Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Science helps compromise — let's work for solutions

Comments

Return To Article
  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 1:01 a.m.

    "We need to emphasize that science isn't about wishes or opinions; it's about hard evidence. Why not accept it, reject disinformation and work together for solutions?"

    Because the lemmings who drink Rush, Sean, and Fox daily would then have to admit that they were wrong. And if they were wrong on Global Warming then they're worried that they might have to admit that they have been wrong about other things as well... such as... WMDs in Iraq, socialized medicine, Evolution, unions, tax cuts, guns, marriage, and supply side economics.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 1:24 a.m.

    Great letter.

    Climate science is complex, but not so complex that conclusions can't be drawn with a high degree of certainty about the significant role that human activities play in climate change.

    If honesty matters to you then you have to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is real, significant, and caused by us.

    We should be debating what we're going to do about it and how, instead of wasting precious time on willfully ignorant denialists.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 4:09 a.m.

    "Why not accept it, reject disinformation and work together for solutions"

    Because most people that question climate change science do so out of fear of the policy implications. Never since the Theory of Evolution have so many people uneducated in the scientific method suddenly taken an armchair interest in a science topic. And for the same reason: it challenges their belief system and could result in public policy they don't like.

    If climate change skeptics do no want draconian federal carbon emission limits, it would be wiser for them to make the economic argument rather than question a body of scientific evidence they have neither read nor fully understand. Accepting human-caused global warming while believing carbon limits would be too damaging to the economy is a valid viewpoint.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    Science is a reinforcer rather than enforcer and the majority are not always right. Global warming is a way to control peoples lives like the overpopulation fanatics were and are. We can't control the climate and it is pretty cold right now were i am at. Why let it control us?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    It's utterly amazing that so many journalists and others inundate us regularly with scare stories demanding that the United States take fierce anti-warming action while scarcely ever pausing to mention the possible futility of it all — or the cost
    Those costs will get us if we don't fight back, and those saying so aren't just radio hosts of the kind that make leftists urge censorship. They are people like William Nordhaus, a Yale economist. He has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion. Another scientist's view is Patrick Michaels who was at the University of Virginia for 30 years. His study convinces him nothing disastrous lies around yonder bend. Another is Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He believes gloomy computer simulations are bogus, that the climate changes we are seeing could be more natural than man-made and, like Michaels, that no intolerable warming lays ahead.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Trial lawyers have a term "juke box witness" .You put in your nickle and the expert (read scientists) will sing any tune you want. It is true.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    higv,
    Thank you for providing the perfect example of what I was talking about in my first post.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    There you go, mountanman, now you're getting closer. You don't think the benefits will outweigh the costs. That's a valid concern and should be part of the discussion. But you don't know anything about the science, so you shouldn't weigh in on that part.

    Conservatives shouldn't be afraid to say "the body of evidence strongly suggests that anthropogenic carbon emissions are driving the observed changes in global temperatures. But it will harm the economy too much to rectify this. I don't believe the benefits outweigh the economic costs". That is at least an honest argument.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    Looking back to what worked in the past---

    "The problem in the 1980s was that American power plants were sending up vast clouds of sulfur dioxide, which was falling back to earth in the form of acid rain, damaging lakes, forests and buildings across eastern Canada and the United States. The squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years."

    HW Bush decided to address the problems of acid rain. Cap and Trade became the mechanism as part of the Clean Air Act.

    "Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness, healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard. (Better relations with Canada? Priceless.")
    (Smithsonian, "The Political History of Cap and Trade")

    Too bad Republicans have become anti-science.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    If we accept the science there will be an implied expectation that we do something about it. That's what we really want to avoid. It's easy to deny, instead.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    A refreshingly wise letter. Somewhat of a rarity around here.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    What the letter writer fails to mention is that global temperatures have not increased since 1998. That is an undisputed fact, not related to the survey of articles cited.

    It's amazing that some will use anything to claim global warming EXCEPT a thermometer.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    Oh great! The scientists, who make a living studying global warming, don't question it whether global warming exists, except for 24 of them. The 24 for have looked at their thermometer data and have a conscience. The rest are afraid there won't be jobs for climate change scientists if they admit it is a farce.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    Those who choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not getting warmer will probably wake up only when their tail feathers ignite.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    Environmentalists are hypocrites Don't want to change there lifestyle want us to change ours. They are not interested in compromise but in control that gives them empowerment. That is were global warming occurs.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    So a geologist disagrees with climatologist data.

    That's great. I'll ask my foot doctor about heart disease next time I see her.

    You realize it's oil companies that hire geologists right?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 6, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    Mountanman,

    Yours is the only logical point I can brook from the Anti-Climate Change crowd.

    Those who argue it is not happening because of this or that issue ignore the fact that climate scientists have every single fact they mention plus thousands of others.

    Those who argue that scientists are willfully ignoring evidence (lying) are buying into a vast global conspiracy that is so large and complex as to be beyond reason.

    But your point about the economic tradeoffs is cogent – that is, what are the benefits of fighting climate change vs. not doing so? And, if we do choose to fight, to what level should we do so?

    Note that I don’t believe it is futile to fight climate change. Nor that it is necessarily uneconomic to do so, but it is something that bears significant analysis.

    Note that there are studies that show we should respond to climate change.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    These past few days it hasn't been that warm. Going outside I wish it would get warmer as that weather is more pleasent. I would travel the Sahara before I traveled the Antartic.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    @ higv: Yes, because we all know "global climate change" only refers to temperatures in Idaho and Utah.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    higv,

    It's winter, higv. Winter. Winter is colder than summer. Scientists aren't arguing that winter will no longer be colder than summer.

    I'm going to say this as respectfully as I can. It is people with your rudimentary understanding of science combined with your stubbornness and resistance to information which challenges your world view who have made scientific progress more difficult throughout the centuries. Your frame of mind would have argued that the sun revolved around the earth in Galileo's time. People sharing these traits are still trying to keep Evolution out of school text books.

    Twin Lights & I have tried to present a rational framework from which you could express skepticism of policies related to climate change, but you aren't budging. Every comment just keeps getting more irrational and illogical.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 8:28 p.m.

    With all due respect, Emajor, scientists in fact have argued that winter would no longer be as cold as it "once was". Record low high temperatures, anyone? Dr. Viner of East Anglia's CRU famously stated in 2000 that within a few years it wouldn't snow, and that our children wouldn't know what snow is. The IPCC said there would be 50 million climate refugees by the year 2005. The most likely climate refugees any time soon would be from China due to the record cold they're experiencing.

    And we're all still anxiously awaiting that one paper that will definitively link human CO2 emissions to global climate changes. Science does not revolve around consensus - that would be politics. Science is about real data, not computer models.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    Sensible Scientist writes, "global temperatures have not increased since 1998. That is an undisputed fact, not related to the survey of articles cited."

    That's not an undisputed fact; far from it. Particularly when you include ocean temperatures in the mix, it's clear that Earth's climate has been warming consistently since 1998. Even if you just consider atmospheric data, when you account for unusual events like El Nino/Southern Oscillation, volcanic eruptions and solar flares, you're left with a warming trend from 1998 to the present.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    So people that think global warming is a fact will never admit to being wrong than? Even if they are wrong.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 11:57 p.m.

    Ah yes -- AM radio.

    These are the same jokers - who to this very day - tell their EIB listeners that tobacco doesn't cause cancer.

    The one thing I learned in college was to trust and believe a college professor -- ANY college professor, over a college drop out political radio hack for reliable facts and data about science.

    Do yourselves a favor -- Turn off the radio, and go to school.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 12:00 a.m.

    higv
    Dietrich, ID
    So people that think global warming is a fact will never admit to being wrong than? Even if they are wrong.

    9:27 p.m. Jan. 6, 2013

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

    I'm still waiting for those who voted for GW Bush TWICE to admit that.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" name a scientist or radio host that has said that climate change is fake. After reading that you probably about to spout off a bunch of names, all of which have only said something about man-made climage change. The problem with you is that you don't bother to understand what people are saying.

    The fact is that the climate models are wrong, and even the leading climatologists admit that they don't have a good model of the earth's climate. If we don't have a good model of the climate, why are we trusting the results of the model? Would you fly on an airplane that its design modeled incorrectly?

    When you have articles like "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" at Forbes and "Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it" in the UK Daily Mail showing that the climate models are wrong, why would you continue to trust bad mathematical models?

    Why don't you care when the climate scientists are caught lying? "World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated: scientists"

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    Large volcanic eruptions cause global cooling. Perhaps we can kill 2 birds with one stone. Let's take some of those extra nukes we no longer need, drill really deep and drop them in, hit the button, and create our on climate control volcano.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 7, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    Liberal Today,

    Please tell me that you are kidding.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    To "Twin Lights" he was kidding. You don't need to destroy a volcano to cool the earth with nuclear bombs. See "Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years" in the National Georgraphic.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 4:16 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT
    To "LDS Liberal" name a scientist or radio host that has said that climate change is fake.

    ===========

    Rush Limbaugh declared, "There is no global warming going on,"

    Limbaugh: Global Warming "Is A Hoax ... I Get Blue In The Face Repeating This Over And Over Again." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said.

    LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? ‘Cause of who’s behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.

    Limbaugh: “Anything To Do With … Climate Change Is Now An Official Scam.” On August 30,

    Limbaugh: The Science “Is Fraudulent And Is A Hoax.” On November 10

    Limbaugh: Global Warming “Is A Religion …There Is No Evidence.” May 17

    Limbaugh: God Would Not Create Humans “In Such A Way That We Would Destroy … Our Own Planet And Environment.” From the February 2

    I could go on, and on, and on, and on RedShirt.
    But I'm limited to 200 words.

    BTW - Enjoy Rush Libaugh's ridiculous show.
    Don't forget -- In Rush's little Neighborhood of make believe,
    tobacco doesn't cause cancer either.

    Despite what Science has been saying for 75 years.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Jan. 7, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    What is hilarious is every few days someone flies a kite on Climate Change, within hours all the same people post all the same comments. It is like trench warfare neither side is listening they are just throwing another bomb into no mans land.

    Seriously folks look at the history of the threads. We need to seriously do some research not just reporting second hand comments from newspapers and radio stations which are pushing their agenda.

    The second largest media group is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and he changed nationality so he could increase his corporation. News Corp owns Fox, WSJ, etc in the USA plus English, Australian and Asian newspapers. Murdoch faces police and government investigations into bribery and corruption by the British government and FBI investigations in the US. So he is a trusted source I don’t think so!

    Do some hard research.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:00 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    Now please tell me YOU are kidding.

    Setting off nuclear devices to try to control climate seems like the merger of two very bad ideas.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    @ Mountanman 7:25 a.m. Jan. 6, 2013

    So, the left uses climate change like the right uses terrorism. Whats your point?

    Alot of the climate change is cyclical but one would be nuts to think man is somewhat culpable in the process.

    If the leftist media were intent on scaring the general public then wouldn't they have had a conniption about the Kyoto protocols elapsing and not being renewed?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:24 p.m.

    Mountainman.... in the study you reported.... what was the value that the professor placed on a human life in his calculations..... I would be really interested in the math behind the quoted numbers. Are those Chinese or Indian lives, or American lives, because I highly doubt the compensation would be the same foe either.

    I would not begin to claim I am an expert on why we have global warming right now..... but I am surprised there are those who challenge the science that the event is taking place. Regardless of why, we all will bear the cost one way or another of its effectsl.

    For a long time, coal and wood were the carbon sources of energy de jour.... that has changed to petro sources. The change from coal to oil, led to a quantum improvement in quality of life. Why would anyone be against the US being the leader in the next transition to what ever the next future fuel is.

    Europe fell behind early last century because they refused to change - lets not repeat that same mistake.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    I'll tell you why we have global warming. It's due to natural causes. Look at the temperature records. The earth started warming about 150 years ago, and it was a good thing. It got us out of the Little Ice Age. It isn't clear if we've reached the peak yet - it's still significantly cooler than during the Medieval Optimum, when Greenland was farmed and there were vineyards in England. I'll never be able to figure out why anyone would want to cool the earth. That would be a disaster.

    Are there competent climate scientists who disagree with the premise that humans are causing the warming, and that the warming will be catastrophic? Absolutely. You'll just never hear about them in the mainstream media. For example, if you're looking for the best temperature record around, check out the work of Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer at UAH. They use satellites to perform comprehensive measurements of the entire globe, as opposed to the datasets that measure temperatures only above land and usually near urban areas - that's never going to result in very good data.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you realize that Limbaugh was referring to the hypothetical manmade Climate Change, and not climate change as a whole. In his first quote, he was technically correct. We have not had any significant warming in 16 years.

    So again, where is the denial? So far all you have done is take quotes out of context. Is that the best you can do?

    Science doesn't know what excactly is going on outside of the natural climate change that is due to many factors that they still don't understand.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    So people that think global warming is a hoax will never admit to being wrong than? Even if they are wrong.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    The problem is that nobody has shown that human-caused global warming is anything more than an assertion backed up only by computer models. Why should skeptics have the obligation to prove false an assertion that has never been shown to be credible using real-world data? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 10, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    But pops..... we have see examples of human affect on climate. We saw its impact during the great dust bowl, and how our farming practices were causing the loss of top soil. We saw it in the peak us of Coal in the 1700 and 1800s - where cities and their local environments were dramatically impacted by particulate matter in the air. The concept that man can impact local climates isn't in dispute... what is in dispute is at what level. I don't think there is a conclusive answer there.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 11, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    You're confusing weather and climate, UtahBlueDevil.

    It is known that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of IR leaving the surface and re-emits the energy at a different wavelength, thus slowing the rate at which energy is dissipated into space. All other things being equal, increases in atmospheric CO2 ought to have some measurable effect on global temperature. But all other things are not equal, and nobody has yet established any statistical correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. Any effects of increasing CO2 seem to be lost in the noise. There are other mechanisms that control the climate and render the CO2 effect irrelevant.