discussion.

another day,
another paid for
biased
political lobby group
shilling in the Deseret news,
pretending to legitimate news.

=======

David Rothbard is president and Craig Rucker is executive director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

- to wit -

The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is an anti-environmentalist pressure group founded by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker in 1985.
They both have the academic backgrounds, lifestyles, addresses and PR guru mugshots of serious lobbyists. Three of the primary funders of CFACT are the Carthage Foundation, Exxon Mobil, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

A whole host of prominent deniers have sat on its board of advisers at some time, including Sallie Baliunas, Roger Bate, E. Calvin Beisner, Michael Fumento, Sherwood B. Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz.

The organization funds Climate Depot, Marc Morano's online denialist outlet. In 2009, they helped to organize the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, the denialist response to the United Nations' Copenhagen Summit.

It is sad that CO2 may not have any affect on global temperature. It would be nice to know as the long term tendency of our climate is toward colder eras. A warmer planet would be nice, but record cold spells in the northeast seem unusual if we are in a period of global warming. Moreover a Univ of Alabama study funded by the energy dept said no warming for 23 years.

So some lobbyists sent a press release. That doesnt mean you had to publish it.

I will continue to trust the scientists who spent their lives studying this subject rather than the lobbyists who get paid to obfuscate.

Thid Barker writes: "AVERAGE global temperatures are flat/constant/unchanged from 1998 until today!"

Wrong. The past four years have been the warmest average global temperatures ever recorded.

Until there is more real evidence (not theory) of global warming and If you live in N. America, be sure to pick up more ice melt at the hardware store, its a long way until Spring! My heating bills this winter has been atrociously high! Can't wait until it warms up!

Thomas Thompson - Salt Lake City, UT

No, the science of man-made climate change is not virtually indisputable. If you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it.

There was a time when the best minds on earth all thought that it was flat and if you got to close to the edge you'd fall off.

There was a time when the best minds on earth thought the Sun revolved around the earth. People were put to death in the Dark Ages for disagreeing with that "virtually indisputable" but false idea.

@St George
RE: "So billions of cars pump all kinds of gases everyday into the atmosphere with no consequences"...
---
If you could show us where he said that... Because he didn't.

He probably knows cars cause pollution. We all know that.

==

RE: "We are on a clear path to eliminating most species of wildlife"...
---
Obvious exaggeration (discredits the rest).

Do you know how many species of wildlife there are?

Google "How many species on Earth"...
8.7 million.

How many can prove are about to be eliminated? Most of them?

It's these breathless and specious claims that make some comments about this problem unbelievable to people who deal in logic instead of emotion, or whatever I hear said, or think, is therefor true.

It's fake-news that most species are almost extinct. can prove that. With science and numbers, not emotion and assumptions.

It would add to the credibility if we had less emotional outbursts of stuff that's provably false, claiming it's actually happening.

Warming is happening. But it's these emotional false claims, like "the majority of species are about to be wiped out, or "the ice caps will melt by 2015", etc, that destroy credibility.

Climate change is not a science, it's a religion. Proof: Everything, but everything, is caused by "climate change". Apparently Mother Nature died in 1890 when the first factory went online, because there is literally nothing that is not the fault of Americans and their "greedy CO2 habits." More storms? Less storms? Rainy? Dry? Cold? Hot? Calm? Windy? It's all caused by humans, specifically Americans. Less polar bears? Our fault. More polar bears? Our fault.

And the cure? Why, give all your money and liberties to the High Priests of global warming in the cult of Gaia, and for your sacrifice they will ensure that temperatures go down a half degree. And if you don't--why, the earth will turn into Venus and we'll all die within 100 years... just far enough off that we can't get a refund, right?

Blame everything on Gaia like in ancient Rome, or blame "Climate change" today--it's all unfalsible and it's the exact same thing, just with a name change.

We used to mock people who claimed they were God and could control the weather. Now we "deny science" when we do that to today's fakers and graspers who desire above all to rule our lives and steal our stuff.

Claiming that CO2 loses its ability to trap heat as it increases is like saying that ink loses its ability to darken the page as you use more of it. More ink means a darker page, but each additional drop makes less of an impact. Similarly, more CO2 always means more trapped heat, but each additional unit makes a smaller difference as total absorption approaches 100%.

There is a difference between climate changes and human-caused climate changes and human-reactions to climate changes that may or may not make any difference. If everyone on one side of the earth started jumping up and down would it change the orbit even a fraction? And if it did, would the people on the other side of the earth need to know when to jump up and down and by how much to correct it? A change of such a small amount in the last 150 years, and scientists claiming to know what happened 4,000 years ago----pretty difficult parameters to have much significance or to actually believe are accurate. Not that many years ago we were going into an ice age. I guess we can thank China and all the US Coal Plants for saving us from that, eh? Far too many have found monetary benefits to this fairy tale so it won't go away or be proven anytime soon. (Have they found out yet who conspired to kill Pres Kennedy?)

It saddens me to see the Deseret News publish such an article, because the science of man-made climate change is now virtually indisputable. Yet, we continue to do nothing about it. It's interesting that the article was penned by a Political Action Committee and not by individuals who have the credentials to make informed comments on the issue. The good news, perhaps, is that many of us are old enough to know we'll be dead before the truly catastrophic effects of global warming affect our children and grandchildren. Instead of dealing with it now, we leave it for them to address after we're gone -- when it is very likely going to be too late.

After reading the article, and the comments, I don't feel very much informed. It seems to be that after all is said and done, no one really has a logical answer. I do wonder how many of those claiming that cars are a big factor in climate change are willing to stop going places in vehicles.

The authors of this piece are involved with a major climate change denial organization. CFACT is a major source of climate disinformation. They are funded largely from the Donors Trust, a right wing money pot to which the Koch Brothers are major contributors. ExxonMobil has been a major contributor.

The thing that bothers me about folks like this is that they take a narrow slice of the pie and extrapolate to the whole. Their intention is to mislead and deceive.

I wish the Deseret News would do a little due diligence and inform readers about these op-ed pieces that are sent from Washington right-wing swamp-dwelling organizations before mindlessly publishing them.

Great article!

Warmers tell us this record breaking cold is just weather but whenever and wherever there is unusually warm temperatures, the same people tell us its proof of global warming! I have come to believe by my own experience that climate change hysteria is all about politics, not science! Here is some real science; our climate in not simple, easily predictable physics and chemistry, rather a highly complex combination/interaction/superposition of solar physics, orbital mechanics, chemistry, meteorology, ecology and oceanography that, at best, we still only partially understand. AVERAGE global temperatures are flat/constant/unchanged from 1998 until today! But the climate does change! At one time much of the earth was covered with ice and was uninhabitable. If the climate had not changed, you and I would not be here! IMO warmers need to mellow out, the climate will continue to change as controlled by factors way beyond our control! As for right now, stay warm out there!

Global warming isn't a speculation. It's something going on in the world. Have you ever wondered why Earth is a planet with relatively mild temperatures that is habitable and supports life, while Venus (a comparable planet in size and location in the solar system) has day time temperatures of over 800 degrees? CO2 That's the reason.

The last line of the op-ed states:
“urge greater study of the issue.”

I’m all for that.

Follow the money, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) has been heavily funded by ExxonMobil & Koch brothers in the past. See DesmogBlog.com & search for CFACT. Here's Rothbard from their recent fund-raising letter: “Together, we must make sure CFACT's programs - especially designed to push back against Green indoctrination in America 's classrooms - are fully funded and ready to immediately counteract Left-wing climate alarmism in classrooms and on campuses across America, ... 'Genuine environmental stewardship' means that instead of the Green socialists’ agenda of alarm and hysteria based on poor science ... There can be no doubt: The Green Left’s stranglehold on the minds of our nation’s children and young people today is staggering. It’s a huge problem.”

So rather than educate our kids about the transition to clean energy that we need to protect our clean air, our forests, our oceans, our agriculture ... CFACT is spreading misinformation.

So billions of cars pump all kinds of gases everyday into the atmosphere with no consequences? Millions of factories pump toxic chemicals into the sky with no consequences? We clear cut thousands of acres of precious wilderness everyday of the year with no consequences? And the earth just happens to be getting hotter, but it’s not us. Sounds like a fairy tale. Why focus just on CO2? We pump much more than CO2 into the sky. We are in a period of mass extinction of animal species greater than any time on our planet. Yet we have a President who wants to shrink national parks so we can further exploit our wildernesses. We are on a clear path to eliminating most species of wildlife, destroying most natural wilderness, and polluting our planet. If we focus on changing that I’ll bet CO2 levels take care of themselves.

The U.S. National Academies of Science, U.S. Department of Defense, NOAA, NASA, American Association for the Advancement of Science and hundreds of other esteemed scientific organizations around the world, plus the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, are convinced of the reality of human-caused climate change and that we need to act promptly in the next few decades to transition off fossil fuels to clean energy.

@Palmetto Bug - Columbia, SC

"Given the preponderance of evidence ..."

Someone else once used this phrase. Tells me all I need to know about the motives of climate change warriors.

"...CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. "

This is an absurd statement. CO2 is a blanket gas because it is much more massive than most of the other atmospheric gases. CO2 catches long wave radiation from the earth and sends it back down to the surface. More CO2 molecules mean more of this process.

As taught in grade school, water moves in a cycle, much driven by the sun, from the surface of the earth to the sky, for back to the earth as rain and snow and then along some path back to the sky. In the entire cycle, water is neither created nor destroyed.

Carbon also has a cycle driven by the sun where living things extract carbon from the air and bind it up in organic matter where it is either stored or oxidized back into the atmosphere.

Our problem is that the earth worked with the sun for a long time to extract carbon from the atmosphere and put it in long term storage in order to make a current place for us to live. We fear that a return to an earlier state, precipitated by the release of stored carbon into the atmosphere will not be good for society as we know it.

One cannot deny that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing and will continue to do so for as long as we reduce surface vegetation and maintain, even decrease, fossil fuel combustion. We should assess and prognosticate the changes, but not fear-monger disaster or promote harmful solutions. It will take a long time to put CO2 levels in the atmosphere on a downward path.

A big steaming pile of made up twisted information, by people who salaries depend on defending the climate destroying actions of big energy companies and their rich investors.
It's all nonsense that gives the appearance of making sense.
Just ask a drowning polar bear!

Over my several decades, I have seen spring come a bit earlier and fall come a bit later which has been helpful to farmers in short season mountain valleys.

I surmise that most all coal and oil and much natural gas represents stored carbon from decomposed organic material, but don't know if some methane is from a process internal to the earth. When we burn any of the fossil fuels, I think that we are returning the long term harvested, in-ground stored, carbon to the atmosphere. I should not be anxious to return the earth to an early creation state.

I know that mankind lives better when we take access to low cost energy. Sundrops are wonderful, but difficult to gather and it consumes much of the potential solar gather to build the direct solar/indirect wind/water and energy storage infrastructure in the first place.

Nuclear power generation remains the hope of future generations. Therein lies energy in magnitude to drive large economic engines to serve large populations, even the current population.

With 6% of the world population, we consume 30% of world energy use. How do we help the world to a better life without giving them access to low cost energy? No coal, but???

The recently released US 4th Climate Assessment Report implies man is now responsible for extreme weather events costing the US $1 trillion since 1980. There is no scientific basis for this claim. In the report it shows warming (both observed data and climate model results) over time from 1880 to 2016 (Figure 1.6). The increase in observed temperature from 1910 to 1945 is about the same as from 1965-2000, yet CO2 did not start to appreciably increase until 1950. If CO2 is the main driver, how can this be?

To decarbonize the globe, it will cost $1 trillion per year through 2050 (per National Geographic Magazine, Nov. 2015). Rest assured the top 1% richest in the world will pay most of this. That will include any Americans making over about $40,000/year. This cost is above and beyond carbon taxes being pushed by such organizations as Citizens Climate Lobby and state governors in California and Washington.

@jalapenochomper
"When I start seeing toleration of honest scientific skepticism related to climate change I'll be more inclined to believe it."

And when i see scientific skeptics document their data, publish those findings, submit it for peer review, and survive scrutiny of that peer review, I'll be more inclined to believe it.

The authors of this piece are not climate scientists.

The organization they lead is an Exxon/Koch funded right wing “think tank.” They are quite literally in business to deny climate science.

I can give them points for spelling, punctuation and sentence structure, but beyond that pretty much everything they’re claiming is provably wrong or misleading.

So many flaws in this write-up but let's just assume this is all correct and accurate. Climate change is still happening and it is still having an effect on our livelihood. So should we try to address it through the means we have available to us, humans, since no other animals are going to take the initiative?

I don't mind having a healthy debate on the topic; I do mind the head in the sand attitude so many climate change skeptics take. They use the exact same language people in the past used to question the carcinogenic effects of smoking, microwaves, sun exposure, etc.

There is no harm in preparing early and often, even if that preparation ultimately never becomes necessary. NONE of the broadly accepted recommended actions by climate change scientists have a significant negative effect on our livelihoods, and yet for some reason some oppose them.

[This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”]

That's why the most the IPCC has been able to dial in on the effect of a doubling of CO2 is 1.5-4.5C. What is not in that uncertainty range is 0.

["But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. "]

While it is true that solar activity was higher for much of the 20th century than the 19th solar activity peaked ~1960 and we just had the weakest solar cycle in almost a century but set back to back to back global temperature records.

@MarkMAN
"The hottest temperatures must be in the zone of CO2 (the source of the heating element) "

CO2 spreads out quickly enough that the difference between the highest and lowest CO2 values around the globe under typical conditions is on the order of 20 ppm. During inversion events in Utah (an example of not typical) we can get a temporary trapped buildup of CO2 but of course other weather issues are going on then too.

[As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.]

This is misleading. More of a greenhouse gas means more heating, but the amount of heating per additional ppm decreases. This is a matter of saturation which the op-ed does explain. The "ever-doubling" means basically that if 300->600ppm resulted in 2C of warming (IPCC estimates are 1.5-4.5C for a doubling of CO2), then 600->900ppm results in an additional 1C of warming.

"Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere"

True. CO2 is still responsible for 10-15% of the overall greenhouse effect (the total of which is estimated to be ~33C... certainly Earth would be a terrible place for humans without any greenhouse effect). Assertions that CO2 contributes

Lots of issues with this editorial that have been addressed in other places. I wish there was a parallel editorial that countered each of the claims made by the author. And just because we have questions about something doesn’t make it wrong. There are also no doubt studies that “disprove” man made climate change but a small handful of studies should not outweigh all other science. Analyze enough stuff and you’ll find false positives and false negatives, that’s how statistics work.

Given the preponderance of evidence supporting man made climate change and the potentially catastrophic consequences if the theory is true, I firmly believe public policy should be written to curb greenhouse pollutants and dramatically increase funding for alternative, sustainable, and renewable energy sources. Many of these pollutants also have broader negative health consequences, unrelated to the climate. If you live in Utah in the winter you will no doubt see and feel pollution caused inversions. If we had invested as much into clean energy research as we have subsidies to the petroleum industry over the last 30 years we probably would have solved the issue by now.

I am a businessperson, not a scientist. But a decade or so ago I got curious and ran measured polar temps from Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Mars through a basic Excel correlation tool. There was notable positive correlation matching Earth's positive increase.

Since I pulled the data in minutes off the internet I absolutely did not trust my findings, but it was enough to make me skeptical and curious. Surely some smart scientist out there had studied a potential correlation. There was virtually nothing i could find, at least not at that time.

I am pretty sure fossil fuels are not being burned by humans on Venus. We have tools that take what we think are valid measurements. If climate variation is really based on solar variation, it would seem we have some relatively nearby rocks being warmed by the same sun, or conversely could be added to support contemporary climate theories. I admit too many climate change proponents are so obnoxious I kinda want them to be wrong.

When I start seeing toleration of honest scientific skepticism related to climate change I'll be more inclined to believe it. Now? Seems too close to what we in business call 'groupthink'.

The IPCC considered these factors and concluded anthropogenic climate change is very likely happening. I trust the climate scientists more than these two lobbyists.

Glaciers are melting . That is real. From Alaska to the Alps. The earth is warmer. Is it man made? Probably. China and India are the biggest air polluters by far. Should we look for energy besides coal? Yes. But we need coal for now because nothing besides nuclear comes close to producing electricity. Obama's war on coal was stupid and all political. Obama wasn't a leader. You gradually transition away from coal as you find an equivalent cleaner alternative. We don't have one yet. Maybe nuclear. 21st century nuclear.

They don't question manmade climate change. They flat out deny it. Somewhere before that they lose steam.

Man cannot change weather anymore than a dog can build a car.

How come no one talks about our earth being knocked off of its axis by a few major earthquakes.
Any Hunter knows if your off zero at a hundred yards the farther you shot at a target the further your off. The earth is said to be three million miles away which can make a big difference in climate change.

David/Craig,

Two issues seem to leave global warming theory out in the cold. Temperature gradients in the atmosphere data I have seen and picked up, don't support good heat transfer theory. The hottest temperatures must be in the zone of CO2 (the source of the heating element) or the theory on CO2 and warming just plain do not fit. I have not found anyone to dispute some very good data studies done by a few very good groups on this issue. Maybe there is but I have not found it.
Second and most important to me as a process control engineer is the study of true dead-time. Dead-time understanding is the key to help understand which is the cause and which is the effect. Again, I have picked up on a couple of very good dead-time studies which studies show long dead-times and CO2 lags not leads.
The issue of the suns temperature basically being excluded from all the warming studies I have read, leaves me cold to agree. Radiate heat is a fourth order relationship meaning small degree differences can change the heat transfer in a huge fashion. I was taught in 8th grade science that the sun's surface temperature does vary.
Thanks for the article. Sorry if I confused you,
Mark

No, no they dont.