The ocean absorbs a lot of Co2. Sure, you can change the atmosphere
and nothing will happen. Keep believing.
If the climate isn't warming, why are glaciers and ice sheets melting at
Larry how do you explain this major cold front we are having. I would much
rather have milder winters myself.
liberal larry: I hope you didn't strain a hamstring making that logical
leap. You sound like one of the many armchair scientists who read editorial
commentary rather than scientific studies and then regurgitate it as scientific
truth. The author of the letter is correct (to the best of my
knowledge). There has been no credible scientific study closing all the links
for global warming scare-mongers. I'm just glad I'm not on
trial for my life to be judged by a group of peers comprised of those who
develop iron-clad and unchangeable decisions based on nothing more than hearsay
When you look at the 100 year charts for global temperatures there is no doubt
of warming. When you look at just the last 15 years there appears to be a level
period. But there are other level periods in the steep increase of over a longer
period, there are even decreases for several years. Cherry picking
doesn't make science. They can't say there is no warming over 20 years
or 60 years or 100 years. There is substantial increases for those time frames.
It's just pathetic really to even contemplate when you look at all the
How well I recall the claims made over and over again that, despite much higher
incidence of cancer among smokers, that there was no direct or causal link.Yeah, right.
Yeah, right. Come back and tell us this again fifty years from now.
Living humans and all other living animals produce and exhale CO2. How do you
propose to stop that? Legislation? No one is allowed to work or exercise? Reduce
the population by killing? Obviously can't be done.Flaws to
global warming alarmists theories:#1 Global warming is questionable,
scientists do NOT concur. #2 IF warming WERE occurring, there is no
verifiable link between man's chosen activities and global warming. There
is all evidence to show the earth warms and cools naturally, in cycles.Paranoid alarmist chicken littles are wasting our time and resources with this
notion of global warming.These are the same folks who sign online
petitions to outlaw dihydrogen monoxide.
Put your head in the sand repubs! The earth is flat. And
the sun revolves around the earth.
Twin LightsLouisville, KYHow well I recall the claims made over and
over again that, despite much higher incidence of cancer among smokers, that
there was no direct or causal link.Yeah, right.7:45 a.m.
Jan. 23, 2013============== Funny and sadly ironic you
should mention that...Becasue their Conservative HERO and GOP
figurehead -- Rush Limbaugh -- still, to this very day, tells them tobacoo does
not cause cancer, and that smoking is actually GOOD for you.[Because
- ALL science is wrong, and only he, the Hajha-Rushdie, the college drop out -
Yeah...I have heard all kinds of statements attributed to Rush Limbaugh and then
broad-brushed to any Republican or conservative. It was a successful campaign
tactic when one idiot GOP candidate, Todd Akin, talked about legitimate rape.
I guess if that is a fair tactic then all Liberals and Democrats
believe that islands will tip over if there are too many people on one side.Why don't we raise the level of dialog here?
@higv"Larry how do you explain this major cold front we are
having."Cold front? We're sitting in a ridge of high
pressure. When the snow comes tomorrow we'll be warmer than today. I'm
going to just change your question to "explain this 12F below average cold
we are having this month".Cold days still happen with global
warming. As cold as it's been we haven't even been within 5 degrees of
a record low any of the days this month. We set/tied 14 record highs last year.
Think of it this way. The Earth has warmed roughly 2F in the mid-latitudes the
past 100 years. 100 years ago we'd have heat waves and cold... whatever
extended cold is called. We still have those ups and downs, it's just that
you can think of all those days as being 2F warmer than they'd be without
global warming. So that 14 degree below average day in 1900 would be a 12 degree
below average day now (or 14 below a 2F higher average). @Christian
24-7"#1 Global warming is questionable, scientists do NOT concur.
"Anthropogenic global warming skeptics don't even argue
that global warming isn't occurring.
Global warming doesn't necessarily mean it will be warmer in the winter. It
does mean that seasons will be more severe. Look at our last summer! Hot hot
hot! Look at our winter. Cold cold cold.
Open Minded Mormon,That would be because of the lack of scientific
consensus on smoking . . .I think the issue here is that we
sometimes want to wish away that which does not fit our model of the world. We
fear control if the answer is something we don’t want so we avoid even
considering that which could be negative to our currently held views.It is not that govt. control and the proper response mechanisms to climate
change are not real questions (and questions worth debating) but we never get to
that debate because we are too busy burrowing deeper and deeper into denial so
that we never have to deal with such questions directly.Avoidance by
Kerry,No evidence connecting human CO2 emissions and climate
change?Then you're not bothering to look.Google
"human co2 related to climate" and watch what happens.Simple
ignorance is not a sin, but willful, beligerant ignorance is.
Ease up on climate change?I can't see the mountains in the SLC
valley...when I am INSIDE the SLC valley.
Our air pollution is worse for EVERYONE than smoking is for the few who choose
it.You have no Free Agency, and no right to clean air.You'd think the Word of Wisdom and Free Agency would have most Mormons
supporting cleaner air?But sadly too many value Party Politics and
their AM radio shows over all Common sense, reasoning, and even Spiritual advise
on the matter.
To "liberal larry" maybe you need to go and get your eyes checked. The
article said that the climate is changing, which is true. The article also said
that so far there is no scientifically proven link between CO2 and climate
change. This is also true.To "Open Minded Mormon" was the
link between smoking and lung cancer made by consensus or scientific proof?If we followed your flat earth policy and resolved scientific debate
with a vote, then the earth is still flat, the universe revolves around the
earth, and there are only 4 elements.To "Blue" it is true,
none of the studies out there trying to link CO2 to climate change do so withing
the 95% confidence interval which is used to establish scientific connections.
It's good to see the climate scientists writing letters and responding to
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTIf we followed your flat earth
policy and resolved scientific debate with a vote, then the earth is still flat,
the universe revolves around the earth, and there are only 4 elements.========= Flat Earthers, Earth is at the Center, 4 element, God
made it so, never question the Church -- close minded, prserve the status quo,
change-nothing, question nothing, do nothings = are Conservatives. close
mindedThat's WHAT Conservative means. Columbus was an
Open minded, enlightened, Question everything [including Religous Dogma],
To "Open Minded Mormon" again, you are wrong. The " close minded,
prserve the status quo, change-nothing, question nothing, do nothings"
people have been found to be liberals.Look at the policies that your
ilk wants to impose. It is nothing more than joining the "status quo"
of europe.You do not believe in change, and attack any who question
the changes you want to make.Read the following to understand
conservatives better, and see how they are more open minded and doing more than
your ilk."Republicans more open-minded, better informed than
Democrats" in the Daily Caller"Online, liberals far less
tolerant than normal people" IBD"People Choose News That
Fits Their Views" at Live Science where they found that Conservatives read
opposing views.Actually Comlumbus was a CAPITALIST. He was looking
for a way to beat out the competition to make trade with the Asia cheaper. Not
a progressive move since it would harm existing state business interests.
@RedShirt -- Little history lesson -- Do you know who paid for Columbus'
voyage? Answer -- the King and Queen of Spain (i.e. the government). It
wasn't some private entrepreneur, sorry to tell you. Kinda like today when
government funds some things that private industry won't, which then turns
around and benefits all citizens. (e.g. the transcontinental railway, advances
in aviation, the computer, nuclear power, lasers, semiconductor advances,
interstate highways, the internet, lots of medical research, etc., etc.)
To "Wonder" yes I know that the King and Queen of Spain (not the
government of Spain) funded the trip. You see, in Monarchies during that time
in history, the kings and queens owned all of the land. They funded things to
keep their private enterprises operating.What is something that
private industry won't fund? They funded railways, and would have
eventually connected the continent, the biggest leaps in aviation has come from
private industry, the same for computers, nuclear power, semi conductors,
medical research. Private companies build highways, but because of the
government have not constructed interstate highways (Toll roads).
The majority of people accept climate change and most accept it's related
to burning of coal. There hasn't been a below average tempeture month for
the last 30 years. However they fear the cost of moving to a low carbon life
style. It is that fear that politics and greedy executives are using to cloud
the issue.Many executives and politicians agree off the record that
climate change needs urgent attention, but few are prepared to speak up for fear
of upsetting "business as usual". This is a fundamental failure of
governance – directors and politicians have a responsibility to
objectively assess and manage the critical risks. But by acknowledging climate
change as a serious risk, they are bound to act, which requires a radical
redirection of business with consequences for their short term profit and
income. Their solution “denial”, irrespective of the
consequences. This denial flows down the line to the right-wing media and AM
shock jocks to create confusion.However let’s look at the
insurance companies, the actuaries are factoring in the costs associated with
climate change, that is increased weather extremes causing insurance losses.Can we have a discussion on solutions?
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "Wonder" yes I know that the
King and Queen of Spain (not the government of Spain) funded the trip. You see,
in Monarchies during that time in history, the kings and queens owned all of the
land. They funded things to keep their private enterprises operating.========= You mean like - in a monarchy, that the King and Queen -
who own everything, who rule and reign suporeme ARE the Government RedShirt?[and can't see/comprehend that?!]Score:Wonder -
1RedShirt - 0
I enjoy warm weather a lot better than cold weather. Since meteorologists
don't get weather right the next day how can they get it right the next
American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Astronomical
SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic
SocietyAustralian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIROBritish
Antarctic SurveyCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
SciencesCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyEnvironmental Protection AgencyEuropean Federation of GeologistsEuropean Geosciences UnionEuropean Physical SocietyFederation of
American ScientistsFederation of Australian Scientific and Technological
SocietiesGeological Society of AmericaGeological Society of
AustraliaGeological Society of LondonInternational Union for
Quaternary Research (INQUA)International Union of Geodesy and
GeophysicsNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Oceanic
and Atmospheric AdministrationRoyal Meteorological SocietyRoyal
Society of the UKOrganizations acknowledge CO2 - global warming
link. 13,950 peer review articles of which 24 reject global warming. 95% correlation not required for scientific confirmation in complex systems
such as climate. The world isn't linear redshirt.
The entire temperature record should be considered, not just bits and pieces.
The earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age 150 or so years
ago. Of course we're experiencing record high temperatures - that's to
be expected when the planet warms and we don't have records from before the
Little Ice Age. To assert that humans are causing the warming is problematic -
how can one distinguish between the 100 years of warming before the last 50
years of warming? They look the same on the temperature graph. And that's
in line with the fact that nobody has been able to establish a link between
atmospheric CO2 and temperature. There just isn't statistical
correlation.Organizations don't do science, scientists do.
There are apparently 13,926 peer-reviewed papers that presume a link between
atmospheric CO2 and global climate - hey, they have to if want to be funded -
but 0 that have established statistical correlation between climate and CO2.
Over 31,000 scientists and and engineers say there is no link.
higv,Please learn the difference between climate and weather before you
embarrass yourself further. This is a very important distinction regardless of
which side of the climate change debate you find yourself on.
Bebyebe,I think you are wasting your time debating folks like Redshirt,
unfortunately. I tried to have a polite discussion with him about gun control
yesterday and ended up getting personally attacked when I didn't agree with
his interpretation of facts. Considering insulting terms like "you and your
ilk" keep getting thrown around, I don't think an exchange of facts is
going to get us anywhere. There may be 13,926 peer review articles on climate
change, but if someone isn't going to believe in climate change because of
their world view, then there might as well be 0 articles.
Redshirt,"If we followed your flat earth policy and resolved
scientific debate with a vote, then the earth is still flat, the universe
revolves around the earth, and there are only 4 elements."Careful about making broad accusations beyond the scope of inference. It is
conservatives who deny the Theory of Evolution for no scientifically justifiable
reason. It is conservatives who work tirelessly to rewrite history and science
in America's school textbooks to protect their narrow world view. It was
conservatives who hired crooked conservative scientists to claim that there were
no proven health effects from smoking cigarettes. It is conservatives who lobby
to prevent funding for research on gun-related deaths in this country because
they are afraid of what the data will show. When it comes to systematically
ignoring evidence contrary to their world view and instituting "flat earth
policies", there is no one who does it as well as conservatives.
Good letter. Global warming, er, "climate change" is merely a
convenient banner for overzealous activists to undermine freedom and capitalism,
and have greater control over people's lives.
To "Bebyebe" so what you are saying is that in order to publish climate
studies the climatologists had to LOWER the standard from the established
scientific norm of 95% CI.Think of it this way. Would you trust
drivers that only had to pass 25% of the questions on a driver's test more
than those who pass it at 75%?Why do you accept studies that
wouldn't have been published if they met the same standards as nearly every
other hard science field?To "Emajor" if I passed an article
around to all of my buddies that believed the same things that I believe, would
you trust that article?
RedShirt -- When you (or Mike Richards, Voice of Reason, J Thompson,
etc.)Can't get the more likes than us Center-Lefts, in your own
home field -- the most conservative newspaper in the most conservative state in
the Nation...That should tell you just exaclt how far-right-wing off
the radar you've become.Try taking your arguments to the
heathens in San Fransico or New York.orare you too insecure and just
fishing for affirmations?
@liberal larry:"If the climate isn't warming, why are glaciers
and ice sheets melting at record rates?"Some aren't. Some
are growing.Anyway, what's the big deal about warming?
Climates have changed many times over the past eons... even when homo sapiens
did not roam the earth. What does that tell us?
To "LDS Liberal" what homefield? In journalism there are always more
liberals than conservatives. Are these boards meant to be popularity contests,
or are they meant to be ways to dispel lies and to discuss the topics at hand?
If I get what you are saying, you think that it is better to be popular than to
speak the truth.To use scriptural reference for why I don't go
to a SF or NY newspaper, look at it this way. First I must remove the beam from
the eye of this place before I can worry about the mote elesewhere.Since you cannot deny or even refute what I last posted, I will assume that
you realize that you have no credible evidence to show that reducing the
standards to allow publication of poorly conducted scientific research is a good
Emajor: Concur. One shouldn't play with trollsOne more time:
Redshirt you are not a scientist. You don't understand the concept of
models and how they explain the natural world.You and your ilk only
see simple, linear, bimodel relationships. The universe doesn't work that
way but if that's what you need to live, so be it.
Bebyebe,I certainly agree. But I can't help it. I have a
pseudo-academic interest in watching contortions of logic and reasoning and this
has proven very very fascinating. Redshirt,"First I must
remove the beam from the eye of this place before I can worry about the mote
elesewhere."That about says it all right there. Beacon on a
hill, light of the world. But are you sure the "mote elsewhere"
isn't your own eye?
"science isn't about wishes or opinions."Indeed
it's not Kerry.Scientists have been studying the climate for
decades and have a tremendously solid understanding how it can change over time,
and what causes those changes. Have they proven that CO2 levels will heat the
planet in the same way it can be shown that 1+1=2... no. But no science ever
proves anything to that degree - it's the difference between deductive and
inductive logic.Science is about observation and evidence, and the
current evidence for man-made climate change is overwhelming. And to correct
another misstatement in this letter, scientists have been able to observe a
climate under the impact of large amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere right in our
own neighborhood… it’s called Venus.For those interested
in the current state of climate science, check out David Brin’s excellent
paper “Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers” published in 2010.
To "Emajor" I am sure that there is not a mote in my eye.To
"Tyler D" the problem with the current climate scientists is that they
really don't understand man's impact on the climate.For
example, Mars and Neptune's moon Triton have had their climates warming at
the same time that the Earth has been warming. They have no explaination
besides saying that it is driven by solar activity. They have even reported
that the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking.How can Mars and
Triton be warming at the same time the earth is warming without all of those
humans adding 2% more CO2 into the atmosphere?The problem is that
the scientists don't have little questions that are still unanswered like
David Brin claims. There are huge questions that the AGW alarmists have yet to
answer. Questions like, if the little ice age ended in 1850, how do we know
that the earth is not warming up to what it should be? How do we know that the
warming is not natural since past geological evidence shows that the climate has
changed quicker in the past than it currently is changing?
@ Redshirt1701Your questions are intriguing and assuming they have
merit (I’m not a scientist and don’t have a quick answer) and are
not just politically motivated red herrings that have been answered by
scientists already, Dr. Brin would no doubt put you in the category of
“skeptic” rather than “denier.”And
that’s really the point of his paper (distinguishing between the two) and
he argues at length that all good scientists welcome good questions;
that’s what drives scientific progress. Trying to disprove theories is one
of the main aspects of good science.However since something like 97%
of all climate scientists are overwhelmingly convinced that AGW is real, I
wouldn’t get too carried away. And despite your two silly and
inflammatory statements (in an otherwise rational post):“the
problem with the current climate scientists is that they really don't
understand man's impact on the climate” And calling
them“AGW alarmists”I’m inclined to
give the benefit of the doubt to people who typically by temperament are not
alarmists or even overly emotional.
I keep seeing statements such as "the current evidence for man-made climate
change is overwhelming", but I don't see any such thing in the
science.The vast majority of the peer-reviewed papers characterized
by commenters here as providing evidence that humans are causing global warming
do no such thing. They study things like "The effect of global warming on
the migratory patterns of jellyfish". Such papers are useful in that they
help us understand how nature adapts to climate change. But it doesn't
establish a cause for climate change.The computer models were
supposed to show how our CO2 emissions have affected the climate. But
they've failed badly. Temperatures are significantly lower than the models
show they should be. There's no heating of the troposphere, which there
should be. There's no statistical correlation between warming and
atmospheric CO2. Mann's famous hockey-stick paper relied on faulty
statistics and cherry-picking of samples. Briffa's relied on ONE tree to
"prove" AGW - of course that didn't pass muster.So
where's the "overwhelming evidence"? I don't see it.
To "Tyler D" at one time 97% of scientists thought the earth was flat.
At anothe time, they thought the universe revolved around the earth. At one
time in history, scientists thought there were only 4 elements, earth, wind,
fire, water. At another time they thought that nothing could go faster than the
speed of sound. Another point in history had scientists saying that nothing
travels faster than light.There are many instances where a consensus
among scientists has been proven wrong. Do believe that the earth is flat and
the universe revolves around it?
@ Redshirt1701 – “"at one time 97% of scientists thought the
earth was flat”There’s only one problem with your point
– science and the scientific method are modern inventions (starting with
the philosophical underpinnings of Descartes in the 1600’s). Prior to that
time there were no “scientists.” Sure, there were great thinkers but
they lived in a world steeped in superstition and dogmatism. And these were not
men conducting experiments and following evidence, usually because they lacked
the tools (e.g., a microscope).So back to today – can science
get it wrong, sure. The business of good science is to continually test
hypotheses, and as Dr. Brin points out, disproving prevailing theories is often
a quicker path to getting prestigious honors than confirming them. But when the
evidence gets stronger all the time and more and more scientists reach the same
conclusions, I think we are foolish to not listen to what these folks say (and
even more foolish to get our “science” from politically motivated
non-scientists).Despite what the right-wing media would like us to
believe, there really are experts who know a great deal more about a given
subject than the average Joe (the Plummer).
To "Tyler D" so lets get this clear. Eventhough, using the established
modern scientific method there is no link between CO2 and climate change, you
think that we should adhere to what they say because a bunch of smart people say
so.If you look at what the prevailing scientists state about climate
change, there is no way to disprove it. If the climate warms, it is CO2 driven
climate change. If the climate cools, it is CO2 driven climate change. No
matter what happens, their theories all state that it is CO2 driven climate
change.Dr. Brin may point out that disproving a theory is a quicker
path to honors, but with climate change, the alarmists are the ones who control
the scientific journals and are able to suppress articles that disprove their
@Redshirt1701 – “using the established modern scientific method
there is no link between CO2 and climate change”Where do you
get this stuff? Please, name the peer reviewed scientific journal.And if you believe there is no relationship between a warming planet and CO2,
I have a one word response… Venus.Here’s a quote from
Skeptical Scientist:“So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence
for CO2 warming. Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation. Satellite
measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space. Surface
measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at
wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this
energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.”Come on man, what does your common sense tell you? That we can burn
fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate over long periods of time and that
somehow this will have no effect on the climate? But by all means,
if it makes you feel better in your identity, keep believing that climate
scientists are a bunch of idiots.Last post… reached comment
You're missing an important element, Tyler. Most skeptics agree with every
point you've made, particularly those who do climate research for a living.
The issue is that in spite of those observations, there still is no CO2 signal
in the temperature data, and that means that atmospheric CO2 apparently
isn't something we need to worry about.Earth's climate
system is very complex, but it's also apparently very stable in that
it's able to handle the effects of atmospheric CO2 so handily that we
can't detect any global effect.