Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Climate vs. weather

Comments

Return To Article
  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 12:19 a.m.

    In 2100 Salt Lake City will have the climate of Las Vegas. Las Vegas will have the climate of Death Valley. Note that both Las Vegas and Death Valley have days where it unusually cold. That doesn't negate the fact that their average temperatures are significantly hotter than are ours.

    So in 2100 SLC will still be suitable for human habitation, just like Vegas is now. Places like Vegas and Phoenix will no longer support large human communities. Phoenix will probably become uninhabitable first, but that will be because they run out of water.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 17, 2013 4:53 a.m.

    The letter writer, who is attempting to differentiate between "weather and climate" seems to confuse "weather and climate"

    "Last July was the hottest summer ever recorded in Salt Lake City." = Weather

    "And while we are now shivering with an inversion" = Weather

    "we forget that it was colder in the past" = Weather

    "The record cold was recorded in 1932 when the temperature plunged to minus 20 degrees" = Weather

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 6:20 a.m.

    While we're likely to have all the climate deniers chiming in shorty, there are two key points why Utah needs to worry about climate change.

    One, projections are that within this century, we'll have significantly less water coming our way. Given that we're already the second-driest state in the union, this will impact our agricultural industry and our future generations (our own kin, given that many of our children plan to stay in Utah).

    Two, projections indicate that even the few degrees of added warmth will impact our snow pack. That is, the snow that we do get will melt faster and slip by, making it harder for our booming population to use it.

    Of course, we need to plan ahead -- convert our energy system to be less reliant on steam and water (e.g., more solar, wind) rather than water-intensive fracking and coal- and gas-fired plants. We need to drastically cut lawns and water-intensive plants around our homes. And we need to stop water subsidies.

    Water is precious. And there'll be a lot less of it for our kids and grandkids.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    Roland Kayser
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Agreed!
    It's not just the warmer Temperatures that effect "Climate Change", but the weather patterns.

    Utah has not only been getting hotter with Global Warming,
    but it has also been getting drier.

    Hence -- Climate Change.

    Conservatives just don't get it,
    never have, probably never will.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    Climate and weather are things we have zero control over. Why let it control us?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    I would much rather have warmer weather than colder weather myself. It is much more pleasant. Can't stand cold weather.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    Fox news said the world is cooling. We all know they tell 100% of the truth 100% of the time and did exhaustive and objective research to come to that conclusion.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    In the 1960's people freaked out over population and Paul Ehrlich said it would be bad do to population. His prophecies failed big time. Much of the global warming crowd there prophecies will as well.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    Media is a better reinforcer of what people choose to believe than informer. People that lament Fox many regularly watch MSNBC because it agrees with what they believe. Science and media are a lot better re inforcers of what people choose to believe than information informers.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    Re: Baron Scarpia "One, projections are that within this century, we'll have significantly less water coming our way"...

    Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008 (5 years ago).

    Two years the Global Warming scientists predicted more Hurricanes than usual... we experienced exactly Zero Hurricanes.

    Many climate changes we HAVE experienced they DIDNT predict.

    So spouting their various predictions as if fact... doesn't work. They cried wolf too much.

    ----

    Re: LDS Tree-Hugger "Utah has not only been getting hotter with Global Warming,
    but it has also been getting drier"....

    Hate to break this to you Hugger, but Utah has been getting drier for hundreds of thousands of years. Most of Utah used to be under water. Utah once had a tropical climate (when dinosaurs lived here). It's been getting drier in Utah for a LONG time. And no... man was not there to cause our climate to change back in the dinosaur age.

    ----

    I acknowledge climate changes (naturally). But I'm not sure you can blame it on humans (since it obviously happened when humans were not around also).

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    LDS Tree-Hugger,

    First, there are conservatives who get it (I think I do and I consider myself a conservative of the "old school").

    Second, eventually we will all get it. The problem is, what options will we then have? As you know, the choices get fewer and more expensive with each passing year.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    @higv – “Science and media are a lot better re inforcers of what people choose to believe than information informers.”

    This statement tells us everything we need to know about the minds of climate change deniers, as anyone who would confuse science (which explains objective facts after repeated & continuous testing of hypotheses) with media (which on some channels would make Joseph Goebbels proud) is likely incapable of understanding what does and does not constitute knowledge.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    Roland Kayser: "In 2100 Salt Lake City will have the climate of Las Vegas."

    At least the alarmists are getting smarter; unlike Al Gore and others who claimed the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013, the climate modelers who predicted that temperatures would rise over the last decade and a half and the should-be-embarrassed climate scientists who forecasted increased hurricanes and tornadoes. Now, many of them are putting their predictions out far enough that not many of us will be around to say "I told you so".

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    @2bits
    "Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008 (5 years ago)."

    The science in the IPCC report projection around that time was for the Arctic to reach basically ice-free in summer by mid-late century. We're currently still ahead of even the earliest of model projection pace. I don't care what Al Gore says, I care about what the scientists are saying.

    "Two years the Global Warming scientists predicted more Hurricanes than usual... we experienced exactly Zero Hurricanes."

    Two years ago we did tied for the 3rd most atlantic storms on record. There were 10 hurricanes. Just because they didn't hit the US as hurricanes (you are correct that Sandy was post-tropical at that point) doesn't mean they don't count.

    As for this year, I'd recommend Jeff Masters' post "The Unusually Quiet Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2013 Ends" which details what the predictions for this year were based on and why they failed.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Nice try reality deniers, but AGW is a fraud of epic proportions. In order to push this garbage, the left has had to manipulate their data in order to get their desired results. Case in point was the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, where leaked e-mails and documents proved these "scientists" were cooking the data in order to get the conclusion they desired. And you folks call us "deniers"?

    Now we have the leaked reports/data from the IPCC that show several of their models have overstated the rise in the temperatures the earth actually experienced. We haven't warmed in 16 years!

    Sorry reality deniers, but facts are not on your side. You told us the polar ice caps would be gone in 2008; they're still here, and have actually grown by 29%. You told us we would have increased and devastating hurricanes; hurricane activity has declined. 2013 had record cold temps across the nation and Antarctica. Sorry, but you've cried wolf one too many times.

    Funny you reality deniers never take into account the biggest factor in our earths heating and cooling...the sun!

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    If you went back to see what Al Gore actually said you would see your chest thumping is a bit of an over gloat. Actually watch it, listen, learn. Because he warned us, you continually misquote, misinterpret and misrepresent. Using climate change as some political tennis ball is un-conscionable since not a single one of you know what man's role in the changes we are witnessing. Doing nothing is what will come back to haunt your children, not whether you overreacted to a problem.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    @Sven
    "Climategate" was a bust with no real evidence of any wrongdoing. Not to mention that the other four datasets (NOAA, NASA, RSS, UAH) all show similar warming trends to CRU even though UAH for instance is a satellite dataset led by an AGW skeptic.

    In 2008 the projection would be that the Arctic would be sea-ice free by the mid to late 21st century. We're still trending downward (when one uses more than a 2-yr sample size) on pace to be somewhat ahead of the earliest of the predicted range.

    The Antarctica cold record was a location with minimal historical record. It could've been colder several times the past century and we just wouldn't know since we didn't have observations.

    As for U.S. cold... the US is roughly 2% the landmass of the globe (and Salt Lake hasn't even been within 4 degrees of a record low yet). Look at global temperatures. In the UAH dataset the anomalies (relative to 1980-2010) for each of the 11 months this year so far are: +.496 +0.203 +0.200 +0.114 +0.082 +0.295 +0.173 +0.158 +0.365 +0.290 +0.193.

    2013 so far: +.233C above 1980-2010 average.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    @Sven
    "Climategate" was a bust with no real evidence of any wrongdoing. Not to mention that the other four datasets (NOAA, NASA, RSS, UAH) all show similar warming trends to CRU even though UAH for instance is a satellite dataset led by an AGW skeptic.

    In 2008 the projection would be that the Arctic would be sea-ice free by the mid to late 21st century. We're still trending downward (when one uses more than a 2-yr sample size) on pace to be somewhat ahead of the earliest of the predicted range.

    The Antarctica cold record was a location with minimal historical record. It could've been colder several times the past century and we just wouldn't know since we didn't have observations.

    As for U.S. cold... the US is roughly 2% the landmass of the globe (and Salt Lake hasn't even been within 4 degrees of a record low yet). Look at global temperatures. In the UAH dataset the anomalies (relative to 1980-2010) for each of the 11 completed months this year: +.496 +0.203 +0.200 +0.114 +0.082 +0.295 +0.173 +0.158 +0.365 +0.290 +0.193.

    2013 so far: +.233C above 1980-2010 average.

  • Ninjutsu Sandy, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Really, Sven?

    "Nice try reality deniers..."

    To whom are you speaking with this "you" you use so much in the previous post? I know there are some people who are able to separate the statements made by media pundits, politicians, and radios talk show hosts, and those made by climate scientists. Evidently you cannot. "We" are not saying those things. Scientists are. We would do well to ignore the opinions of non-scientists and dig into the research ourselves--those of us who are capable of doing so.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @higv – “Science and media are a lot better re inforcers of what people choose to believe than information informers.”

    ======

    let me understand where you're coming from....

    Science - based on facts and data - is not real, but re-enforces a belief.
    Media - FauxNews is the only source for the "information informer", everything else is the -- "Liberal Media" bent on reporting only lies.
    Religion -- even when God comes right out and says over and over again that we are to act on "Faith" which is a belief in something un-seen -- un-obervable....and is the only source of your data.

    I think you have it 180 turned around.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Dec. 17, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    The Records keep falling extreme heat and cold, more storms and higher wind speeds. The frog gets slowly warmer.

    It is not about single events it is about trends.

    It is about greed I was totally impressed by the announcement that all the drilling and fracking will make the USA independent of fuel imports then came the the kicker it will only last 5 years.

    When will stop looking at ourselves in a bubble we are in a world what we do effects others. My concern is our short term greed will result in our children's long term struggle.

    As for FOX would you trust Rupert Murdock he changed nationality for greed and convenience and treats truth the same way, i.e. the testimony to the British Parliament.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    "Science" is based on facts, data, and being able to reliably (100% accurately) demonstrate your theory. It's not based on a majority vote (like Global Warming).

    Thus... Global Warming does not equal "Science". You can keep saying "It's Science"!... but it's not. Not yet. It is still a theory many scientists are trying to prove (it may take some time).

    When people can predict what will happen with known test inputs... it will become "Science".

    For instance... we can calculate the the gravity a given body based on it's mass. And we can reliably predict the mass of an object based on it's gravity. We can predict with 100% accuracy where a body will land if launched at a given velocity at a known angle. THAT... is "Science".

    It's not getting enough people to vote that they believe... THAT.. is "Religion".

    It may be BASED on science... but that doesn't make the theory science (until you can prove it). Scientists have yet to find an equation or a mathematical model for the climate. So it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote).

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 17, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    To "David Folland" actually, depending on which dataset you look at, the Earth's temperature has remained constant or has been DECREASING over the past 16 years. That is not a weather event, that is a climate event that has confused the climate scientists that think that CO2 is the driver in climate change.

    To "LDS Tree-Hugger" most conservatives have a better understanding of climate change than the liberals do. They are the ones that have stated that the models are wrong long before the models proved themselves wrong. Most conservatives do not deny that the climate changes. The difference is in what the belief is for the driver. Is it the sun or other natural causes, or is it man made, that is the only difference.

    Also, since the period that Al Gore claims we have had AGW, Utah has been wetter than it was before man-made global warming. See "Re-examining Drought in Utah" by USU.

    To "Allisdair" the question for you is do you trust Al Gore who stands to make Billions if governments buy into his warming theories.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    Increased temperatures and increased CO2 result in less water needed for plant life. Agriculture will increase with CO2 at higher levels. Science, proved. Since the increase in CO2 the earth has 11% more green coverage. Science, proved. During the mid 70's scientists said the increasing ice sheet in the Artic would result in more wild and devastating weather, now if it shrinks it will result in wild and devastating weather.

    Report to the Utah water users discussing water patterns in Utah. "There are models that indicate that northern Utah is in the transition zone and could be either wetter or drier." 75 percent of models show it will be drier and 25 percent of the models show that it will be wetter. They did not discredit the six models that said it would be wetter. An open mind would approach the topic with rational skepticism. Not absolute ideology.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    The true monument to scientific ideology sits out in the west desert. Scientist said the pumps were needed because it would take one hundred years for the Great Salt Lake to return to its prior levels. In the early sixties, scientists said the lake would be dry by the end of the century due to the drought at the time. In both cases scientists thought they new more and were absolute.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    To 2 bits: "It may be BASED on science... but that doesn't make the theory science (until you can prove it). Scientists have yet to find an equation or a mathematical model for the climate. So it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote)."

    Nobel Prize winning Swedish Physicist Svante Arrenhuis produced an equation showing that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will lead to higher temperatures. His equation predicted that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in an average temperature increase of 8 degrees Centigrade. He did this in 1896. Despite the fact that his equation was all done in long hand, before the invention of computers, even before the invention of mechanical calculators, it is quite close to the best projections we can achieve with supercomputers.

    Also, when used in science, the word "theory" does not mean what you think it means.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 17, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    @2 bits – “… it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote).”

    Quite a bit of confusion going on in your comment…

    First, you’re confusing math/deduction (proof) with science/induction (evidence). It is math that tells us where a body will land if launched at a given velocity at a known angle. It is science that builds theory based on mounting evidence (e.g., evolution and climate change).

    Second, you’re confusing what scientists currently know (explaining past events) with what they can predict. Scientists know for a fact that climate change is happening and we are contributing to it. What they are still working on is prediction, but that is always the last piece of the puzzle to fall into place.

    By your standard of mathematically precise 100% accurate prediction, neither medicine nor economics have any claim to scientific validity and what… we should go back to having Shaman treat our ailments and return to the barter system?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    higv -- do you really, truly, honestly believe that weather does not control us even now?

    Let's see -- do you have a furnace in your home? Do you have A/C in your car? Do you wear the same clothing in summer that you do in winter? Have you ever had a crop failure in your garden when an early frost hit or when an extremely dry, hot summer parched your crop?

    Mercy!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    And higv, perhaps Erlich's predictions have not come to full fruition YET, but they are working on it. With how many billion people on our planet pumping how much more pollution and carbon into the sky, how much of climate change is being driven by the additional humans? What about water in many parts of the earth? In many places there isn't enough now. Where will water come from for future population increases?

    You may not be here when it finally happens -- but Erlich's predictions are slowing coming to pass.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 6:51 p.m.

    The extremes of heat and cold WEATHER are actually demonstrating the accuracy of climate change predictions. Those predictions call for extreme changes in patterns of jet streams that drive weather. Arctic air will be pushed farther south in winter because of slight increases in water temperatures in the Arctic Ocean. Those streams of Arctic cold will come right down our chimneys.

    Our cold weather in winter and heat in summer are simply demonstrations of the correctness of predictions.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    Roland Kayser: "Nobel Prize winning Swedish Physicist Svante Arrenhuis produced an equation showing that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will lead to higher temperatures. His equation predicted that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in an average temperature increase of 8 degrees Centigrade."

    Wrong. Arrenhius actually said that a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to an increase of 8 degrees C. He said that a doubling of CO2 would result in 4 degrees. Today, very few scientists believe that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 4 degree increase. Many believe 2 degrees or less is more probable.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 7:49 p.m.

    @2bits
    "So it's called Global Warming "Theory" "

    I think you have theories mixed up, from wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

    @one old man
    "The extremes of heat and cold WEATHER are actually demonstrating the accuracy of climate change predictions."

    Not really. We've set or tied 36 record highs and 4 record lows at Salt Lake City International the past 4.5 years. (Based on a 130ish year dataset we should have around 12 of each in a neutral climate for 4.5 years). Record lows still happen due to weather, but happen less often due to climate change, even despite the jet stream anomalies (which you are correct about).

    @Roland Keyser
    CO2 is a somewhat saturated band in the radiation spectrum, which may not have been found until after Arrenhius (I'm not sure). This reduces the rate of warming per ppm added (though does not eliminate it). However, CH4 (methane) is far from saturated and this is part of why some now argue that CH4 is the bigger potential problem than CO2.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    In fact, RK, in 1906 Arrhenius had lowered his sensitivity estimates to between 1.6 and 2.1C for a doubling of CO2.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    I've watched climate scientists try desperately for 20 years to find a mathematical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and we still have nothing to show for it but a bunch of computer models that have diverged significantly from reality. There simply is no detectable correlation. Yes, CO2 probably does affect temperature, but it's so far down in the noise that nobody has been able to coax a signal from the data.

    It bothers me that some are still doggedly (and dogmatically) asserting that we're going to suffer a catastrophe as a result of atmospheric CO2. There's no evidence to back up that assertion. CO2 forms an intrinsic part of the carbon cycle, without which life would not exist. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. More CO2 gives us higher crop yields and more plant life, and that's the ONLY thing anyone has been able to correlate with increasing atmospheric CO2.

    Let's worry about real problems instead of pretend problems.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2013 10:32 p.m.

    I have lived in Utah for nearly 50 years. Utah is a place of weather extremes. But it does seem the trend is overall warmer and must drier in the summer. It doesn't mean it wasn't dry in the past or hot either but I've noticed the summers of say the last two decades are drier and hotter. And since water is scarce in Utah, I agree with the poster above that we should at least take notice.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    To "Roland Kayser" just because somebody made some equations, that doesn't mean they are correct. For example, when people thought that the earth was the center of the universe, they developed complex equations to describe the motion of the stars and planets. They had equations that correctly predicted the movement, but their premise was completely wrong.

    Man Made global warming is today's is just like that theory. It has little scientific support, and is being resolved by "consensus" rather than by actual data.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    To "LDS Tree-Hugger" most conservatives have a better understanding of climate change than the liberals do.

    =========

    Says a man who believe's that the earth is creating oil and fossil fuels FASTER than we could possibly ever burn it.
    Instead of taking millions of years, the earth performs some sort of pertetual fossil fuel making magic.
    Based on just one guys "theory" - who doesn't even have proper creditials.
    Against each and ever single know "Scientist" on the planet.

    Only going to prove you only support the ideas you want to believe in, inspite and against ALL facts and data.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 18, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    LDS Liberal,

    It may be BASED on science... but that doesn't make the theory science (until you can prove it). Scientists have yet to find an equation or a mathematical model for the climate. So it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote).

    1:18 p.m. Dec. 17, 2013

    [Here is a list of current Scientific "theories" --
    Molecular, Atomic, Sub-Atomic, Accoustic, Curcuit, micro-electronics, Semi-conductors, Electro-magnetics, ect.

    My point is, just because we don't know or understand the "science" behind something 100%, doesn't mean can't or shouldn't use it or ignore it.

    The "Science" behind Global Warming is there, it is established...we need to start doinging something about it.]

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" for somebody who claims to be Open Minded, you sure are being closed minded.

    Read "Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring" in USA Today and "Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'" in WND.

    If you don't like those sources, read the Huffington Post articles "Methane Oozing in Alaska, Cows Jumping Over Mars, Dinosaurs in Arabia -- Peak Oil Pranksters Don't Read This! " and "Oil's Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of Billions"

    Also read "Unravelling abiogenic and biogenic sources of methane in the Earth's deep subsurface" in Chemical Geology. This is a second scientist that confirms Gold's theories. There are more if you search for them.

    There are more sources. Some of the oil researchers are now saying that the idea of biomatter decomposing into oil does not explain all of the oil. Plus there is the whole problem of the wrong isotope of carbon showing up in some oil fields now.

    I don't know how fast the process occurs, but according to many scientists, there appears to be 2 methods that produce oil.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 18, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    "Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material."

    =======

    Your "theory" is Scientifically out the window.
    Same as your theory of Global Warming/Climate Change not happening by the 98% of the world's Scientists your are arguing against.

    Face it Red,
    you belief in an out-there fringe ultra-minority 0.01% of Science as opposed to the 99.99%.

    But,
    This is consistant and explains alot with your political views as well.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Nice try reality deniers, but even your precious IPCC has confirmed in leaked reports that their climate models overestimated warming. What this means is, we haven't warmed in 16 years! Are you reality deniers now going to tell us that 16 years is weather and not climate? You folks like to throw this line out whenever things don't pan out for you...like the arctic ice sheet growing by 29%.

    Here's how I know this entire idea of AGW is nothing more than a political tool/agenda by Leftists: Even when the trend has showed cooling, you folks aren't happy. Without the hoax of AGW, Leftist wouldn't be able to tell people: where to live, how to live, what to drive, what to eat, where to explore and drill for oil etc. It is an agenda pure and simple.

    Remember the Kyoto Protocol? Leftists around the Globe were demanding that America sign on to this economic suicide pact. Funny, it was supposed to be about saving the planet, but exempted the worlds two biggest polluters; China and India. It was about destroying the USA economically through compliance mandates.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    To "airnaut" face it, your Wikipedia quote isn't much of a quote because the next sentence puts doubt into it. "the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively".

    In other words, they cannot disprove it either. There is not a fringe minority out there that believes that oil can be produced in a second matter. In fact, the one of the sources states "However, it is now generally accepted, but not conclusively proven, that petroleum formation predominantly arises from the decay of organic matter in the earth. (...) Nevertheless, alternative theories should not be dismissed until it can be conclusively established that petroleum formation is due to one particular aspect of geochemistry."

    The fringe minority are those that have closed their minds to alternative theories.

    However, this is consistent with you and your ilk and the way they treat alternate information that does not conform with their pre-determined ideas.