Letter: 97 percent vs 3 percent

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • AGF Taylorsville, UT
    June 20, 2019 10:30 a.m.

    1. Propagandize.
    2. Brainwash.
    3. Radicalize.

    When enough people believe climate change is an existential threat you can get the radicals to sabotage pipelines and power plants, shut down the economy, raise the price of natural gas and oil, and get Russia, Iran and eventually even Venezuela, back on a tolerable financial footing.

    It would be far more accurate to say there's not a competent scientist on the planet who takes Thermageddon seriously than to conflate a consensus on the physical properties of CO2 or the likelihood of a human contribution to warming with a consensus on the certainty global catastrophe if we don't resort to some unspecified course of action, or in this instance, if we don't resort to the equivalent of a national gas tax.

    We might ask, is the purpose of this tax to act as a deterrent against driving or keeping the house warm? Wild fluctuations in fuel prices have shown this has only a minimal effect on driving and flying behavior. Will the tax be used to pay off the national debt or to invent better batteries? We still have no way of storing wind and solar energy; we always need backup from fossil fuels. (40 characters remaining) --AGF

  • Frozen Fractals Paducah, KY
    June 20, 2019 5:52 a.m.

    @What In Tucket
    "The Global Warming Petition claims 31,400 signers who are deniers. Of these 9,000 are Ph.D's so maybe not all scientists are not in agreement. "

    How many are climate scientists or meteorolgists? If a meteorologist with a PhD signed a petition against vaccines, would you consider being a PhD useful expertise? Incidentally, the rates of climate scientists rejecting the view that modern day global warming is occurring and mostly the result of human activity is about the same as the rate of doctors being opposed to vaccines.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 19, 2019 3:53 p.m.

    What is your solution for 7 billion sustainability? Seems the dems/liberals solution is putting all in poverty with draconian population control. but in all reality the dems/liberal solution is just to say the rep/cons have no solution.

    Climate control has no bearing on population control.

    So what is your solution for sustainability?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 19, 2019 2:49 p.m.

    jsf said: The lake dried up before modern history?
    Actually it drained through the Red Rock Pass in Idaho 14,000 years ago mostly, then dried up over the next 10,000.

    jsf said: Tell us again how many people have been displaced by the seas rising more than 400 feet in the past 10,000 years.

    Many, but there was a lot more room to roam, It took over 200,000 years of human history for the world's population to reach 1 billion; and only 200 years more to reach 7 billion., Do you think this is sustainable?

    5,000 years ago it's estimated on the high end between 5 to 10 million people, inhabited the earth. And they still had to adapt, some thing that the GOP/Cons refuse to prepare for.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 19, 2019 11:31 a.m.

    Remember when we were young and we could all romp and play on the face of the glacier at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. Or take a swim in that beautiful blue lake that covered the valley. You mean to say the Cottonwood canyon glaciers receded before modern history? The lake dried up before modern history? What your saying is the climate warmed up before modern history. Climate change has been happening with or without man before modern history.

    Tell us again how many people have been displaced by the seas rising more than 400 feet in the past 10,000 years. Storms are no more stronger nor more often than any other time in history. And don't be foolish to say the damages are at higher numbers. Man has put more in the path of the storms to be destroyed than anything to do with the storms themselves.

    All the hand wringing about warming and yet no definitive proof of what the optimum temperature is. Maybe agw's man is accelerating the earth to its true optimum temperature, and climate control efforts will impede the earth from reaching that temperature.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2019 10:35 a.m.

    I'm not surprised temperatures are rising. and certainly, it is human caused. Only humans generate voluminous amounts of hot air and increasing heat generating friction. Perhaps we should consider cooling down.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 19, 2019 8:30 a.m.

    @unrepentant progressive "It seems to me that even some climate change skeptics agree that something is changing...."

    The climate is always changing. The task of a climate alarmist is to show that something is happening today that is somehow different from all the rest of earth's history. It seems an impossible task, but that's what they're up against.

    @unrepentant progressive "...the question is less about what may be happening and more about what if anything we should do about it."

    I am always fascinated by the estimates attached to this or that climate protocol, that say if we follow their prescription, we can change the average global temperature by some few hundredths of a degree in some large number of decades. This sort of gives the game away. How much control do we really have?

    The other thing that gives the game away are proposals like the Green New Deal -- a laundry list of socialist programs dubiously connected with climate change. It's demagoguery all the way down.

    @unrepentant progressive "The war is over, and fossil fuel interests have won the day."

    That, or ordinary common sense.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    June 19, 2019 8:24 a.m.

    @NoNamesAccepted
    "As Max Planck put it, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.""
    You mean like how over the last couple of decades the skeptics keep shrinking and shrinking, and have largely moved-on from simply denying it's happening to denying that it'll be that bad to denying we have a responsibility or moral duty to do anything about it?

    I'm not sure this helps you like you thought it would.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    June 19, 2019 7:44 a.m.

    To "si_lo" each and every one of them shows that at best there is a huge split among scientists.

    To disprove the 97% consensus all I have to do is show that there are fewer than 97% of scientists that say that man is responsible for 50% or more of climate change. Each and every one of the articles that I cited support the fact that the 97% consensus is false.

    Again, like I said, you hate facts.

    To "Lagomorph" so then you agree that the 97% consensus is false. Since, as you point out 50-67% believe that it is mostly human. (FYI the 97% consensus is based on the idea that humans cause 50% or more of climate change).

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    June 19, 2019 7:05 a.m.

    It seems to me that even some climate change skeptics agree that something is changing, as in the claims that increased CO2 levels might not be so bad.

    As pointed out by others, the question is less about what may be happening and more about what if anything we should do about it.

    Fossil fuel propagandists, and science bought and paid for by fossil fuel corporate interests, will toss out all kinds of roadblocks to doing anything about the change in our climate. That is the country we live in, and I don't see how that is going to change. Face it, our government is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate lobbyists serving their corporate masters.

    I'll probably be gone before things get too bad. However, the legacy we leave our descendants speak very poorly of our lack of foresight, our selfishness and our inability to see beyond our immediate concerns. I wish climate change skeptics would just be honest about it, and stop the fruitless debate. The war is over, and fossil fuel interests have won the day.

  • si_lo sandy, UT
    June 19, 2019 12:15 a.m.

    @redshirt
    "I know you hate facts..."

    You're accusing the person who asked you to back up your claims with facts of "hating facts". Interesting angle, and a snapshot of the exact problem the letter writer pointed out regarding those denying man's impact on climate change.

    Also, your three 'published' studies do nothing to support your claim that the 97% consensus has been debunked. Not a single one. Simply reading them would have shown you that.

    Feel free to try again. Facts matter

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    June 18, 2019 10:05 p.m.

    Science is not decided by consensus. True, but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether climate change is occurring or whether human activity is a major cause. The vast majority of climate scientists agree on those points.

    The question is what we should do in response. That policy question is a matter of consensus and should be informed by the best information we have available.

  • Golden Rules Okay, OK
    June 18, 2019 9:48 p.m.

    Consider why climate change is a partisan issue. Republicans are against corporate regulations and if there is no climate change there is no need to regulate carbon emissions by corporations and manufacturers. The position has nothing to do with science.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    June 18, 2019 8:55 p.m.

    Scientific facts are not established by majority consensus. Nicolaus Copernicus was a near lone voice crying the wilderness when he put the sun, rather than the earth, at the center of our Universe. The facts of the heliocentric universe are not at all diminished by the lack of consensus among his peers.

    As Max Planck put it, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

    I'm sorry, but there have been too many climate "scientists" who have advocated exaggerating claims to capture public attention, too many inside emails about massaging data, and far too much money and power at stake, while the celebrity high priests of the movement do so little to alter their own lifestyles, for me to surrender any freedom or any hard earned money to this anti-theist religion.

    Al Gore could do more to reduce their "carbon footprint" by flying commercial first class rather than flying private jets than I could by wasting years of my life riding the bus rather than driving to work.

    Stop talking and start being an example.

  • Carbon Dioxide Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 18, 2019 8:36 p.m.

    I love how may call for market based solutions and then advocated a carbon tax. Just as a tariff is not market based, a tax is not market based. It is government manipulation and seeks to take your money away to give to politicians so they can pay for their pet projects.

    It would also be nice is the media actually would have "climate scientists" speak on this subject rather than have people like Al Gore, Bill Nye "the science guy", and various celebs be the spokespeople for climate change. None of them are climate scientists.

    Finally, so much of our economy is built on fossil fuels. One can perhaps reduce their usages slowly to make a good transition but those in the church of global warming and radical change fast. Ignoring the high chance of sending the economy into a depression and chaos on the streets. The cure for climate change can be just as destructive as the disease if not done carefully and within reason.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    June 18, 2019 5:24 p.m.

    This comment section is hilarious.

    Here's something y'all should keep in mind: this is *only* a partisan debate in America. In the rest of the world the debate isn't over whether it's happening, or whether it'll be horrible, but how much rich countries should be helping poor countries prepare.

    But denying that it's happening or a problem at all? That's just us in the US.

    But sure. The rest of the world is in on the conspiracy to make your electric bill go a little bit higher.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2019 5:16 p.m.

    Those who accept a false premise as the controlling factor have lost all credibility. The letter clearly states: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, it is happening now, it is caused by humans, and it will have a devastating effect on billions of people. Billions!"

    That is a false and misleading statement when compared to what NASA actually wrote: "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree".

    There is a difference. Only those scientists who actively published papers on climate change are part of the 97%. How many scientists are there? What percent of the total does that publishing group represent? How many scientists who are not part of a government funded program to prove that humans cause global warming agree with those scientists who are funded by the government?

    When statistics are used to mislead, the argument is lost before it even begins. A peer review is meaningless when the data is twisted. Give us the total numbers or refrain from trying to shows as facts things that are not factual when all scientists are represented.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 4:57 p.m.

    RedShirtHarvard: reference to "Farmers and scientists" BAMS; "Science or Science Fiction" JOS

    The BAMS study found 50-67% of scientists agreeing with “climate change is occurring and mostly human” and 30-37% agreeing with “climate change is occurring and partly human”, or 81-97% total support for some AGW. The JOS paper is the survey of petroleum engrs I mentioned in my OP. Both support a consensus majority.

    WhatinTucket: Global Warming Petition

    40% of the GWP signers have only a BS/BA, 8% are MD or DVM, 32% are engineers. Only 1 in 8 are actually atmospheric/earth/environmental scientists. You might look up “Project Steve” and the “Salem Hypothesis” for context.

    Nate: “Points 1, 2, and 3 are correct…”

    I mostly agree with your analysis. The trouble comes when complex ideas are oversimplified for popular consumption. Nuance & qualifiers are lost. Points #3 & #4 both span broad ranges of values (how much is human? how big is “devastating”?) but only the endpoints are kept.

    Nate: “Scientific knowledge is not established by taking opinion surveys.”

    Agreed. But this thread is more about the validity of the 97% consensus claim, not the validity of AGW itself.

    4th/final

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 3:45 p.m.

    Redshirt: “To ‘Lagomorph’ actually they have disproved the 97% consensus myth.”

    Please re-read my post. I never claimed 97% was correct, only that there was a very strong consensus and that the skeptical position is an overwhelmingly minority view. I looked up each of the articles you cited. None of them raised any new issues that were not already listed among the critiques in the Wikipedia article I cited. Most focused on the Cook paper, some added Oreskes. The WSJ had the only halfway comprehensive criticism. Five people repeating the same critique is still just one critique. There was a lot of whinging about how appropriate it was to stretch a broad uncontested consensus that “climate is warming and humans have some role” to a softer consensus that “climate is warming and humans have a major role.”

    Meanwhile, the skeptical side has been unable to present a quantified, affirmative case that there is widespread support for its side. They just nitpick those who try to quantify the consensus. There is little indication that it represents even 15 or 20% of the field, let alone 40-50%. If the case against the 90+% figure is so strong, it should be easy to demonstrate.

  • No One Of Consequence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 3:35 p.m.

    Who needs truth when we can settle for consensus?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 18, 2019 2:31 p.m.

    @Lagomorph "Skeptics can quibble over methodology and interpretation (as they should)."

    Here's where I think Marc Peterson's analysis went wrong. He said 97% of climate scientists agree that

    1) climate change is real
    2) it is happening now
    3) it is caused by humans
    4) and it will have a devastating effect on billions of people.

    Points 1, 2, and 3 are correct (although climate scientists differ greatly as to what extent). It is point 4 that is false. I have gone through the math in the various studies and come up with at best 20% who commit to this point.

    Then I'm tempted to ask, are you with the 20%, or the 80%? But that would be a stupid question. Scientific knowledge is not established by taking opinion surveys. It is done by conducting experiments in the physical world.

    The trouble with Marc Peterson's approach is that he sees scientific agreement with part of his position, and assumes there is agreement with all of his position.

    @ConservativeCommonTater "...supports everything on the far right"

    Heh. "Far right." Proving once again you don't know who you're talking to.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    June 18, 2019 2:29 p.m.

    To :silo" I know you hate facts, but read "Farmers and scientists divided over climate change" published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, which is a peer reviewed journal.

    Then there is "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change" in the Journal of Organization Studies where they find that the 97% consensus is just a poll of people who are all well known to already believe in manmade climate change.

    You can also read "Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’" as published in the Science and Education journal.

    Are those enough peer reviewed journals for you or do you need more?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 18, 2019 2:26 p.m.

    With the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere, and the increase in temperatures to date the earth, with reports in scientific papers, has increased in vegetation coverage by more than 15%. That means a decrease in desert expanses.

    Scientifically plants grow faster, stronger, and use less water when CO2 is twice what it is currently in the atmosphere. That is why green house operators inject more CO2 into their greenhouses along with increasing temperatures to increase production.

    "Climates have changed consistently throughout the earth’s history. I am not aware of a single person who disagrees with the fact that climates change. Accusing someone of being a “climate denier” (does anyone on earth deny that climates exist?) doesn’t tell me that you’re awesome at science — it tells me that you’re awful at understanding what words mean." Sean Davis.

    "Over 95 % of climate models agree: The observations must be wrong."

  • silo Sandy, UT
    June 18, 2019 1:34 p.m.

    @mike richards
    "What percent is that of all scientists? How many who aren't "actively publishing about climate change" disagree?"

    It would have been easier to simply state that you don't understand how peer review fits into the scientific method.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    June 18, 2019 1:32 p.m.

    @redshirt
    "The only denier out there are the ones that deny the scientific method and quote the 97% consensus."

    I noticed that all the sources you listed in your comment are op-eds on right leaning websites. Why don't you cite an actual study that debunks the 97%?

    Title, author, date published and journal will suffice.

    Take your time

  • silo Sandy, UT
    June 18, 2019 1:31 p.m.

    @what in tucket
    "but on the other hand the original 97% group included some reporters with no qualifications"

    Cite any investigation that supports your claim of 'reporters with no qualifications' being included in the 97% estimate. Just one source.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 12:52 p.m.

    CounterInt: “…Co2 is plant food”

    Many beneficial substances can also be pollutants. Whether a substance is a pollutant depends on context. Just as a weed is a plant in the wrong place, so is a pollutant a chemical in the wrong place. A rose in an English garden is a thing of beauty. That same rose in a corn field is a weed that cuts yields and jams your combine.

    Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are plant foods. We buy them at the garden store to fertilize our vegetables. But let rain wash them into our waterways and they become pollutants—precisely BECAUSE they are plant foods. They stimulate algae growth and trigger the chain of events known as eutrophication, leaving the water devoid of oxygen, animal life, and a toxic, festering mess. N-P-K are not problematic themselves, but in the right context they initiate a series of events that become problematic. And the way to manage those problems is to manage N-P-K. The same with CO2, not so bad itself, but it creates a problem due to its physics of IR transmission, thus can be a pollutant. It’s time to lay to rest the “CO2 can't be bad because it is plant food” trope, because…

    CounterInt: “…the underlying premise is wrong"

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 18, 2019 12:38 p.m.

    Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

    Here's a couple accredited folks who understand science.
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Medical Association
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    The Geological Society of America
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences
    U.S. Global Change Research Program
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Please do list where you deniers get your info because every time I read one of redshirt or mike richards links they don't say what they claim, not once.

    Really not worth trying to force a quart into a pint anymore.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 18, 2019 12:14 p.m.

    To "Lagomorph" actually they have disproved the 97% consensus myth.

    See "97% Of Climate Scientists Agree Is 100% Wrong" in Forbes

    See "The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up" in the UK Guardian

    See "1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming" at EconLib

    See "The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'" in the WSJ

    See "Top MIT climate scientist trashes ‘97% consensus’ claim" in the Daily Caller.

    The only deniers out there are the ones that deny the scientific method and quote the 97% consensus.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    June 18, 2019 11:15 a.m.

    And, "the sky is falling", I felt a piece of it hit my head. Really!

    (Unfortunately, unlike the Bible, the DN finds sarcasm uncivil).

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 10:57 a.m.

    97% of scientists believe bloodletting will cure disease

    except of course - the 97% figure is wrong
    and the underlying premise is wrong

    Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has never not happened
    It is warmer now than any other point in human record; because recorded history began in the 1800's and the 1800's were exceptionally cool.
    Man can cause a mess and he should clean it up, but many knee-jerk cures often do more harm than good

    Hysteria is not a scientific method and Co2 is plant food

    Henny Penny is an instructive children's story; but it also has its application in interpreting SJW public policy

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    June 18, 2019 10:42 a.m.

    Let's examine this. On one side you have 97% of the worlds climate scientists, and on the other side you have Glenn Beck...

    Help us all.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 10:41 a.m.

    Pops - NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    June 18, 2019 7:31 a.m.
    "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, it is happening now, it is caused by humans, and it will have a devastating effect on billions of people."

    "That is patently false." Of course it is Pops, it's a vast left wing conspiracy to....what is the point you're trying to make with your denial of science?

    Do you have any scientific training or is the info you get from Faux, Breitbart and Glenn Beck all the scientific information that you need?

    Mike Richards -

    "That carbon tax would cost a family of four $1,000 per year. It would generate at least 80 billion dollars to the government."

    Yeah, $1,000 is much better than having to spend $Billion$ on the damage done by the hundreds of tornados, hurricanes, torrential rains, loss of economic growth. Your home insurance might go up by that $1,000 due to these non-climate change events.

    "If you were being paid by the government to prove that man is causing climate change...

    How about believing the 3% instead. Aren't they being paid by extraction industries to DENY climate change/global warming due to manmade activities?

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    June 18, 2019 10:15 a.m.

    This letter is significantly misleading in the claims about what scientists believe, and state. For one thing, it lumps 2 separate questions into one. Its kind of like when nbc or cnn poll their newsroom staff, and then try to pass that off as a representation of the general population. Its called "push" polling and its just another layer of fake news. I admit, there is probably a majority of scientists who will make the claim, about human caused global warming. There are also a lot of side issues to that, which many don't agree on. Many of these government "scientists" are also pushing an agenda, which provides for their livelihood.
    Its also misleading to try to frame "evil" energy corporations as one sided and deceptive. Most of these corporate leaders have been raised in this brain washing era, and then groomed and indoctrinated in our schools, to go along with green energy propaganda and ideals. Many of these companies are hedging their bets by making deep investments in claimed green energy efforts. It makes sense for their pr and to meet the requirement of government imposed regulations.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2019 10:04 a.m.

    Kodak coined a term, "circle of confusion", to describe the cumulative errors produced by the various sensors and mechanical parts of a machine. They advised anyone who was trying to get repeatable results to know how large that "circle of confusion" was in their machine. Tests showed that making small changes that were less than the value of the "circle of confusion" led to unpredictable results.

    The climate change scientists base their "findings" on computer models. Those computer models are flawed because instrumentation cannot duplicate the predicted change, after all, Al Gore told us that New York would be flooded years ago based on those models. The process control computers that I build to operate Kodak machines could generate printing times to 0.001 logrithmic units. The "circle of confusion" was 0.03 logrithmic units.

    What is the "circle of confusion" for instrumentation actually used in the field? One study I read this morning told of using ice core samples to determine the amount of CO2 through the ages. That's interesting, but where is their control sample to show changes to the samples? What is the true repeatability measurement?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2019 9:52 a.m.

    The world will end in 2050. not 2012 or 2020? they keep moving the date

    Such plans do not work. Carbon emissions INCREASED in BC from 61.3 million tones in 2015 to 62.3 in 2016

    Only 70% of Canadians get refunds

    UC San Diego study on Norway: The taxes contributed to a reduction in onshore emissions of only 1.5% and total emissions of 2.3%

    In Dec 2017 Duke published an article stating increased emissions are a certainty under carbon tax schemes

    With its artificial inputs, this is not market based, just a poorly designed wealth distribution scheme

    How many of the 97% really believe and are not just going along to avoid the scorn of the true believers?

    What happens to those who become dependent on the refunds when we wean ourselves off fossil fuels?

    If a true believer, you should advocate more nuclear power

    HVH
    Which facts? The dates keep moving? Prior period temps were adjusted downward? CO2 is required for life on earth?

    Imp7
    US world and News Reports ranks Utah the 4th best state in the nation in which to live. I know you constantly deride our legislature, but they are obviously doing a lot of things right

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 9:17 a.m.

    Skeptics can quibble over methodology and interpretation (as they should). They can question whether the correct figure is 70%, 85%, 90%, or 97%. But they can’t demonstrate that the consensus does not represent a substantial majority. More importantly, they cannot show that the skeptical position is more than a minority on the order of 2-10%.

    There are many studies assessing the degree of consensus. The Wikipedia entry at “Surveys of scientists' views on climate change” gives a decent rundown with links to the papers and criticisms of them. Some are meta-analyses of publications; some are direct opinion surveys of scientists. Although methods and precise findings of the different studies vary, the papers taken in toto indicate an overwhelming majority of working climate scientists hold consensus views. In general, all of the studies find very strong agreement that global climate is warming (typically 95%+) with only slightly less agreement on a human cause (typically 80-98%). Even the study showing the lowest support for AGW was only 49%, and it was a survey of petroleum engineers and geoscientists (not climatologists). Support increases in fields closer to climatology.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2019 9:09 a.m.

    What did the NASA report actually say? "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree". Read that over until you understand it. Those scientists who are actively publishing about climate change agree.

    What percent is that of all scientists? How many who aren't "actively publishing about climate change" disagree? How many of those who actively publish about climate change have received funds or grants from the government with a subtle or not so subtle nudge to find a reason to enable government to levy a carbon tax on us? That carbon tax would cost a family of four $1,000 per year. It would generate at least 80 billion dollars to the government.

    If you were being paid by the government to prove that man is causing climate change and if you were required to publish papers pushing that concept, would you be one of those 97% who actively publish about climate change?

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    June 18, 2019 9:01 a.m.

    Your lawmakers will ignore your letters and pleas. Unless you include a check that is bigger than the ones they get from the extraction and energy businesses that pay them to ignore scientific data and do what's right for Utahn's.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2019 8:57 a.m.

    Nate - Pleasant Grove, UT (who claims no political pparty affiliation but supports everything on the far right)

    @Marc Peterson

    "You have misunderstood the scientific positions of most of the alleged 97%. You should go find out. It will help you to avoid making false statements in a public setting."

    Yes, go with the 3% that are paid by extraction industries, they must be right since they are in the minority. 97% of scientists couldn't possibly be right, because Republicans say they are intentionally misleading us.

    "The people demagoguing this issue should be ashamed."

    Yes, you're right. So why aren't you ashamed of yourself and your ilks.

    MARC, you want us to contact the extreme right wingers that represent our state and tell them to change their votes/minds?

    Maybe hope and prayer will work./s

    It was 50 years ago this month that the Cuyahoga river caught on fire. A cleanup was started with a $100 million citizen approved bond.

    In 1972 Nixon established the EPA.

    Republicans since then want to go back to the Cuyahoga river days.

    Why do Republicans hate the environment so much?

  • What in Tucket Provo, UT
    June 18, 2019 8:56 a.m.

    The Global Warming Petition claims 31,400 signers who are deniers. Of these 9,000 are Ph.D's so maybe not all scientists are not in agreement. Those who support global warming say these people are not qualified, but on the other hand the original 97% group included some reporters with no qualifications. As it is the temperature change is less than 1 degree and if anything there seems to be a lot of benefit to the increase in CO2.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 18, 2019 8:23 a.m.

    @Marc Peterson

    You have misunderstood the scientific positions of most of the alleged 97%. You should go find out. It will help you to avoid making false statements in a public setting.

    The people demagoguing this issue should be ashamed.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    June 18, 2019 8:05 a.m.

    The song by Simon and Garfunkel, the problem is all inside your head, she said to me, the answer is easy if you take it logically.
    Some say Jesus came when He said when no stone was left of the temple. Some say He is still going to come, sometime soon in the future.
    Belief is only what you can count on or depend on.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 18, 2019 7:58 a.m.

    Sorry Pops, got anything to back your assertion about patently false?

    From the NASA Climate change page...
    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

    Climate
    NASA
    Gov

    Line those up, with a dot between them, for actual facts from accredited scientists.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    June 18, 2019 7:31 a.m.

    "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, it is happening now, it is caused by humans, and it will have a devastating effect on billions of people."

    That is patently false. A more accurate statement would have been, "1.6% of the papers reviewed asserted that the globe is warming and humans are the cause of at least 50% of the warming."

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 18, 2019 7:12 a.m.

    Get ready for an attack from the loud small percentage of local deniers.

    There is literally nothing that can convince them, many have tried using facts and data, and they are ignored.

    In fact they will post the same nonsense and cherry picked stories most from professional deniers paid by oil and gas.

    It's unfortunate that their children will have to try and catch up to save anything for their posterity.