Letter: Be reasonable about climate change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 5, 2019 4:15 p.m.

    @Cora Smith "Are you a scientist?"

    More of an engineer.

    @Cora Smith "Who do you read and listen to?"

    The list would not fit here.

    @Cora Smith "Talk radio experts?"

    Getting colder. I like reading best.

    So, is there a study out there that you think adequately demonstrates the global warming core hypothesis? I would like to read that paper.

    Not all of the studies recommended by Frozen Fractals employed computer models. There were a few that were more like pure thought models. Those are great, if you are certain you have taken everything into account. I don't think they do. They say, "Here is the set of possible inputs and outputs in the warming equation. If we add it all up, this is the sum. The percentage of anthropogenic is X." But they don't really know if they have accounted for everything. They don't know what they don't know.

    For example, we still can't predict El Nino and La Nina. This should tell us there is something in the system we don't yet understand. But we think we can make these authoritative pronunciations about what percent of warming is anthropogenic. I don't buy it.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 5, 2019 3:19 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals "...attribution studies..."

    Thanks, I read them, aside from two or three that cost money, and for those I read their abstracts. The greatest number of them suffered from the same failure, which is this: the hypothesis was tested in models or groups of models, so the tests are convincing only if you assume from the outset that the models are correct. It is like saying, "Assuming my assumptions are correct, my assumptions are proven correct." The models behaved as predicted, but this tells the researcher nothing about the real world, only about the world internal to the model.

    It's like being in a virtual reality world where eating a candy bar can make you jump as high as a skyscraper. You formulate a hypothesis that eating two candy bars will make you jump as high as two skyscrapers. You test your hypothesis in the virtual world, and sure enough, it works. You announce your hypothesis is proven. Then you take off the goggles and realize there was only a superficial connection between your virtual world and the real one.

    So they didn't establish the validity of the hypothesis as you had hoped. But thanks for trying.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 5, 2019 10:08 a.m.

    What's with all the human-caused-climate-change deniers getting letters published in the DNews lately? People, this is the flat-earth society of the 21st century. The science is not just overwhelming; it is showing that the situation is worse than Al Gore thought back in the day when it was just an "inconvenient truth."

    Republicans are opposed to expert opinion in a variety of fields. It has become a requirement for GOPers to question anyone who actually knows anything. These are "elites." But climate change would not be a political issue at all if not for the deal that Mike Pence struck years ago with the Koch brothers. Look it up. This is where the Republicans in the Senate got on board with the science deniers. And it's all tied up with dirty oil and coal money.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2019 6:03 a.m.

    The writer misleads readers by drifting in and out of such patently absurd subordinate clauses as ". . . when it was discovered that data was being manipulated in predicting global warming." Fully ninety-seven percent (!!) of expert climatologists in this country support the coming reality global warming. But people like the letter writer simply cover their ears because they do not want to accept that unappetizing reality. I don't blame her, really; hard truths are always hard to accept. That does not, however, make them any less true. If we don't start to do something now about global warming, our children and grandchildren will pay the price for it, possibly with their lives. It is thus incumbent upon us to take the needed actions now to stop, or at least slow down, the process of global warming that is already happening in the world we live in now.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    April 4, 2019 6:43 a.m.

    @Cora Smith:

    "and asking why “liberals” deny some energy source that that has nothing to do with scientific facts concerning the subject here."

    So, is it your assertion that there's only one type of science that somebody can be labeled a "science denier" in connection to?

    Because, if so, that would be kind of unfair, don't you think?

    "Oh, and what or who told you Democrat’s are against any alternate energy sources?"

    *Any?* No. Democrats clearly aren't against wind or solar.

    However, if you're now asserting that it's only my imagination that the majority of liberals oppose nuclear power, I'll have to conclude that you haven't been paying very close attention to the debate.

    I'd like to see that change. And in fact, that change alone could do wonders. If it is seen that liberals drop their opposition to nuclear power because of the threat of climate change, then at least it can be concluded that *they* think there's a threat.

    Because right now, it looks more like they want to use "climate change" as a bludgeon to get something else, like AOC so clearly demonstrates with the GND.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2019 6:33 a.m.

    Tell your grandkids how "reasonable" you were on climate change....I'm sure they'll totally understand! /s

  • Cora Smith BOUNTIFUL, UT
    April 3, 2019 5:03 p.m.

    Nate; I read information written by scientists that have written peer reviewed papers on the subject. I would also lean towards believing the 800 scientists who all conquer on the subject concerning global warming.
    Are you a scientist? Who do you read and listen to? Talk radio experts?

  • Cora Smith BOUNTIFUL, UT
    April 3, 2019 4:33 p.m.

    S Matt; Subject is global warming. My post is about exactly that. You are talking about energy sources, and asking why “liberals” deny some energy source that that has nothing to do with scientific facts concerning the subject here. You might be confused about the subject. Oh, and what or who told you Democrat’s are against any alternate energy sources? Because that is a fallacy.

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

    @Frozen Fractals

    Thank you! Now let's hope they live up to their billing. I will read.

    (We can take IPCC AR5 off the list. I cannot find a basis for its certainty levels beyond hand-waving.)

    But I will read the others, and really: thank you.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2019 3:01 p.m.

    @barfolomew
    "AGW is about CO2 in the atmosphere (so they tell us) and has nothing to do with the winter inversions that trap exhaust fumes in the SL Valley or the effluent from a chemical plant."

    They are separate issues since one is CO2 and CH4 primarily while the other is PM2.5 in winter or ozone in summer, but many sources like vehicles contribute to both problems so they are also somewhat overlapping.

    @Nate
    "that the primary driver of modern warming is carbon dioxide."

    Well they were looking a bit broader at human impact rather than only the CO2 component but attribution studies include:

    Tett et al. 2000 (JGR Atmospheres)
    Meehl et al. 2004 (J. Climate)
    Stone et al. 2007 (J. Climate)
    Lean and Rind 2008 (Geophys. Res. Letters)
    Huber and Knutti 2011 (Nature Geosciences)
    Gillett et al. 2012 (Geophys. Res. Letters)
    Wigley and Santer 2012 (Climate Dyanmics)
    Jones et al. 2013 (JGR Atmospheres)
    IPCC AR5
    Ribes et al. 2016 (Climate Dynamics).

    Most find the human component to be roughly 100% of warming the past 50-65 years (year amount varies by study time, since 1950 is the norm).

  • AGF Taylorsville, UT
    April 3, 2019 2:43 p.m.

    Part 2

    In 1978 the CIA was warning the President of the security threat of a cooling climate. In 1988 James Hansen was warning congress of an imminent threat of warming disaster. NeoMalthusians and the Club of Rome saw considerable potential in the crisis, and billionaire socialists in the East and West took up the cause; with a billion dollars you can buy a thousand millionaires.

    The IPPC began to exaggerate. Pachauri sensationalized the Himalayan glaciers with bad data. Santer overstated the science. The big three, Singer, Seitz, and Nierenberg, didn't like what they were seeing, and said so. In response Naomi Oreskes and NASA historian Eric Conway wrote a book, "Merchants of Doubt," intended to smear their reputations and destroy their credibility (and these were the guys who worried about warming in a world of coolers!): they were career skeptics for hire, in the pockets of Big Tobacco and Big Oil.

    And the propagandists made up more stories like "Big Oil Knew" (in a world of coolers, of course), and "97% of scientists agree," and the newspapers ate it up. Hansen said go nuclear; Oreskes cried "neo-denier." There's no consensus where it counts: on solutions. --AGF

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 3, 2019 2:21 p.m.

    @Cora Smith "Come on people, please think! I implore you! For the sake of humanity!"

    You just might be just the science-minded person I have been looking for -- someone who can point me to the study that validates the core hypothesis of global warming: that the primary driver of modern warming is carbon dioxide. If you could post its title in a comment, I would be grateful. Also, its authorship and date of publication would be ever so helpful.

    To this point I have been treating catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming as an unproven theory. Now it seems we have finally found someone well versed in science who can provide us with the information we were missing.

    Title, author, and date, please. Thank you in advance.

  • What in Tucket Provo, UT
    April 3, 2019 2:19 p.m.

    I think most everyone would like new power sources. Wind and solar are so expensive and inconsistent they are really not viable.
    As for air pollution we have been told that electric is the new thing, but a new hydrogen fuel being tested in the Netherlands by Electriq-Global and Electec is said to be half the cost of electric for a tank load and will go about 3 times as far for the same size vehicle. The emission is water. It is fuel 60% water. The fuel is then sent to the facility to be recharged (by solar). Trains, barges, and buses are going to be tested. [ it is an Israeli invention by a Nobel prize winner in chemistry
    Israel also has a wave generator that seems practical.
    As long as we have a robust economy we can continue to pursue research that hopefully will give us a new energy program. In the meantime mankind rather than the dire predictions of warmers has done very nicely. Malaria for example which as killed about half the people who ever lived has been reduced almost in half since 2000. Prosperity can do that.

  • sgallen Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2019 1:55 p.m.

    If republicans have a plan to avert climate catastrophe and ensure clean water and air I’d love to hear it. As a society, we’ve passed the point where we need more wealth to be happy. Perhaps we should focus more on who we want to be than what we want to have.

  • AGF Taylorsville, UT
    April 3, 2019 1:04 p.m.

    Arrhenius feared the oceans would soak up any benefit that CO2 might confer on the climate. Callendar hoped CO2 would save us from "the deadly glaciers." Revelle considered it a wonderful experiment we were doing with nature. The Soviets dreamed of a way to promote global warming and free up Arctic shipping., even considering damming the Bering Strait. Then in the 60s Emiliani's deep sea cores in the Carribean showed not only were ice ages cyclical but that they corresponded well with Milankovitch's insolation calculations. So it became apparent we were near the end of the present interglacial. Global cooling was just beginning.

    A few physicists were skeptical, Budyko, Singer, Seitz, Nierenberg, thought CO2 would win in the end, and they lobbied for funding to keep a close eye on the climate. Bryson, ever the cooler, and Suomi, his erstwhile partner, parted the ways over the issue. Suomi wanted satellite observations. Then the globe started warming a little, late 70s, and former coolers jumped onto the warming bandwagon. We might get lucky after all. Or worse. The predicted oil peak never happened, and Revelle's experiment was on in earnest. To be cont'd. --AGF

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    April 3, 2019 12:55 p.m.

    "Well, you think wrong."

    Since a single person who doesn't want clean air and water would technicaly make him wrong, you are technically correct. But materially?

    Are you wrong when you claim "nobody wants to ban your guns" even as there are prominent voices and even several regulars to this forum that are very clear they do want to ban privately owned guns?

    Within all reasonable measures, we all want clean air and clean water. The question is at what price? Some want clean air badly enough they move out of areas subject to inversions, while others choose to live in SL or Draper knowing full well there will future inversions no matter what is done. Does impartial **really** want clean air? Of course she does. Just not badly enough to from Draper to someplace free of winter inversions.

    Do I want clean air and water? Demonstrably yes. I moved away from urban valleys subject to inversions. On the flip side, I don't care to abandon all use of oil, coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, or fission nuclear until there are actual, viable, cost-effective, reliable, abundant replacements. I don't think solar, wind, or geothermal ever do that for core needs. I think fusion nuclear does.

  • AGF Taylorsville, UT
    April 3, 2019 12:40 p.m.

    Arrhenius feared the oceans would soak up any benefit that CO2 might confer on the climate. Callendar hoped CO2 would save us from "the deadly glaciers." Revelle considered it a wonderful experiment we were doing with nature. The Soviets dreamed of a way to promote global warming and free up Arctic shipping., even considering damming the Bering Strait. Then in the 60s Emiliani's deep sea cores in the Carribean showed not only were ice ages cyclical but that they corresponded well with Milankovitch's insolation calculations. So it became apparent we were near the end of the present interglacial. Global cooling was just beginning.

    A few physicists were skeptical, Budyko, Singer, Seitz, Nierenberg, thought CO2 would win in the end, and they lobbied for funding to keep a close eye on the climate. Bryson, ever the cooler, and Suomi, his erstwhile partner, parted the ways over the issue. Suomi wanted satellite observations. Then the globe started warming a little, late 70s, and former coolers jumped onto the warming bandwagon. We might get lucky after all. Or worse. The predicted oil peak never happened, and Revelle's experiment was on in earnest. To be cont'd. --AGF

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    April 3, 2019 11:31 a.m.

    @ Impartial7

    To you, our letter writer and everyone else I encounter who do the same thing: equate AGW with clean air and water. It's not just the left doing this as demonstrated by our letter writer.

    Y'all need to stop lumping these things together. I know for the left, it bolsters your argument to keep mentioning toxins in our environment when arguing about AGW. It seems to make your argument more legitimate because the pollution that is caused by man is tangible and measurable right here and now. AGW is not. The only "measurements" of the effects of AGW are computer model projections that rely on many assumptions and is highly dependent on the input data. Many of the predictions have been proven false (Al Gore predicted the coasts would be under water by now, yet he recently bought a $9 million ocean view villa in CA).

    We all want clean air and water.

    AGW is about CO2 in the atmosphere (so they tell us) and has nothing to do with the winter inversions that trap exhaust fumes in the SL Valley or the effluent from a chemical plant.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    April 3, 2019 11:08 a.m.

    @Cora Smith:

    "Since all science deniers seem to be Republicans,"

    I challenge your assumption.

    The science shows that nuclear power is the safest energy source, and it's use would certainly help drop CO2 emissions by quite a lot, at least in the electricity sector.

    But liberals ignore and deny this science.

    Is there a reason?

    I mean, really, if we're headed for a catastrophe that can be avoided by the use of nuclear power, don't you think that expanding the role of nuclear power would be a rational, science based, solution?

  • Flipphone , 00
    April 3, 2019 11:01 a.m.

    Climate change occurs over millions and millions of years, not decades, the last one was the Ice age.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2019 11:01 a.m.

    I have found climate dot gov to be an important resource in considering AGW. Spend some time there.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 3, 2019 10:51 a.m.

    " I think all of us are interested in doing what we can to improve our air and surroundings."

    Well, you think wrong. All those science denying GOP politicians, that take bags of money from fossil fuel conglomerates to publicly deny climate change, care nothing about improving our air and surroundings.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2019 10:51 a.m.

    [My problem with the "global warming" radicals, which turned to "climate change" when it was discovered that data was being manipulated in predicting global warming]

    Except it didn't, and it's not consistent with taking some sort of reasonable line to jump on conspiracy theory.

  • AGF Taylorsville, UT
    April 3, 2019 10:48 a.m.

    I've been wondering for a long time whether the preponderance of chicken little letters was representative of those contributed or of editorial bias. I can tell you that a lot of my comments get rejected or censored. It's good to see a letter like this one in print.

    My only criticism would be of the writer's acceptance of solar panels as a green virtue. Solar panels are the most environmentally unfriendly source of energy available. They have already polluted the manufacturing countryside of China with their toxic metals, and when they wear out here at home they will either have to be recycled or create their own toxic waste disposal sites--and recycling is another expense (besides subsidies) not taken into account when considering their economy. Solar companies go bankrupt without recycling.

    Solar panels produce 300 times as much toxic waste per energy unit produced as nuclear energy. Ignorance of this fact is only one more indication of the failure of the press to inform the public, and of the control over the press of the renewables industry. Big oil couldn't care less about the propaganda with all the klimate doomsayers' private jets flying to Davos and Tahiti.

    --AGF

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 3, 2019 10:40 a.m.

    Another science denier, or republican cherry picker.

    Sorry, claim all you like it isn't happening, deny science and research and these changes will continue anyway, they aren't political.

    Political partisans will continue to side with 1% of scientists, remember healthy cigarettes from industry scientists, the same industry scientists are the only ones claiming it's false, and being paid well to make such claims.

  • Cora Smith BOUNTIFUL, UT
    April 3, 2019 10:20 a.m.

    Since all science deniers seem to be Republicans, can we conclude science deniers are using political ideology instead of facts? It seems very true.
    Is cheering a political party really more important than the future of our families and the worlds future?
    Come on people, please think! I implore you! For the sake of humanity!