Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Global warming reality

Comments

Return To Article
  • Y-Ask-Y? Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    I agree. Coal IS crucial. But it comes with an environmental price we should not require our children and grandchildren to pay.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    April 3, 2013 6:28 a.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 3, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    WE can't control the climate why let it control us and destroy prosperity

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 3, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    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.

  • interested Logan, UT
    April 3, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    @ baron

    When 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.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    April 3, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    The little environmentalist who cries warming is the biggest environmental problem
    It 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

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 3, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 3, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    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!

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    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!"

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 3, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Climate change is happening and it is human caused. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully ignorant. The data exists.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 3, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    @ Ernest T, Bass. Prove that man made climate change is happening!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 3, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    higv
    Dietrich, ID
    WE can't control the climate why let it control us and destroy prosperity

    7:17 a.m. April 3, 2013

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

    Nobody said we "control" the climate, but we do have an "affect" on it.

    The "effect" is Global Warming.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 3, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    Will 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 radio.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    @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 denying.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 3, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    @ 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!

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 3, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 3, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    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?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 3, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 3, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    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).

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    "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 Bowl
    Acid Rain
    Ozone Hole
    Burning Rivers

    Yep 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

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 3, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    "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

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 3, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    HVH,
    so you're saying man DOES control the environment? really?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 3, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    @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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 3, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    @Tyler D
    I 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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 3, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    Interesting 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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 3, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    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.

    ===========

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 3, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 3, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    @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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 3, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    @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!

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    April 3, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 3, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    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 wretched end.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    April 3, 2013 9:47 p.m.

    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!

  • silo Sandy, UT
    April 3, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    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 margin.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 3, 2013 10:11 p.m.

    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 sheep.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 3, 2013 10:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 4, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 4, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    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." Brigham Young

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 4, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 4, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic
    If you must lie about what other believe to make your point - you have no point - except that you lie

    Most 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

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 4, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 4, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    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.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    April 5, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 5, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    Pops
    NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    I 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.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 5, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    I put people who believe in man made global warming with those that beleive the moon landing was staged.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 5, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    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?

  • Snake Man Holladay, UT
    April 5, 2013 2:01 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 5, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 5, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 5, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 5, 2013 10:57 p.m.

    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.