Letter: Face climate change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    June 13, 2019 3:35 p.m.

    What is the correct amount of atmospheric CO2? I'm pretty sure it doesn't lie in the range of 180 - 280 ppm, which is bordering on extinction of life. 1000 ppm would be more appropriate based on how plants are structured.

    What is the correct global average temperature? As long as there are more cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths, I think we could benefit from a little warming.

    We're a third of a century into "catastrophic" warming. It still snows in the winter. The beaches on the Maldives look the same as they did 30 or 50 or 100 years ago. It still gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Manhattan's West Side Highway is not under water. The Arctic Ocean is covered by ice. Greenland is covered by ice. Nobody is fleeing to Siberia or Antarctica to escape the oppressive heat. The glaciers in Glacier National Park are still there. The earth is greening and crop yields are improving. I see no catastrophic consequences of rising atmospheric CO2, only benefits.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 13, 2019 2:08 p.m.

    @silo

    Your demand misses an important point. Climate zealots are pushing lies and inaccuracies that depart from published science, not that agree with it.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2019 11:35 p.m.

    @counter intelligence
    " the first article was from National Geographic"

    Here's what you were asked to produce, from my first comment.

    "Cite any published, peer-reviewed climate change research that was guilty of 'lies and inaccuracies' as you claim."

    Instead, you posted an article from a magazine.

    Do you base all your arguments against climate change on magazine articles? I don't. The climate science community doesn't.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2019 5:31 p.m.

    @silo

    "and in fact have attempted to displace responsibility for the accuracy of your own claim onto me."

    I didn't and don't view your provocation as being honestly motivated, so i flipped it and asked you to play by your own rules first

    Both others and I have provided examples of climate hysteria (within the character limitations of this forum - which i have met my limit) and they are not good enough for you. Even when you lacked any science in your own posts

    But Ok - here's an example:

    I typed "hottest years on record" into the browser simply to see what came up; the first article was from National Geographic, complete with a graph showing the temperatures from 1880 to now - yet nowhere in the article did it make mention of the fact that the 1800's were a colder than normal period in earth history (and ironically, hotter periods usually manifest after cold periods). A rather important piece of info to leave out.
    This happened without even looking beyond the first search result.

    You can find the same info - if you simply start a scientific process of asking questions.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 12, 2019 2:26 p.m.

    barfolomew -
    @ Happy Valley Heretic

    "Reading isn't the strong point of deniers, see the Mueller report that they refuse to read also."

    Did you just say that the reason Donald J Trump is not being prosecuted because [conservatives] didn't read it?

    Not at all, so reading comprehension isn't a strong point either.

    Didn't mention prosecution at all, but a lack of understanding what is written in the report, because one refuses to to read it.

    Just as anti-science folks cherry pick info from the same 2 or 3 people and claim a majority, which it simply isn't.

    It's sad that I see so many comments from people who apply a elementary level education towards climate change and proudly display little understanding of science and it's disciplines.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2019 2:12 p.m.

    @counterintelligence
    "how about the oft repeated claim that the last few years were warmest in recorded history (without presenting the corollary information that "recorded history" began in the late 1800's"

    That's great. Cite any published, peer-reviewed study that did what you claim. You appear to be aware of numerous (since you stated it was 'oft-repeated'), so cite just one of those.

    "your efforts at bullying, shaming and intimidation were quite supportive of my post"

    There was no 'bullying, shaming, nor intimidation' in my post. You made a claim as fact. I asked you to back that claim up with actual research. So far, you have refused to do so, and in fact have attempted to displace responsibility for the accuracy of your own claim onto me.

    Can you support your claim, or can't you? If there's shame in your response, it has nothing to do with me asking you to back up that claim.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    June 12, 2019 1:10 p.m.

    @ Happy Valley Heretic

    I know this is off topic, moderators. But HVH brout it up.

    "Reading isn't the strong point of deniers, see the Mueller report that they refuse to read also."

    Did you just say that the reason Donald J Trump is not being prosecuted because [conservatives] didn't read it?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 12, 2019 1:06 p.m.

    @louie
    RE: "When the National Academies of Science from all the major countries of the world agree humans are influencing climate change we should listen"...
    ---
    We should do more than listen. We should probably do something. What are you changing in your life?

    We should not only listen, we should do something. And I don't mean just complain and blame others for voting wrong. We should be making the needed changes in our lives!

    Just waiting for the Legislature to solve the problem doesn't work. We have to change (not the Legislature).

    The Legislature can pass all the laws you want, but nothing changes until individuals change. Till we stop using dirty energy to fuel our cars, houses, etc. Till we stop driving to work. Its time to stop complaining and blaming and do something (at your own home).

    Put solar panels on your home (instead of a "Clean Air NOW!" sign).

    Get rid of your car, instead of just trying to put the people who make the gas for it out of business.

    Get the electricity you use to run the TV, lights and furnace in your home from the sun, instead of the ground.

    Stop looking to the Legislature and pointing fingers at the legislature while you do nothing

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 12, 2019 11:10 a.m.

    I remember early in my career, 1970s, Purdue University School of Engineering put out bulletins regarding air pollution issues. At that time, many learned researchers seemed skeptical of claims that man caused changes in the global climate. A phrase I recall being used was "Mother Nature laughs at the thought of man's ability to change things".

    Suffice it to say, I have heard very little about Mother Nature laughing recently, especially from the scientific community. When the National Academies of Science from all the major countries of the world agree that humans are influencing climate change we should listen.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    June 12, 2019 11:01 a.m.

    @FrozenFractals:

    "Natural sources/sinks are nearly balanced."

    Of course they are. Did you not understand my point?

    If you are pointing out that a very minor addition to that "natural balance" can tip things (the additional CO2 emitted by man above the CO2 released by natural processes) then how is it different to point out that the minor addition to killing birds by wind turbines can tip the natural balance created by predator / prey?

    Especially when some types of birds (the large ones, such as Eagles) *aren't* in fact prey to household pets?

    Either you recognize that actions taken by mankind can have an effect, even though they are dwarfed by the already existing natural processes, or you don't.

    If you do, then BOTH the excess CO2 emitted by man is a problem AND the birds killed by man is a problem.

    If you don't, then neither the excess CO2 NOR the excess birds killed are a problem.

    "It's really disingenuous the talk about birds when you're content to wipe out ecosystems with climate change. "

    You score pretty low for reading comprehension. I want to save the ecosystem with nuclear power. Did you not pick up on that?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 12, 2019 10:57 a.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" no, the CO2 sinks are not in balance with natural emissions. If you look at the NASA data for the entire carbon history of the earth, it never has been balanced or even close to balanced.

    But nature has wiped out entire eco systems multiple times throughout its history. Tell us, how many dinosaurs do you see running around? When you went to the zoo did you see the woolly mammoth? Have you gone boating on Lake Bonneville lately?

    Again, it is a natural thing we are seeing.

    See "The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity " in the Journal of Climate where they find that when you compare the models to actuality the actual temperatures are 35% to 45% lower than the value reported. That means the claim of 1 degree change will more likely be .65 degree change at best.

    CO2 is 97% from natural sources, therefore the acidification of the oceans is a natural thing. Why are you trying to stop a natural process?

    Coral reefs like a water PH of 7.7 to 8.4. Currently the ocean has an average PH of 8.1. What is the problem? According to the Smithsonian we are dropping in PH. The oceans are too basic now, the acid is good.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2019 10:29 a.m.

    @silo

    "Go ahead and list some of the claimed 'lies and inaccuracies' from 'climate change zealots'."

    Ok; how about the oft repeated claim that the last few years were warmest in recorded history (without presenting the corollary information that "recorded history" began in the late 1800's , which according to climate speculation [not actual recorded history] was the midst of a mini-ice age, colder than the middle ages - ironically, warm periods usually follow ice ages - shocking, absolutely shocking)

    "Don't cite a blog, nor an op-ed, nor a forwarded email, nor an AM talk show host. Cite any published, peer-reviewed climate change research that was guilty of 'lies and inaccuracies' as you claim. Then cite a published, peer-reviewed study that exposed those supposed 'liess and inaccuracies'."

    How about you go first since you are so pure (and please don't cite Al Gore, MSNBC or Bill Nye) BTW: your efforts at bullying, shaming and intimidation were quite supportive of my post - thank you

  • Frozen Fractals Paducah, KY
    June 12, 2019 10:22 a.m.

    @SC Matt
    "And nature emits orders of magnitude more CO2 into the air than human activity."
    @Redshirt
    "but 97% of CO2 emissions are natural. If we cut human CO2 by 50% it would only total emissions by 1.5%"

    Natural sources/sinks are nearly balanced. It takes 10000 years to go from 190 to 290ppm in a Milankovitch cycle. Human sources are small but have no compensating sink so we are like an interest rate, CO2 jumped from 330 to 410ppm in under 100 years.

    It's really disingenuous the talk about birds when you're content to wipe out ecosystems with climate change.

    @Redshirt
    "models all overestimate the temperature by double"

    That's a lie. Read: 'Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?' - CarbonBrief

    "medieval warm period, they spike out higher than what we have hit."

    Regional, not global.

    "How do you know that we are causing the acidification of the ocean?"

    Because it comes from oceans taking in more CO2 from the atmosphere, and humans caused that.

    "we are closer to a PH of 7"

    Just because 7 is neutral doesn't mean that's perfect for the ocean. It certainly isn't for coral reefs.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    June 12, 2019 10:12 a.m.

    I've discovered that if I want to see a bunch of ostriches, I don't need to go to the zoo. All I need to do is read the comments in the DesNews about any letter on global warming.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 12, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" and the industrial baseline is about 1 degree below the 2000 year average. What is your point, other than to make my point more clear that using 1870 as a baseline is like saying the ideal room temperature is 50 degrees.

    Unless you have some sort of time machine, the guesstimate of 1 degree C by the year 2100 is just a shot in the dark. If you look at the studies that have been done looking at the accuracy of all of the climate models you would find that the models all overestimate the temperature by double. But that is assuming that we don't have another period of unexplained cooling or another pause.

    NASA did a study on farmland and AGW. See "Climate SHOCK: Global warming could produce MORE farming land, scientists admit" in the UK examiner.

    Look at the graph of the temperatures during the medieval warm period, they spike out higher than what we have hit.

    How do you know that we are causing the acidification of the ocean? If you look at the history of ocean water, we are closer to a PH of 7 now than we have ever been in history.

    To "Ninjutsu" but 97% of CO2 emissions are natural. If we cut human CO2 by 50% it would only total emissions by 1.5%

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 12, 2019 8:14 a.m.

    @EmmanuelGoldstein1984

    Your NSF quote doesn't contradict anything I said. It admits that we do not fully understand the relationship between human activity and climate variability, and that the matter requires more study.

    From my own review of the science, I believe the climate models tend to exaggerate climate sensitivity. Climate models operate on assumptions given them by researchers, and they make only very crude approximations. I believe what the thermometer says over what the models project. And the thermometer is saying maybe people don't need to get so worked up.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 12, 2019 8:05 a.m.

    @silo
    RE: "I specifically asked for published, peer-reviewed research that was shown to be full of lies and inaccuracies"...
    ---
    No you didn't. You said. "Go ahead and list some of the claimed 'lies and inaccuracies' from 'climate change zealots'".

    Al Gore came to mind instantly so I replied.

    Al Gore is just one of the many "climate change zealots". There's a lot more in politics today. And they don't know what they are talking about. And yet... they talk a lot.

    Scientists aren't "Zealots", real "Scientists" are objective. The Zealots are the many non-scientist who jump on the bandwagon and start beating the drum. I don't question the science. That's all good. I think I've said at least 100 times that climate change is happening, so I'm not questioning that. I just question some of the alarmist predictions by the "Zealots" used to instill fear in people in hopes of stampeding us in the direction they want (especially when they get talking about Rs and Ds and pretend if you vote for an R you're a bad person, that's a dead give away). Alarmist Predictions that have not come true as they predicted BTW. As I pointed out.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    June 12, 2019 5:33 a.m.

    @FrozenFractals:

    "Cats kill orders of magnitude more birds than either of those."

    And nature emits orders of magnitude more CO2 into the air than human activity.

    Furthermore, when we talk about the types of birds killed by the wind turbines, we're not talking only about the type that are prey for a typical housecat. We're also talking about the top of the bird predator chain. The more rare breed that is an apex hunter, like eagles or other large birds.

    So, your "brush off" about the fact that wind turbines kill birds looks to be unjustified. It *is* a cost. Is it a cost worth paying? Perhaps.

    But right now, of the 83 people running for the Democratic nomination for next year's election, there's exactly one (Cory Booker) who has anything positive to say about nuclear power. Nuclear power is going to be essential to reduce carbon emissions. (As argued by that same 97% of scientists who say warming is a problem, and man-caused.) But most democrats are too scared of their base to mention the topic.

    What does that say about liberals? I think it says "I want to use this problem to do other things, I don't really care about the climate all that much."

  • Ninjutsu Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2019 3:16 a.m.

    RedShirt MIT made an important comment:

    “Remember, cats are natural, which makes their killing acceptable. Bird blenders or bird burners are not natural, which makes their killing evil and wrong.”

    Here’s my adaptation.

    The earth has experienced warming stages before. It’s entirely natural. It’s acceptable. Accelerated warming caused by pollution and neglect is not natural, which makes it evil and wrong.

  • Frozen Fractals Paducah, KY
    June 12, 2019 1:57 a.m.

    @RedshirtMIT
    "if we are using a cold point as a baseline" "That would mean less food, and less livable land mass."

    The little ice age was around 0.5C below the pre-industrial baseline. Doesn't seem reasonable to think that's a big deal but not the 1C of warming and 1-3C by 2100.

    Plus warmer doesn't inherently mean more food and livable land mass. At some point you get too warm too often and it messes with crops. You can eventually get too cold too but even if we get rid of all fossil fuel emissions today it'd take centuries before we get back down to pre-industrial.

    "According to NASA the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than we are today."

    Only regionally. NASA says it was cooler globally.

    "Remember, cats are natural, which makes their killing acceptable. Bird blenders or bird burners are not natural, which makes their killing evil"

    We are killing entire coral reef ecosystems because of ocean acidification from GHG emissions but you think windmills (est. 214k-368k birds) are evil compared to cats (est. 1 billion)? What about cell/radio towers (est. 6.8 million)? Are you giving up your phone?

  • Unreconstructed Reb BE, 00
    June 11, 2019 11:37 p.m.

    "These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation."

    Dallin H. Oaks, BYU-H Commencement on 25 Feb 2017

    I guess we need to add LDS Apostles to the lists of alarmists?

  • silo Sandy, UT
    June 11, 2019 10:27 p.m.

    @2bits
    "Al Gore comes to mind "

    I specifically asked for published, peer-reviewed research that was shown to be full of lies and inaccuracies.

    You cited Al Gore. Go ahead and cite the published, peer-reviewed research from Al Gore.

  • EmmanuelGoldstein1984 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 10:26 p.m.

    @ Nate

    "The overwhelming majority of climate researchers have reached the understanding--based on decades of evidence, modeling and debate--that it is extremely likely that human activities are responsible for rising temperatures on Earth. Human behavior will continue to be a major factor in climate change, and understanding the feedbacks between human behavior and climate variability is critical." [National Science Foundation, 2018]

    As this NSF report says, human behavior will be critical in what happens re global warming in the future. To the extent that people deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming (or minimize its consequences, as you do), they will see no reason to modify their behavior, thereby only aggravating the problem.

    Fortunately, surveys indicate that most educated people in the world believe that manmade global warming is happening and are doing something about it in their personal lives. That gives me hope.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 11, 2019 7:41 p.m.

    @EmmanuelGoldstein1984 "If man-made global warming is for real, as the scientific community says it is, we human beings are facing an existential crisis."

    The scientific community doesn't march in lockstep on this issue. While the majority say there is some degree of human influence on the climate, only a very few are projecting catastrophic results.

    Most climate models are run multiple times with varying settings for climate sensitivity, so they produce low-end and high-end projections. Actual measured temperatures tend to be at or below the low-end projections. Newspaper headlines and political demagogues tend to emphasize the high end.

    The sky is not falling. It looks like we'll live.

  • EmmanuelGoldstein1984 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 6:51 p.m.

    If man-made global warming is for real, as the scientific community says it is, we human beings are facing an existential crisis. If the scientists are somehow wrong, as entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump assert, we can breathe a sigh of relief and continue burning fossil fuels with abandon.

    Who to believe? The stakes are so great that even if you're a science cynic (as many commenters here seem to be) it's best, I believe, to err on the side of caution, to abide by what's known in the risk management field as the precautionary principle. We do it when we spend good money on insurance policies (home, life, auto, etc.), why not do it when human life itself on earth may be at stake?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 11, 2019 5:28 p.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" so, if we are using a cold point as a baseline, doesn't that mean that the climatologists are saying that we should live on a colder planet. That would mean less food, and less livable land mass. Don't you think that would be a problem?

    Just because we started to use thermometers at one point doesn't mean that should be the baseline.

    According to NASA the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than we are today.

    So, since you admit that we are still making new discoveries you must also agree that things are not so clear since being clear means that there is nothing new to learn. For example if I teach you about automotive maintenance, and you say that it is "perfectly clear" you are saying that you understand everything and that there is nothing new to learn.

    As for killing birds with "green power" compared to cats. Remember, cats are natural, which makes their killing acceptable. Bird blenders or bird burners are not natural, which makes their killing evil and wrong.

  • Frozen Fractals Paducah, KY
    June 11, 2019 3:23 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "The little ice age was 600 years of cold weather. Why use that for a baseline?"

    Because the instrumentation record starts with when those instruments were placed.

    "If you use the 2000 year average, we are not up to temperature yet."

    That is false. We are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period which was previously the warmest period in the past 2000 years.

    " why do we keep seeing studies showing how it isn't so clear and how there are new discoveries being made? "

    While some things with climate science are very much uncertain like projected trends in tornadoes, the fundamental basic idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and are responsible for virtually all warming the past half-century, is not.

    "we don't have to go all for bird blenders. We can also go for the bird burners out in the deserts and the landscape beautifying PV arrays."

    Cats kill orders of magnitude more birds than either of those.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 11, 2019 3:17 p.m.

    @silo
    RE: "Go ahead and list some of the claimed 'lies and inaccuracies' from 'climate change zealots'...
    ---
    Al Gore comes to mind (a very famous 'climate change zealot')
    He said "The entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in five years"...
    That was more than a decade ago. Hasn't happened. Not even close.

    ===

    “Sea Levels Rising"...
    The pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even as global temperatures gradually rose.

    ===

    "polar ice sheets are melting"....
    Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago (Source NASA).

    ===

    Climate Change is real. It's been going on for ages. It's just not as bad as some zealots like Al Gore say. Nor is it all human caused. Nor is it as easy to stop as some zealots think. Nor is it under the Government's control.

    But it is real, and mostly natural.

  • No One Of Consequence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 3:12 p.m.

    The link between CO2 (and CO) and temperature is supposition and the temperatures have to be "adjusted" to show the desired results in computer models. Meanwhile in the real world carbon promotes plant growth as plants draw carbon from the air. And warm temperatures promote longer growing seasons. This "settled science" defies logic, and is sold to us by people we wouldn't buy a used car from. Sorry, no sale.

  • Frozen Fractals Paducah, KY
    June 11, 2019 3:07 p.m.

    @2bits
    I find that conservatives never actually will change anything no matter how much liberals talk about Prius's, veganism, or not having children so the idea that we should live it first to be an example really rings rather hollow.

    @n8ive american
    "Liberals are the ones who seem to be denying that the earth has been going through climate change this long and can only attribute it to man as the sole cause."

    That's just false. Nobody rejects the idea of there having been climate changes in the past that were obviously naturally driven. We're just saying that right now there is also a human component to climate change, one that is overwhelmingly responsible for recent change seeing as the sun is in its weakest cycle in almost a century and no other natural source is responsible for a 30% increase in CO2, the second most important greenhouse gas, in half a century.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 11, 2019 3:05 p.m.

    To "Pete Kuntz" and how are you going to get the $300 billion/yr from the oil companies? If you say tax them, you realize that they will just pass that tax along to us, so we will be paying for it.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" the only deniers are the alarmists that ignore actual science in favor of government documents and a vote.

    To "Whazzzzzzzupppp" we don't have to go all for bird blenders. We can also go for the bird burners out in the deserts and the landscape beautifying PV arrays.

    To "silo" can I start?!!

    How about the claim from George Wald who in 1970 estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

    Paul Ehrlich claimed that by 1980 "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death"

    Al Gore in his first Power Point movie predicted that if drastic measures were not taken that we would be doomed by 2006. Drastic measures were not taken and we are not doomed. But don't worry, others made predictions that in 2004, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015... we were supposed to be doomed then too.

    There is was the 1970 prediction of mass extinctions by 1995.

  • VisiGuest Mancos, CO
    June 11, 2019 2:48 p.m.

    Maybe we have to start at a more basic level.
    Can humans affect the Land, Air & Water in ways that are detrimental to their own health & safety?
    Everyone understands & is very aware of ways local conditions can affect health.
    As we move further away from the end of our noses the connection is less direct.
    The Land, Air & Water on the entire planet seem infinite to a person or community.

    The planet is finite, we don't have to consume every bit of it as quickly as possible.
    We can encourage or discourage anything we want with taxes, laws/regulations & monetary policy.
    What are we encouraging?
    Right now there is no incentive to think beyond next quarters profits...

  • silo Sandy, UT
    June 11, 2019 1:35 p.m.

    @counter intelligence
    "...otherwise the blatant lies and inaccuracies are the only thing many people will (rightfully) hear"

    Go ahead and list some of the claimed 'lies and inaccuracies' from 'climate change zealots'.

    Don't cite a blog, nor an op-ed, nor a forwarded email, nor an AM talk show host. Cite any published, peer-reviewed climate change research that was guilty of 'lies and inaccuracies' as you claim. Then cite a published, peer-reviewed study that exposed those supposed 'liess and inaccuracies'.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 1:31 p.m.

    When the flag bearers of man-made global warming start setting an example, rational discussion might begin. Until then....

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    June 11, 2019 1:29 p.m.

    When I was a kid, we were told there was only enough fossil fuel left in the earth to last about 10 to 15 years. In other words we should have run out about 15 years ago. Now it seems there is nearly an endless future supply? Apparently there is also an endless future supply of climate change crazies who have predicted the world would end in 5-10 years, over and over for the past couple decades. Could they please get a better handle on that prediction, because I have some plans for the not to distant future, and I really need to know when the world is going to end?

  • Whazzzzzzzupppp Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 12:36 p.m.

    Yes, we need more bird choppers!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 12:33 p.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    Questioning is a scientific process

    Bullying, shaming, condescension, etc, are not

    The easiest way for climate change zealots to convince "deniers" of the nobility of the cause - is to cut the hysterics - otherwise the blatant lies and inaccuracies are the only thing many people will (rightfully) hear

  • n8ive american Shelley, Idaho
    June 11, 2019 12:28 p.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic - Orem, UT

    Conservatives do not deny climate change. The climate has been changing for thousands and thousands of years. If not for climate change, America and other parts of the world would still be under a near mile thick layer of ice and we would most likely still be hunting woolly mammoths. Liberals are the ones who seem to be denying that the earth has been going through climate change this long and can only attribute it to man as the sole cause.

    BTW, what exactly does climate change have to do with Mueller's report?

    Is that the same thing like the fake Russian dossier that liberals refuse to acknowledge?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 11, 2019 12:10 p.m.

    Thank you for a well thought out letter.

    Now prepare for the less thought out rebuttals learned from the fossil fuel industry by conservative radio folks. The only people in the world still denying climate change.

    Reading isn't the strong point of deniers, see the Mueller report that they refuse to read also.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 11, 2019 12:01 p.m.

    When the letter starts with, "The GOP needs to..." in the first sentence,
    ---
    You know it's not about Climate Change. It's about politics. Just using CC as a tool they feel they can beat their perceived "enemy" over the head with.

    CC isn't caused by political parties or fixed by partisan blathering points, or blaming the other party.

    CC is caused by each of us (if you use energy). We have to changing our lifestyle to fix it. Not just pass a law making CC illegal.

    The Government can't fix CC. Even if they pass a law, or join an accord... it comes down to us obeying that law or changing what we do to conform to the standards outlined in the accord.

    Government can "Nudge" you towards doing what they want you to do (with taxes and fees on things they don't like and subsidies for things they do like). But it's up to us to change ultimately.

    So I'm wondering why liberals refuse to make those changes in their own lives unless there's a law or an accord forcing others to do it first?

    Just do it!

    Show us it works. PROVE it works.

    About half of the population identifies as "Liberal". If they all changed and lived their talking points... we would see if it works or not.