Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Natural disasters should be off-limits for political debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 3:40 a.m.

    I think the radical Left's fear of anything that they can't control i.e., the weather, brings to light their fears regarding their insignificance in the face of natural events. How sad to live your life as a secular being having no past nor post mortal future in your mind and thinking you must control everything in the present to have any hope for a few miserable years before the lights go out on a personal level.

    It's not about the weather, it is about control of others to try and bring an modicum of security to one's self.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    June 4, 2013 5:21 a.m.

    The headline I clicked on didn't have the same intention ans the article I read. The article is a national stanza to do nothing because we're not everyone in the world.

    Do you think the mighty USA is completely powerless to lead when lesser countries are actually trying to mitigate their impacts on climate change?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 4, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    From the headline I was expecting more. Oh well.

    But at least there is the acknowledgement that climate change is an issue and that human activity is a cause.

    It is certainly true that no one weather event can be tied to climate change and that there have always been tornadoes and hurricanes.

    As to the claim that "Any proposed legislation to combat climate change . . . would have no discernible impact on global temperatures unless nations like China and India adopt similar measures." True to a point. To clean the beach, you need everyone to stop throwing litter on the sand, not just the richest 1/4 of the beach goers.

    But it is not true that the efforts of the 1/4 will do nothing. Also, it will be impossible to convince the other 3/4 to stop if the richest 1/4 won't stop. Eventually, we all need to be involved.

    Stalling and waiting for "the other guy" to go first puts us into an odd game of "chicken". No one goes and the problem just keeps mounting.

    Folks worry about other nations controlling us. But if we lead, then we are in control of our destiny.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 4, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    How do you explain tornadoes before the industrial revolution. We are mere ants here we can't change the climate why let it control us?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 4, 2013 7:03 a.m.

    Isn't it confusing when a godless Congress blames one party for an "act of God"? What would offend God more, not passing an unbalanced budget, or 50,000,000 abortions? What would offend God more, a stalemate in Congress or a nation that is determined to undermine the most sacred unit: the family?

    If personal acts lead to natural disasters, then perhaps the liberals in government should make a long list of programs and projects that are offensive to God and then "repent" by changing those programs and projects so that God would not be offended.

    Anyone who reads the scriptures knows that there will be many horrendous "natural" disasters. Those who are sensitive to spiritual things understand what is happening. Those who have studied the prophecies know that these tornadoes and hurricanes are minor occurrences compared to other events. The prophets used the word "wickedness" when they assigned blame for these calamities. Maybe Congress should focus on the word "wicked" instead of focusing on the word "Republican".

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Whatever problems we have, "Climate Change" is being used not to fix them but to suck up large amounts of money and political power. The writer correctly points that out.

    We know heavy pollution can cause problems, (China before the games) but water vapor is much more an issue along with methane than Co2. Co2 makes great plant food. We need to protect rain forests.

    We need clean energy, clean air, clean water, clean land and energy independence.

    We also need to encourage energy efficiency and technologies such as ground source heat pumps.

    Coal is reportedly being removed fast enough in Utah that it could last only 15 to 45 years for use in Utah at current rates.

    Many existing coal source locations could shut down soon, and we have increased risk of other mining collapses if they don't.

    We will need more electricity to offset a reduction in the use of foreign oil, and we can't afford to just rely on coal.

    How much oil and gas is untapped in Utah and can we get it without hurting our state treasures?

    Do we have existing dams that we could add hydro power to, without putting more land underwater?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    June 4, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    Climate change is being used to suck up political power? How, by NOT doing anything about it?

    Hook line and sinker. Red radio has you in the boat.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    The front headline reads, "In our opinion: The Republicans need to support fighting climate change". The article headline reads, "In our opinion: Tornado politics".

    Those are two **very different** intros!

    When I first saw the front headline I thought, "Oh no! Not another ridiculous push to "fight" climate change based on a particularly bad weather event!" When I actually read the article I found that I agree with virtually everything it (and its preceding headline) says.

    What gives here?!?!

    Does the Deseret News have separate editorial teams for headlines versus articles?

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    June 4, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    I can't personally stop global crime so why shouldn't I steal? I can't personally bring about world peace, so why should I not kill? Lots of people are immoral and I can't change that, so why should I be chaste?

    This opinion piece is devoid of morality. It is also devoid of foresight. For the world to change, somebody has to do the right thing because it's right and somebody needs to step out and be a leader in trying to slow climate change. Why not us?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 4, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Somebody needs to do a better job of checking that the headlines match the articles.

    I don't believe anything can be done by mankind to change or effect the climate. The climate has been changing since time began. The only thing we possibly can do (if we believe the climate is changing) is to make adjustments accordingly. The climate has changed many times and mankind has always survived by adjusting to those changes. A thousand years ago the climate was much warmer than it is now and the people of that time lived a much easier and more prosperous existence. When the climate cooled down, they had a much more difficult time surviving. I don't believe there is any proof that a warmer climate would be detrimental. That's assuming it's even happening.

    The idea that we, as mere mortals, can do anything to change earth's climate is colossal arrogance.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 4, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    This entire article is simply a stupid capitulation to those who are in denial of facts.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 4, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Dear Wastintime: I'm so tired of listening to climate change advocates claiming they are morally superior based on their belief in something that has not even been proved. I've just seen too many scientists who don't believe in global warming to be convinced. In fact, environmentalst future projections have been dismally inaccurate since the 50s.

    What is devoid of morality is the notion that the poor don't have the right to keep warm or afford a car to drive. Only those who can afford solar power or hybrid vehicles should have a right to those luxuries. They shouldn't be allowed to have affordable fossil-fuel based cars or power. That elitest line is what's without morality.

    I say this as one with a home totally powered by solar energy off the grid. I'm fortunte that I can afford this, but I don't believe others who can't afford what I can should be forced to freeze in the dark.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 4, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Repeat the utah armchair climatologists' motto: If we deny we caused it, we don't have to fix it. It's simple, lazy, selfish and foolish, but we're stickin' with it.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 4, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    I guess it's no secret what the headline writer's opinion is on this topic.

    However, the climate itself seems to be battling climate change. Global average temperatures have not increased in 15 years. As it turns out, we were wise not to base our policy decisions on some kooky fad.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 4, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    The DN has its head in the twister. Fact: Rampant pollution is causing climate change worldwide. Fact: The Republican party has consistently resisted not only the facts but any measures to temper pollution. Why is this? Because the Republican party is always more interested in short-term corporate profits than in the environment. That's also a fact.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 4, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Re: "But it is not true that the efforts of the 1/4 will do nothing."

    Yeah, it is. Even honest climate "scientists" admit as much.

    If AGW is an actual, palpable phenomenon, and if it is as advanced as Al Gore, the IPCC, and other such climate hucksters insist, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop, or even slow its effects over anything shorter than a 500-year [the persistence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere], or so, period.

    By then, will Earth's residents even desire a return to a colder, drier, less plant-friendly environments? And, why should we presume to make that decision for them?

    AGW alarmists have simply failed to make a case for heaving tonnes of money at such a nuanced, unproven, indeterminate "problem," particularly when they can't even define the effect we would be seeking by such foolhardy and destructive overreaction.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 4, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @Cats – “I'm so tired of listening to climate change advocates claiming they are morally superior based on their belief in something that has not even been proved.”

    Depends on how you define “proof.” Are you looking for the same level of proof that tells you 1+1=2… if you are you’ll be disappointed as no science ever proves anything by that standard.

    Regarding the kind of proof science does provide, it might be enlightening to understand the difference between a healthy skeptic and a myopic denier. The following article provides a clear distinction between the two… which one are you?

    “Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers” – by Dr. David Brin

    @Nate – “Global average temperatures have not increased in 15 years.”

    This is a canard… 1998 was an unusually hot year largely due to El Nino so using it as your starting point will skew the data.

  • NorthboundZax Makanda, IL
    June 4, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    Of course it is a bit of a stretch to connect any single weather event with climate change, but these are the types of things we can certainly expect a lot more often. Insisting that because we can't know if *this one* is a product of climate change, we should just go on with business as usual is incredibly short-sighted. Endorsing not changing our own bad behavior until the Chinese change theirs first is hardly the kind of standing for something the DesNews should be proud of.

  • matt4226 Holladay, UT
    June 4, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    The reason we are seeing more destructive storms in recent years is because we have more developed land to be destroyed. There are a lot of tornadoes that don't get reported outside of the Weather Channel because they were in rural areas with few man-made structures.

    The earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the ice age, that is obvious to anyone who is willing to study the facts. Since the industrial revolution there has been an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Has this created an increase in the warming of the planet? I would say yes. As the earth continues to warm the tundra in Siberia will melt and release massive amounts of methane which will lead to even more warming. I just don't think any amount of climate change policy will reverse the trend. In my opinion we should focus our attention on how to adapt to the changing climate.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 4, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Dear Matt4226: You are making my point exactly. If the climate is changing, let's learn how to adapt to it rather than bankrupting ourselves trying to stop it. I don't believe there is one thing we can do to stop climate change. The climate has constantly changed since the beginning of time. Mankind has survived by adapting to it. That's the correct approach.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    @Cats
    "The idea that we, as mere mortals, can do anything to change earth's climate is colossal arrogance."

    We created the ozone hole problem, exacerbated the acid rain problem, then took regulations to help with both of those. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to believe when the observations are right there.

    "What is devoid of morality is the notion that the poor don't have the right to keep warm or afford a car to drive."

    Nobody is suggesting that as policy. You're just attacking strawmen.

    @Nate
    "Global average temperatures have not increased in 15 years."

    You just happened to start with the strongest El Nino (which tend to be warmer) in half a century and end with 4 of 5 years as La Nina (which tend to be cooler) and you wonder why there's no trend. If we were to look at natural effects alone the past 15 years we'd expect some cooling but that's not what we see. Even the years with a La Nina and a solar minimum in the solar cycle (during the 00s) are still warmer than all years in the 90s except 1998.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    June 4, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    All you are really saying Cats, is that you are willing to pass on the adaptation to future generations rather than be inconvenienced to develop sustainable non polluting energy for future generations.

    Our kids will run out of oil anyway, why leave them in a cruddy environment with a dying ocean as well?

    I haven't been inconvenienced by the solar panels on my house at all. It's been a phenomenal investment. That my kid knows I care about her future is priceless.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 4, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    I think the radical Right's fear of anything that they can't control i.e., the weather, "liberals," taxes, or dishonest Republican legislators brings to light their fears regarding their insignificance in the face of natural or human events. How sad to live your life as a faithful church member being having constantly worry about your eternal future in your mind and thinking you must control everything in the present to have any hope of reaching a Celestial Kingdom where your family will be waiting, while at the same time carrying the sickening burden of guilt for your failure to live up to Christ's admonitions to care, respect and support others who need your help.

    It's not about the weather, politics, taxes or party. It is about control of others who may be able to really act as Christians to try and bring an illusion of security to one's self by tearing them down.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 4, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    @Tyler D "canard" and atl134

    Whatever. Take the last 20 years, remove 1998 from consideration, and you'll see the same flat line.

    Or look at the hockey-stick graph generated by Michael Mann's climate model. Find out what he predicted would be the mean global temperature in 2012. Then look up what the mean global temperature actually was in 2012. You will see that we're falling off the low range of what the climate models had predicted.

    If you want it in simpler terms, read an article in The Australian entitled "Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled." Consider that science is established not so much by conceptual theories as by observed results.

    Whatever you do to inform yourself, I recommend adding a measure of critical thinking. When people only regurgitate left-wing talking points, they soon come to be judged as lacking credibility.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 4, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    At least this time we don't have the nut-cases saying President Obama caused the damage in Oklahoma to harm white people.

    After Katrina we had people in Louisiana saying the levy breaches after Katrina were not a result of the storm, but that President Bush had people breach them with explosives to harm black people.

    I agree that we should not use natural disasters to advance a political agenda, personal paranoia, etc. It's disgraceful.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Now how about those senate and house members who want to block disaster aid relief unless spending cuts are made elsewhere? Or are they not politicizing it because they tend to be Republicans instead of Democrats?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    @Nate
    "Take the last 20 years, remove 1998 from consideration, and you'll see the same flat line."

    The 2000s were .2F warmer than the 1990s even while still counting 1998 so what you suggest would not yield a flat line.

    @2bits
    "At least this time we don't have the nut-cases saying President Obama caused the damage in Oklahoma to harm white people."

    Nobody, aside from the HAARP conspiracy theorist nuts who believe both hurricanes and these tornadoes are a result of gov't conspiracies into weather modification, believe Bush CAUSED damage to New Orleans to harm black people, they criticized the lack of response and inadequate leveys.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 4, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    atl134,
    I think the difference is... they are not using the natural disaster as their excuse for blocking funding. We are talking about using natural disasters as a "never let a good crisis go to waste" type of opportunity.

    I think Republicans were trying to reduce spending even before the tornadoes. That's the difference. They are not USING the tornadoes as the reason for their spending debate. That's what we are talking about.

    YOU, on the other hand, are doing EXACTLY what we are talking about being off-limits here... (Using the tornadoes and other natural disasters as ammunition for your political agenda)

    I don't think you even realize that your comment was a perfect example of what the author was pointing out (people using natural disasters to politicize the situation and criticize their political opposition).

    What you and others are doing with the tornadoes (turning them into a Global Warming or other political debate)... is exactly what the author was getting at. Don't do it.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 4, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    @Nate – “Whatever you do to inform yourself… When people only regurgitate left-wing talking points, they soon come to be judged as lacking credibility.”

    Talk radio inspired hyperbole aside, this is sound advice. And I have read some of those and others as well, but not being a trained it’s difficult to know how relevant they are to the overall theory… which is really the point.

    The relevant point is why is the consensus growing rather than shrinking among scientists… all scientists… everywhere… around the globe? In spite of the earlier models not being perfect, why is it now something like 98% of all climate scientists unreservedly assert the AGW hypothesis?

    Unless it’s simply a case all thousands of them not being as smart as you, it seems a bit more likely that the scientific understanding of AGW (including model refinement, etc…) is changing and growing just like any other body of knowledge.

    Is it your view that the Earth’s self-cleansing capacity (e.g., the oceans have likely done much of this work over the last few decades) is limitless and we should all continue to just party like it’s 1999? Whatever…

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    June 4, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    It is true the climate is changing, but it seems to be entering a little ice age rather than heating up with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Sun spot activity trumps CO2. CO2 is a small part of global warming. The area hit is often called tornado alley. I think I would have a concrete house with a storm cellar. My advice would be to have some building codes appropriate for the area.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    @2bits
    My comments about climate change have nothing to do with the tornadoes since I am well aware that the IPCC report has shown no link between the two.

    "never let a good crisis go to waste"

    Which is exactly what the Republicans are doing. This disaster relief funding is being blocked by them so they can use it as leverage to get cuts elsewhere. That is clearly politicization and if calling them out on it is politicization as well then so be it because I will call them out on blocking disaster aid just so they can try and get something out of it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 4, 2013 2:15 p.m.

    atl134,
    How are Republicans using the tornadoes to block funding? These funding changes were made before the tornadoes even HAPPENED!

    If the disaster relief fund issue did not exist BEFORE the tornadoes I could see your logic. But the spending reduction proposals existed BEFORE the tornadoes.

    It doesn't make much sense for Republicans to start asking for disaster relief fund reductions in the middle of a disaster. And they aren't doing that. You are talking about proposals that were out there way before this event (not as a result of this event).

    I guess I can see how a political conspiracy obsessed mind could twist this into looking like Republicans are using it for some nefarious anti-oklahoma or anti-obama purpose... but the logic is so convoluted that it boggles the mind (that they would plan on there being natural disasters down the road and when they do... they could hold the funding hostage to get their other stuff). I don't think their nearly that smart or devious. Now Democrats on the other hand... just kidding. Nobody's that low to use relief funds in the middle of a natural disaster as a hostage.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 4, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    A recent published article by Australian scientists notes a significant increase in the world's flora representing a greening of the planet, they attribute the greening to an increase in CO2 and increase in temperature. Another article discussed the Brazilian rainforest how the decrease in Macaws has resulted in plants evolving in a short period of time to a smaller size of its fruit and seeds. The evolution cycle they said was taking place in under a hundred years. Scientist also say rampant particulate pollution has been negating the rate at which the earth is heating, offsetting the supposed rate caused by CO2. Someone anyone tell me the correct temperature of the earth and why that temperature is better than any that have existed in the last million or so years that it has changed from.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 4, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    @atl134 "...what you suggest would not yield a flat line."

    It would show temperatures increasing until 1998, and then no longer increasing. The warming stopped for a decade and a half -- a turn of events unanticipated by the climate models.

    @Tyler D "Unless it's simply a case all thousands of them not being as smart as you..."

    It's not that at all. It's the fact that the 98% to whose authority you are appealing have been proven wrong by actual events.

    When forced to choose between a conceptual model and measured results, real science goes with the latter.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 4, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    Liberals are action oriented. If a problem needs fixing, they're anxious to fix it.

    If a mining accident occurs due to sloppy safety practices by a mine-owner, liberals want to see mining safety regulations. If child laborers are exploited by factories looking to make more money, those liberals want to put an end to the practice.

    Liberal do-gooders try to enact laws to prevent a father from good, old-fashioned discipline and, you know, teaching his kids right from wrong (based on some over-exuberent prosecutor who used animal cruelty laws to punish a father.)

    Those darn liberals, led by Ralph Nader, sought to punish General Motors for making an unsafe car!

    And now they want to do something about global warming! The nerve!

    I suppose the D-News and good conservatives think we should all follow the lead of Senator Rand Paul, responding to allegation that mine safety issues caused the deaths of a dozen coal miners in West Virgina: "People just need to understand that sometimes accidents happen. There's no reason to get the government involved here."

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 4, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    Re: "The relevant point is why is the consensus growing rather than shrinking among scientists . . . ."

    It's not.

    A recent peer-reviewed study showed only 36% of geoscientists [that's earth science -- kinda like a climate scientist, but more holistic and broad-based and less politicized] "believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

    Climate "science" models don't work. They don't accurately predict anything. And EVERY dire climate "science" warning has, to date, proven false.

    Consensus among honest, objective scientists IS growing, but NOT in the direction of AGW alarmism.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 4, 2013 6:23 p.m.

    So we can't afford to clean the environment and invest in green energy but we can afford $600+ billion in defense spending anually and to wage a never ending war against an ideology?

    Huh?

    Do conservatives even bother to use their brains anymore?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    June 4, 2013 9:23 p.m.

    The nice thing about being republican is that you never have to admit you were wrong. Wrong about Iraq, letting banks police themselves, that Reagan was a fiscal conservative, the country will collapse entirely if Obama is elected, .... on and on. Don't forget that Clinton was supposed to have taken your guns away..

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 4, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    @Nate – “It's not that at all. It's the fact that the 98% to whose authority you are appealing have been proven wrong by actual events.”

    You need to read the David Brin paper I noted below… pay close attention to the part about the “young guns of science” and how science thrives in an environment of constant challenges to theories. Your assertion about what has and has not been proven flies counter to everything we know about how science is actually done.

    But the truly baffling part to me is why conservatives are fighting so hard against doing a whole bunch of things we should be doing anyway – things like becoming more energy efficient, researching the technologies that can provide energy in perpetuity, reducing pollution in general (not just CO2), reducing our reliance on an energy source largely controlled by countries that feel luke-warm-at-best towards us, etc…?

    Almost any scientist will tell you that in 100 years the sun will be our primary energy source. Why not fund the basic research that will help us get there quicker?

    I truly don’t understand the opposition…

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 4, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal – “A recent peer-reviewed study showed only 36% of geoscientists…believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis… “

    You mean that study where the vast majority of the 1000 or so respondents (geologists, geo-engineers, etc.) are employed by the fossil fuel industry? That “survey” has been widely discredited.

    I think Sinclair’s quote is relevant here - “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

    Fact - There is no major national or international scientific organization that disagrees with the fact of human-caused global warming. None.

    Nice try though… got any more tricks in your bag of obfuscation?

    Reached comment limit...

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 4, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    So 98% of scientists who study climate for a living are wrong why?

    Because they can’t discern the simple “facts” available to us? The data is going against them and they are unaware of the trend lines showing their conclusions to be entirely wrong? These are virtual impossibilities.

    So, if not because they can’t discern the “facts” then because they won’t? And why would that be? The only answer would be a worldwide conspiracy of fantastic proportions causing scientists from every culture, language, and political stripe to lie. Even organized crime syndicates don’t wield that kind of power.

    Please folks. Let’s get real.

    Procuradorfiscal,

    From the paper you cited “To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta.”

    So the survey is of scientists and engineers in one Canadian province where oil is a key industry and in which many of those surveyed are employed.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    I believe in climate change (it has never NOT changed)

    I believe that man can mess his nest (January air stinks)

    I also believe that some climate change zealots lie (University of East Anglia)

    I believe some facts are not accurate (NASA first states that co2 heats the earth and now says it cools)

    I believe a single volcano can cause more change than anything presently done by humans (Krakatoa)

    I believe Al Gore’s claims that 400 ppm will cause the end of the world are just plain goofy (co2 levels were 200 to 500 times higher during major ice ages w/mammals)

    I believe co2 is the same kind of poison/pollutant as water (it is only bad when it is drowning - otherwise it is good)

    I believe that just as there are climate skeptics and climate deniers; there are also climate believers and climate bullies and the bullies dominate on these posts. Since science is all about questioning: it is truly ironic that the deniers are actually more scientific than the bullies.

    Mostly I believe that man should clean up his house, respect nature and find humor in irrational overwrought hysteric doomsday climate change fundamentalism

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 5, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    @Twin Lights "These are virtual impossibilities."

    The first impossibility is that 98% of climate scientists think exactly alike. No poll finds everyone in agreement on every aspect of the question. While they may agree generally that recent warming has occurred, and that some perhaps-minuscule component of that warming has been contributed by man, there is still wide disagreement on specifics.

    But let's assume for the sake of argument that they really are all alarmists, and that they're all wrong together. It doesn't require a conspiracy for this to be the case. All it takes is for them to be missing some unknown fact. (Which, by the way, describes virtually every moment in the history of science.)

    In the case of global warming, they are finding climate sensitivity to be something different than they had anticipated. Temperature is not as responsive to carbon dioxide as they had previously thought. Their models were incorrect. There's no shame in this. They just need to find out what their mistakes were, and correct them.

    The situation requires humility rather than hubris; dispassion rather than political activism; rational thinking rather than alarmism.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 5, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    To "atl134" if you look at the last 30 years of satelite data, there has been no statistically significant warming. The only warming has been based on the ground temperature sensors which don't cover the oceans, most of Africa, most of South America, large portions of Asia, and the poles.

    To "Tyler D" is scientific truth determined by what scientists believe or what they can prove with repeatable experiments or simulations?

    Actually there are organizations that disagree with the whole idea of AGW, groups like:

    George Marshall Institute
    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
    Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
    Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

    If you couldn't do the quick 30 second search to find those organizations that deny AGW, what else have you missed because you failed to do your own reasearch?

    To "Twin Lights" I think what you are seeing is that 98% of government funded climatologists want to keep their funding, so they will say whatever the government wants to keep their funding.

    See "The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory" in Forbes.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 5, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    RedShirt.

    Reference groups that oppose climate change:

    George Marshall Institute - a conservative lobbying group that started with missile defense
    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - the brainchild of Arthur B. Robinson, a scientist with a very conservative political agenda
    Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) - a conservative advocacy group set up by Fred Singer
    Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change - see SEPP

    These are advocacy groups, not science organizations.

    Reference your point to me. So EVERY govt. on the planet has the same interests here? That is either fantastic collusion or simple acknowledgement of the facts on the ground. I am not interested in the science views of Forbes.

    Nate,

    On settled science, high agreement is the norm. Yes, there is disagreement about the degree and speed of change but not much that change is coming or as to the source (us).

    As to missing facts. Folks here post “facts” the scientists are missing like there is a well-known pile of them.

    As to models. No doubt. They will be refined again and again.

    I could not agree more reference the need for rational thinking.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 5, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    To "Twin Lights" the question was "Fact - There is no major national or international scientific organization that disagrees with the fact of human-caused global warming. None"

    The Marshal Group may ore may not meet the the criteria, but here is some interesting things that you are AVOIDING.

    The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a scientific organization that is against the AGW theories and regularly denounces.

    The NIPCC is a scientific organization that opposes AGW. Again proving that there are scientists that disagree with the status quo.

    The big question is that with NASA, and other scientific groups finding large holes in the current AGW theories, why do you still believe in the results of the poorly constructed models? NASA recently figured out that heat is escaping the atmosphere faster than the models predict, Colorado found clouds reflect more heat.

    What your ilk has yet to prove is that the models that are being refined can even produce outputs that are close to reality. Right now their models are as accurate as a 10 day weather forcast. They may get tomorrow right 70% of the time, but beyond that they are not much better than a guess.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 5, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    Re: "So 98% of scientists who study climate for a living are wrong why?"

    There's the $64,000 question!

    BTW -- no honest investigator actually believes the 98% figure anymore. That's so last year! But whatever the number is, there's no good explanation for why so many are cajoled, herded, bullied, bribed, threatened, or otherwise roped into such an obviously phony and political "consensus," about such an obviously flawed and uncertain, unproven, unmodeled, unexplained, and unlikely theory.

    Such foolishness is NEVER countenanced in real science.

    The search for the Higgs is illustrative -- investigators agreed beforehand on operationally defining a Higgs track, how long they'd look, at what energy levels, etc. They modeled results and made predictions. When the data came in, raw numbers were shared with all investigators and theorists.

    Only THEN, they came to their consensus. Not on what guts tell them, but on whether the data actually support the models, predictions, and hypotheses.

    Published results included data -- no alibis over "proprietary" interests.

    No marginalization or labeling dissenters as "deniers."

    That's science!

    AGW? Not so much.