I agree. Coal IS crucial. But it comes with an environmental price we should not
require our children and grandchildren to pay.
The illustration included here is interesting as it shows the long, long trains
that carry coal from the mines to the coal-fired power plants. While "experts" tell us coal is cheap, I had the opportunity to talk
with one of Utah's utility executives some years ago and I asked him why
his utility was pursuing wind power. His response was, "as a hedge against
railroads." I was baffled. He explained that one of the biggest costs of
coal is transportation and the ONLY transportation for coal is by rail.About 90 percent of railroad traffic in America is dominated by only FOUR
companies, giving them significant bargaining power over coal companies to
charge significant rates to move coal. Railroads also relied on expensive diesel
fuel, which was another factor impacting coal costs. Wind, which didn't
require railroads or diesel fuel after installation, completely cut out those
rising expenses for the utility. One of the problems with fossil
fuels is that we often hear the "cost" without other expenses, such as
transport or externalities, including climate change, pollution, or water and
drilling subsidies. We need to communicate the full cost accounting
of our energy use, including subsidies.
WE can't control the climate why let it control us and destroy prosperity
higv: WE can't control the climate why let it control us and destroy
prosperity....the dust bowl comes to mind, how'd that
prosperity work out for them?and mans Ignorance and greed, combined with a
drought which caused it.
@ baronWhen you talk about looking at the full cost of energy does
that include wind and solar subsidies? If we look at one industry it should be
fair to look at them all. I like the idea of wind power I think it can be
beneficial, but at the same time I dont want to rely on it.I would
also really like to know what the "subsidies" are that oil companies are
suposed to receive. Last I read Exxon's financial statements they paid
close to 40-42% in taxes.
What warming? 15 years of flat temperatures is enough to demonstrate that the
climate models that give CO2 such a prominent role are just plain wrong. There is plenty of room for skepticism.
The little environmentalist who cries warming is the biggest environmental
problemIt diverts attention from more pressing and real problems (such as
legitimate worries about Utah air quality)Climate change has never NOT
occurred and despite recovering from a particularly cold period in the
1800’s, climate has not warmed for the last 15 years – despite the
hysteria, misinformation, outright lies and bully tactics
We can bury out heads in the sand. But, like EVERY other environmental problem
we have dealt with, it is our grandchildren who will have to pick up the pieces.
They will wonder why we were so profligate - especially having been warned.
Will the man made global warming hoax ever die? As our grandparent's
science (empirical evidence) is to us, so will our science (empirical evidence)
be to our grandchildren. Go on with your lives folks, pay no attention to the
climate change wizards behind the curtain! They only want your money (carbon
taxes)! Don't believe it? Al Gore now has more money than Mitt Romney but
Mitt earned his money, Al Gore scammed his!
higv: ygtbk!The people who deny human-caused climate change remind
me of the mother who was watching the marching band go by and exclaimed,
"Why look, everyone's out of step except my Johnny!"
Climate change is happening and it is human caused. Anyone who says otherwise is
willfully ignorant. The data exists.
@ Ernest T, Bass. Prove that man made climate change is happening!
higvDietrich, IDWE can't control the climate why let it control
us and destroy prosperity7:17 a.m. April 3, 2013============Nobody said we "control" the climate, but we
do have an "affect" on it.The "effect" is Global
MountanmanHayden, IDWill the man made global warming hoax ever die?
==============Nope - because it ISN'T a hoax.BTW - The only who keep perpetuating that global warming are the same
clowns on the radio who also say tobacco doesn't cause cancer.I'll stick with Science, and ignore the college drop-outs on the AM
@higv"WE can't control the climate why let it control us and
destroy prosperity"We made acid rain (though a cap and trade
program made that less of a concern. We made the ozone hole (though the Montreal
Protocol regulation has largely halted the worsening of it).@Thinkin
Man"15 years of flat temperatures is enough to demonstrate that the
climate models that give CO2 such a prominent role are just plain wrong.
"The 2000s were the warmest decade on record at around .2F
warmer than the 1990s. The most recent 15 years are the warmest 15 on record.
2012 was the warmest La Nina year on record. @Mountanman"Will the man made global warming hoax ever die?"Maybe
when we stop seeing things like record warm years (2010 warmest, 2012 was the
warmest La Nina year), record warm decades (2000s were .2F warmer than the
1990s), and record Arctic sea ice lows (shattered the record in 2012)... maybe
then we'll stop talking about what is going on that you're so bent on
@ Thinking man. Your stats are baloney! The ambient average earth temperature
has not warmed since 1996 except for a few very local weather patterns. Nice try
but I can find local weather stats that show the earth is actually cooling! Take
Russia for example where they just has near record cold temps this winter and
record snow falls on the east coast and it some areas of the Midwest. Scientific
theories are so easy to postulate if you use the right "data". Drat that
other data, drat it! Global warming theories are a dime a dozen and so are bogus
climate change computer models!
I believe.....in natural global warming. People are going to be grateful for it
when the massive earthquake hits SLC and the fairly mild winter that it will
bring to people who wouldn't have been able to survive otherwise.
Here are a couple of quotes from prophets:"What then shall you
do with Jesus that is called Christ? This earth is his creation. When we make it
ugly, we offend him." —Gordon B. Hinckley"We recommend
to all people that there be no undue pollution, that the land be taken care of
and kept clean, productive, and beautiful." —Spencer W. Kimball ========I don't think the Global Warming Deniers
posting here are being Good Stewards of the Earth as God expects them too.I am curious - how does one rationalize what's right and
what's wrong so?
@ Open minded Mormon. There is a huge difference between being a good steward of
the earth and buying into bogus climate change theories. God controls the
climate, not man. I consider myself a good steward of the earth because I pick
up trash, consume little by comparison and I keep my portion of the earth clean,
painted and manicured.
Excellent letter Dr.!But it will no doubt be lost on the folks who
believe that climate change is a hoax because for many of them their belief is
more religious in nature – certainty is near absolute while the supporting
evidence for their position is virtually nil (like 13,950 to 24).
"Nice try but I can find local weather stats that show the earth is actually
cooling! Take Russia for example" That's your local stats?"God controls the climate, not man." Awe the victim of an
angry god.Dust BowlAcid RainOzone HoleBurning
RiversYep all Gods Fault?Theres plenty of evidence for
even a casual observer to read, there is scant evidence the other way but if you
getting your links from AM radio dropouts I can see the confusion
To "Open Minded Mormon" but man made global warming is a hoax or at a
minumum is based on faulty data.According to the NOAA the models
used to predict CO2 based warming stated that there was a 95% chance of never
having more than 10 years of no statistically significant warming. According to
Michael Mann and others we have not had any statistically significant warming
since 1997. That means we are 6 years beyond what the models predict. If the models are wrong, what makes you and your ilk think that the
results are correct?Would you fly on an airplane if you knew that it
was designed around unobtainium skin, but built using aircraft aluminum?Also, if manmade CO2 is so bad, why is it that according to NASA 98% of
atmospheric CO2 is natural, and is part of a largely unknown cycle?It seems like when it comes to climate change, there are more unknowns than
knowns.One final thought is this. Why is warming so bad? Thanks to
warming we will be able to feed millions of more people, and the number of
animal species increases during warm periods.
The global warming argument is funny. On one side, you have 99 percent of all
credible scientists in the world and on the other side you have Glenn Beck.
Facts and evidence from people with PhDs who have spent years studying the
problem in depth and are now in almost complete consensus, vs the word of an
absolute loon who says it's all a hoax.
"On one side, you have 99 percent of all credible scientists in the world
and on the other side you have Glenn Beck.""certainty is
near absolute while the supporting evidence for their position is virtually nil
(like 13,950 to 24)."Could you please site your source for that
information?Otherwise I will simply discard it as typical
"ignorant" hysteria and bullying
HVH,so you're saying man DOES control the environment? really?
@Mountanman – “God controls the climate”And we
used to think God controlled a whole bunch of other natural phenomena, but today
we can now scientifically explain much of the natural world. We still have much
to learn but off the top of my head, I cannot think of one natural process or
event which science once explained, but which is now best understood by
employing the God hypothesis. But I can think of countless
explanations that have gone the other way.@Redshirt1701 –
“If the models are wrong, what makes you and your ilk think that the
results are correct?”You trot this stuff out regularly and yet
it raises the question, “why do the overwhelming % of scientists still
assert that man made climate change is a fact?” What are they
missing? Are they just not as smart as you… and Glenn, and Rush?@Counter Intelligence – “Could you please site your source for
that information?”Did you not read the letter? Look it
up… I can’t do all your work.
To "Tyler D" taht is an easy question to answer. It is called funding.
They know that if they study man-made global warming they get tons of funding.
If they say climate change is natural they get little to no funding.The funny thing is that the scientists who proclaim man causing all our
problems admit that their models are bad.The scientists are not
missing anything. They know that their models are not valid. It is the press
and politicians and others of your ilk that don't understand science that
keep blaming man for a natural phenomenon.
@Tyler DI stand corrected (on your quote - which I did not realize refered
to the letter - although repeating misinformation mutiple times, even 13,950 to
24, does not make anything true) Those who rely on published reports
to guage the accuracy of a theory might also want to read Michael Barone: The
Economist's Emily Litella moment on global warming.
@Redshirt1701Interesting hypothesis – only one problem with
it:In science, you actually win points by proving others wrong. If
climate change is a hoax, it would be easy to disprove and a group of clever
young upstarts could win a Nobel Prize (and make a lot more money) by doing
so.I think the fact that this has not occurred pretty much torpedoes
your theory. But regarding financial motivation, let’s compare
geeky scientists on the one hand - who care little about politics or money (most
just want to do science) - to AM talk radio and fossil fuel business interests.
On the one side we have folks who are perhaps motivated by grant
money in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars range. On the other side
we have folks who make millions (talk radio) and billions (oil companies and
Arab Sheiks) – actually it’s more like trillions if we calculate the
present value of all untapped oil reserves – by pushing a
friendly-to-their-side narrative.If we’re comparing ulterior
motives, I think the scientists come out ahead by a mile.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "Tyler D" taht is an easy
question to answer. It is called funding. They know that if they study man-made
global warming they get tons of funding. If they say climate change is natural
they get little to no funding.=========== To whit -- It's called advertising, bribes, and kick-backs.You
don't think Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck say what they say without being
paid?How did they make their $.Limbaugh and Co. are shills for
big Tobacco and big Oil.Why else do they support what they do?Certainly no sane Scientist attributes good health to smoking - even if
it's cigars.Why do you promiote fools like this.I
listen to them on occasion.Here's their formula (schtick).Take a subject, wind up the listeners, sell them a remedy.Period.Oil, Tobacco, LifeLock, DailyBread, Carbonite, Gold-Line, And exagerate the enemy.Whip up some fear and paranoia, and viola! an snswer to all your
fears!Snake-Oil Salemanship.same as it ever was.
A few points.First, regarding how our grandchildren will look at our
science. For someone now in their 30s, the science of their grandparents would
be the 1950s, not the 1850s - so even our crude science should have some
reliability.Second, what should we do? Assume all of our current
science is junk and do nothing whatsoever on ANY front? Please. We would never
do a thing about anything. We would be immobilized.Third, God
created the earth but it is governed through natural law. Why will God rescue
us from our environmental stupidities when we had the ability to help ourselves
had we but been brave enough to do so? Are we not responsible to care for the
earth?Fourth, reference money and the grand conspiracy theory - that
all the scientists toe the line for money/funding. Remember that Al
Gore’s entire fortune is 0.1% of the market capitalization of Exxon Mobil.
Even ignoring that, how do you hold such a grand conspiracy together? The
Mafia has a GREAT program for keeping people quiet and even they can’t
keep people from leaving the fold and yakking. Large scale conspiracies simply
do not hold.
@Mountanman – “God controls the climate”============== Spoken as only a uber-true Conservative could say
it - Taken right out of the Dark Ages, pre-renaissance of the 15th
century.Look - God doesn't micro-manage anything.He's not up there somewhere spinning the sun and stars around the flat
earth with his finger.He sets universal natural laws into motion,
and lets Mother natural run herself.Like winding up a clock and letting it
tick.WE - on the other hand - because of FreeWill and Agency, can -
and do - get in there and screw things up all the time.Pollution,
chemicals, fire, detergents, ect. all upset a delicate balance.We
WILL be held accountable for our Stewardships.I will fight you tooth
and nail, every step of the Eternal way.
@Redshirt1701"It is called funding. They know that if they study
man-made global warming they get tons of funding. If they say climate change is
natural they get little to no funding."The easiest way to get
funding is to be accurate. IF it were all a hoax/wrong, the fastest way to get
funding is to expose it all. “If the models are wrong, what
makes you and your ilk think that the results are correct?”They're generally mostly correct actually and while there are some things
that are outside the confidence intervals you all seem to ignore the ones that
suggest more rapid climate change (like sea ice levels last september were way
below the IPCC projections the last half a dozen years). @lost in
DC"so you're saying man DOES control the environment?
really?"What made the ozone hole a major problem if it
wasn't human caused CFC emissions? Deforestation's effects on things
like erosion? Acid rain? We can influence the environment.
@Twin Lights Best comment so far! The mafia analogy was
perfect…@Counter Intelligence – “I stand
corrected… although repeating misinformation mutiple times, even 13,950 to
24, does not make anything true)”Please keep in mind that
we’re not talking about “proof” or “truth.” If
you want those things, stick to math & logic. Science is about probabilities
and evidence. Look, I’m no scientist. I don’t know
(first hand) if climate change is real – although logic tells me that you
cannot keep dumping ever increasing amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere
without negative consequences - and for all I know Redshirt may be right. But the question is who we trust to provide the information? By this
standard, I think it is most rational to trust 13,950 scientists against 24. And
the case gets stronger still when we consider the financial motivation of the
oil companies to distort and lie in order to keep the spigot turned on. I will read the paper you recommended though… no such thing as too
much (good) information.Reached comment limit… cheers all!
Let's be clear here folks. There is a huge difference between climate
change and global warming. Let's NOT confuse the two! I am clearly on the
side of the climate change folks. So far there is NO evidence to convince me
that global warming is a reality. Furthermore, there is no evidence to convince
me that the human footprint is responsible for more than 3% of climate change,
yet folks on the left want such massive controls on our collective lives as to
impact us all economically.
Mountainman, you ask us to prove that man-made warming is really happening. How
about if you PROVE that it is not. PROVE it beyond a doubt.You
remind me of the people back in the late 50's and early 60's who
fought violently against the then hypothesis of plate tectonics, or continental
drift.Whatever happened to them?Continental drift was an
interesting subject, but today we may be facing one that is a dire threat to the
very survival of the human race. Are you saying we should simply ignore the
possibility that it is happening and just hope for the best?Your
grandchildren may look back on you with some disgust as their lives peter to a
It seems to me that every week or so we have the same argument with the same
deniers saying the same things even though the evidence keeps stacking up on the
side of Climate Change induced by ever growing Fossil Fuel emissions and methane
emissions from livestock.For the record Australia (a large country)
just had its HOTTEST summer with all sorts of records broken just the same as
the Northern Hemisphere’s record braking summer. So please explain this
all you deniers!If climate change is a hoax (involving 30,000
scientists) and we have reduced the amount of coal burnt with the mercury and
radium etc that it releases into the air we breath , is not this a good thing!
Rikitikitavi. From the article, the study "found that of 13,950
articles, only 24 rejected human-caused global warming".Your gut
feel versus the results of almost 14000 peer reviewed studies over a decade,
99.8% stating that global warming is real and humans are contributing to it. Let's be clear here. Science supersedes your opinion by a large
The only unchanging truth in the world of science is that what scientists
believe today, will be different than what they believe in the near future. So much for scientific facts.And remember, in Columbus'
day, much more than 99.8% believed the world was flat. It was the 'odd man
out' we revere for his contribution to the world, not the rest of the
Re: "Climate change is happening and it is human caused."Let's assume for a moment the truth of this unproven/unprovable
statement. The only intelligent and appropriate response is, "so
what?"There is literally NOTHING that can be done to
meaningfully slow, let alone reverse, the flow of carbon into the atmosphere, or
to ameliorate any effects that may occur as a result.Every ounce of
coal or oil we don't burn will be gratefully snapped up and burned by the
developing world, which will benefit from it at our expense, and which will
NEVER enforce energy controls that might slow their economic growth.Climate "scientists'" problems don't end with lack of
credibility. A much larger problem with real people in the real world is
relevance.Real third-world people, faced with choosing between an
unproven possibility of an uncertain level of global warming, with some
undetermined effects, in some undefined future, and the certainty of starvation
today are a lot smarter than liberals and tree huggers hope they are.
What Dr. Folland doesn't say is that "of 13,950 articles", not a
single one of them proves that any of the warming is the result of human CO2
emissions. It hasn't been done and apparently can't be done because
the effect of atmospheric CO2 is so small as that it can't be extracted
from the data using even the most sophisticated statistical techniques. For him
to assert that "the major human contribution to global warming has been
burning fossil fuels, especially coal" is disingenuous at best and downright
dishonest at worst. Many assume that's the case because of the enormous
propaganda campaign of the last 20 or 30 years, but nobody has succeeded in
showing it with the data. Sorry, Dr. Folland.And if you believe
otherwise, show me the paper.
Procuradorfiscal,First, climate change is unprovable only in the
sense that something is proven only in the past tense (it actually happened).Second, using the best knowledge available to us (science) the only
answer is certainly not “so what”. The answer is to then follow the
science to make the best choices possible. The third world is an
issue. The choice between starvation and pollution can be moved forward. But
the developed world can hardly lead the way if not living what they preach. Badgerbadger,So radiating the world is acceptable because
who knows but tomorrow radiation will be found to be healthy? Smoke all you
want because next week we will find out that tobacco is good for you?Please. Science IS ever advancing and new knowledge sometimes confirms and
occasionally displaces old knowledge. But it is the best information we have.
What else should we rely on?BTW, scientists did not believe the
world was flat in the days of Columbus.All,Science is
our friend, not our enemy.“The study of science is the study
of something eternal. If we study chemistry, we study the works of God."
To "Tyler D" you have taken your arguments out to left field and are
jumping the fence. The problem that your ilk fails to realize that the
climatologists do care about funding. It is their job that is on the line. No
money means not eating, so they are highly motivated to push the adgenda that
gets them funding.Various independant sources have found that there
is a high level of corruption in the AGW field. See "The Climategate
Whitewash Continues" in teh WSJ where we find that the climate papers that
you believe are not getting independant reviews. It also points out that the
AGW believers are not seeking truth, but prevent publication of papers
disproving their man-made warming theories.In the article
"Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At
Congressional Hearing" at the Climate Depot, we learn that politicians
suppress anybody from telling them that they are wrong.The problem
with the climate models, as you point out is that they do not meet the standard
95% Confidence interval to prove they are accurate. Plus, fossil evidence shows
that the climate has changed on its own more rapidly than current trends.
Just so I understand all the rebuttals against climate change.It's the liberal media, reporting lies by the liberal scientists, for the
communist regime of the foreign born dictator, Obama who answers to the All
powerful Al Gore, who also (along with everyone but the conservatives and oil
companies) want's to destroy America by fighting pollution using fake
science, when they know that they have no control or responsibility for what God
is doing to the environment.
Happy Valley HereticIf you must lie about what other believe to make your
point - you have no point - except that you lieMost of skeptics
think that climate change happens (with or without man present), man can affect
his environment (although generally not at the scale claimed by zealots), but
that the current crop of climate change panic is based on misrepresentation of
facts and frenzy and the cure is worse than the disease
With the exception of a few ignorant deniers of climate change the rest of the
intellectual world understands the data. The problem is not proving what is
happening to the incapable (like Mountanman or Worf) but our desire to do
something about it. Mother Nature will take care of the problem and she is
impartial and ruthless.
Counter Intelligence said: If you must lie about what other believe to make your
point - you have no point - except that you lie.Everything I said
can be found in the posts of the comments on this thread, with the exception of
Obama's birth, which is not outside the realm of usual comments.
I keep waiting, but apparently nobody can find the paper that establishes the
link between global temperature and atmospheric CO2.That's
because nobody has found a link. Not that there haven't been attempts, mind
you. Michael Mann's tree-ring hockey stick looked pretty good until it was
discovered that one could feed noise into his statistical methods and they would
produce a hockey stick. Keith Briffa thought he'd done it with his Yamal
series, but that turned out to be based on a very small number of trees on the
Yamal Peninsula, and if one tree in particular was removed from the data his
hockey stick would disappear. As if trees make good thermometers.The
Medieval Warm Period was warmer than we are now. The warming that we experienced
up until about 1996 was nothing more than the earth recovering from the Little
Ice Age. Unfortunately, we seem to have stopped short of the balmy temperatures
of the Medieval Warm Period.No warming for the past 17 years in the
face of ever-rising atmospheric CO2 levels invalidates the computer models at
the 95% confidence level according to NOAA. Sorry about that.
Global warming/climate change is a hoax not easily intelligible to those who
have NOT heard about the Chicago carbon credit exchange scam. After you
comprehend what is going on with the carbon credit exchange then the reasoning
behind it's "science" becomes crystal clear.....seize control of
the earths resources for the elite banking/government monopoly who want to rule
the world with dictatorial powers.
PopsNORTH SALT LAKE, UTI keep waiting, but apparently nobody can
find the paper that establishes the link between global temperature and
atmospheric CO2.-----------I leanered this in 4th grade
elementary school -- 1966.Venus.The surface temperature of our
sister planet is 462 (°C)The atmosphere of Venus is mainly CO2,
which is a greenhouse gas and causes the greenhouse effect.There's your link.
I put people who believe in man made global warming with those that beleive the
moon landing was staged.
To "Open Minded Mormon" that is nice, but it doesn't connect global
warming to CO2 emissions. All it says is that CO2 is an atmospheric gas that
can trap heat, it does not connect man made CO2 to warming.If the
Earth's warming is due to CO2, why is it that Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and
Neptune's Moon Triton are undergoing warming at the same time the earth is?
I don't know of a whole lot of human activity going on there. Even where
there is exploration going on it is by solar powered vehicles, so they are not
adding anything to their atmospheres.Can you or anybody explain how
those other atmospheres are warming without man's influence if the
earth's warming is due entirely to man?
Few people ever bite the hand that feeds them. Whether someone makes their
living building bombs, brewing pesticides, or in Mr. Harris' case, mining
coal, they will defend to their dying breath only the benefits of their product
and none of the hazards. All objectivity is lost when a paycheck or
a career is involved. This is why we can't believe a single word of the
endless propaganda spewing from the fossil fuel industry. Money can taint
anything, including honesty and ethics.Thanks to Dr. Folland for an
informative and objective point of view.
To "Snake Man" then who can you believe. If those that get their
funding from coal, oil, or gas companies are tainted because of their
connections, what about those that get government funding? Since the biggest
names promoting man-made climate change get their funding from governments, and
those governments want to use that research for their own adgendas, using your
arguments, we cannot trust them either.So, since we can't trust
those who are funded by fossil fuels, and we can't trust those who are
funded by the government who is left to tell us what is going on with the
environment? Even Dr. Folland had to get his information from a tainted source.
Redshirt,To say that governments control all of the climate
scientists means that ALL governments have the same interest - the US, Great
Britain, Sweden, Russia, China, Korea, etc. etc.Do you really
believe that EVERY govt. on the planet is trying to push things in the same
direction?That would be a colossal feat - beyond what we are able to
do in nearly any other international situation. What motivates these otherwise
extremely different govts. to all seek the same thing?It would seem
to indicate that some unseen power is manipulating the govts. to all want the
same outcome.In any case, such a level of collusion would indicate a
conspiracy of absolutely vast proportions. Beyond any we have ever seen
sustained in history.
Man made global warming is a hoax that is being used to get the population to
pay a carbon tax directly to people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore and make
them super rich. This is a total ponzi scheme.
OMM - Venus, eh? And how much closer to the sun is Venus than earth? Or perhaps
that didn't occur to you. Note that energy of the sunlight falls off with
the square of the distance from the source. That's a significant
difference. (You might also check out the temperature of Mercury. It gets really
hot there!)The problem of statistical correlation is this:
atmospheric CO2 has been going up pretty much monotonically (ignoring diurnal
and seasonal variations). What does the temperature do? It goes up, it goes
down, it stays the same. There's no correlation. If there's no
correlation, then either the atmospheric CO2 has no net effect, or the effect is
so small as to be lost in the noise. That's why NOAA said that a period of
15 years with no warming would invalidate the computer models. We're past
that. The models are wrong.