From NOAA: "From 1880 to 2012, the globally averaged surface
temperature rose by 0.85° C (1.5°F). The rate of temperature increase
has risen as well. For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average
rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per
decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over
the previous half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global
average temperature will rise by around 0.2°C (about one-third of a degree
Fahrenheit) per decade."
Apparently there is some question about Christopher Monckton's credentials.
The biography at the end of the article says he is the author of several
peer-reviewed articles about climate change and economics. Would it be possible
to list them, please?
"A study I conducted ...... shows it is 10-100 times costlier to prevent
global warming today than to let it happen and adapt."Odd
conclusion. If I were so sure that GW was not happening, I would conclude that
preventing it is free.
"That figure is not "cherry-picked" — another favorite phrase
of the climate communists."I avoid commenting on the subject of
climate change or global warming because I really don't understand all the
factors and there are certainly differing opinions from knowledgeable people to
make this an interesting debate.But one thing I know quite a bit
about after 60 years of living among humans on this planet and that is that name
calling never was, and never will be a responsible or effective way of changing
peoples minds. "Climate communists"?! Really. Since this is an
opinion essay on the editorial page I'd have thought that the DN Monitor
would have flagged that comment before it ever made out of the newsroom. But
then, reading the slant of this article I see the same standard was used in
evaluating what constitutes "name calling" as is used in the other posts
that make their way on to this page.
Lord Christopher Monckton works with the Heartland Institute, a corporate funded
conservative think tank. He also works for the Science and Public Policy
Institute, an organization that denies global warming. The
Heartland Institute worked with Phillip Morris in the 1990's to discount
the harmful effects of second hand smoke.Lord Christopher Monckton
appears to have no scientific educational credentials, and no serious standing
in the scientific community.Is this editorial a credible source of
"The war on coal". There is no war, only the decision to use more
efficient, cleaner forms of energy where possible.
Bracketing "those who question the magnitude of man’s influence on
climate with Holocaust deniers" is appropriate. Both groups defy reason and
facts. I am dubious about the credentials and independence of the writer.
Oh please FT. The war on coal sits right in the queue of wars with the war on
Christmas, the war on religion, the war on free speech, the war on freedom. Yes
righties before you lose it the war on women is equally as stupid
@ liberal Larry"Is this editorial a credible source of
information???"I think we all know the answer to that. We got a corporate scientist who once denied the harmful effects of
cigarettes.Well done Deseret News, well done.
I used to do this with my parents when I was younger. They would ask me about my
chores not being finished. I would pick and choose some things that happened,
exaggerate them, and make it sound like I was the victim. Ohhh the
vacuum broke. Ohhhh I ran out of soap. Ohhhh the grass was too wet to mow.At this point, refusing to adjust to global warming is like a spoiled
kid who doesn't want to admit his mistakes to his parents.
Just Google the author... and see what the House of Commons had to do with this
chap. Credibility isn't his strong suite. He has had some good ideas, no
doubt. But read about his recommendations for Aids victims, and you get an idea
about what planet this guy is orbiting.
“Science does not advance by consensus, or no one would ever have listened
to Galileo.” It was not science that opposed Galileo, it was
religious dogma, supported by the ultra-Conservative enforcers of that dogma.
Attempting to use Galileo to support the kind of anti-scientific
rationale that opposed him, the very OPPOSITE of what he stood for, is
absurd.Face it, the earth is warming. Whether the temperature rises
steadily in increments of seconds or sporadically in increments of decades, is
immaterial. The earth is warming.Right Wing America, with the
Alternate Reality it embraces, is immensely impressed with itself, but that
doesn’t affect the reality of climate change.“Humans
are good at adapting. That is why we are here.” Uh huh.Every extinct species that ever lived was good at adapting . . . Until
they went extinct.We will adapt huh? How? Undergo a series of
quick mutations to become hardier creatures, capable of withstanding temperature
extremes, and grow a set of gills, so we can live in our submerged homes?That is some stellar “Conservative” planning.
Based on the author's credentials, Mary Barker is looking pretty good. So,
DN, next time you need someone to defend the climate-change deniers, maybe go
find a real scientist. Oh, wait, you already did that. You printed a piece by
BYU geology professor Barr Bickmore, who, as a conservative, looked into the
actual science behind global warming and determined that his team was wrong.
Wow, the logical problems in this article are glaring! Here are just two shining
example of the brain power on display:First, the article title
– how can there be a solution, right or wrong, to a non-problem?Second, his solution (oh the irony is rich) is to “let it (climate
change) happen and adapt.” Really? Let what happen? The very thing
you’ve spent the entire article denying?As to the rest which
is no doubt full of falsehoods (e.g, our current weak solar cycle, and the fact
that Antarctic SEA ice is increasing due to the rapid melting of LAND ice)
I’ll leave it to other capable commenters to skewer… should be easy
given the dim light bulb we‘re dealing with here.
According to "Skeptical Science":"Christopher Monckton
is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer.
While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and
widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the
U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions."For a
comprehensive rebuttal of many of Christopher Monckton's arguments, check
out this presentation by Professor John Abraham (link omitted here, but you can
find it at Skeptical Science's website). Abraham has compiled many examples
where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites. Check out
this PDF of Monckton quotes versus the scientists who in their own words explain
how Monckton misrepresents their research (link again provided at Skeptical
These 'think tank' originating paid opinion pieces should have a
longer blurb at the end describing the author and their work a little more. A
little more disclosure, please.
Climate scientists use 30 year climate norms. 13yr 4mths is the "what's
the longest I can get away with and still be correct in my statement" value.
We're in the weakest solar cycle in a century; we should be cooling. Yet
the 2000s were the warmest decade on record and we keep getting one of the
warmest few El Nino, neutral, and La Nina years on record these recent years
despite that very weak solar cycle. We know that natural forcings are always at
play, as well as anthropogenic forcings (though some might not believe those).
The equation would be something like temperature change = nat force + anth
force. What if what we're seeing is just a balance between those two terms
on the right helped out by that very weak solar cycle?"A survey
of 11,944 climate papers published since 1991 showed just 64 — or 0.5
percent of the sample — as saying they agreed with the panel’s
contention that recent global warming was mostly manmade. "That
number pretends all others disagree. Many just don't say anything since
it's not relevant to the paper.
"Global sea ice extent has not changed much in 35 years. "The Arctic summer minimum sea ice extent has dropped by over 50% in 35
years."What of Hurricane Sandy? Or Haiyan? Or wildfires in
Russia and California? One thing we know for sure is recent extreme-weather
events cannot have been caused by recent global warming. There has not been any
recent global warming."Global warming shifts odds, we would
still carry the shifted odds from the warming the previous century since
we're still at those warmed levels from around 2000.As for
Monckton, he is a journalism degree holder and his so-called climate articles
were published not in major journals but in Nexus magazine, a magazine that also
published conspiracy articles about UFOs and a 9/11 plot.
"And there is no consensus anyway [in favor of anthropomorphic global
warming]. "But there is in the form of entire organizations,
e.g. the American Geophysical Union, the National Geographical Society, NOAA,
etc.This guy also makes wild statements like "environmentalists
are new Marxists." I wish. I am the only Marxist I know in the
environmental movement. Of course I don't know everybody, but I have yet
to run into another Marxist at a climate activist gathering.
To summarize the article. Global warming doesn't jive with my
political beliefs, therefore all of the science behind it is junk science.
Besides even if the earth was warming, which it isn't, it would be to hard
and costly to make any changes to our society (never mind that any job lost in
the coal industry would probably be made up for with a job created in the green
industry) so we should just not do anything and adapt to our changing climate,
that isn't really changing by the way. I'm a real
scientist. Really I am.
Ford DeTreese says:"Christopher Monckton is a British
consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer."Maybe that's what Mr. Monckton means when he says his papers are
You know what really bothers me is all the people that harp about those who
smoke and drink a little. The people that give lectures about how our bodies are
temples and look down on others for drinking a cup of tea or coffee. We all know
about the Word of Wisdom. I am not putting down the Word of Wisdom. I want to
point something out. What bothers me is the fact that so many of these people
who preach about taking care of the body, seem to care little at all about the
Earth we live on! There may or may not be global warming, but the fact is ,
human beings are polluting this Earth at an alarming rate! Look at what it does
to the air we breath! When the pioneers first came to Utah, you could see to the
bottom of Utah Lake, and look at it now! Deny global warming all you want, it
doesn't change how much harm we are doing to the Earth! It isn't very
smart to look the other way as if it isn't important! Do we have to receive
another word of wisdom about the Earth?
The ad hominem attacks on Lord Monckton reflect badly on those making them.
Having seen Monckton in action, I'm certain that none of the commenters
here (myself included) would have any chance in a debate with him.Schnee wrote "That number pretends all others disagree. Many just
don't say anything since it's not relevant to the paper."It's too bad that you didn't catch the irony of what Monckton did
there. He used precisely the same tactic that was used to arrive at the "97%
of scientists agree" conclusion, but simply reversed the test. You're
right, it's misleading. That was the point, but perhaps it was too subtle
for most of us.The bottom line is that there is no correlation
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and thus no way to establish
climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 other than to assume it's
indistinguishable from zero. There is no way of knowing what the effect will be
of any CO2 abatement program. The temperature will simply continue to go up and
down in response to the same things as always, one of them not being CO2,
according to the data.
Great op-ed and reality check by Lord Mockton. Barker tries to sound objective
in her column, but appears to be guilty of the same thing she is accusing others
of. Namely, she has already made up her mind, and is looking for evidence to
support her conclusion. Man-made “global warming” is
only a theory, and a dubious one at that.
POPs, as you know, I respect your opinion. But when you make statements like
"The temperature will simply continue to go up and down in response to the
same things as always, one of them not being CO2, according to the data"....
I wonder where your data is coming from. If I go to the NASA site, they
clearly don't agree with your assessment. NASA does support
the notion that CO2 is not bad. They site the positives in their assessment for
certain vegetation. But they clearly say there is a link between greenhouse
effect and CO2 levels. So I just ask back what is the source of your research
that disagrees with NASA. We increasingly have the capability to do multi
variant large data correlation analysis.... this is math that has progress
exponentially over the last 5 years. I would love to see what is new out there.
I don't know anyone within the scientific community who doesn't
believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's a simple calculation to
determine how much warming ought to result from a doubling of CO2, all other
things being equal. It's a modest increase that even the alarmists
aren't worried about. But all other things aren';t equal. There are
feedback mechanisms that might potentially amplify the warming (e.g., small
increase in temps leads to more evaporation, and water vapor is a potent
greenhouse gas) that could lead to catastrophe or even thermal runaway. But
nobody has found evidence of positive feedbacks in the actual data. If anything,
negative feedbacks dominate and are eliminating any evidence of CO2 influence on
temperature (lack of sufficient statistical correlation)Researchers
are using every statistical technique at their disposal to try to coax a CO2
signal out of the temperature data. So far, nobody has succeeded, but it
isn't for lack of trying. Michael Mann got in trouble, for example, trying
a bit too hard and using math that would turn random data into a warming trend.
@Pops – “negative feedbacks dominate and are eliminating any
evidence of CO2 influence on temperature”An interesting point
and it suggests that they are other mitigating factors – weakest solar
cycle in a century and ocean acidification (due to capturing large amounts of
C02). What happens when the weak solar cycle ends or the ocean reaches its C02
absorption capacity?And you admit C02 is a greenhouse gas and we
only need to look to Venus to see the effects of positive feedback mechanisms
causing thermal runaway. This fact alone should make us cautious rather than
reckless… yet we are recklessly tapping the fossil fuel party spigot for
all it’s worth.It would be far more prudent to apply Dick
Cheney’s 1% precautionary principle (terrorism) to climate change for a
couple reasons. 1st, it is exponentially higher than 1% that man-made climate
change is a fact. Second, its effects could be far more devastating than any
terrorist act.For these reasons I take a conservative position on
climate change, and frankly am baffled that so many modern
“conservatives” have taken such a recklessly radical denial
Simple facts include the Pacific Ocean is down not rising, the Antarctic is
making ice while the arctic is not, the number of polar bears is growing and the
average temperature is steady for a number of years.The only thing we
really don't know is which side possesses the "chicken little"
syndrome about the sky is falling. I was taught that science just "is"
such as gravity is gravity with no debate, that humans need oxygen and plants
need carbon dioxide is no debate and that plants make oxygen out of carbon
dioxide is no debate. It makes me a little suspicious when the term concensus
HS Fan.... I think you will find your comment "Simple facts include the
Pacific Ocean is down". If you google global sea levels, I think you will
find that there are many regions of the Pacific Ocean that are experiencing sea
level rise. Yes, some are down, but those are the exception, not the rule. In
particular if you look at what is going on in the Marshall Islands. The entire
west coast of the US - California through Washington State also report higher
sea levels.So a blanket statement that the Pacific Ocean is down
isn't totally accurate.If "It makes me a little suspicious
when the term concensus is used", well then you must mistrust just about
everything in science. Consensus and peer review is a cornerstone to
@Tyler D - caution consists in looking at the data to see what is happening in
the real world. In the real world, increases in CO2 aren't having a
measurable impact on temperature. And there are plenty of climate scientists of
the liberal political persuasion who think climate alarmism is out of whack with
reality. It's unfortunate the press is either unable or unwilling to report
what is really going on for those who don't follow the actual science.@UtahBlueDevil: while peer review is important, it is more important to
get things right. Blind faith in something because it is "peer reviewed"
is not healthy. If the motives of peer reviewers aren't pure, then the
result will be corrupted. Peer reviewers are human and subject to the same
faults as the rest of us. We live in an age in which there is an abundance of
lying, cheating, and stealing. It doesn't take very many
politically-motivated peer reviewers to hijack the process. I wish I could
relate in the few remaining words I have allotted to me the shenanigans that
have occurred in the promotion of climate alarmism, but I'm out of words.
@Pops – “And there are plenty of climate scientists of the liberal
political persuasion who think climate alarmism is out of whack with
reality.”Point taken and I won’t dispute that (it may
not be that bad), but again I come back to the precautionary principle –
if there’s even a 1% chance of climate change being catastrophic,
shouldn’t we do what we can to try and mitigate it?We can do
so in ways that won’t damage the economy or grow government (e.g., revenue
neutral carbon tax) and may drive tremendous innovation and positive economic
benefits.AND – we become more energy independent, reduce the
wealth and influence of countries that hate us, have cleaner air, improve our
trade deficit, etc…Please help me understand why you and so
many other conservatives are against this… I don’t get it.
A couple of years ago a carbon trading scheme was proposed in California that
would have cost $450 billion, using numbers from the bill's proponents. The
net effect on the climate would have been 1/1000 of a degree Fahrenheit, using
the worst-case warming numbers from alarmists. That's the problem.
Alarmists are proposing to swamp the economy with artificial costs and massive
regulations in order to achieve something so tiny that, using worst case
numbers, we wouldn't even be able to measure its effect.I
calculated how much CO2 my car emits commuting for a year. I then assumed that
every sixth person in the world did likewise and computed how much CO2 that
would produce . The result was too small to measure as a fraction of atmospheric
CO2. The impact on warming, using the worst-case alarmist scenario, would again
be indistinguishable from zero.And that's if the alarmist
science is correct, but it isn't because it's based on computer models
instead of empirical data.Adaptation would cost a small fraction
(e.g. 1% - 10%) of the cost of mitigation. And if no warming occurs, the cost
will be zero.
Scientific research is okay and peer review is good but neither is science. As
I said science just is and there is no question about it. Both of tirst
statements are okay but they are not what is, we use them to study items. And
as far as the Pacific Ocean goes, most of it is down and that ocean is huge.There is nothing wrong with being suspicious and careful but nothing
concerning climate change is certain and we do not know for sure what we humans
can even affect. Be wise but do not be scared.
“Micawber” asks me to list my reviewed publications on climate
science and economics. They include Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (Physics
and Society, July 2008); Cool it (Journal of the Chartered Insurance Institute
of London, 2010); Global Brightening and Climate Sensitivity (Annual
Proceedings, Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, World Federation of Scientists,
2010); Is CO2 Mitigation Cost-Effective? (WFS, op. cit., 2013); Agnotology and
climate (Science and Education, 2013); Political Science – drawbacks of
apriorism in intergovernmental climatology (2014: in press). At one
point the American Physical Society tried to pretend that the 2008 paper had not
been peer-reviewed: however, it had been reviewed by Prof. Alvin Saperstein, the
review editor, in accordance with the journal’s usual practice. He and the
commissioning editor who had asked for the paper on the recommendation of a
senior scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory were both dismissed because
the paper reached the inconvenient conclusion that global warming this century
might be less than 1 K (warming in the first one-seventh of the century, 0.0 K).
It's great to see this letter refute the pseudo-science the climate
alarmists keep foisting on an unsuspecting public. If funding
sources taint conclusions, then both sides of this debate are equally guilty.
Examine the facts for yourself, and you'll see that Monckton is right.
Pops... true peer review doesn't mean you hand out your work to those who
agree with you, but that you academically publish it for all to see, and for
competing ideas to try to find holes in your reasoning and testing methods. No
doubt there is dishonesty and personal bias that effects the process.... but
generally speaking the process works to uncover flaws in theory or testing.That said, it is all based on what we currently know.... and we are a
long way away from knowing everything we should know. And in the end,
consensus if a far better filter than just trusting ones own self or our self
selected review. Not perfect, but far better than the other options.
So, on this issue we either believe a guy who majored in journalism and a few
radio show hosts who went to one semester (at most) of junior college OR we can
believe almost all individuals who have earned PhDs in climate sciences. Hm....
if I'm a conservative I go with the former, of course!