Quantcast
Opinion

Charles Krauthammer: Defend the dissenters — even if you disagree

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 13, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    So, while the entire political process is mired in an antagonistic stalemate, society is evolving without it and 'the left' is getting things done.
    Oh, and thanks for pointing out that Eich was not 'outsted'. He resigned.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 13, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    It only took the Democrats 30 years to learn this trick from the Republicans.

    Wow it takes a lot of guts to write an article like this from a guy who defends positions like "pro life", "pro family" "pro growth", "pro children" etc. etc.

    The Republicans are getting beaten at their own word game, plus liberals are not going to sit by and let the ignorant (and this doesn't mean reasonable discussion about reasonable issues) run the debate on facts. Mr. Krauthammer just tried it again by talking about climate science being settled. No science is ever settled even long after we know for a fact the grounding principles of a subject.

    Believe as you will but we're not going to let you run policy discussions about the efficacy of evolution, climate change, and sexual attractions with 1st century logic and principles without a loud and boisterous push back.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 13, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    “ . . . more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Washington Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming . . . “ And Charles Krauthammer says these people are “Leftists.”

    No Charles, these are reasonable people who do not think a serious publication should devote much space to extremist Right Wing Pseudo-Science, of the kind that proliferates on Right Wing radio.

    Basically Krauthammer is whining, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. Krathammer is obviously not a serious journalist or columnist. He’s predominantly an entertainer who amuses his target audience, “Conservatives,” by reinforcing their ridiculous prejudices. But he entertains others as well.

    In my opinion, Charles Krauthammer is at his comic best when he whines, but he whines less than half of the time. Mostly, he just lashes out with confused rhetoric, and that’s entertaining too. But his whining can be hilarious, and he should modify his shtick to accentuate the whining a little more.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 13, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    Excellent article Dr. Krauthammer and indisputable truth!

  • Danny Chipman Lehi, UT
    April 13, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Great article.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 13, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    The left would prefer a dictatorship, where every other voice is silenced.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 13, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    Naturally, Krauthammer cherry picks situations to attack the left, leaving unmentioned the same behavior on the right, against their own, such as the firing of Guns and Ammo contributing editor Dick Metcalf and editor Jim Bequette for the offense of suggesting that there should be mandatory gun owner training.

    What we're seeing is the same thing that happened after WWII when it came to criticism of Jews. Because of the Holocaust, it became very, VERY unpopular to criticize Jewish people, their cause, etc. The same thing has happened on the topic of race. Once our nation decided that it was no longer open season on blacks, use of the N-word and other indications of racism became forbidden, very quickly.

    I don't see how these were examples of freedom of expression squashed as much as societal norms moving forward to a more positive America, one that left ugly discrimination in the past.

    We're in the middle of another wave, right now, which explains how many Americans, and many Utahns, along with Obama, have had "evolving" views on the issue.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    April 13, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    "Oppose the current consensus and you're a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people."

    Yup! 100% accurate. I get called those things by the 'tolerant' crowd all the time.

    But I have my guns and my religion and I plan to hold on to both regardless of the totalitarians.

  • BleedsBlue Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    Gary O.
    Perhaps a "serious publication" should retain the freedom and the right to determine if something is "extremist Right Wing Pseudo-Science" and worthy of publication or not.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    The left likes the elections they keep winning because the radical right is unelectable.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 13, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    The vast majority of “climate skeptics” are in fact climate deniers. If you want to understand how to tell the difference between the two, read the excellent article on this very subject by Dr. David Brin.

    Regarding Mr. Krauthammer’s main point, yes, censorship is going too far, but from a scientists point of view, all this denier nonsense (with its distortions, misinformation, and flat out lies) starts to looks more and more like political motivated people wanting to proclaim – in the name of “open & fair debate” – that 1+1=3.

    At what point do we as a society lose patience with the purposeful dissemination of untruths, especially when so much may be at stake?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 13, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Brendan Eich has every right to donate money for Prop. 8, he was practicing his 1st amendment right.

    In the mean time, the staff and customers of Mozilla, they also have every right to call for Brendan Eich's resignation. They are also just practicing their 1st amendment right.

    Brendan Eich has his free will to decide whether to say as CEO or not, in the end, he chose to resign by himself.

    I don't see what's the fuss.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    It is amazing how the voices on the right get ahold of a talking point and chew it like a dog with a bone. The left wants a dictatorship where all other voices are silenced. You here this throughout the left, from radio pundits, to politicians, to what is the right's big thinkers like Krauthammer, to those who comment on the internet. The left wants to silence everybody!

    Can anybody show me a LAW the left has tried to pass that would silence anyone? Krauthammer doesn't mention any. All he mentions is people using their freedom of expression to support their political speech.

    Guess what Krauthammer, petitions are very much expressive of freedom, and they are EXACTLY the American way.

    I can't believe someone complaining about petition drives. Talk about wanting people silenced. Imagine someone complaining about others expressing themselves in a most fundemental way, in an editorial claiming others want to silence people.

    And you get people saying Krauthammer is revealing indisputable truth when he says liberals claim the debate is over. Please. You know what indisputable means? Unable to be challenged or denied. Precious. And Thid said this without a hint of irony.

  • JenicaJessen Riverton, UT
    April 13, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    While I often disagree with Mr. Krauthammer, in this case he's exactly right. As a society, we have to be open to multiple ideas if we hope to develop any good ones. The downside of that is that sometimes you have to put up with global-warming denial or constant complaints over the pay gap. I may not like those ideas, but if I hope for my own views to be heard I'd better not silence others.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    It is amazing how the voices on the right get ahold of a talking point and chew it like a dog with a bone. The left wants a dictatorship where all other voices are silenced. You hear this throughout the right, from radio pundits, to politicians, to the right's big thinkers like Krauthammer, to those who comment on the internet. The left wants to silence everybody!

    Can anybody show me a LAW the left has tried to pass that would silence anyone? Krauthammer doesn't mention any. All he mentions is people using their freedom of expression to support their political speech.

    Guess what Krauthammer, petitions are very much expressive of freedom, and they are EXACTLY the American way.

    I can't believe someone complaining about petition drives. Talk about wanting people silenced. Imagine someone complaining about others expressing themselves in a most fundemental way, in an editorial claiming others want to silence people.

    And you get people saying Krauthammer is revealing indisputable truth when he complains liberals claim the debate is over. Please. You know what indisputable means? Unable to be challenged or denied. Precious. And Thid said this without a hint of irony.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    Dictatorships, left or right, have common characteristics that include silencing (monitoring) the press, suppressing debate, subsidizing their supporters through government programs, repeating lies to the press so often that we begin to believe them, using government legal resources to selectively prosecute their opposition and tax or financial laws that suppress their opponents. Mr. Obama seems to be touching all the bases.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 8:12 p.m.

    "Dictatorships, left or right, have common characteristics that include silencing (monitoring) the press,"

    Uh. . . Nope.

    "suppressing debate,"

    Nope

    " subsidizing their supporters through government programs,

    Uh. . . Again nope

    "repeating lies to the press so often that we begin to believe them,"

    Not even

    "using government legal resources to selectively prosecute their opposition"

    Didn't happen

    " and tax or financial laws that suppress their opponents."

    Not even close

    "Mr. Obama seems to be touching all the bases."

    Well, maybe in your fantasy world. But not here in the real world.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 13, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    @mark "It is amazing how the voices on the right get ahold of a talking point and chew it like a dog with a bone."

    You can say that again.

    @Tyler D "...read the excellent article on this very subject by Dr. David Brin."

    I did, and I found it to be just another appeal to authority. He never bothers to answer any of the specific objections raised by skeptics. His article is a declaration of faith in scientists, without getting into the science.

    To the wider point, why would anyone want to close down a debate they thought they were winning? It seems as though they should prefer to just win the point, if they had one. These claims of the-science-is-settled, and the-heretic-must-be-punished, and my-opponent-is-a-racist are really only admissions that their arguments are weak.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 13, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    Nate, to the broader issue " why would anyone want to close down a debate they thought they were winning? It seems as though they should prefer to just win the point, if they had one."

    If the other side ever listened and or had no influence in civil policies that would make sense. However that is not how things are. Case in point there is nothing more settled in fact than the age of the earth, the age of mankind, and the process of evolution yet persons of influence and power continue to call it a theory amongst many.

    In fact to your broader point when ninety seven per cent or more of credible scientist agree that the climate is changing and that humans are having a major negative effect and this has been the case for decades there is little sense in spending time spinning your wheels with "skeptics" . The science of climate change is not settled because science is never settled. The point of the scientific method is to look for disagreement and questions. It's just that the 3% who claim to be skeptics aren't providing anything of worth considering.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 14, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    Seriously?

    If 49 out of 50 Doctor's tell you your son or daughter has cancer,
    and will most certaily die if you choose to ignore it,

    and 1 Doctor completely denies it,

    Who are your going to believe?

    The 49 or the 1?

    That pretty much SETTLES it for me.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 14, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    Free speech and tolerance are good only if you agree with liberals. Their world-view does not work without that obvious double standard.

    Hutterite,
    The coach who suffers through a 1-12 season may resign, but in reality, he gets ousted. The CEO’s “1-12”? having an opinion unpopular with the left.

    USU-Logan
    Yes, staff and customers have the right to express their bigotry and intolerance.

    Mark,
    The law you have asked for? I forget the exact name of it, but it would require just as many leftist talk radio stations as right talk radio stations. Dems have been pushing for this for years. Glad I could answer your question and set you straight. But since you are in denial concerning 4601’s comments, I’m sure you’ll deny mine.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 14, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    @Nate – “He never bothers to answer any of the specific objections raised by skeptics.”

    A comprehensive review of all the climate science was not the purpose of his article, but I applaud the straw man diversion. Do you have any real arguments against what he did say, or were you just going to put words in his mouth (“have faith in science”) to try and make your point?

    @Nate - “To the wider point, why would anyone want to close down a debate they thought they were winning?”

    Let’s put it this way – If two doctors were arguing over a critically ill patient and one doctor simply wanted to engage in endless “debate” because in fact he did not believe the patient was sick (despite all the contrary evidence) at what point would you say we’re justified in moving forward with treatment?

    Best I can tell, conservatives seem to take the position that we cannot 100% know the patient is sick until he’s dead.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 14, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    Ever noticed when the LEFT squashes distention and debate... "it's not an example of freedom of expression squashed as much as societal norms moving forward to a more positive America". (8:54 April 13).

    But if the right tries to advance THEIR agenda.. he flips.

    ===

    Mark 8:12 April 13 gave an excellent list of whats going on today... but then said "nope" after each one.

    So I guess if he says "nope"... that means it's not happening? Kinda like the 3 monkeys?

    We need to get him to say "nope" about MORE things.

    I wonder if he would kindly say "nope" about the Americans who are out of work and homeless. And Nope about North Korea and Iran getting Nuclear weapons. And Nope about Russia taking over Ukraine. And "nope" to our illegal immigration problems.. then they would all go away... right?

    This guy must have superpowers.

    I wish I could just say "nope" and everything I don't want to acknowledge would just go away...

    ===

    airnaut 7:44 gave us a great parable.

    But if even one of the 50 doctors told me my daughter had cancer.. I would pay some attention to that one...

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 14, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    @Nate
    Pleasant Grove, UT

    These claims of the-science-is-settled, and the-heretic-must-be-punished, and my-opponent-is-a-racist are really only admissions that their arguments are weak.

    10:04 p.m. April 13, 2014

    ======

    I have to laugh at the Anti-Science deniers,
    who run to a Doctor for every boo-boo they have.

    Science sucks...
    Doctor, please help me.

  • D4inSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 14, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    I'm thinking this totalitarian impulse goes both ways. Witness what Jeb Bush is undergoing right now. Interesting how we all have differences of opinion on things.......For the record, I'm right and you are wrong - unless you think like me.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 14, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Excellent article. You point the very reasons why I left the Democratic Party a number of years ago.

    The irony and hypocrisy is so thick that the Left displays. They would shame the CEO of Mozilla or others who donated to support Prop 8 but they don't want to extend that same shame to voters because of the obvious problems, unless you are a Mormon. Yes, Mormons are shunned by the Left because of their stand on gay marriage, but the Left refuses to extend the shunning to blacks who voted against gay marriage also. Given the whole argument is "equality" and "civil rights" (as the Left defines it), how ironic is that? Yes, the Left realizes that crying "Bigot!" or "Hater" to a black that voted for Prop 8 won't work of course, so the Left takes the double standard of choosing who to shun based on convenience.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    April 14, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    The thing is, if a CEO of a company donates to a cause that would deny me my rights--which is what Prop 8 was about-denying gay people the same rights straight people have, I have the right not to do business with that company. And when that company realizes they have a problem, they will do what they need to end that issue.

    It's sad that everyone is screaming "McCarthyism" over this--when it's actually just people excercizing their rights not to do business with a company, but they are not screaming "McCarthyism" over the woman from the IRS who is being held in contempt for excercizing her 5th Amendment rights--whic is McCarthyism.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    dmcvey,
    Do you really think Prop-8 passed because of this guy's $1000 donation??

    Remember... it did pass...

    ===

    I think it would have passed whether he contributed $1000 or not. So taking it out on him (instead of the CA voters)... is bogus.

    He is just the example the gay-mafia choose to target... to teach others like him a lesson. The "Consequences" of crossing them (as another poster put it).

    He's not the first, and he won't be the last.

    ====

    You can say that people would change their votes IF we had the election again today. Or that popularity polls have changed and now the majority want's to change the definition of "marriage".... but till we have another vote... we don't know if that's true or not.

    A judge overruling the vote doesn't mean the majority changed their minds.

    I think some people are just afraid to say they are for the traditional definition of marriage now... with the gay-mafia out there intimidating people...

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    @Lost in DC
    "Free speech and tolerance are good only if you agree with liberal"

    So when conservatives forced World Vision to reverse their policy on gay employees, can people say free speech and tolerance are good only if you agree with conservatives?

    "staff and customers have their right to express their bigotry and intolerance."

    You have your right to call them bigotry and intolerance, they have their right to call you the same thing. It is a fair game.

  • TriciaCT Trumbull, CT
    April 14, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    Excellent and logically delineated, defended and explicated arguments by Mr. Krauthammer. He is so right about leftists who cannot defend their positions with logic, so instead use every means to shut down debate.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 14, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    I will defend EVERYONE's right to free speech, even of those I disagree with. Even those in the minority.

    I guess that's where I differ from a Democrat.

    ===

    Only Democrats would PASS the Nuclear Option (to silence the minority).

    I hope someday when Democrats are in the minority again... they are glad they passed that law. I suspect they will fight against it then...

    ===

    As for ending people's employment for having differing political views... I hope they like that when it comes around to them, not only when they are doing it.

    ===

    And if you don't like money in politics... start with cracking down on George Soros and we'll know you're sincere.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 14, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    Re: ". . . Eich was not 'outsted' [outsted?]. He resigned.

    Yeah, he "resigned" every bit as voluntarily as Kathleen Sebelius "resigned." A half step ahead of the axe.

    The big difference between the two is that Eich did nothing wrong, and was, therefore, much more unceremoniously dumped.

    In today's liberal political climate, being innocent is the worst offense of all.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 14, 2014 5:52 p.m.

    What an unbelievable thread of comments. The hypocrisy of the right is truly stunning.

    for a week now they (meaning pretty much every conservative here) has been giddy about the supreme court decision calling money free speech.

    Give a billion dollars and it's your first amendment right, but take to the streets and your suppressing the free speech of those you oppose.

    Unbelievable.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    April 14, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    Also, 2 bits, it doesn't matter that the majority passed a law denying a minority equal rights. That's why equal rights shouldn't be put up to a majority vote. Many members of religions should remember that--you wouldn't want someone to pass a law against your rights either.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    April 14, 2014 9:07 p.m.

    2 bits, I didn't say that his donation passed the law. It took a lot of donations to this law that was aimed at taking rights away from gay and lesbian American citizens.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 14, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    Krauthammer got it right.

    There are a lot of superficial views of things that are just plain wrong even though they're politically correct. Take global warming alarmism, for example. The first hurdle it must pass in order to be credible is that the temperature must go up. It hasn't for 17 years. The second hurdle is that there must be a mathematical correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2. There is no correlation. None. Zero. The third hurdle is that there ought to be a debate in the first place, not a "the debate is over" declaration prior to ever having had a debate. It is obvious that the movement is driven by big gov't research dollars.

    Take gay "marriage" as an issue of equality. Marriage laws in Utah, prior to Judge Shelby's decision and since the stay, have been enforced without regard to race, religion, or sexual orientation. Gay "marriage" is an attempt to change the definition of marriage, not an attempt to equalize what was already administered in as near perfectly equal a manner as is humanly possible.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 14, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    Re: "The hypocrisy of the right is truly stunning."

    Maybe. But the hypocrisy of the left in presenting a petition to silence and punish discussion -- in the name of science, no less -- or to suggest that discussion of, or voting on the issues involved in gay marriage must be punished and prohibited, as if gay marriage were sacrosanct, carved in stone by the finger of God, is nothing short mind boggling.

    There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around in these debates, but the only thing more hypocritical than zealous advocacy of one side or the other, is to suggest that any argument, itself, is somehow off-limits.

    That's the hallmark of tyranny.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 15, 2014 4:02 a.m.

    This editorial is not about debate. It's about propaganda.

    The Right is well-funded by plutocrats, moneyed interests who fear the democratic process. While they own much of the press and broadcast media, and can pour huge sums into renting the rest to get their message out, they haven't been as successful as they had hoped.

    Now their spokespeople are trying to invent new principles of debate which they then hope to convince us to follow. Run your ads. Pay your think tanks. Put out your press releases. Promote your radio programs. Publish your newspaper articles. You can delay the public understanding the truth, and delay government from acting on it, but you won't stop it. The truth will out. Social justice will out. The public will not stand to be deceived forever.

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    April 15, 2014 6:36 a.m.

    It is so interesting how so many comments also confirmed what Krauthammer's article says. The Left Wing is taking no prisoners. Liberal fascism and intolerance is at an incredibly high level in our society. Blind arrogance and a lack of civility. Demonizing dissent is the partisan left's main endeavor.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    @2bits
    "I hope someday when Democrats are in the minority again... they are glad they passed that law. "

    The Democrats filibustered Bush nominees so rarely that it really wouldn't make a difference when they end up in the minority again.

    @Pops
    "The first hurdle it must pass in order to be credible is that the temperature must go up. It hasn't for 17 years."

    Why are you cherrypicking the year with the strongest El Nino in half a century as a starting point and why are you ignoring the fact that the 2000s were the warmest decade in the modern record (that wouldn't have happened if there wasn't warming going on)? You see, when you take a year with a strong natural forcing for a positive anomaly (1998) and combine that with our current weakest solar cycle in a century... that's a recipe for temporarily not getting an individual year warmer than 1998 (though some datasets have 2005 2007 or 2010 either roughly tied with or a hair warmer than 1998).

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 15, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    @Schnee – “@Pops “Why are you cherrypicking the year with the strongest El Nino in half a century as a starting point and why are you ignoring the fact that the 2000s were the warmest decade in the modern record?”

    The thing that always makes me laugh when the dittoheads pretend to do science is, when they make what appear to be these very simple “knockdown” arguments against climate change, the next logical question is, “wow, if climate change is so simply shown to be false, why is there still such a scientific consensus that it’s not?”

    I mean it’s not like these scientists all went to some fake college that taught nothing but ideology (e.g., Liberty University or Patrick Henry College).

    Wouldn’t the humble position for a non-scientist be to ask, “what am I missing in this incredibly simplistic answer?”

    Of course when I listen to Rush, humble is not a word that ever comes to mind…

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Re: "I mean it’s not like these scientists all went to some fake college that taught nothing but ideology . . . ."

    Yeah they did. Colleges like Harvard, Columbia, Oxford, and anything in California.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 15, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @WestGranger
    West Valley City, Utah

    Liberal fascism and intolerance is at an incredibly high level in our society.

    6:36 a.m. April 15, 2014

    =======

    There is no such thing as "Liberal facsim".

    Facism is infact uber-Far-RIGHT-wing.

    own it.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 15, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    All anyone needs to know about Climate Change/Global Warming is sitting less than 1000 miles northeast of the United States, in the Greenland Ice Sheet. It's an average of a mile and a half thick and dates back 110,000 years. It's melting, and not being rebuilt in the winters. If nothing else melts (and everything else is melting, by the way), the seas will rise worldwide by 24 feet. Rivers and lakes that feed into the sea will rise as well.

    As more land is covered by water, the weather will continue to change, becoming more violent, since water is the energy transfer medium that drives weather systems. And as the ice sheets and glaciers disappear, so does Earth's reflectiveness. This won't happen by next Thursday, but within 2000 years at the current rate, if nothing accelerates (and scientists have identified several ways it might), there will be massive species extinctions, complete agricultural disruption, and the biggest challenge to Mankind's survival on Earth.

    That might appeal to the Apocalyptics in our midst, but it does nothing for me. What do we gain by ruining God's good Earth?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 15, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    @A Quaker – “That might appeal to the Apocalyptics in our midst, but it does nothing for me.”

    I have no doubt that whatever damage we cause in the decades to come, at some point religious conservatives will own it as if they had been warning about it all along. The only difference will be that instead of treating it as a scientific problem, it will be couched in supernatural terms as “God’s judgment” probably because gay people have marriage licenses or some such non-sequitur nonsense.

    @procuradorfiscal – “Yeah they did. Colleges like Harvard, Columbia, Oxford, and anything in California.”

    Wow! I had no idea that every climate scientist from around the world all went to these colleges. Thanks for setting us straight… this liberal conspiracy just keeps getting bigger all the time. Scientists are such dupes!

    Reached comment limit on this ridiculous thread…

    PS - Again, for those who value science & reason, read the article by Dr. David Brin on Climate Skeptics vs. Climate Deniers.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 15, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    @A Quaker,
    RE: "All anyone needs to know about Climate Change/Global Warming is sitting less than 1000 miles northeast of the United States, in the Greenland Ice Sheet. It's an average of a mile and a half thick and dates back 110,000 years. It's melting"...

    110,000 years ago there were glaciers covering North America to the middle of the current United States. It melted. It wasn't rebuilt in the winters. Did MAN cause that??

    There were very few if any men back then. No SUVs. So if they caused it... do we have to go back to prehistoric human populations to get the earth back to it's natural balance?

    It happens... the earth has cycles. Some are daily, some or monthly, some are on a geological time scale (of which man's total existence is just a blip in that scale).

    So how is man responsible for cycles that have been going on for ions on this planet?

    ===

    I think we need to know more than there's a glacier melting. You need to know what man's impact is on that... and what is withing his power to stop it..

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "Yeah they did. Colleges like Harvard, Columbia, Oxford, and anything in California."

    We're talking meteorology/climate science so think more like Penn State, Washington, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Florida State, Michigan, Texas A&M, Colorado State, Utah, Alabama-Huntsville, Miami, Alaska-Fairbanks...

    Frankly, I think Harvard's the only one of the first three you listed that even has such a department.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    @2 bits
    "So how is man responsible for cycles that have been going on for ions on this planet?"

    We aren't. The thing is though, while something like Milankovich cycles are natural and cause substantial changes, those operate on scales of 20, 40, and 100k years (there's a nice ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica that shows clear cycles of this). However... while those 10C cycles are quite a substantial change it's over a couple tens of thousands of years. However, if we took the change the past century and extrapolated that out, we'd get 10C in only 1000 years, much shorter than the Milankovitch cycle. Not to say that's the only natural cycle, of course. Natural cycles will always occur, so they have to be taken into context. 1998 sticks out like a sore thumb because of a very strong El Nino. We've had La Nina 4 of the past 6 years and a weak solar cycle, so should we be surprised that it looks like warming stalled the last few years? Do we just have a positive anthropogenic effect balanced with a negative natural effect?

  • Yoda listen we must. Casa Grande, AZ
    April 15, 2014 8:50 p.m.

    Yes, we demand tolerance for bigotry against gay citizens. Please have tolerance for our desire to be intolerant. To do otherwise is intolerable.

    Is everything about you? When everything is about you they call that narcissism. Krathenhammer should know better as a Psychologist.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 15, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    @Schnee & Tyler D

    Sure, let's play numbers games. 1934 was hotter than 1998. The Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than 1998, or any year of the 21st century. Neither was caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    The real key is that there is no correlation between the temperature record and atmospheric CO2. How it is that the latter can be claimed to be dramatically affecting the former and yet not show correlation? How is it that any human adjustments of CO2 emissions might be thought to have any predictable effect on global temperature when there is NO correlation to indicate what the result of the adjustments might be? How is it in any way rational to suggest we must "do something now!" when the data gives NO indication of what the result of "something" might be? Will the temperature go up? Will it go down? We have no way of knowing. This is where science is needed, but is sorely lacking. So far, the data says we should do nothing. Science is about data, not about fear-mongering.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2014 12:20 a.m.

    @Pops
    1934 was warmer than 1998 in the US, not globally. If you want to make an argument, try using facts. The Medieval warm period was not warmer globally than it is today.

    You clearly have not seen any extended timeline since CO2 is highly correlated with temperature.

    Science is about data, and you've yet to demonstrate any ability to interpret the data we have.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 16, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    @Schnee,

    You've made a number of assertions that are inconsistent with well-known facts, along with with "try using facts". I don't understand how that constitutes useful dialog.

    Perhaps you can identify the paper that establishes the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, as opposed to simply asserting that it's been done. Perhaps you would also care to rewrite the textbooks when it comes to the Medieval Warm Period (and the Little Ice Age, while you're at it), Wikipedia and IPCC notwithstanding. I suppose the saying is true - them what control the past (i.e. through historic revision) control the future.

    The thing that kills attempts at correlation is that atmospheric CO2 has steadily risen during time periods in which the temperature has gone up, the temperature has gone down, and the temperature has stayed flat. There is simply no way to mathematically correlate the two. (Holding up a thumb whilst squinting at a graph does not constitute correlation.) Without correlation, there is no causation.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    I find the remarks about gay marriage insulting and absolutely wrong. Nobody has said that all who disagree with same sex marriage are bigots or that they hate! If you don't believe me, talk to myself or one of hundreds and hundreds of gay Mormons! I have been doing my best for 48 years to be respectful of all my big Mormon family among all the other Mormons in my life! I know that my family loves me despite their disagreement concerning what it is to be gay! Every day I strive to have respect! It is the opposite of what is said in this article. We, the gay people in Utah, have no say in anything! If it were up to many of you, guess where we would be!
    As far as Mozilla and proposition 8. well, maybe when you look at the entire picture and what was done to gay people, you will be able to see that it was hate! Watch the video called Proposition 8. Tell me it was just an opinion! It was much more! Besides, we all know how much is implied without ever uttering a word! We all do, and it isn't good!

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    April 20, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    Republicans and Democrats are both hypocritical. Only Libertarianism truly protects free speech.