Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Climate opinions

Comments

Return To Article
  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 3:29 a.m.

    But then again you have to ask the right question, Is there really anything man can do to avert change which is a natural phenomenon? I am all for doing some things like cleaning up the waterways like we started fifty or so years ago or protecting the rainforest where possible, but there are something's that are totally out of man's control. We cannot sweat stuff that we cannot change.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    The "unanimity" of scientists is astounding when it comes to climate change. It feels more like "herd mentality."

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    "We cannot sweat stuff that we cannot change."

    Use your imagination. There's far more we can change than you realize.

    Moreover, the evidence showing that climate change is the result of human being burning fossil fuels is incontrovertible. Global temperatures are rising, and it's because of us. That's well established. It's not the Sun, it's not volcanoes, and it's not a random anomaly. It's us.

    Climate has changed naturally in the past, and will again in the future, but the thing about natural climate change is that it happens very slowly. The climate change we're currently experiencing is happening about 10,000 faster than any previous natural change. Ecosystems can't adapt that fast, and the consequences of that are huge.

    It's time to pay attention to the actual research findings, and not the PR spin provided by oil and coal industry funded "think tanks."

    We owe it to our grandchildren to act responsibly and rationally _now_.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    high school fan
    Huntington, UT
    But then again you have to ask the right question, Is there really anything man can do to avert change which is a natural phenomenon?

    ======

    But then again,
    you have to stop listening to 3 college drop outs on the radio with an obvious political bias and axe to grind
    vs.
    98% of the World's entire Scientific Community.

    and
    as to the question:
    "Is there really anything man can do to avert change which is a natural phenomenon?"

    You mean like;

    curing diseases,
    cultivating vegatation,
    plant and animal life extinctions,
    selectively breeding plants and animals,
    fly,


    or if you only refer to changing the natural environment --
    like damming a river,
    seed a rain cloud,
    cause acid rain,
    limit or even stop erosion,
    deforestation,
    start a grass or forest fire,

    not to mention genetically modified foods.

    Shall I continue?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Why is it that when it comes to the planet, liberals are all about "saving it for future generations" by mandating huge sacrifices by people today; yet when it comes to saving our financial future, they fight every notion of cutting any of the out-of-control spending programs of the government - thus dooming future generations to financial ruin?

    Shut down energy production to keep the oceans from warming another 1/10 of a degree over the next hundred years = GOOD.

    Cut government spending by 1% to keep the national debt from expanding by another 10 Trillion over the next 10 years = BAD.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 1, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    The fact that one’s views on climate change are so closely tracked to political affiliation is startling and should be seen as proof a priori that people are using things other than reason, logic and facts to form their views.

    There’s an excellent article titled “Climate Skeptic vs. Climate Deniers” by Dr. David Brin that explains the PR behind then debate (which is almost entirely political) nicely – his conclusion is that for every true skeptic there are many more deniers although the denier camp likes to think the reverse is true.

    And now most of the rest of these comments will be the same old tired battle of cherry-picked “facts” and data “proving” what was really a view created entirely based on emotion (which is largely the basis for most political views).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    @high school fan
    "Is there really anything man can do to avert change which is a natural phenomenon?"

    Some changes aren't natural, or aren't entirely natural. Consider the ozone hole. The Montreal Protocol was passed and now the levels of ozone depleting CFCs have fallen the past two decades.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    Just remember --

    The same Jokester that keeps telling his "ditto-head" listeners that Global Warming is a Hoax,
    also tells them [against all Scientific facts otherwise] that tobacco doesn't cause cancer and is actually GOOD for you.

    Go figure.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 1, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @ LDS liberal. When did Rush EVER say tobacco didn't cause cancer or that it is good for you? Making up "facts" is dishonesty.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 1, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    @Tulip – “The "unanimity" of scientists is astounding when it comes to climate change. It feels more like "herd mentality."

    Would you characterize scientific unanimity as “astounding” and akin to herd mentality in other areas of science too… areas like - theory of gravity, germ theory of disease, physics, theory of evolution, biology, astronomy, engineering principles… math?

    I’m guessing no (if I can be presumptuous) which means that somehow you feel that a large group of individuals trained to be logical, exacting and as bias free as possible (not to mention spending inordinate amounts of time trying to disprove theories) have suddenly, with climate change, put all their training on a shelf and have become as emotional & partisan as… what, a talk radio host?

    And nothing about that view strikes you as odd?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Thank you, Mr. Barron, for an excellent letter!

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Nov. 1, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    I read an article yesterday from a reputed source (I think it was the BBC) that spoke of a recent study that determined that the RATE of increase in CO2 is dramatically falling due to choices businesses are making, especially in the US and China. What is remarkable is that this correction is occuring without a Carbon Tax.

    I don't disagree that Climate Change is real, and I'm willing to suspend disbelief and accept that we can do something about it. I only object to the assumption that a Carbon Tax would be the appropriate cure.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    I know, lets deny and bury our head in the sand because it's just too painful to discuss and it might cost us some money, money we will need to pay healthcare providers and especially the administration of healthcare. Never mind that if we honestly worked on healthy (for beings and the earth)changes, then consequences of our neglect would be minimalized and we could save money. Maybe we could progress along with our global competitors over time instead of watching the end of the world advocates in Congress mire us in a perpetual state of obstruction. Some of you forget that most of the policy proposals from the left have their origins from the right. Message=get on the stick.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    Critics claim environmentalists and global-warming believers want to hurt our economy with carbon emissions restrictions. Sorry, no one wants to impoverish the nation. They just want a renewable, sustainable, stable (rather than the boom/bust nature of fossil fuel exploitation), and clean economy. It is the political motives of the doubters and deniers which should be questioned, as many receive "research" funding from conservative political groups and energy companies.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    I'm sorry,

    But as a Mormon in Utah --
    I have YET to read or hear of 1 single Prophet, Apostle, or LDS Doctrine that has EVER said that polluting the earth for man's ease, comfort or low cost is OK with God.

    In fact, my LDS meeting House right here in Farmington Utah - built with the Lord's Tithes and Offerings is green [Solar panels, super insulated, low power CFLs and LED lighting, ect.] and enviromentally friendly.

    Do the Mormons here listen to them,
    or the false "Profits" of AM talk radio?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Climate Options... If we have climate options, I would like to select the climate of Southern California, or maybe Hawaii.

    I'm submitting my vote right now...

    Everybody join me so we can exercise our climate options and get a BETTER climate here in Utah!

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @Tyler
    No, it doesn't strike me as odd at all. Why the jab at talk radio? I think they bring some good arguments to the "logical, exacting and bias-free" science of climate change. It's kind of fun listening to their monologues. They always seem to make more sense than the other side and I like things that make sense.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Nov. 1, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    What climate change?

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    And that's the problem I have with the Republican perception of climate change. Why would anyone accept the spin of special interest groups over documented scientific findings? It's illogical.

    The best thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not. The same thing cannot be said about opinions.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    "But physics is no respecter of political party."

    True. It's also no respecter of incomplete science. The real "understanding", by alarmist climate scientists, of global climate can be seen in their climate models. They've been proved drastically wrong by actual temperature data, while holding on to their doomsday predictions. Climate scientists, so far, do not understand the complexity of global climate. They have pointed to CO2 as being the definitive "control knob" for climate, while virtually ignoring the impacts of other key components. Eventually, science will gain a better understanding of climate. Beyond taking personal responsibility for our own energy consumption, let's wait until we know a little more before implementing government restrictions and controls on CO2. Up to this point more positives than negatives have resulted from the increase in this highly beneficial gas.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Re: "It's time to pay attention to the actual research findings, and not the PR spin provided by oil and coal industry"... (Blue)

    And what about the PR and spin provided by left-wing groups, like Al Gore's website and his group of companies poised to profit from the Cap and Trade when implemented, and think-tanks funded by the government (which will profit from cap & trade)? There is spin and PR on both sides you know.

    It's also not "incontrovertible".

    IF it was actually "incontrovertible"... there would be no controversy.... and obviously there is still some controversy around Global Warming theory and what man can actually do to change the climate. And it's NOT only coming from the Neanderthal righ-wing people you look down your nose at. There are actual scientists who also controvert many of the assumptions the political left is making based on GWtheory.

    It's still controversial, even among scientists.

    I think we need to keep researching, and doing whatever we can to be conservative in our energy consumption. But we also need to keep government figures like Al Gore out of it, and prevent politicians from profiting from it.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    chilly
    Salt Lake City, UT

    =========

    So ironic to make such claims with a moniker like that,
    espicially as this year in Utah and most of the rest of the planet goes down in history as the HOTTEST summer EVER recorded.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    The biggest irony here is that we have liberals pushing their view of science on may people that are Tea Party minded people. A recent Yale study found that Tea Party members had better understanding of science than liberals do.

    To "Blue" actually it is not even proven that people are the primary driver in climate change.

    The NOAA issued a document a few years ago that stated that they were certain that there could never be a 15 year or longer time span with no significant warming. That was according to ALL of the accepted climate models. We are now 15 to 18 years into a period of no significant warming, proving that the models are wrong. If the models all had the assumption that man was the cause, then that assumption has just been proven wrong.

    In the past there have been periods where temperatures have risen faster than current rates.

    To "Tyler D" the AGW alarmists here are all perfect examples of what Forbes descirbes in the article "The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory".

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    LDS Tree-Hugger,

    No irony in your moniker. You're wearing your ideology on your sleeve (so to speak):)

    Regarding, "HOTTEST summer EVER recorded": "EVER recorded" is the key. We've only been recording temperatures since about 1850. We've only have a temperature record for part of our emergence from the last ice age.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    And from the NOAA National Climate Data Center a quote of there report"The warm season average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 65.9°F, 1.0°F above the 20th century average and the 22nd warmest April-September on record.

    Warmth dominated the West and Northeast. California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, and Delaware each had a top 10 warm April-September. Below-average temperatures stretched from the Upper Midwest, through the Mississippi River Valley, and into the Southeast."

    " rest of the planet goes down in history as the HOTTEST summer EVER recorded." No the NOAA site says it was 8th globally. But if you don't have a college education you certainly can't quote a government web site.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 1, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    @Tulip – “Why the jab at talk radio? I think they bring some good argument… ”

    I used to think so too until I began to notice some things not adding up and then started listening with a more critical ear. It became clear fairly quickly that much of the message was first set up by pushing emotional buttons like fear & outrage (always a bad sign) and then followed by constructing “logical” arguments (in quotes because they were usually straw man half-truth or misrepresentations) in such a way that only their answer would follow - the logic would work but the premises were full of holes (i.e., valid but not sound).

    With a little self-training you just start to hear these tactics constantly and it wasn’t long before I realized most talk radio was just slick propaganda and I got tired of allowing others to think for me. Turning it off and subscribing to publications like The Economist, Scientific American, and National Affairs (for a conservative perspective) was a big step in changing that fact.

    Since you asked…

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    From the NOAA site we read "The September 2013 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 19.77 million square km, 5.22 percent above the 1981-2010 average. This marked the largest September Antarctic sea ice extent on record, surpassing the previous record large September extent of 19.43 million square km. September Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent is increasing at an average rate of 1.1 percent per decade." I gladly admit cold anomalies do not make climate but then again neither do hot anomalies.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 1, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    And let’s be clear – if science determines AGW is not occurring (e.g., somehow the Earth has a “self-cleansing” capacity above & beyond the natural carbon cycle) I’ll gladly acknowledge it – I have no agenda other than a nice planet to live on. But the point is science should determine this – not political hacks, rageful talk radio hosts or blogosphere trolls.

    Please read the article I cited in 1st comment and understand what it means to be a true skeptic, which is not only healthy but necessary in science (hint: it does not involve red herrings like articles in Forbes magazine). Being a real skeptic does not mean cherry picking data or concocting conspiracies to fit your worldview – it means looking at the facts, data & sources in their entirety.

    To do anything else is to let others think for you – and if those others prime your thinking by first pushing all your emotional buttons (e.g., fear, outrage, hatred of government) then you have more in common with sheep than thinking people.

    PS – how many RedShirts do we have on the DN forum?

    Reached comment limit...

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    Tyler,
    I think we ALL want a nice planet to live on. And skeptics don't really want to destroy the planet (no matter what you've heard). We all want a nice planet to live on. We just don't agree that man can fix global climate.

    About cherry picking data... that's exactly what the original GW Theory people have recently admitted THEY did in the early days of GW mania. But if you have a point to make... it's natural to point to the data that indicates you are right.

    And while you're talking about "political hacks, rageful talk radio hosts" (your words, I'm trying to get this past the censors)... have you ever listened to Al Gore raging on GW? Google some of his speeches... he sounds like a pulpit pounding evangelist. He likens GW sceptics to anti-abolitionists, homophobes (and some race related words I think the censors won't allow so I'll leave them out this time).

    In 2007 Gore predicted that ALL arctic ice could be GONE by 2013... was he right?

    So why do you trust him?

    As for hacks and rageful people... look at the GW fanatics!

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    Redshirt likes to spend government money sitting looking for proof that teaparty members know science. Just for fun I went looking for the study. It wasn't hard to find. The TP members had a better understanding of science than Republicans. However the author stated, "...insisted that those of a more leftward political bias had the highest positive correlation" of political view point and scientific knowledge.

    He also said "thinks the Tea Party is several leaves short of a bag. But that's a little different from deciding someone is obviously stupid."

    Redshirt you should read the references you cite rather than just copy and paste from right-wing websites at work.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    Utah has taken the OJ Simpson view on climate change. As long as a shred of doubt exists, only a not guilty verdict can be returned. Besides,it'd be a shame to clean the place up for nothing.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    I don't think we should do anything other than listen to Rush and the Koch brothers. We know from history that big business always has our best interests at heart...

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 5:38 p.m.

    Hutterite,
    Re: "it'd be a shame to clean the place up for nothing"...

    If YOU can clean up the place... what's stopping you? Just do it! Or... tell us how to do it and we'll do it for you.

    Problem is... you can't. And that's the reality some people are dealing with instead of pretending we can wave a magic wand and control the climate.

    Tell us what you are doing to clean up the place... and maybe we can follow YOUR example.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Nov. 1, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    If the climatologists discover something that changes their minds tomorrow I'll happily accept their peer reviewed evidence. The conservatives will only accept the scientific findings that support their opinions.

    You have to go back millions of years to equal the 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    It's going to do something. Just like a little poison in your water. Climatologists are the most equipped people to tell us what CO2 will do to the climate. It's only a debate if you ignore science and relish ignorant opinion.

    The geologists that typically oppose the climatologists are out of their relevance. People that believe them are out of their minds.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    @chilly
    "They have pointed to CO2 as being the definitive "control knob" for climate, while virtually ignoring the impacts of other key components. "

    Climate scientists would refer to CO2 as A control knob, not THE control knob.

    "Up to this point more positives than negatives have resulted from the increase in this highly beneficial gas."

    That's false.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    @Tyler D
    "And let’s be clear – if science determines AGW is not occurring... I’ll gladly acknowledge it"

    As would I, especially since I study meteorology and thus have a particular interest in making claims that are based on the science and data available.

    @2 bit
    "In 2007 Gore predicted that ALL arctic ice could be GONE by 2013... was he right?

    So why do you trust him?"

    Why would anyone go to a politician (Gore, Inhofe, etc) when they could just go to the science? The IPCC report projected Arctic sea ice would effectively fall to around 0 in the summer by mid to late century. Arctic sea ice is declining somewhat faster than that projection though but we'd still be looking at something like 2030-2050.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2013 12:07 a.m.

    "We cannot sweat stuff that we cannot change." But the consensus of climate scientists and meteorologists is that 1) The world is warming, and 2) it is anthropogenic.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Nov. 2, 2013 6:41 a.m.

    If the majority of mathmeticians said two plus two was 5 would they be right? Climate change is a result of things in earth nothing we can do about colder and warmer weather.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Nov. 2, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    ozone hysteria is dead. overpopulation zealouts had to retract. I seen record cold. Scientists do many hysterical things to control people. Things like the climate we cannot control.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Nov. 2, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    Why do certain responders blame politics or blame talk show hosts or blame people for being stupid if they have different beliefs. We'll here is my true belief, I believe in God and I believe he built this planet and I do not believe that man can destroy what God has built because He just wouldn't let it happen.
    I also believe that man has the obligation to take care of what he is the steward of.
    We need to discuss the issues instead of name calling if we really want to be productive. Thanks, I enjoy the comments.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Nov. 2, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    High school fan, 99% of all life that has ever existed on earth is extinct. God isn't very good at taking care of his project.

    To all the deniers: yes the earth will survive but WE might not. We are not equipped to adapt to change as quickly as it will occur as warming progresses. The science is clear. The oceans are warmer (do you know what the heat capacity of water is?). The temperatures are rising. The polar caps are shrinking (here's where Redshirt runs off for a factoid). The oceans are rising. The population is growing & demands more food, more resources, and creates more waste. Our food supply isn't certain as the climate changes (remember the dust bowl).

    You all might be right though. It may already be too late. No matter, I'll probably be dead before the consequences. Your children will have to deal with it.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 2, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    higv

    Dietrich, ID

    If the majority of mathmeticians said two plus two was 5 would they be right? Climate change is a result of things in earth nothing we can do about colder and warmer weather.
    6:41 a.m. Nov. 2, 2013

    =========

    The correct analogy is --

    If the majority of mathematicians said two plus two was 4 would they be right?
    It's the 3 college drop outs on the radio and the ignorant who listen to them that have it all wrong.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Nov. 2, 2013 8:42 p.m.

    People listen and watch media they already agree with. Media is a reinforcer of what people already choose to believe not an honest informer.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Nov. 3, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    Whatever, just make sure you tell your children how silly the whole global warming theory is so they know who to slap later.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Nov. 3, 2013 7:56 p.m.

    "Whatever" Snappy come back redshirt. You can add something at work tomorrow.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    To "Bebyebe" I have never denied that the climate is changing (that is another redshirt). I only state that we don't know what the driver is in climate change. Does a rise in CO2 follow or lead a rise in temperature. That means is it an indicator or driver.

    Right now we do not have any scientifically accurate models that can give us a good long term picture of changes that are going on. All of the models that use CO2 as the driver are wrong, so the question is what is the driver? There is sufficient evidence to state that the sun has a significant effect, along with water vapor and cloud cover also altering the outcomes.

    The question for you and other alarmists is why trust a faulty model?