Quantcast
Utah

Obama says time to act is now on climate change

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pipes Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 7:22 p.m.

    Time to act is now on unemployment, the economy and many other issues as well. He's just spewing more mindless rhetoric to appease the liberal masses.

  • Ett Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 7:41 p.m.

    Several "green" company failures at the taxpayers expense and Obama thinks we need to act on climate change. This is not the time for another Solyndra or Aptera Motors. He needs to shelve his iffy climate policies. He's out of his depth.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 25, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or “very close to zero.

    “The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

    According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, "the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their claims of global warming"!

    A prolonged decline in solar output will begin sometime around 2040 and subject the Earth to global cooling that will last 200-250 years, scientists at Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory report.

    Gee, it seems the only "scientists" still promoting the climate change hoax are Democrats here in the US!

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    June 25, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    Right on Pipes!

    The Dear Leader is will do ANYTHING to take the heat off his myriad of scandals.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    Do liberals have any idea how much COAL it took to build the United States to the point where most of us have access to health care, education, homes, running water, other infrastructure?

    There are developing nations in Asia who NEED and WANT out coal to develop to the same degree we have.

    Barack and liberals have some gall to tell these developing nations "go build wind farms"

    We enjoyed the benefits of coal for hundreds of years to take this country to economic prosperity

    And liberals want to tell everyone else "sorry only we get to use coal"

    Now you have to use "clean" energy

    Never mind they can't afford it. That's their problem.

    Barack and liberals are fighting the export of coal to these nations

    An I thought liberals took care of the poor?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 25, 2013 8:37 p.m.

    Mountainman,

    Go to the NASA website for Average Surface Temperature. Look at the graphs and data for yourself. The trends are clear.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 25, 2013 8:56 p.m.

    Twin lights. Read what German, Swedish, Danish and Russian scientist have published about the data you are referring to. The trends are clear.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    You have to be extremely naive to actually believe that we can pass more laws in this country which will unilaterally change the climate. Even if it worked (which it won't), Hello! Has anyone noticed that there are actually other countries and economies on the planet, and that they don't automatically buy into and adhere to all the political gyrations and machinations that come out of Washington? Like I say, extremely naive at best.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    June 25, 2013 9:57 p.m.

    Hey Twin Lights; NASA is part of our government's hysteria on global warming, and recent news shows we can't trust our government; read this
    "Global warming stopped 16 years ago...." it is from the UK Daily Mail, Google it! You can't trust the US media lapdogs for Obama. We need jobs, families are struggling to make it, now Obama will raise the cost of energy.

  • Solutions not Stones Spanish Fork, UT
    June 25, 2013 10:16 p.m.

    ‘Obama says time to act is now on climate change’

    Yeah, before this fizzles out like so many other discredited green fallacies that litter the landscape.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 25, 2013 10:43 p.m.

    Mountainman and Woodyff,

    I am unconcerned about Pres. Obama or any other president. The issue is what we need to be looking at long-term.

    Since you like Hans von Storch, here is a quote from the original Spiegel interview:

    "SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?"

    "Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you."

    The following is from Bjorn Lomborg:

    "The president should instead ask the rest of the world to follow the U.S. lead on green innovation. Economic models show that this is by far the best, long-term climate policy. If we all invested far more to innovate down the cost of future green energy, we could outcompete fossil fuels faster and truly solve global warming."

    Nils-Axel Morner does dispute sea level rise. He may have a point. He may not. But he also champions dowsing. Of the two (climate change or dowsing) I will go with the former.

    Climate scientists worldwide are on the side of climate change.

    Please, let's drop the politics.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2013 10:58 p.m.

    " . . . let's drop the politics . . "??? When you're talking about politicians and their agendas, it's ALL about politics. One reason we're in so much trouble in this country is that too many people fail to understand and recognize that government IS politics.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2013 11:27 p.m.

    Fellas, the science behind the reality of human-caused climate change grows every day. How about instead of citing that thoroughly debunked Daily Mail article, you read the the findings of the National Academies of Science?

    NASA is part of some kind of conspiracy? Seriously? Do you have the tiniest understanding of how the scientific review process works? NASA could no more muzzle its climate researchers than it could fake the moon landing. Oh wait, you probably believe in that conspiracy theory, too.

    "You have to be extremely naive to actually believe that we can pass more laws in this country which will unilaterally change the climate."

    Sure - just like we naively believed we could remove lead from gasoline, require cars to be equipped with airbags and seat belts, control CFC's through treaties to avoid the complete destruction of the ozone layer and pass laws to regulate how much toxic waste factories can dump into our rivers. Yep, that's naive all right.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:12 a.m.

    Act Now....Hurry kill more jobs before the economy starts to recover!
    After all why would this president want to save our economy?
    Twin Lights, What do you do to make a living?
    Are you just another EPA governmental worker? or are you one of the many paid environmentalists that we get to deal with?
    Maybe you are one of those people who buy into the whole pack of lies and live off the grid?
    Actually "NOT" you are writing on a computer and I am sure you are consuming things too.
    Your point are not valid unless you practice what you preach!
    Do not produce ANY green house gases and we will give you the time of day!

  • Max Charlotte, NC
    June 26, 2013 6:09 a.m.

    Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day but does anybody rely on it? The problem is that he is SO done. Nobody cares what Obama says anymore.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    June 26, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    I guess the Utah Flat Earth Society is in session.

    I hope you enjoy the day.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    Iowa gets about 25 percent of its electricity from wind. Oregon, Colorado, and Idaho get over 10 percent each from wind. Solar accounted for almost 50 percent of all new electricity capacity developed in the first quarter of 2013.

    If renewables are such a failure, why are they working so well and literally booming in growth?

    I look at eBay and Ikea here in the Utah with their giant solar arrays and the rapid payback those companies claim they're getting from those investments... even Walmart is aggressively pursuing renewables so that it can stabilize its energy costs (remember, renewable energy is price stable and predictable -- no volatile fossil fuel costs) and not have to rely on utility monopolies.

    What is it that these states and companies see in renewables that folks in Utah can't see? Why is the GOP so concerned about protecting coal unions and unionized coal jobs?

    Romney's siding with coal and rejection of renewable energy in Iowa and Colorado probably cost him those conservative states in the election... Renewable energy is pumping millions into those state's economies. Coal's pollution and black lung disease is simply creating more need for ObamaCare (and RomneyCare)...

  • freedom in 2017 paradise, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    Barry is totally out of touch. Only 3 1/2 years left.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    This is a complete attempt to deflect attention away from his lousy performance as president. Terrible on the economy, scandals galore and the embarrassment of being unable to get the Russians to turn Snowden over.

    1. I don't think we can do ANYTHING to change the climate.
    2. Even if the climate is warming, I'm not convinced it is harmful. It's probably beneficial.
    3. Instead of bankrupting ourselves trying to do something that's impossible, we need to adjust.
    4. I've seen too may scientists who don't believe in global warming.
    5. The climate has been changing for millions of years and we've always survived.
    6. The climate was much warmer a thousand years ago and life was much easier for everyone.

    I wish we could stop this hysteria, stop wasting a fortune on it and get on with life.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 26, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Cats

    It may be such an attempt. But the issue precedes him and will survive him.

    Can we change the climate? Yes. We have done so repeatedly in the past on a smaller scale. You live in Utah. Where do you get your water? How did the desert bloom? I have seen us say the same thing about rivers and oceans (too big to fill or impact). We were wrong.

    Is warming harmful? Maybe not in tiny amounts. But the effect compounds. What about your grandchildren? Why would it be beneficial?

    Yes we need to adjust. But part of that adjustment is to slow down our filling the atmosphere with our waste products.

    There are few scientists (who are climate scientists) who don’t believe in climate change. Yes, there is disagreement on the pace and scope of change (which would be expected), but not the basic issue.

    Survival is different from thriving.

    county mom,

    No I am not an environmentalist (my friends would think that description to be odd).

    I do not advocate drastic or Luddite responses. But we need to get our heads out of the sand and get to work on the problem.

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    June 26, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    I'm amazed there are people who think US liberals invented climate change. Most of the rest of the world acknowledges the problem and wonders how we can be so blind.

    Whenever climate change is discussed I'm embarrassed to be a Republican.

  • FelisConcolor North Salt Lake, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Blue:

    The conventional wisdom that the earth is warming may be growing "every day", but the actual temperature data do not agree. According to satellite data 1998 is still the hottest recorded year, and global temperatures have remained on a plateau since then; the global average temperature in 2008 was identical to where it was in 1988.

    At this point, measured global temperatures have fallen below the predicted levels of almost every computer model, which suggests the hysterical sky-is-falling scenarios used to justify sweeping, restrictive regulations are less and less plausible.

    Now, this could be due to natural variation, or heat absorption by oceans, or increased particulate pollution in China. But since the earth is not heating as quickly as everyone claimed it would 20 years ago, a little less hysteria and a little more reason would be nice.

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    June 26, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    re. Twin Lights: "Go to the NASA website for Average Surface Temperature. Look at the graphs and data for yourself. The trends are clear."

    Unfortunately, these days science is only clear if it already agrees with one's current thinking. Otherwise it's either skewed or part of a conspiracy.

  • FelisConcolor North Salt Lake, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    Twin Lights

    You are operating under the false assumption that there is something which can be done to stop global warming. There isn't.

    Even if you shut down every internal combustion engine and every fossil-fuel power plant in America the ambient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase every year because the US accounts for only about 20% of global anthropogenic carbon emissions. In the meantime, the economic fallout of such draconian actions would impoverish Americans and lead to even more misery and death than doing nothing at all.

    These regulations proposed by President Obama would cut US carbon emissions only slightly and do nothing to stop the increase in global CO2 concentration. If you believe that increasing carbon emissions will create runaway global warming then his actions yesterday are little more than a feel-good Band-Aid which will enrich a few, impoverish many, and do nothing to solve the actual problem.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    Question to all you believers. Why did your movement change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change? It is to cover your bases? I suspect so, since it was only back in the '70s that scientists were worried about the coming Ice Age.

    The first question we all should ask of any scientist today is who is feathering their nest? If they are on the government dole, then they had better be keeping the liberal party line if they want continued funding. Pure science, I'm afraid, is hard to find. Agenda driven science unfortunately is driving a lot of opinion. Science should be as seperate from government as many of you want religion to be. Otherwise science becomes an extension of politics.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    The Obama administration has a stellar record: 100%.
    One Hundred Percent wrong on every issue, every time. Wait until the full force of the "Affordable (that's a good one!) Care Act" hits, for example. People who continue to believe in Federal solutions to problems either haven't been paying any attention, or somehow cling to the idea that these brilliant people in Washington always know more than the rest of us--despite the unending evidence to the contrary. But sooner or later you'd have to think that the totally ridiculous would become somewhat obvious.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Twin your trowing stones a a hornets nest and casting pearls before swine.

    The same posters who predicted a landslide win by romney are going to continue to be disappointed
    by their mentors on am radio.

    ...and a race to the bottom is not a solution

  • grandmagreat Lake Havasu City, AZ
    June 26, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Just one more reason, that we have the wrong man in ofice. I didn't expect to live long enough to see this happen in this great country that my Ancestors fought for in every war since the Revolutionary War, to and including the present day battles.

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    June 26, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    @happy2behear
    Newsweek did a story in 1975 predicting an ice age so everyone assumes that was the scientific consensus of the time. However, there was no real scientific consensus on global warming in the 70's, 'though based on the few published scientific papers they were tilting slightly more toward warming than cooling.

    Or you could be referring to the Time cover from 1977 with the penguin that says "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age" but that one is actually a hoax. The real title was "The Global Warming Survival Guide".

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @JP

    And so we seem to be seeing the same lack of consensus on the so called Climate Change issue. Climate change is as certain as the seasons every year. And every year nets different temperature results. That hockey stick graph that had lots of people worried has been challenged by lots of people. So who do you believe? Probably the ones with whom you agree with politically. Which of course brings me back to my point that science has been corrupted by politics.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 26, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    happy2bhere,

    You are confusing weather with climate. The lack of consensus is political not scientific.

    Most of the scientists keeping the "liberal party line" have the same line they did under conservative Republican administrations. If you think this is a conspiracy ask yourself how you control academics (an unruly lot) of virtually every political stripe, language and culture. Such control would make the Mafia weep.

    Happy Valley Heretic,

    I understand. But I am not trying to stir hornets. Rather to challenge assumptions based on politics vs. science.

    FelisConcolor

    So we can change nothing? We throw up our hands in defeat and allow our grandchildren to suffer for our stupidity (like with our national debt)? The US cannot lead the way? Treaties with other nations will not help? We are powerless victims of the will of other countries so let’s just pollute ourselves because what others do makes it okay (mom, all the other countries get to pollute, why can’t I?)?

    Seriously, the problem is difficult, not impossible. The economics will adapt. The nations that invent the technologies to help here will benefit.

    Again, I do not care about what the President said or did not say.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    If Obama really believed in climate change and the urgency of doing something to combat the output of CO2 into the atmosphere, he should be parking Air Force 1, except for events that could not be handled via Skype. Anything else is just the liberal ploy of establishing policies and practiced that apply to everybody else.

    To "Twin Lights" the NASA surface temperature data is highly questionable. Just look at the distribution of stations. They are located mainly in the US, southern Canada, Western Europe, the rest of the world has few stations recording data. The more accurate satelite data shows that there has been little to no warming over the past 30 years.

    To "Allisdair" they sure are in session, and I think they are going to nominate Obama and his cronies for lifetime membership.

    To "Baron Scarpia" wind and solar are not working so well. Those projects would never be produced if it wasn't the $20+ per megawatthour of energy produced (beyond the same tax breaks that other power sources also get). If it was so good, why does it need massive subsidies to be competitive with gas, coal, and nuclear?

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    Twin Lights

    There is no confusion. Climate is about longer time periods of weather. But they are both connected.

    Scientists, have skin in the game to get government funding (therefore they are political) for studies like these. Funding from politicians. And it doesn't matter who is in the White House, as any bill passed by Congress contains billions of pork dollars aimed at stuff like this. If the line item veto still existed, then maybe a President could be held accountable, but it gets passed because more important items are needed to be funded. Almost 17 trillion debt and counting.............

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    @Cats
    "1. I don't think we can do ANYTHING to change the climate"

    Global dimming? (Our pollution problem 30 years ago that we cleaned up).
    Acid rain? (We used cap and trade on the emissions that made the acid rain issue worse, since then it's improved)
    Ozone hole? (Now trending in the right direction after the Montreal Protocol).

    "4. I've seen too may scientists who don't believe in global warming."

    Not many of them are climate scientists. Likewise I wouldn't trust the weatherman to perform brain surgery.

    "6. The climate was much warmer a thousand years ago and life was much easier for everyone."

    Most studies suggest that it was not warmer globally a thousand years ago than it is now.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    @FelisConcolur
    "According to satellite data 1998 is still the hottest recorded year,"

    One would notice that years 2-12 on that satellite list all occurred after 1998. As a result the 2000s were ~.2F warmer than the 1990s. So what's special about 1998? Why was it so much higher than 1997 to the point that almost every year after 1998 is between 1998 and the years prior to 1998? Well you actually hit on a key point which is...

    "this could be due to natural variation,"

    1998 had the strongest El Nino in half a century. El Nino years tend to be warmer and La Nina years tend to be cooler. Studies that have attempted to filter out natural variations show a warming trend continuing through the 2000s (rather than the flatish line we see in that 15 year span). Those studies show the same .15C/decade warming trend during the satellite era that the datasets also show so it's not like they're suggesting there's additional warming, just that 1998's El Nino is higher than it'd be without natural cycles and years like 2008 2011 2012 La Nina years are lower than it'd be without natural cycles.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    @happy2bhere
    "Why did your movement change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change? "

    It was determined that global warming was not comprehensive enough. With a warmer climate we expect more sea ice loss, a higher incidence of floods and droughts (warmer->more evapaporation-> higher precip totals in areas getting precip/faster incidence of droughts in areas not getting precip), coral bleaching and even things like ocean acidification due to the increased CO2. The change to the term climate change was to better get across the idea that it's more than just getting warmer.

    "since it was only back in the '70s that scientists were worried about the coming Ice Age"

    Actually most of the scientific literature back then was still saying warming (consult the journal article "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus"). For those that were wrong, we now understand that most of the reason for the halt in increasing temperatures from the 50s-70s was due to global dimming via increases in aerosols that caused pollution issues as well as suppressing temperature increases, once we cleaned up the air that negative anthropogenic influence was reduced.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    To "atl134" read the Register's article "Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer". They have a really nice presentation showing how NASA's ground based temperatures have diverged from 2 independant satelite based systems.

    Another interesting bit of data can be seen in "Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D." at LongRangeWeather. It isn't their predictions that are as interesting as the graph showing the historical temperature data. The AGW alarmists, for some strange reason, are using the data from close to the end of an ice age as a baseline temperature. If the earth was pulling out of an ice age, doesn't that mean that we could be headed towards the ideal temperature?

    Why are you and your ilk relying on junk science to push a global tax agenda?

    We have seen the same pattern in history. See "The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory" in Forbes. Scientists that used bad data, gained government favor and funding. Lets see who consistantly gets the government funding.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 26, 2013 5:01 p.m.

    Can Obama make climate constant? No!

    Temperature from the sun varies, thus causing the ocean temp, and climate to change.

    Ever wonder why tropical plants are found buried in Greenland?

    Anyone doing homework, would know Obama is not being truthful.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    June 26, 2013 8:28 p.m.

    Worf,

    These changes are not due to solar activity.

    Redshirt,

    So YOU know the data is questionable, but NASA either doesn't know or is conspiring to keep the REAL data from us, right?

    From the Long Range Weather website:
    "From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet's warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. . . Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas."

    So their hypothesis is based on cycles and their base data is from the 1930s and 1940s.

    happy2bhere,

    Thousands of scientists in dictatorships and democracies, communist and capitalistic countries, of nearly every language and culture, all have the exact same interest? "And it doesn't matter who is in the White House."

    Who is the nefarious power directing all of this? The Illuminati? Al Gore? Who?

    The Mafia kill people and even they do not exercise that degree of control.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 26, 2013 11:26 p.m.

    Semi-Strong:

    So, these short-term and long-term climatic cycles are not related to varying energy from the sun? Do you think the sun's output is constant?

    Give some evidence.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    June 27, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    Worf,

    No. There is fluctuation. But the solar cycles are well studied and have been integrated into the models. As has nearly every thing anyone ever says on these boards.

    There are only two options here. One is that scientists are unaware of simple facts that non-scientists and political talking heads all know. Improbable to say the least.

    The other is the worldwide super conspiracy described previously. Also improbable. Why? Because history shows us that conspiracies of more than just a few individuals are incredibly hard to maintain. That is why we have a witness protection program.

    Honestly, if we are to post countermanding scientific facts on these boards showing that folks who study these things for a living are totally wrong (not just a little wrong). We better have awesome credentials ourselves or be getting the data straight from those who do (and not from those who have a one sided political agenda to promote).

    If you look at prior posts, many of the things posted as "fact" are only half truths. They do not reveal the speakers full intent. Or, the "expert" cited is dubious. Or, it really comes down to conspiracy. These just are not credible.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    To "Semi-Strong" their theories and basis for their data is not what interests me on that web site. The interesting thing is the graph of global temperatures for the past 4500 years. Don't you find it interesting that the AGW alarmists are using a temperature that is from the end of an ice age as a baseline? That is like saying the ideal outdoor temperature is something from late winter, and anything more than that is too hot.

    As for the solar models being well integrated into the models, that is not true either. The methods for modeling the solar energy getting to the earth's surface at poor at best. See "The sun shines some light on global warming orthodoxy" in the National Post. From Duke University read "Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report". Another good one is "Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?" at the National Post.

    Basically, the current climate models fail to properly account for the sun's contribution to warming the planet.

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    June 27, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    @worf

    If you look at a graph of solar activity and global temperatures you'll see what looks like a correlation for the first half of last century, but over the last 35 years the sun has remained fairly constant with a small cooling trend while the global temperatures increased dramatically.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 27, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Semi-Strong:

    Folks who study these things for a living don't all come to a consensus. Some say the sun spot cycle has cooled the ocean temperature. Many other explanation has also been given.

    This all boils down to doing your own observations, and making your own conclusions. Don't let someone else form your opinions.

    Politics are loaded with untruths. I could make a long list.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    June 27, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    Worf,

    There is a wide range of opinions on how much, how fast, and what might be accelerators in the process. But the pros virtually all agree that human activities are warming the planet.

    I work in real estate and finance – far less complex than climate science. I don’t think most educated folks could just walk in and do what the experts I work with do. It requires significant time and training. Also, who can devote the kind of time required to do this?

    Do we do the same with doctors? Tell them they are wrong and rely on our own research? Medicine is generally less certain than climate science.

    The problem is not the science. It is the politics that wants to control the science. We had the same problem with the tobacco companies when I was a kid. The vast majority of scientists were concluding that smoking was deadly. A few were willing to buck the trend for tobacco money. Today, these would be oil companies.

    RedShirt,

    See my prior posts. Either the scientists are idiots for not seeing what you do or there is a vast global conspiracy of unprecedented proportions. Please choose.

  • MrTuscadero Houston, TX
    June 27, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    I tend to side with the posters who have noted that scientific reasearch is dependent upon government funding.

    There were some scientists who did experiments that definitely proved that tobacco use does not lead to cancer. They were getting paid by the tobacco companies to do it.

    There were probably a lot of scientists in Copernicus' day who knew that the earth revolved around the sun, but didn't want to lose the patronage of their respective governments, and of the Medieval Christian Church.

    "climate change" is just another buzz word to produce panic that will induce citizens to give up their freedom for serfdom, in exchange for nothing at all, because climate change is coming. One can keep one's tax dollars to pay to air condition one's home, or one can give up their tax dollars in an attempt to stave off the warming trend by funneling large sums of capital to men with questionable ethics-- as politicians have been known to be since the days of ancient Rome.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    To "Semi-Strong" there is a conspiracy, but it is not a vast global one, it is limited to a just a small yet very vocal group.

    You can also look at it like the flat earthers. At one time they held the majority of opinion, despite the facts.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    re: freedom in 2017 6/26

    Why because he did not invest in Au like Glennie pleaded?

    to cats 6/26

    Really? Climate change is cyclical. But, you are living in a bubble if you think modern life isn't adding to the chaos. I agree w/ twin lights about adding waste and taking small rationale steps to address the issue.

    p.s. Funny how conservatives aren't blasting Barry about the bailout of Detroit anymore? Have you looked at the recent JD Power results?