Quantcast
Opinion

Readers' forum: Defying science

Comments

Return To Article
  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 3, 2011 12:21 a.m.

    Noah warned the world there would be Climate Change back in his day too.
    The foolish and the wicked mocked him as well.

    BTW - God blessed him with the necessary Science and Technology to survive it.

    We should do likewise.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 3, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    I love this letter!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 3, 2011 7:55 a.m.

    lds lib, are you talking about the science and technology that in the 1970s said we had to worry about global cooling?

  • Rand FLAGSTAFF, AZ
    June 3, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    Science isn't a strong suit for most of us. Something like 2/3 of Americans believe there is an unseen human deity in the heavens judging our every move, despite a complete lack of empirical evidence. Some of them even believe the world is 6000 years old despite busloads of evidence to the contrary. Given that, I am not too surprised that the only evidence Mr. Gilmore needs to discount global climate change is to look out his window one wet and cold spring.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2011 8:22 a.m.

    Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, John Fleck, 2008: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 13251337.

    "A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 3, 2011 9:02 a.m.

    The letter writer's fun little analogy will go "over the heads" of most DN readers, so to speak.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 3, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    This letter only illustrates the fallacy of the global warming scam.

    The Earth's climate may well be warming because of human activity. But that doesn't mean we have jumped off a cliff and only disaster awaits us in the future.

    Truth is, no one knows what effects, bad or good, will result from any climate change that may occur.

    So, rather than model what might happen here or there as a result of changes that may happen, giving people information they can use in making wise decisions, climate "scientists" merely assume the undocumented worst, pedantically insisting on unrealistically draconian remedial measures, mostly involving redistributive socialism.

    If climate "scientists" want to regain a little of the credibility they've lost, they could start by abandoning socialist politics and venal, demanding activism, followed by a return to actual, useful science.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    June 3, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    Rather than treat our Mother Earth with respect and dignity, taking her warnings seriously we continue to pilage and pollute her. Don't you think we should error on the side of caution rather than continue to treat her as a old dirty paper towel? As citizens of this great earth we should encourage her to flourish so all, present and future can enjoy the many treasures of her confines. Science does not have all the answers and neither does religion but that should not negate the fact that maybe the warnings are correct especially when there are alternatives.

  • watchman Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2011 10:38 a.m.

    I always wonder which will be the worst on our children and grandchildren; to submit to the radical solutions submitted by the Global Warming crowd or to continue in a moderate mode utilizing more sensible treatment of our environment.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    "So, rather than model what might happen here or there as a result of changes that may happen"

    Actually modeling is pretty much one of the primary things that goes into that sort of research.

    "climate "scientists" merely assume the undocumented worst, pedantically insisting on unrealistically draconian remedial measures, mostly involving redistributive socialism."

    No, policymakers do that. Climate scientists are generally (a few of them get into the policy stuff but most of them don't) too busy working on research to care about what to politically do about it.

    "If climate "scientists" want to regain a little of the credibility they've lost, they could start by abandoning socialist politics and venal, demanding activism, followed by a return to actual, useful science. "

    The problem with this statement of yours is that most climate scientists already are doing what you demand they do. The thing is policymakers (for and against things) get all the screentime on TV so it looks like they're how all of them are when really they aren't.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 3, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    Re: "The problem with this statement of yours is that most climate scientists already are doing what you demand they do."

    Not hardly.

    From LA Times -- ". . . the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out . . . . John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota . . . is also pulling together a 'climate rapid response team,' which includes scientists prepared to go before . . . hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows. This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced . . . . We are taking the fight to them because we are . . . tired of taking the hits.

    Sounds like pretty widespread political activism, to me.

    And, it's funny how all these "experts" are proposing only radical socialist "solutions."

    Coincidence?

  • Jeffrey Wilbur Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 3, 2011 12:41 p.m.

    The author of this letter just doesn't get it.

    Clearly to conservatives, including conservative Mormons, being "good stewards over the Earth" is just code for "rape and exploit each and every resource for absolute profit before moving on to the next."

    So with that, they don't really care whether global climate change is actually happening. What they care about is how their ability to exploit the Earth for profit will be impacted by reality's acceptance.

    Follow the money.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 3, 2011 12:58 p.m.

    @Jeffrey Wilbur | 12:41 p.m. June 3, 2011
    Eagle Mountain, UT

    Clearly to conservatives, including conservative Mormons, being "good stewards over the Earth" is just code for "rape and exploit each and every resource for absolute profit before moving on to the next."

    ============

    Agreed.

    Like spoiled rotten kids, they believe "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare..." gives them a free-unbridled ride to do as they please, as opposed to the scriptural and temple commands of showing "moderation in ALL things".

    I think the scripture D&C 104:17 "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare...

    only applies with "Waste not, want not."

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    June 3, 2011 1:07 p.m.

    It is intellectually dishonest to say there is not significant uncertainty about anthropogenic global warming.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 3, 2011 1:08 p.m.

    To "atl134 | 10:47 a.m." you are correct about how modeling is how most of the research is carried out. The problem is that the research is based on faulty models that are incomplete.

    The main scientists that run the models have found that as of 2 years ago could not balance the energy going into the earth's atmosphere.

    When you combine that with fact that the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems have found that using satelite data the earth's temperature has either remained constant or has been dropping over the past 30 years. See UK Register's article "Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer."

    Add to that the recent DN article "Bottoms up: Antarctic ice growth discovered" where they found that antartic ice doesn't grow like they thought.

    To "procuradorfiscal | 11:35 a.m." The scientists are not out to use science to promote the propaganda of climate change, that is being done by the Media and Politicians. See "NOAA Meteorologist Claims 'Gross, Blatant Censorship' by Media for Speaking Out Against Climate Change Alarmism" at Media Research Center and "Climate Scientist Quits IPCC, Blasts Politicized 'Preconceived Agendas'" Heartland Institute.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 3, 2011 1:12 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal | 12:58 p.m." its funny that you complain about people not being good stewards of the earth. Since you fly back and for to Seattle each where you have an apartment. You realize that your carbon footprint is larger than most people. If you really were a good steward of the earth you would have sold your house and moved closer to your job.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 3, 2011 3:44 p.m.

    RedShirt | 1:12 p.m. June 3, 2011
    USS Enterprise, UT
    To "LDS Liberal | 12:58 p.m." its funny that you complain about people not being good stewards of the earth. Since you fly back and for to Seattle each where you have an apartment. You realize that your carbon footprint is larger than most people.

    ===============

    For the last time -- my fuel use is 4 gallons per week, RedShirt.
    Stop being so passive agressive and making me explain and re-explain.

    I know you are just intentially trying to get me to use up my "honest" 4 comments.
    [as opposed to your Ultra-Conservative, Holier-than-thou, better Mormon than you because you are a Republican and "Cheating" the system with multiple e-mails. How was that Paul said, your Faith with out (honorable, good or praiseworthy) works is dead.]

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2011 3:51 p.m.

    "When you combine that with fact that the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems have found that using satelite data the earth's temperature has either remained constant or has been dropping over the past 30 years."

    On both of those systems there's a clear about .1C-.15C per decade increase in temperatures over the past 30 years, which is comparable to NOAA and NASA.

    The only way you could get a constant change over the past 30 years using RSS or UAH is if you had a blatant disregard for statistics and just used 2008 to compare to 1979 when the plots clearly show that the other 00s years from 2001-2010 are all among the top 10 or 12 warmest years over that 30 year period.

    2008 is an outlier because it was during a strong la nina and solar minimum whereas 1998 (warmest or tied for warmest year on record depending on dataset) was during an extremely strong el nino. Obviously 2008 shouldn't be ignored, but use proper context; the 2000s are on average substantially warmer than the 80s or 90s on UAH, RSS, NOAA, and NASA's datasets.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 3, 2011 4:27 p.m.

    It would be terrible if climate change weren't true and we improved the world for nothing.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2011 6:29 p.m.

    What I don't get is there's a good argument for switching to renewable energy that has nothing to do with global warming. It'll get us off of foreign energy, will get us off of nonrenewable energy which will only get scarcer and harder to obtain. We could actually manufacture something in this nation for a change instead of letting Germany take the lead on solar power. All we'd need is a couple billion dollars invested to research/develop solar energy to make it efficient enough for the market to run with it and then after that all we'd need is a way for that power to be used to fuel vehicles effectively. No more foreign conflicts over oil needed, no more worries about rising gas prices, oh and maybe it'll help the environment too.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 3, 2011 6:47 p.m.

    lds liberal. noah didn't warn about climate change, he warned about a weather event. Your argument is the same as those who say the cool spring is a sign global warming doesn't exist.

    As for global warming, yes, hello liberals, we know there is global warming. The earth has been warming since the last ice sheets started melting. Since the earth has for millenia averaged warmer tempatures than currently. Again what is the correct tempature you are trying to maintain? Earth is currently running a shortage of CO2. And the earth had a prior ice age when CO2 was 12 times higher than current levels. That blows holes in the GW models. As for keeping the earth clean and taking care of it, take CO2 off your list, its clean and needed, its not harmful until it reaches 70,000 ppm. We just are not going to be able to get it to those levels. If the levels drop below 100ppm plants start to die, and once they die we die because there will be no O.

  • Miss Piggie SLC, Utah
    June 3, 2011 9:39 p.m.

    With any luck Canadians will be able to grow pineapples and bananas.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 3, 2011 10:26 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal | 3:44 p.m." and how do you heat your apartment in Seattle? If you go to a carbon footprint calculator, the simple fact that you have an apartment in addition to your house, put you at a higher footprint than I am driving my truck.

    Nice try, but your carbon footprint deals with more than just driving.

    To "atl134 | 3:51 p.m." you are not looking at the data that comprises the entire atmosphere. That data shows a decrease in global temperatures since 1979. Nice try, but next time look at the entire dataset.

    As for 2000 to 2010, according to the leading climate experts, we have not experienced any significant warming.

    Do you have any other pieces of information that you think I haven't already seen.

  • Considering Stockton, UT
    June 3, 2011 10:36 p.m.

    I certainly respect the right to make individual choices based on belief.

    But, there are a few basic questions that ought to be asked and answered before anyone presumes to force others to change their lives based on assertions of man-made global warming.

    1-Are the effects of global warming (or is it "climate change" this week? Or global cooling?) good, bad, or indifferent? The geological record indicates some rather extreme temperature shifts throughout earth's existence. Some seem to have been better for life than others. Are we falling off a cliff? Or just enjoying a little rain before the bow appears?

    2-If climate change is bad, how much can humans alter the climate with changes in our lifestyle? If we all moved back into caves and had miserable, 29 year average life expectancy, how much would it benefit the climate?

    3-If it is bad, and we can't fix it, might we not do best to advance technology to wear we can most likely survive the changes? Technology advances best with a vibrant, healthy economy and that always requires inexpensive transportation and energy.

  • 1Leather West Valley City, Utah
    June 4, 2011 11:43 a.m.

    @ Considering:

    How dare you interject common sense and rational thought
    into an emotional debate. you should be ashamed of yourself
    now people might have to think instead of just blindly
    following someone else.

    keep it up please! :)

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    June 4, 2011 1:23 p.m.

    ldsliberal---i just have to know---how did you come up with the figure 4 gallons a week?---

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 4, 2011 5:37 p.m.

    rnoble | 1:23 p.m. June 4, 2011
    Pendleton, OR
    ldsliberal---i just have to know---how did you come up with the figure 4 gallons a week?---

    ==============

    It's called mass transit.

    1 Boeing 737 - uses 481 gallons of Jet A for a SLC/SEA flight.
    Divided by 137 passengers is about 3.6 gallons each.

    Furthermore - I work 12-14 hours per day M-F, and rent a room at a friend's.
    My wife and kids live here in Farmington.

    I know RedShirt driving his gas guzzling truck around everyday uses much more than that -- probably everyday.

    And I work for Boeing.
    Who BTW - has already deveolped, designed and certified all their jets [Military and Commerical] to run on AlGas - an Algae based renewable fuel source.

    And for the last time RedShirt....

    I'm working with our Utah State representatives and my Boeing Supplier Management team to pull work from Boeing suppliers in Italy, and move that work back here in Salt Lake City -- That will bring 600 to 1,500 high-tech, high paying Aerospace jobs.

    and THAT'S why I don't move my family to Seattle RedShirt - the work will eventually be here!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 4, 2011 10:31 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal | 5:37 p.m." your fuel use is higher than that. Since you have to go to and from Farmington to the SLC airport each week, that adds at least 2 more gallons per week, then you have the additional fuel that you use to go to and from the Seattle Airport to the place where you stay, that is at least 4 more gallons.

    I fill my big truck with 20 gallons of fuel every 3 weeks. You are burning at least 14 gallons each week. I still have you beat. I can drive a truck getting 15 mpg, and still burn less fuel than you do. You must really hate the environment burning that amount of fuel.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 4, 2011 11:02 p.m.

    Re: "1 Boeing 737 - uses 481 gallons of Jet A for a SLC/SEA flight."

    It's interesting that a Boeing employee would believe a 737 can fly from SLC to SEA-TAC on 481 gallons of Jet A.

    Normal planning factor for a 737 would allow 2,950 lbs for a 15-minute climbout, 5,500 lbs/hour for a 90 minute cruise [8,250 lbs], and 600 lbs for a 20-minute approach/landing.

    That adds up to 11,800 lbs. At 6.8 lbs per gallon, that's something over 1,735 gallons of Jet A for a non-stop, 737 SLC to SEA-TAC flight.

    Dividing that by the actual airlines planning factor figure of 130 pax, plus bags, that would mean your flights burn about 13.35 gallons of Jet A, each way, not 3.6.

    Might make one wonder what else might be something of an exaggeration, hmmmmmm?