Inside the newsroom: A surprising opinion on climate change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • David Folland SANDY, UT
    March 30, 2019 8:19 a.m.

    Utah has a proud tradition of scientific inquiry and translation of the results into technology. Think silicon slopes. Regarding a topic about which "merchants of doubt" (think the tobacco industry in the 60s and 70s) have successfully spread so much misinformation, I'm encouraged to see Doug Wilks come down on the side of sound scientific evidence. Like our successful silicon slopes, we will be successful tackling climate change by heeding and using the best evidence that our dedicated scientists can discover.

  • showlowdoc Show Low, AZ
    March 26, 2019 10:42 p.m.

    Silo says,

    "Cite any published, peer-reviewed study that refutes man's contribution to accelerated global warming and climate change.

    Just one.

    We'll wait"

    DN doesn't allow for links. What is your email address so I can send? Please be prepared, because it doesn't look good for the alarmists. I'm very sorry.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2019 9:36 p.m.

    @flipphone
    "There is no Man made climate change occurring"

    Cite any published, peer-reviewed study that refutes man's contribution to accelerated global warming and climate change.

    Just one.

    We'll wait.

  • Flipphone , 00
    March 26, 2019 9:10 a.m.

    There is no Man made climate change occurring.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    March 26, 2019 6:10 a.m.

    @EscherEnigma:

    "Ironically, while your comment may be "witty" and earn you "likes", it doesn't actually match the facts on the ground. Fact is, this has been a partisan debate in America since before the "like" existed."

    I wasn't trying for a "like". And it wasn't intended to be witty. It was more intended as a lament.

    And although I will readily concede that partisan debate has been a permanent fixture, even before social media, I will continue to lament that something that *might* have brought moderates together has instead further divided us.

    But my point was, and still is, that rational debate isn't rewarded with likes. It turns out that this is the same problem with our politicians. Rational, moderate politicians generally don't win primaries, at least not in areas that will consistently vote for the same party no matter what. And it's these long-serving Senators and Representatives who become the party leadership.

    When we start rewarding rational politicians for being rational, and working with the opposing party, we will start to make real progress. Until then, we progress in spite of our leadership, not because of it.

  • showlowdoc Show Low, AZ
    March 25, 2019 10:37 p.m.

    Those here, including the author, who claim confidently that CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels will cause catstrophic consequences and mass death, I feel for you. I know you are trying to be good stewards of the planet. I can sense your fear for our future, and our children's future. I appreciate your concern. Thank you.

    However, there is no current observational evidence that supports the notion that human produced CO2 is causing, or will cause catastrophic death and carnage. I'm not talking models, I'm talking observational data. I used Google scholar and PubMed. I'll be happy to provide references to interested people, as DN doesn't allow links. From my research: NO increased flooding, droughts, hurricane frequency, fires, malaria, dengue, heat deaths, heat related hospitalizations, tornado frequency, polar bear extinction, crop failures, warfare, coral bleaching, species extinction, and the list goes on..While it IS true that most glaciers, the arctic and Greenland ice are retreating, and temperature and sea levels are rising. It is small and well within our planet's ability to adapt. There simply is no runaway global warming happening. I'm sorry. The theory is dead.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    March 25, 2019 4:43 p.m.

    @SC Matt
    "Rationale debate doesn't earn likes.

    Extreme positions earn likes, because it's seen as a contest, and the wittier or more pointed your comment, the better the chances that somebody will say "man, I wish I had said that" and then give you a like. "
    Ironically, while your comment may be "witty" and earn you "likes", it doesn't actually match the facts on the ground. Fact is, this has been a partisan debate in America since before the "like" existed.

    The partisanship of the topic cannot be blamed on social media.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2019 4:39 p.m.

    @2bits
    "Small broad changes made willingly would be much better than big changes made by force/law.

    If everybody changed a little... it would have more impact than forcing a few people to change a lot."

    Historically we've needed big pushes with aerosols (urban smog) and CFCs (Montreal Protocol, dealt with ozone hole). Greenhouse gases cover such a massively broad range of aspects in society that addressing it through voluntary efforts would be way too slow an evolution. Now, that's not to say we need to ruin the economy with a way too rapid change, nor does it mean shutting off fossil fuels before the alternative is in place as some who would like to do nothing pretend the GND would result in, but it does mean that we need to make huge changes and mostly get off of non-renewable energy by around 2050. Perhaps we could be a leading manufacturer of those new technologies.

    Unfortunately, leaving it to volunteering adjustments isn't sufficient on its own. The US emitted 3.4% more greenhouse gases in 2018 compared to 2017.

  • Utahhikerdad TOOELE, UT
    March 25, 2019 2:36 p.m.

    It's time we children of the 50s, 60s and 70s humbly admit to the mess we've left our descendants. Gratefully, we will eventually all be dead. Then they can vote appropriately, roll up their sleeves and begin cleaning the mess we've left. I hope they can forgive our hubris.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2019 1:06 p.m.

    RE: "We have a generation of academics unwilling to admit how much they don't know. And a generation of journalists who are easily led"...
    ---
    I agree.

    People who don't know science think science is decided and we have consensus now days. Nothing could be further from the truth. With Science... the more you learn, the more you find out you don't know.

    Everything we learn exposes 100 things we didn't even know about before.

    When our probes arrived at Pluto the data they sent back tossed everything we though we knew about the Universe on it's head. It's been the same every step along the way. The more we learn... the more we discover we don't understand.

    Turn off the political talk shows and Watch "How the universe works" and other programs on Smithsonian or Science Channel. There's WAY more we don't understand than we understand about our universe. We are just children in many ways (as far as Science and understanding or explaining the Universe goes).

    We have some things figured out. But it's a tiny percentage of what's going on in our universe. We still have a lot to learn. The amount of things we still don't understand and can't explain would boggle your mind.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 25, 2019 12:47 p.m.

    I applaud her approach, and her optimism. Such a change from the usual gloom-and-doom stories we get republished in the DesNews on Global Warming.

    The 2 parts I agree with most were buried at the bottom, but...

    1. Ekwurzel said she's not a fan of those who cry "Save the Planet," noting almost matter-of-factly that "the planet will be fine."

    and 2. Understanding our preferences and our behaviors is necessary to making the small changes.

    I think it's about small individual changes (made willingly), not huge government regulations like the "New Green Deal" that mandate our behavior by force/law.

    It doesn't have to be as drastic a change as America being 100% carbon free by 2030, even if it would destroy the economy and most American's jobs.

    Small broad changes made willingly would be much better than big changes made by force/law.

    If everybody changed a little... it would have more impact than forcing a few people to change a lot.

    So I'm making the changes needed, and encourage others to make the changes needed. They don't have to be huge. They don't have to destroy the economy or cause massive population reductions. If we all do something, it would help.

  • BigAlAvenger Summit, UT
    March 25, 2019 11:41 a.m.

    desert pete has it right! I wonder why all of the scientific articles refuting the premise of this article are never put forth by the media. AND THERE ARE MANY, IF YOU SEARCH.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2019 11:02 a.m.

    @NeifyT
    "Mitigation may be "helpful" but so far all the efforts toward mitigation are going nowhere. You say that adaptation proposals are needed. But where are they? "

    Iowa gets 35% of its energy from wind power. Iceland 100% (geothermal), Norway 97% Brazil 80% Canada 65% (hydro), Denmark 60% (hydro and wind). US rates are a lot lower but we went from 13.65% in 2015 to 17.65% in 2018 with solar doubling from 2015-2017.

    Adaptation includes things like the coastal walls built in Miami to reduce sunny day flooding from sea level rise.

    @Bucketmouths
    "You also failed to point out that scientists get billions of dollars in grants each year for their research. "

    You know what stops getting someone federal research dollars? Shoddy research. Which is why a grand conspiracy of thousands and thousands of scientists around the world isn't the case, because it'd never work, because people like being correct and most scientists would say no to something if it were to be false.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    March 25, 2019 10:57 a.m.

    @EscherEngima:

    "Well, this comment section demonstrated perfectly why American isn't having a rationale debate on this topic."

    Rationale debate doesn't earn likes.

    Extreme positions earn likes, because it's seen as a contest, and the wittier or more pointed your comment, the better the chances that somebody will say "man, I wish I had said that" and then give you a like.

    But as to the actual argument with climate change, it would really help matters if we would just replace coal-fired power with nuclear power. Oh, and save natural gas for home heating fuel. If we're going to burn natural gas (and create CO2), we might as well use 95% of the heat and expel 5% as exhaust instead of 50% conversion to electricity and expel the other 50% to the environment.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 25, 2019 10:47 a.m.

    @unrepentant progressive "...what we know..."

    "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." -- Ronald Reagan

    @Twin Lights "And, is this just a conspiracy?"

    No. It is speculation. The hypothesis has not been validated. Levels of certainty are exaggerated. We have a generation of academics unwilling to admit how much they don't know. And a generation of journalists who are easily led.

  • Flipphone , 00
    March 25, 2019 10:28 a.m.

    It is a toss up who is worse, the Politicians and media who promote Climate change nonsense, or the voters who believe them.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    March 25, 2019 10:24 a.m.

    Well, this comment section demonstrated perfectly why American isn't having a rationale debate on this topic.

    As an aside? This isn't a partisan topic in other countries. Pretty much everyone else in the world accepts that the climate is changing and that it's our fault. They can disagree over the appropriate reactions and solutions without denying that it's happening. In America, we can't seem to do that.

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2019 9:28 a.m.

    @Frozen Fractals - "Adaptation. Both mitigation and adaptation proposals are needed."

    Mitigation may be "helpful" but so far all the efforts toward mitigation are going nowhere. You say that adaptation proposals are needed. But where are they? All I ever hear day in and day out on any news article on any website or from any source is "reduce emissions" and changing behaviors unto that end -- such as: drive cars less, get rid of lights, stop using electricity, etc. etc. etc.

    There is NEVER any talk about adaption. The closest is the push toward other forms of energy; adapting our energy production, but even that is really only more of the same of the above. Different forms of energy that supposedly put less CO2 into the atmosphere. (Though in the long run they put more there; only at the production phase instead of the end user phase.)

    So, again where are the adaptation proposals? There simply aren't any because there is no money to be made with adaptation; only money to be made pushing the fear of CO2 and hence how to control people's lives by selling them new products to supposedly lessen their "carbon footprint."

  • Leonidas Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2019 7:47 a.m.

    Huge snow storms in New York are not climate change. Fires in California are not climate change. Floods in the mid-west are not climate change. As we are always told, climate change deals with changes over thousands and millions of years. As referenced above....one sign of climate change was the melting of the great north-American ice sheet 15,000 years ago. It is still melting, slowly. What caused the climate to change 15,000 years ago? What caused the last hundred ice ages to come and go over the last millions of years? Did humans cause this? Cows? Herds of elk? I like clean air and water as much as anyone but it is ridiculous to considered spending trillions of dollars to fix something that is mostly controlled by changes in the energy output of the sun along with changes in the earth's axis. Good luck changing those. The so-called science changes daily. Reasoned approaches with reasonable expenditures and expectations make the most sense.

  • Bucketmouths , NV
    March 25, 2019 7:34 a.m.

    Doug,

    Your appeal to authority is a weak argument. How many times have "authorities" been wrong? Many times. You also failed to point out that scientists get billions of dollars in grants each year for their research. Scientists must show the change in natural variability and they havent't been able to do so.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    March 25, 2019 6:49 a.m.

    "So far, the only factors causing mass refugee problems are:
    1. The collapse and failure of socialist states
    2. The oppression and displacement of large numbers by radical Islam."

    Really?

    And right there we see a perfect example of the kind of factual ignorance that drives denial of scientific evidence.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    March 25, 2019 5:39 a.m.

    Like the many slaughters we endure in this country, when it comes to climate change inevitability, what we are really left with is: "thought and prayers".

    I am tired of reading political comments which relate to science relegating what we know about the changes occurring in the world's climate and environment. Like mass murders, it is apparently the political judgements that reign in this country rather than fact.

    Fact is, weapons of mass murder mean more mass murder. Ignoring the ongoing effects of human activity (and there are billions more of us here) on the environment means more deleterious damages to the planet.

    And the governing opinion in our country is to ignore that and offer us only platitudes. Not solutions to problems.

  • Tumbleweed Centerville, UT
    March 24, 2019 10:47 p.m.

    I'm almost 70 and I can't ever remember when there weren't forest fires during times of drought and flooding in the midwest. Just saying.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    March 24, 2019 7:38 p.m.

    It works like this. If you tell me I can get 100 watts of light from a 14 watt bulb that lasts 15 years, I'm there in a heartbeat.

    If you tell me that if I separate my trash into two bins and the city will sell my recyclables to lower my garbage collection cots, I am with you.

    If you tell me this new washing machine will get my clothes clean and save me $200 a year on my utilities, I'm all in.

    But if you tell me there will be a carbon tax and the money will go to the UN to spend it for me, you lost me.

    And if you constantly harp that I'm not doing my part, I will tune you out.

    Market forces work. Taxation and shaming don't.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    March 24, 2019 7:03 p.m.

    I love the comments stating that there is this issue or that issue that climate scientists have not considered. Or that the climate is always changing and this is just part of that. Armchair scientists who "know" far more than those who dedicate their professional lives to the study of the climate.

    And, is this just a conspiracy? A worldwide conspiracy effectuated by thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries and of nearly every culture and language? Large scale conspiracies simply do not hold together.

    Will addressing climate change cause us to lose our freedoms? Not if we approach this by reasonable treaties. All nations remain sovereign just as they do for every other treaty.

    Is it outside of our power to change the direction of things. Of course not. But, it becomes harder with each passing day that we leave it unaddressed.

  • DudeDude Chicago, IL
    March 24, 2019 7:00 p.m.

    What we are seeing now is weather. Let's talk in 500 years, that will be climate.

  • Whazzzzzzzupppp Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 6:02 p.m.

    I got a laugh out of the photo accompanying the article. Leftists (including the vast majority of the press) have swallowed the global warming hoax hook line and sinker.

    Forest fires caused by global warming? Check! Droughts? Check! Floods? Check! Cold caused by warming? Check! The list of things leftists claim is caused by global warming is endless, and therefore meaningless.

    Please quit the global warming propaganda.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    March 24, 2019 5:21 p.m.

    So what is the surprise in this opinion? That there is hope if we just surrender massive freedoms and lifestyle on the alter of manmade global warming and empower Al Gore and his like to govern us?

    That is no surprise. It fits the Narrative perfectly.

    The surprise would be to frankly address the numerous scandals that have revealed the conspiracy of global warming alarmists to inflate the danger to get public attention, to "massage" the raw data to achieve desired conclusions, and to silence and discredit any who disagree with either the claimed results or prescribed solutions.

    When the powers that be give up their private jets, downsize to one home half the current size (that would still be double what most of us live in), go vegan themselves, give up their armed security, and stop claiming tax deductions, using tax exempt.foundations, and instead voluntarily pay double the taxes they currently do, we can discuss me making changes that will reduce my quality of life far more than such changes would reduce theirs.

    Until then, I have a church and am not interested in the newly repackaged socialism under the guise of saving coastal real estate for NYC elite.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 4:11 p.m.

    @Lledrav
    Most of the climate research in the 70s was still saying warming. The ones saying cooling had a reason for that concern. There had been a rapid increase of aerosol emissions in the middle of the century and those have a cooling impact (global dimming). However, they were also causing pollution problems so they were regulated, quite effectively. Global emissions of aerosols leveled off (increases in other countries balanced by decreases in North America and Europe). But greenhouse gases, providing a warming influence, continued to increase significantly globally.

    @NeifyT
    "That is no solution,"

    Mitigation is a useful preventative measure.

    " even according to them the earth will continue to warm even if we immediately stopped 100% of emissions."

    It would continue warming for a while but it would stabilize. The warming would be much lower than if we continued high levels of emissions.

    "Like how to build better houses to withstand natural disasters; how to adapt to warmer temps; how to raise adapted animals; etc. etc."

    Adaptation. Both mitigation and adaptation proposals are needed.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    March 24, 2019 3:35 p.m.

    Of course, they have to say there is hope. If they didn't objective jounalists would call them out for their predictions since Silent Spring that we'd all be dead, and NYC underwater, by 1985.

    Environmentalists have been crying wolf for too long to be credible.

  • water rocket , 00
    March 24, 2019 3:18 p.m.

    There can be little doubt that mankind does not cause pollutions on our planet. We have industries that pollute the air, the water, and even the land. HOWEVER, there there can also be little doubt that "climate change" is also a NATURAL phenomenon that has been going on since the ice ages (or beyond). For example, scientists have theorized how dinosaurs were wiped out by a powerful meteor striking the earth. Others have theorized about volcanoes like Vesuvious (sp). Still others have pointed out the effects of radiation outbursts from the sun, and how they affect the earth's atmosphere. My point is, yes we can do a better job of taking care of our planet, BUT the ultimate forces that most directly affect our climate is in the hands of the All Mighty. And if you don't believe in an All Mighty, then you MUST believe that we are all doomed. But not to worry, I will be dead long before any thing serious happens, ha, ha, ha.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 24, 2019 3:13 p.m.

    @Laura Bilington "Now the same people are saying that we should not heed the opinion of 97% of scientists...."

    This 97% figure has been debunked every which way. It has no basis in fact. Please take a hard look at the internals of any study that makes this claim. In particular, look at how the sample group was selected.

  • Allisdair AU, 00
    March 24, 2019 2:35 p.m.

    @TheRealDJT - Sandy, UT
    Shall we address problems in order of priority ?

    *If* the sea level were to rise a few inches, or a meter, over the next century, the logical solution would be the same as it has been throughout all of the recovery since the last ice age: "move a little further inland". So the property values of rich beachfront property owners would go down. Hardly an existential crisis.

    According to Jane McAdam Scientia Professor and Director of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW and John Church Chair professor, UNSW roughly 100 million people live within about a metre of current high tide level.

    The majority of these people are living hand to mouth I don't think they care about property vales!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 2:34 p.m.

    @Mainly Me
    "This is all assuming that "climate change" as is rammed down our throats is actually a manmade problem. My question is: has any of these noted scientists ever heard of climate oscillation?"

    Of course they have. They're also well informed on the causes and time scales of those and how they do not even remotely explain the warming we have seen over the past century. The reason we know about

    @Sim0x
    "I’m more worried about natural climate change than any changes brought on by a .00012 change in the atmosphere."

    Natural climate change is generally very slow with only rare instances of rapid change brought about by significant events that leave paleoclimate records behind because of the scale of change. That 120ppm change in the atmosphere (280 to 400ppm) over a century is the same as the typical range in the over 100,000 year long Milankovitch cycle (180 to 290ppm and back again).

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 24, 2019 2:32 p.m.

    Two words sum up their 1,500 page report: Junk science.

    We only have to look at the tiny Great Salt Lake, and see that its minuscule size compared to Lake Bonneville happened before "man made" factors were happening. And, we have seen the lake level fluctuate considerably even in the less than 200 years during which records have been kept, both rising and falling but neither correlated with "man made" activities.

  • jparry Provo, UT
    March 24, 2019 2:26 p.m.

    I echo what @TimBehrend said: our planet may not become uninhabitable, but many places on coasts or in desert areas like Phoenix or Las Vegas just might become so. We're talking huge population displacements, destruction of infrastructure, etc., by the end of this century.

    I find no comfort in the fact that the climate across the earth over time has "oscillated." Yes, it happens over long periods of time, but our use of fossil fuels has significantly accellerated, if not caused, changes that will rapidly transform our lives.

    I look forward to hearing the details of this report in future Deseret News articles--the devil is, indeed, in those details.

  • pragmatistferlife Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 2:25 p.m.

    "My question is: has any of these noted scientists ever heard of climate oscillation? "

    Are you kidding Mainlyme? Have you actually ever read a climate report. A vast portion of such reports are devoted to your "oscillations". How do you make a prediction of what is not "normal" without knowing and accounting for what is "normal"?

    As one posted states often...get educated.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    March 24, 2019 2:21 p.m.

    Unrepentant Progressive: The reason why I state it that way is because I know the direction the Socialists and progressives will take us unless it is stated clearly. Socialism is no match for Capitalism for creating opportunity, wealth, and personal freedom. If some citizens don't like fossil fuels, then they shouldn't drive cars. If they don't want 'unlimited extraction' of natural resources, then don't purchase those items that come from those natural resources. It is pretty simple. Change the world by changing your own habits first. Let Capitalism operate the way it has operated for centuries; a way that has created more wealth and lifted more people out of poverty than any nation in the history of mankind. Progressives and Socialists, on the other hand, only accomplish their goals by restricting freedom. Solutions by compelling others to think and act the way you act are counter productive. The 'invisible hand' is the best economic system ever invented, United Order excluded. But, then, in the United Order, you always retained control over you private property and could leave anytime you wanted. It makes all the difference in the world to be free.

  • zipadeedoodah Lehi, UT
    March 24, 2019 1:28 p.m.

    I've never disagreed that the climate is changing. Guess what? It has always been changing for millions of years... and in and out of cold and hot cycles.

    And I believe also that man does and has polluted the environment, something he should not do and has a responsibility to not do.

    What is quite questionable is man's ability to make significant difference on climate change. His significant part of the equation is dubious.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 24, 2019 12:37 p.m.

    If you have a different opinion, it isn't going to be posted. A person convinced against their will, is still of their same opinion still.

  • JapanCougar Layton, UT
    March 24, 2019 11:58 a.m.

    Whether or not you feel like reducing greenhouse gasses will make a difference in our current warming cycle, you should be very concerned about breathing these gasses and their effects on your/our health. Raise your hand if you like our dirty air in Utah.

    If every Utahn tried to make a difference in this area, we would see a dramatic improvement in our air quality. Let's stop making excuses to pollute and start taking individual accountability for our part in our air quality.

    If you don't like breathing dirty air, then let's stop making excuses.

  • Lledrav Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 11:41 a.m.

    In 1973 when I was a senior in high school we were required to do a report on one of the three impending crises, which were: mass starvation from overpopulation, depletion of oil supplies, or the coming ice age. There was no shortage of information on any of these topics because the most respected journals all had articles quoting what the "scientists" and "experts" foresaw as inevitable catastrophes. I chose to do my report on the "fact" that "experts" and "scientists" said oil reserves would be depleted within 30 years. Oops, they were wrong. And oops, they were wrong about the world not being able to feed its people, and oops they were wrong about going into an ice age. I suspect that young people are completely unaware of these failed predictions by "experts" and "scientists" in the past. The Jews have a saying, "Man plans, and God laughs."

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 11:39 a.m.

    Call me a skeptic, and here is why.

    Every time something bad happens (this article mentions "devastating fires," "current flooding," and "arctic chill") it is immediately blamed on climate change. Yet, anytime something good happens (above average wet years in Utah; nice balmy weather, etc.) it is passed off as either occurring "despite" climate change (not because of it) or "local weather is not global climate."

    Can't be both ways; and truly, if one look at history there has ALWAYS been natural disasters and "extreme" weather events. They are NOT more frequent now than they were before.

    Further, every time any so called climate scientist gives any presentation about what to do about climate change it always focuses on "reducing emissions." That is no solution, even according to them the earth will continue to warm even if we immediately stopped 100% of emissions.

    Why not focus on much better solutions? Like how to build better houses to withstand natural disasters; how to adapt to warmer temps; how to raise adapted animals; etc. etc. Ah, but scientists don't make money if people come up with REAL solutions; they only make money by fear mongering.

  • jimjr Kaysville, UT
    March 24, 2019 11:29 a.m.

    How many times in the last 50 years have we heard that the end of the world will soon be upon us due to global warming, climate change etc? I remember Al Gore saying we would be toast by the year 2000. Now, we only have 12 years left because of computer models. The US, right now, emits less carbons than China, Russia and India combined.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 24, 2019 10:52 a.m.

    Remember back in 2013, when courts started overturning the laws restricting same-sex marriage? There was zero evidence that permitting same sex marriage and adoption laws was going to somehow hurt society, but many conservatives were aghast. We shouldn't rush into this, they said. We should wait (presumably for generations) for science to show us that the children won't be hurt. Etc. etc. It boiled down to "I don't want to have to change my opinion that lesser than me".

    Then marriage equality became the law of the land and we have seen zero evidence that the results are anything but positive.

    Now the same people are saying that we should not heed the opinion of 97% of scientists who say that we have to reduce carbon emissions to keep the planet from further destruction. It boils down to "I don't want to give up the lifestyle that I'm comfortable with".

    Except that the stakes are much, much higher now. And it affects every single person on the planet.

  • TheRealDJT Sandy, UT
    March 24, 2019 10:26 a.m.

    @marxist:
    " But I can tell you temperatures which force refugee forcing migration are not optimal!"

    So far, the only factors causing mass refugee problems are:
    1. The collapse and failure of socialist states
    2. The oppression and displacement of large numbers by radical Islam.

    Shall we address problems in order of priority ?

    *If* the sea level were to rise a few inches, or a meter, over the next century, the logical solution would be the same as it has been throughout all of the recovery since the last ice age: "move a little further inland". So the property values of rich beachfront property owners would go down. Hardly an existential crisis.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 10:21 a.m.

    It always amazes me that people with scant scientific knowledge and even less knowledge about climate change seem to assume that the scientists are similarly uninformed.

    @Tim Behrend: I think you may have misunderstood Ekwurzel's comment that the "planet will be fine." I think she meant the planet will survive regardless, but we humans will suffer greatly if we don't tackle the problem of climate change and do it now.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    March 24, 2019 10:18 a.m.

    "Brenda Ekwurzel from the Union of Concerned Scientists"

    So, it seems completely Orwellian to spend a paragraph talking about how unbiased your article is going to be, and then present only the opinion of one group that is well known to be a climate-alarmist organization. It was founded specifically to promote alarmism on "Global Warming"....errr, excuse me; "Climate Change". They are "concerned".

    The simple fact is that there is not a consensus on climate change, and many real climatologists pronounce it as a hoax. What does it say about climate change that all of its most prominent proponents are not climate scientists but politicians ? Al Gore has no science qualifications whatsoever! Bill Nye has a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering. Alexandria Occassio-Cortez was a barista until elected.

    Contrast with John Coleman, Founder of "the Weather Channel", who says "Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever foisted upon the American people". Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace, has testified to Congress that there is no evidence at all the humans caused global warming. Unbiased readers are referred to the essay by Dr. Michael Crichton "Aliens Caused Global warming".

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 24, 2019 10:16 a.m.

    The whole project is driven by unproven assumptions. For example, that droughts in the West are caused by carbon emissions. Seriously, droughts. In the West.

    As if hundreds of millennia of geophysical history simply did not exist.

    They do the same thing with hurricanes in the South and East, and tornadoes in the Midwest. Events that have occurred throughout time, but now carbon emissions are to blame.

    Prove it.

  • Flipphone , 00
    March 24, 2019 10:15 a.m.

    There is no short term climate change. Any More than there was the early 1970's new Ice age prediction. Yes there are climate changes, (Utah once was field with Dinosaurs) but the change occur slowly over millions of years. and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it other than to elected politicians who's goal is to destroy the Economy and to make themselves, Al Gore billionaires.

    It is a toss up who is worse, the Politicians and media who promote this nonsense, or the voters who believe them.

  • deseret pete Springville, UT
    March 24, 2019 7:40 a.m.

    At this time there is no program if followed that will guarantee any significant temperature change up or down. We have spent billions and there has been no significant change in the panic and rhetoric of doomsday predictions of the people who use it as a weapon to subject us to their way so as to control all our lives while they profit of our ignorance to stand up to their flawed conclusions based on cherry picked data non of which since i been around have come close to their predictions. They have changed from global warming or global freezing to climate change for the very same reasons since they know most of us who have been awake the last 81 years know that the climate has been changing since the earth was created, We should do everything we can in a reasonable and responsible way to protect our resources and water supplies but not the " give us more money and do all these thing because we only have have 12 years before the world ends ". This new green deal would destroy the economy and our ability to feed our people and insure their safety and take us back to the dark ages.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    March 24, 2019 7:23 a.m.

    Light and Liberty

    I had no idea that scientists advocated shutting down oil production, or the mandated use of electric cars.

    I had no idea that scientists were Socialists and were intent on destroying Capitalism.

    I had no idea that unlimited extraction of resources was our only way to maintain a common sense approach.

    Yet, this is what you assert. These are political assessments with no basis in fact. Which is exactly what science is about. The search for the truth.

    Political assessments are merely the exercise of opinion, bias or malice in these times. I would prefer that we search for the truth of things. That we respect the work of those who actually search for what is verifiable. And that we ignore the braying political class whose agenda seeks not to inform but to inflame.

  • Slm0x Orem, UT
    March 24, 2019 7:19 a.m.

    I’m open to believing that a .00012 change in the atmosphere of the planet (280 ppm of CO2 to 400 ppm) is going to be responsible for the planet becoming uninhabitable. Before I accept “scientific consensus” on this matter, I’d appreciate it if the same scientists (who obviously understand everything about this planet’s climate system) simply explain to me why 15,000 years ago Detroit was buried under 2 miles of ice. Now it isn’t, and man had nothing to do with that change. I’d call removal of 10,000 feet of ice global warming. What happened back then? Until we can answer that question, I’m more worried about natural climate change than any changes brought on by a .00012 change in the atmosphere.

  • TimBehrend Auckland, 00
    March 24, 2019 5:55 a.m.

    The author's assertion at the outset of his belief that "you have the greatest impact on the life you're living" represents a glaring failure to recognize the extent to which social structures and forces determine so much of every individual's potential. People, especially children, can't will themselves to have safe drinking water or good nutrition or access to reasonable health care. Most can't will themselves out of a warzone or violent society, and for those who make the attempt there's no guarantee that they will be admitted into a place where the peace or comfort they seek is easier to find. As to Ms Ekwurzel's "optimism", I'm not sure that the writer completely understood her assurances that the planet would be fine. The earth was fine when its surface was molten, when the globe was a frozen snowball, when the atmosphere didn't have enough oxygen to cause iron to rust. It was fine after previous mass extinctions and will be fine when it's engulfed by the sun as it expands into a red giant in about 8 billion years. That's just how planets roll.

  • BigLib Salt Lake City, UT
    March 24, 2019 4:57 a.m.

    An impartial debate about climate change is not possible due to the fact that it has evolved into an economic industry. Businesses and researchers that advocate climate change have become so dependent upon government grants and private donations for their livelihood that they would starve (or at least be out of a job) if they relent. Even the survival of so called non-profits like the Union for Concerned Scientists depends upon grants and private donations to keep them going. So those who make their living by selling a climate change scenario will continue to do so, and those who have probable cause to question their conclusions will remain skeptical.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    March 23, 2019 11:28 p.m.

    This is all assuming that "climate change" as is rammed down our throats is actually a manmade problem. My question is: has any of these noted scientists ever heard of climate oscillation? You know, that pesky phenomenon of heating and cooling that occurs on a cyclic basis? It's been taught in schools for many decades. We're in a heating phase, which will be following by a cooling off phase. Pretty simple, really.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2019 10:48 p.m.

    Critics of AGW are wont to say "none know what the ideal temperature is.". But I can tell you temperatures which force refugee forcing migration are not optimal!

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    March 23, 2019 10:19 p.m.

    Wow, to say there is 'hope' from a common sense approach is not what some want to hear. Compelling everyone to drive electric cars, shutting down oil production, and putting the government in charge of the private sector is all that will cut it for the extremists intent on destroying Capitalism. 'Free people don't exhaust resources; They create them!'