Letter: Don't bury our heads in the sand

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 4, 2019 8:03 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" that is nice, but the 40% comes from a poll that they did, not a climatologist guess.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 3, 2019 1:20 p.m.

    @Redshirt

    S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

    "I would guess" seem totally scientific, right? sounds like a Donald quote that is based on nothing, like "I've heard" or "people are saying", hardly based in reality though.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2019 11:32 a.m.

    To "Utefan60" the 40% comes from a survey of climate scientists by the National Association of Scholars. The guy who did the study is a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).

    So, it was a scientist with expertise in the field who came up with that finding.

    Do you now believe that 40% of climate scientists blame man for the warming?

    But we come back to the big question. Why trust models that are always wrong in their predicitons? See "A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts" and "Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See" in IBD.

    See also "Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate Sensitivity" from UAH where they show that the climate models are wrong.

    See also "ANOTHER MAJOR STUDY CONFIRMS THE IPCC’S CLIMATE MODELS WERE WRONG" in the Daily Caller

    Everything else you say is just liberal talking points.

  • patrioticAMERICAN South Jordan, UT
    April 2, 2019 10:48 a.m.

    Having your heads buried in the sand won't stop the flood waters from washing you away. It just makes you ill-prepared to escape the deluge--whether it's water, wind or fire. NTM your brain suffers from lack of oxygen.

  • Utefan60 , 00
    April 2, 2019 10:43 a.m.

    Redshirt said: "Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming"

    Well Redshirt, Everyone here would like to know where you got that figure? And could you cite valid real sources.

    The real scientific communty has published over 17,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change.

    All but 19 of those said that humans can and do contribute in some measure to climate change.

    So where do you get 40% of scientists say no correlation? Doesn't exist in real searches, nor in any peer reviewed reports of the over 17,000 educated, degreed and certified research papers.

    I'll believe what educated scientists say, and not the low effort, low education people who grab "facts" from thin air.

    PS. The vast majority of scientists say the earth is round. But there are still those flat earthers who claim it isn't... I guess I could find some obsure report and use that like the climate deniers do right?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 2, 2019 10:08 a.m.

    @Karen R. "...climate change deniers..."

    This is simply not an accurate term. Most CAGW skeptics are skeptical because they know the climate is constantly changing. The task for alarmists is to show that something is happening that is outside natural variability. A difficult task, I know; but if no one shows it, others are not compelled to believe the theory.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 2, 2019 10:00 a.m.

    @ConservativeCommonTater "It would be nice if the climate deniers posted their citations to prove that global warming/climate change is false."

    The burden of proof is on the one making the hypothesis. You know, science. If the hypothesis is not validated by experiment, no one needs to accept it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 2, 2019 8:31 a.m.

    To "silo " and what is your point?? If you don't like a research paper because it was funded by an oil company, then try to make any point about climate change WITHOUT using any study or paper written by a person who received government grants.

    You ilk is funny because you insist that you won't believe something unless it comes from an peer reviewed paper. Then when a peer reviewed paper comes along and shows you that you are wrong, you then insist that it isn't valid because of who funded it. It is as if you are denying science.

    Tell us. If a scientist can be biased because of oil money, why can't they be biased because of government money?

    To "Karen R." who are the climate change deniers? Please tell us who thinks that the climate isn't changing. I know of science deniers that use faulty computer models to give us dire predictions that never come true.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 2, 2019 7:44 a.m.

    @ silo

    "Feel free to start listing 800 'scientists who say the opposite.'"

    I suspect that confused probably can provide that list. I've seen something like it. Very impressive.

    It's just that they aren't climate scientists.

    IMO, this sums up the position of climate change deniers: We shouldn't trust science because it's always changing, but we can have absolute trust in scientists speaking outside their area of expertise if their opinion agrees with our own.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2019 7:32 a.m.

    ate - Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 1, 2019 5:06 p.m.
    @Gerald Lazar "...climate deniers..."

    Name-calling is not very convincing. ("climate deniers" is NOT name calling, it's an accurate description of the uneducated) As one who affirms science, I would ask a favor of other commenters who have a proper appreciation for science: please post the name of the paper validating the core hypothesis of global warming (that the primary driver of modern warming is carbon dioxide). I have been looking for this for years. If you would include its authorship and date of publication, that would be extremely helpful.

    It would be nice if the climate deniers posted their citations to prove that global warming/climate change is false. That should be easy since only 3% of "scientists" make that claim.

    P.S. you can do the research yourself, you know, google.

    RedShirtHarvard - Cambridge, MA
    April 1, 2019 12:22 p.m.

    "There are thousands of scientists that refute the IPCC and other alarmist doctrines."

    OK, name them and cite their credentials.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 7:42 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "look at the time scale. Go back 10,000 years not just 150 or 200. You will see that the Earth was much warmer then."

    Depends on what proxy data you look at, generally there's a slow decreasing trend over most of the past 10k years until recent more rapid warming.

    "Yes the CO2 is about on target because everything older than 100 years is just a guess"

    Why are you referencing cycles that take 100k years if you call everything older than 100 years a guess? We increased CO2 by 30% in under a century. That is not even remotely close to anything suggested by the Milankovitch cycle in the ice cores referenced. What would even be your target?

    "See "Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020" in Livescience."

    Temperature, solar irradiance, and CO2 data are easily googled and clearly show correlation between temperature and the sun til the most recent 50 years where CO2 takes over.

    That Livescience piece...

    [Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. ] (Several tenths F for a grand minimum)

  • silo Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2019 5:45 p.m.

    @confused

    "For every scientist you sight(sic) that supports "Global Warming", oh wait "Climate change" (which is it?, have to change the name to stop from being proven wrong?). I can find verified and accomplished scientist who says the opposite."

    Really? For every single one?

    The IPCC AR5 has over 800 contributing authors. The list can be found on the IPCC AR5 website.

    Feel free to start listing 800 "scientists who say the opposite".

    We'll wait.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2019 5:38 p.m.

    @ilkshirt
    "You see, even the scientists who study the climate are divided as to the the cause of climate change."

    You cited a Fred Singer opinion from a 2011 interview.

    Singer has direct ties to the Heartland Institute, who is directly funded by Exxon and other Petroleum industry entities.

    In addition, Singer's comments about 'scientists being divided' come from his dependence on numbers produced in a debunked Senate report, a debunked 2007 Heartland Institute report and the debunked 'Oregon Petition'. Every single one of those lists has been thoroughly discredited for false data...in some cases refuted by the listed scientists themselves.

    In short, your primary source is using manipulated data, does not submit any of his assertions for peer review, and is heavily funded by the petroleum industry. These are all readily available facts found in a 2 minute google search.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 1, 2019 5:06 p.m.

    @Gerald Lazar "...climate deniers..."

    Name-calling is not very convincing. As one who affirms science, I would ask a favor of other commenters who have a proper appreciation for science: please post the name of the paper validating the core hypothesis of global warming (that the primary driver of modern warming is carbon dioxide). I have been looking for this for years. If you would include its authorship and date of publication, that would be extremely helpful.

    I understand the background arguments, so no need to rehearse them. I do not need to know how many scientists hold a certain opinion; I consider argumentum ad verecundiam a logical fallacy. If you were going to recommend an IPCC report, I would ask you to cite the direct origin of their levels of certainty.

    I just want to know who validated the global warming hypothesis and how they did it using the scientific method. A method we all love, being aligned with science as so many of us are.

    Thank you in advance.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 1, 2019 4:51 p.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" again, look at the time scale. Go back 10,000 years not just 150 or 200. You will see that the Earth was much warmer then.

    Yes the CO2 is about on target because everything older than 100 years is just a guess and shouldn't be considered for anything more than overall trends. Unless they use the same exact means of measurement anything older than about 100 years should be considered questionable at best.

    See "Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020" in Livescience.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 3:20 p.m.

    @RedShirtHarvard
    "the earth has been steadily cooling (and that includes the last 150 years)."

    We have clearly been warming the past 100 years.

    "In terms of CO2 we are tracking about on target with the cycle that occurs every 100,000 years."

    That cycle shows a range in CO2 from 180 to 290ppm and takes 100k years to go up and down again. We went from 300ppm to 400ppm in less than a century. You think that is on target?

    "If you look at the temperature vs solar activity you see that there is correlation there"

    That only really works until the most recent half century where solar activity says we should have stabilized and then had cooling but instead we kept warming. We just had the weakest solar cycle in almost a century but the 5 warmest years in the modern era were the most recent 5.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 3:06 p.m.

    @Confused
    "We in America may want to do thing for climate change, but does anyone really think China or India is going to do it? I have my doubts."

    China is becoming a much bigger player in solar energy.

    India still has a couple hundred million people without electricity. 1 American uses roughly the GHGs of 10 people from India. Developing nations like India will have increasing emissions and would have goals closer to something like stabilizing at double their current emissions while we cut ours in half (we'd still be using twice as much as India then and once they stabilize as well they can at that point drop too).

    @MacMama
    "Now, scientists have discovered that the hole is closing"

    Because the Montreal Protocol phased out the use of the CFCs that created the ozone hole.

    @lost in DC
    "OK, ban volcanoes, which produce more CO2 than all human activity combined."

    False. Volcanoes are estimated to produce 200 million tons of CO2 each year vs 20 billion tons from humans. Volcanoes are such a non-factor with CO2 they don't even show up in the CO2 datasets. Volcanoes biggest contribution is SO2, an aerosol cooling influence.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 2:59 p.m.

    @Blue
    "it is important to understand that the climate change we are now seeing is occurring at a rate roughly 1,000 times faster than any previous natural climate change. "

    While it is much much faster than average natural climate change, 1,000 times faster is definitely an overstatement and there are isolated instances of very rapid natural change (like the entry and exit of the Younger Dryas event).

    @Confused
    "For every scientist you sight that supports "Global Warming", oh wait "Climate change" (which is it?, have to change the name to stop from being proven wrong?)."

    Both names were pretty frequently used over time, the preference for climate change nowadays comes from making it clear that warming isn't the only thing going on, but a range of other effects from sea level rise to ocean acidification.

    " I can find verified and accomplished scientist who says the opposite."

    Most of those people wouldn't be climate scientists which is about as useful as asking a weatherperson about brain surgery. Climate scientists are strongly tilted towards thinking humans are primarily responsible for the global warming the past century.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 1, 2019 2:41 p.m.

    Redshirt your sources are laughable, and not what you claim they are.

    A little digging finds your sources are paid by the hydrocarbon industry.

    From your reference: S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

    "I would guess" seem totally scientific, right?

    NIPCC=Heartland institute

    The scientific consensus is clear. Building on two previous studies, a landmark 2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans.

    I especially found it hilarious that you compare Russian propaganda science to America, how Donald of you.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 1, 2019 12:22 p.m.

    To "Utefan60" they may claim that humans are the driver in climate change, but that doesn't make them right. Do some research on Lysenkoism. That was a case where for DECADES in Russia a group of scientists published papers and had a whole field of study where they all agreed on the same theories. They were completely wrong, but they were able to maintain their funding for their careers and perpetuated a bad idea because of it.

    There are thousands of scientists that refute the IPCC and other alarmist doctrines.

    The best scientists say that they don't know what is going on. The worst ones say that their unproven theories are right.

    See "Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming" at NAS

    You see, even the scientists who study the climate are divided as to the the cause of climate change.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 1, 2019 11:58 a.m.

    Blue
    Ban volcanoes and we would still have 300 million tons less (according to your numbers)

    And yes, my comments were silly – they were meant to be silly, in response to a silly letter.

    Emmanuel
    why do they all agree? Because their proposed “solutions” involve a wealth transfer – from us to them. and because they want to agree - they are as preconceived as Adam Schiff.

    Cougfan60
    Proven? By thousands of educated scientists? Nope – they have theories they manipulate data to support, but not proven.

    Deny alarmism all you want, but you are not a scientist.

  • Utefan60 , 00
    April 1, 2019 10:55 a.m.

    Confused - Sandy, UT, you are stating things that are false. Climate Scientists overwhelmingly support the issue that humans can and do create some of the issues with climate change. Proven with thousands of educated scientists. Thousands!

    Your statement that you can find a scientist to refute these people is ridiculous. You can not find those real scientists that refute this. You may read a Fox News article but that does not count. I want several thousand references to reputable educated scientists. Can you do that?

    I can provide thousands of scientific reports....can you? With over 17,000 papers published on climate change by educated, (Key word here, educated) and degreed scientists, there are less than 20 scientists that claim there is no correlation of human interaction to climate change. That is .00117 percent that say there is not correlation. Wow!

    Deny climate change all you want. But you are not a scientist. Those educated scientists strongly disagree with your so called conclusions.

    Its a great thing that we have education in this country.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2019 10:28 a.m.

    Actually Blue.... I can.. and have on several research projects I have googled over the years...

    They not a PR firm, or anything like it..

    Here is a question for you...have you followed the $$$ on those research projects that says global change is happening? They are all funded by organizations who profit from said findings.

    They key to anything is a very simple solution... follow the $$$ who is behind the research, because ALL research is biased depending on who is funding it. That is a fact!

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 1, 2019 10:20 a.m.

    But what temperature should the earth be? If you look at the 10,000 year record, the earth has been steadily cooling (and that includes the last 150 years).

    In terms of CO2 we are tracking about on target with the cycle that occurs every 100,000 years.

    If you look at the temperature vs solar activity you see that there is correlation there that isn't accounted for very well in the CO2 based models.

    The problem is that this letter wants us to follow along with science that isn't settled, and has been used for many decades to give is dire predictions that have not come true.

    Can any of the alarmists out there justify to us why we should listen to them despite the fact that their dire predictions have never come to pass? (I can count at least 4 times where you told us that by a certain year if nothing was done that the Earth was doomed.)

  • No One Of Consequence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 10:20 a.m.

    In the 1970s we were "running out of oil," but we are not running out of oil. A lot of decisions were made based on bad science and market manipulation. The "population bomb" was going to be the end of the world, but now some are encouraging people to move from poor areas of the world to first world nations because people in first-world nations are not having enough children.

    The "climate change" crisis has been accompanied by predictions that have not come to pass. Any increase of temperature is barely detectable by thermometers, much less by humans. The seas have not washed over the land. Carbon in the air is the food for plant and therefore animal and human life. It may be that we need more carbon in the air, not less.

    The science is debatable, not settled, because the models only work when the data is manipulated. Meanwhile, many of the people pushing the narrative are also associated with the new "socialism" movement, open borders and other ideas I cannot support. Don't buy "science" from someone you wouldn't trust to sell you a used car. Discerning the motives of others is also a science.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    April 1, 2019 10:13 a.m.

    @ ConservativeCommonTater

    "I wish I knew why so many people deny science and choose "climate denial" so fervently. It doesn't make sense."

    Let me explain.

    It's not that we "deny science." It's that we don't simply walk in lock step believing what they're telling us because it's "science" and "science" is always right. There's been enough evidence, also brought about by "science," that run counter to AGW (besides all the predicted apocalyptic scenarios that haven't manifested).

    It's a lot like the skepticism I have for all these DNA testing companies I see advertised on TV. The "actors" say stuff like, "I thought I was German all these years. Now I wear a kilt." Or, "Now I can celebrate my Spanish ancestry now that I know I'm Spanish."

    How the heck do we know the DNA companies are right? What is it all based on? How good is their quality control? How do I know they didn't mix up the samples. How, exactly did they determine my roots? They may be right, but then again......

    People blindly believe them because it's, "science."

    Me, I'm a skeptic.

  • EmmanuelGoldstein1984 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 10:07 a.m.

    To all the climate deniers on this board:
    If human-caused climate change is a "hoax," why does every national academy of science in the world that's weighed in on the subject -- some 40 or more -- disagree? Why do they all say it's caused primarily by human activity?

    According to a 2018 World Bank study “More than 140 million people . . . will be made climate migrants by 2050 . . including 17 million from Latin America.” Are you climate deniers saying that the World Bank is an illegitimate source of information?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 9:52 a.m.

    Lost in DC, there’s so much that’s just plain wrong with what you’re saying.

    Volcanoes produce, at best, 300 million tons of CO2 each year. Human combustion of fossil fuels annually contributes about 30 billion tons. Do the math.

    Regarding humans respiration, the CO2 we exhale involves carbon recently captured from the air in the course of creating the food we eat. There is no net increase in atmospheric CO2 because we respirate. The carbon that contributes to the rapid rise of temperatures is called “fossil” carbon because it was sunk into the ground a minimum of several hundred thousand years ago. Look up how oil and coal form. Extraction and combustion of these “fossil fuels” is what releases the ancient carbon and turns it into the extra CO2 at the heart modern climate change.

    The rest of your criticisms are too silly to warrant a reply.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 9:30 a.m.

    Confused, here’s the difference between “Global Warming” and “Climate Change.”

    Whereas the term Global Warming generally just refers to rapid increases being observed in air, land and ocean temperatures, the term Climate Change covers the related fields of Precipitation Trends, Magnitude of Extremes, Storm Intensity & Frequency, Drought Intensity & Frequency, Ocean Acidification, Rising Sea Levels, Diminishing Sea Ice, Diminishing Land Ice, Biodiversity and Shifting Ecosystems. These are all related to a rapidly warming planet.

    And all the published research in these areas is seeing strong evidence of human-caused warming.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 1, 2019 9:23 a.m.

    Gerald
    OK, ban volcanoes, which produce more CO2 than all human activity combined.

    Ban sunspots, which increase the level of solar radiation / energy.

    Ban exhalation, which contains CO2, especially from hyperventilating liberals.

    Running around screaming, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” may feel invigorating, but it’s a recipe for disaster. It creates panic and damaging knee-jerk reactions – and even more CO2

    Respect the science – are you talking about the discipline that once said draining blood from the ill would correct their balance and they’d recover? Or that touted arsenic in small doses as a panacea?

    Science’s “conclusions” change more rapidly than the climate.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 9:22 a.m.

    No, Confused, you cannot find an equal quantity of professional, peer reviewed science to disprove the research results currently available. The fact that an industry-funded PR firm publishes an op-ed calling climate change a hoax does not count as refuting the objective, replicated and validated research published in professional science journals.

    Note that the oil and coal industries have hired many of the same PR firms that tried to tell us that “the science isn’t settled” about the dangers of cigarettes to sell the same “the science isn’t settled” message about climate change.

    Knowing the difference between objective science news and industry-funded PR is critical here.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 1, 2019 9:17 a.m.

    MacMama said: "Years ago, the big worry was the hole in the ozone layer. It was going to kill us all. Now, scientists have discovered that the hole is closing and now we are not in danger of being killed by it."

    ...and why is that MacMama?

    Is it because we heeded scientists advice and stopped using CFCs and found replacements, or because we ignored it and it went away magically?

    Yep, it's the former, we did something about it, instead of listening to lobbyists and paid shills for the hydrocarbon industry as the right tends to do.

  • MacMama Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2019 9:00 a.m.

    Until China and India get on board, whatever we do here in the United States will have little to no effect on the human caused portion of climate change.
    Years ago, the big worry was the hole in the ozone layer. It was going to kill us all. Now, scientists have discovered that the hole is closing and now we are not in danger of being killed by it.
    While I believe we need to take care of the earth and respect it, I also believe that many of the proposals (“New Green Deal” for example) are a way to seize control and power of our economy and our liberties.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    Gerald,
    Here is the problem with your letter...

    For every scientist you sight that supports "Global Warming", oh wait "Climate change" (which is it?, have to change the name to stop from being proven wrong?). I can find verified and accomplished scientist who says the opposite.

    In reality, no one really knows for 100 percent accuracy. They have some solid theories, but that is all it is... a hypothesis.

    We in America may want to do thing for climate change, but does anyone really think China or India is going to do it? I have my doubts.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 1, 2019 8:31 a.m.

    Ignorance is bliss is the basis of climate change deniers.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 1, 2019 8:31 a.m.

    Ignorance is bliss is the basis of climate change deniers.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 8:01 a.m.

    While it is true that Earth’s climate has and will always change naturally, it is important to understand that the climate change we are now seeing is occurring at a rate roughly 1,000 times faster than any previous natural climate change. The evidence that this climate change is in fact caused by human combustion of fossil fuels is now overwhelming.

    Let’s live in the real world, respect the science, and act responsibly. Our grandkids are depending on us to do the right things.

    The most expensive, and harmful, thing we can do right now is to do nothing.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2019 7:51 a.m.

    When a lot of people choose to bury their heads in the sand, to avoid the obvious, it puts their butts in a great position for a good kicking.

    I wish I knew why so many people deny science and choose "climate denial" so fervently. It doesn't make sense.