Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Good for business, good for economy

Comments

Return To Article
  • showlowdoc Show Low, AZ
    Aug. 6, 2014 1:29 a.m.

    Another doomsdayer remanufacturing utterly useless facts that have nothing to do with mankind changing the climate in any serious way. Can someone at Deseret News please just take a break, and find out why so many intelligent people from across the world are calling the bluff on this debunked theory? It's preposterous to think that CO2 at all, let alone man-made CO2, can be the driver of catastrophic global warming. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but runaway greenhouse warming is not possible. I love how everything "will" be so bad, all in the future. That's all they have to do on--fearmongering of what "will" happen. Shameless.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    "The world will end unless you put me in charge of it."

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 6, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    A CARBON TAX is now responsible for destroying the economic prosperity of a nation. With less than two months since the Gillard Government introduced the carbon tax in Australia, businesses and consumers are beginning to feel the pain of increased costs that are directly associated to the carbon tax. Prices of nearly everything are inflating, especially food prices. Everything rabid environmentalist promised about the wonderful benefits of implementing a carbon tax is turning out to be totally false! Aussies will soon be forced to repeal their carbon taxes to avoid at total collapse of their entire economy.
    Will we learn from other's experiences or will we doom ourselves to repeat their mistakes?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    No no no... You don't you get it? The more businesses we can destroy... the better it is for the economy!

    It would be better if EVERYBODY worked for the Government. Because we ALL know the Government creates jobs... not businesses!

  • David Folland SANDY, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    For those who continue to deny the reality and risks of climate change, like some who have commented on this excellent op-ed, it's time to take off the blinders. It's not only 97% of climate scientists and every professional scientific organization in America that recognizes that human-caused climate change as happening and as a significant risk, it's business leaders throughout that world. Organizations that have taken a stand on the risks of climate change include the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the reinsurance company Munich Re, every U.S. property and casualty company, the U.S. military (see it's Quadrennial Review). There is also an organization called BICEP, Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, that supports policies to address climate change, and includes Nike, eBay, the Outdoor Industry Association, and many others. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    The author made the mistake of assuming that the EPA and other global warming advocates actually care about the environment and about the well-being of people in general. Their whole agenda is about power (political not energy) and they want to wield as much of it as possible so that they can do "what is best for us" which usually entails enriching themselves and their friends at our expense.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 6, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2 – “Their whole agenda is about power (political not energy)…”

    You touch on the entire reason this has become a political issue (when it should be a purely scientific one) and why so many have adopted the dogmatism of denial as a political strategy.

    This approach may work in the short term, but history (including your children and grandchildren) is going to judge the denier dittoheads quite harshly (right up there with the Catholic Church viz-a-viz Galileo, Creationism, and slave holders).

    So, rather than continue with all the denier nonsense, why not focus your energies on market friendly approaches to mitigation (e.g., cap & trade or a revenue neutral carbon tax)?

  • showlowdoc Show Low, AZ
    Aug. 6, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    @ David Folland,

    Ah, yes, the "97% agree" tactic. That was based on one very flawed study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the "97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc (because they didn't like the original 80% who agreed) and cherry picked what they wanted to get to the comfortable "97% agree" (100% agreeing would be too unbelievable to the general public).

    That doesn't even speak to the actual raw data coming in. Did you know that catastrophic global warming exists only in scenarios's predicted by computer models? Did you know that we've had about 17 years to test the validity of those models with actual ambient air temperature and that the real temperature data reveal a wildly divergent result from what the computers predicted? The earth is simply not nearly as sensitive to CO2 as the vast majority of climate scientists predicted.

    Read the children's book, "The Emporer's New Clothes" to discover a profound lesson on the psychological phenomena of "Groupthink". It's what led to the downfall of Rome, the rise of the Third Reich, Phrenology, and many, many other outrageous ideas. It is also happening today in American acedamia.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    This op-ed is weak. So we should let the EPA control our lives?

    Whatever the EPA is for! Im against!

    Whatever big coal and oil companies are for, I'm for too!

    Coal and oil are truly altruistic. They don't care about profit, all they care about is what's best for us. Environmental people are weak commies looking to control our lives.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 6, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    Hey 2 bits -

    "The more businesses we can destroy... the better it is for the economy!"

    Realists disagree.

    We know that a clean energy economy can employ a LOT of people.

    Not only that, but once a clean energy infrastructure is in place, the price of energy will decrease.

    Ever heard of supply and demand? If there's a large supply of clean energy, the price for energy overall will drop.

    And NOTHING stimulates the economy like cheap energy. Just think of how much money from your paycheck goes toward paying for energy. As far as your concerned, that money is pumped into a hole in the ground left by the removal of fossil fuels. Don't you have better things to do with your money?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    When a businessman says something is "good for business, good for economy" he has the assumption that the "economy" includes consumers, workers and ordinary people and their good is tied to the business good. It probably stems from the business notion that ordinary people are just cattle provided by the world for the benefit of business. It ain't necessarily so.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 6, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    Hey ShowLodoc -

    “That was based on one very flawed study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the "97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc”

    WRONG

    Your comment is based on misinformation circulating on the internet via Right Wing La La Land.

    Lying Right Wing websites say that, but reality and Politifact disagree. Check out the Politifact article entitled “Do scientists disagree about global warming?”

    Right Wingers are still in denial, but that doesn’t change the facts.

    Face the facts.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    Ultra Bob,
    Re "he has the assumption that the "economy" includes consumers, workers and ordinary people"....

    What "Economy" DOESN'T include consumers and workers???

    Without consumers and workers... you HAVE NO Economy!

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 6, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @showlowdoc – “Did you know that we've had about 17 years to test the validity of those models…”

    Two points –

    1st, in any scientific discipline it is always the predictive models that are the last piece of the puzzle to fill in our knowledge (see medicine & economics as tow prime examples of this fact). The causal fact that excess CO2 (above the natural carbon cycle – google it) causes warming (and whatever other disruptions that may entail) is undisputed. If you doubt this I would suggest a rudimentary study of the planet Venus.

    2nd, we are continuing to warm however it is currently happening mostly in the oceans (which are also acidifying at alarming rates). Do you want to guess when this overflow heat/carbon trapping capacity of the oceans will be exhausted, not to mention how the oceans will be damaged in the processed?

    The fact that children’s books are informative on this issue for you is telling…

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Aug. 6, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    What climate change? Nothing happening today is unprecedented.

    They're tilting at windmills!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    For those who thing addressing climate change is bad for business, you are like those who resisted computers because it would be bad for the typewriter industry. It's new economic activity and investment, folks!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    As new energy sources become available and become more affordable, businesses will adopt them. As for punishing them for being in business TODAY, and using the energy sources that are available TODAY... I don't know about that.

    When energy from wind is more economical and more reliable than the alternative... who would NOT use it? Why spend MORE than you need to for energy when you are competing with companies that are using the newer/cheaper/renewable energy sources?

    As for forcing them to use more expensive... less reliable energy sources... that probably won't work. They can't shutdown production just because the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. They will need something more reliable...

  • showlowdoc Show Low, AZ
    Aug. 6, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    Tyler,

    I'll try to take it easy on you...Nobody disputes that CO2 causes warming to a certain level. The main question is how sensitive is the feedback mechanism to CO2? Well, a bunch of climatologists predicted what would happen based on a very sensitive feedback process. After 17 years of real time data, they have been proven to have less than a 3% chance of being correct. Would you bank on a 3% chance? I wouldn't.

    Let's go back and evaluate the first, second, third and fourth assessments of the IPCC. All the models used that so breathlessly hyped an average increase of >3C were predicting changes in ambient air, NOT THE DEEP OCEAN. Now that those models have completetly failed, someone came up with the idea that "all the heat is now in the ocean" so they can keep the scare-mongering up. Shameless.

    Ah, the Venus rebuttal. I'm sure the atmospheric pressure being 90 times the earth's pressure has nothing to do with surface temperatures being so much hotter. Next time I cook dinner, I'll just try pumping a lot of CO2 in my oven instead of turning on the electric. A brilliant idea!

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    GaryO: “Hey ShowLodoc -

    That was based on one very flawed study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the "97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc”

    WRONG
    Your comment is based on misinformation circulating on the internet via Right Wing La La Land.”

    No Gary, you are the misinformed one. If you had bothered to read the survey to which showlowdoc referred (Doran/Zimmerman 2009), you would have found these details: 10,257 scientists were invited to participate in the survey. 3,146 responded. Of those responding only 79 were “chosen” for the final result. 77 answered “yes” to two questions that the majority of us who are skeptical of doom and gloom climate change would likely answer “yes” to. Presto "97% consensus".

    Mountanman: Australia repealed their destructive carbon tax this year in mid July. Canada is rolling back its “green engery” efforts. Spain and Japan are also seeing the light. The alarmist scam is running its course, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.

  • showlowdoc Show Low, AZ
    Aug. 6, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Gary O

    I looked at your reference--It refers to two studies, one was the one I referred to (the Eos study), the other by the National Academy of Sciences, which in fact, never did a survey of practicing climatologists. In fact, they referred BACK to the EOS study for that.

    I'll forgive your naivete.

    To everyone else interested in the truth, please just Google "climate models v. reality". There's some good graphs.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 6, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Let's require those who receive government grants to prove that CO2 is destroying the environment to put all their assets in trust. Let's require them to put their "money" where there mouth is. Let's monitor the weather for twenty years to see if those scientists who received government grants to "prove" that man is responsible are right. Let's seize their assetts if they are wrong. Let's prohibit them from ever receiving a government grant if they are wrong. Let's prosecute anyone who uses the power of government to "prove" that more taxes will solve anything.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    any time you stop one technology you HAVE to have a better technology ready to go in its place. You can't start shutting down coal fired power plants with no replacement and expect no consequences as the EPA and Obama administration have done. Stupidly doing such a thing will criple the US economy for good. Go ahead and transition away from coal but you had better have something else in place - NOT wind or solar either. Neither Wind or Solar even come close to replace the wattage output of coal fired plants and the US can't aford a capacity reduction in its power grid. The ONLY thing that could replace coal is Nuclear which is clean power and with 21 century technology running the plants it would be the future of the American Power grid. I doubt the EPA would go along wtih nuclear simply because of the hysteria and irrational leadership there so ...... not sure what the answer is going to be for the US power grid going forward.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Aug. 6, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Let's require those who receive government grants to prove that CO2 is destroying the environment to put all their assets in trust. Let's require them to put their "money" where there mouth is.

    ========

    Guess what Mike, I agree -- sort of.Good idea Mike,
    but let's put pressure where the pressure is required...

    Let's require those who make $Trillions on Fossil Fuels prove that their products are safe, and NOT producing enough CO2 to destroy the environment and put all their assets in trust. Let's require THEM to put their "money" where there mouth is.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 6, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    @showlowdoc – “I'll try to take it easy on you…”

    Whew… I feel much better now.

    First, the starting year of 1997 (in the 17 year data stream) was exceptionally hot. Combine that fact with the current “cool sun” solar cycle and we should be seeing cooling… we’re not.

    2nd, did you not read or understand my point about predictive models? Can medical doctors/scientists predict with much accuracy who will get sick, when, and from what diseases? Does this predictive incapability make you doubt our understanding of a whole host of disease causes?

    As to your “someone came up with” claim regarding the oceans, significant ocean warming in recent years is an established fact and not a scaremongering whim as you shamelessly characterize it.

    Ah, the Venus rebuttal rebuttal – you’re a bit confused on the causal logic here. A planet having an atmosphere (thick or not) is necessary but not sufficient for warming. For warming to occur you need greenhouse gases (Venus’ 97% carbon dioxide atmosphere is the cause of its high temperatures).

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    To "David Folland" who is denying that the climate is changing? I have not heard of anybody who says that the climate isn't changing.

    The question is why do you run around like chicken little and say the sky is falling when we don't even know what causes the climate to change?

    To "GaryO" we also know that where green energy has been pushed very hard it destroys 2 jobs for every job it creates. What good is it if you push to expand an industry that results in a net job loss?

    To "Tyler D" you are wrong that CO2 causes warming. Just look to Mars and the moon Triton that have been warming at the same time the Earth has been warming. You should look at Venus closer, and compare what the alarmists say will happen to the Earth, and what really happens with increased CO2 levels. Read "Global Warming on Venus in Perspective" at the San Jose State University. CO2 isn't that great of an insulator and the 90% CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus proves it.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    The climate science deniers here can bluster all they want, but the science behind climate change, its significance, and our role in causing it, is only disputed within the confines of the far-right fever swamp. In the real, evidence-based world, the science is no more controversial than the science behind the advice that you wash your hands before handling food.

    A scientifically sound, evidence-based, replicable, real-world research study capable of withstanding rigorous scrutiny that refutes the causal connection between fossil fuels and climate change would ensure fame and fortune to its authors. No such studies exist because no such science exists. And don't yammer about conspiracies and bias - you only reveal how much you don't know about how genuine scientific research works.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 6, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    Even though there are those who think that dark houses, frozen people, and no electronics of any kind is some kind of "advancement", do we really want to return to the 1700s where everyone used whale oil to light their homes?

    There is no evil corporation that abuses the public. WE buy what we need to fulfill our dreams. Those who hate free enterprise tell us that unless we shutdown everything, except what THEY NEED, as they rant and rave about the sky falling, will always attack personally anyone who refutes their '"sky is falling" rhetoric'. They know that very few "scientists" agree with their "sky is falling" pronouncements.

    The solution is to require the Federal Government to abide by the Constitution. Nowhere is there an enumerated duty to let Al Gore fly around the world in his private jet to tell the rest of us to stop using oil, electricity, and all modern appliances. If he believed it, he would then off his lights, ground his jets and SHOW is what to do.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    2 bits said: What "Economy" DOESN'T include consumers and workers???

    Supply side economics.

    ...and when it continues to happen, these same science deniers will blame coastal flooding on God and the Gays.

    A conspiracy of scientist who are loosely organized and peer reviewed, or a group of multinational oil and coal conglomerates who make billions and employee herds of lobbyists to bribe congress and other politicians to see it their way. The same folks who have such a great track record with polluting.

    I suppose you all complained when they took the lead out of your gas, that your car didn't run as well too.

    RMP is trying to charge an extra fee to people who are trying to help clean our air by installing solar panels, a substantial cost for a home owner. But they don't think it fair that they should try harder to be good stewards, because it might cut into their profits.

    Yep those horrible scientist making millions to keep the secret that pollution is actually good for your health.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    A transition to cleaner fuels is what is being proposed.
    What kind of fool believes we will switch everything at once?
    Even the oil companies are experimenting with renewable alternatives, because they can see the writing on the wall.
    But the deniers continue with there's no other choice, oil is being created in the mantle, god said there would be enough.
    We need to strip mine the wilderness to satisfy our thirst.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Aug. 6, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    If he believed it, he would then off his lights, ground his jets and SHOW is what to do.

    2:34 p.m. Aug. 6, 2014

    =====

    Also agreed,
    But isn't that sort of like you not taking Social Security, Medicare, and other Socialized Government entitlements?

    or is this another do as I say, not as I do arguemnet?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    Mike Richards said: do we really want to return to the 1700s where everyone used whale oil to light their homes?

    Why did they switch Mike, could it be they nearly killed every single whale and there wasn’t much of a choice?

    Thanks for the laugh Mike, I’m glad you can spot evil people all day long on theses comment, The president has been called evil and worse, but you can say with a straight face “There is no evil corporation that abuses the public.”

    Sorry, but 200 words wouldn’t cover just the names iWork’s, Enron?

    MR said: "The solution is to require the Federal Government to abide by the Constitution. Nowhere is there an enumerated duty to let Al Gore fly around the world in his private jet to tell the rest of us" blah blah.....

    So freedom of speech isn’t in the constitution, cause last time I checked Al wasn’t working for the government anymore, so it sounds like you want to silence a private citizen and somehow ustify it with the constitution?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic

    @1. I said what type of "Economy" doesn't have customers and workers. Not what economic theory.

    @2. "Supply side economics" DOES include consumers and workers. This is the definition from Wikipedia...

    "Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation".

    Both Consumers AND Workers ARE mentioned and are core to this economic theory.

    "lowering barriers for people to produce"... Those people who produce are "workers".

    "consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices"... It's centered around satisfying the needs of the Consumer.

    Without Consumers and Workers... it's nothing.

    There is no "economy" without Consumers and Workers.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 6, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    Hey Showlowdoc and Chilly –

    “I looked at your reference . . . the National Academy of Sciences”

    Oh my! How terrible! lol

    I guess it all boils down to whom you believe.

    I ‘ll accept the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences as fact.

    “Conservatives,” as is their inclination, accept the conclusions of Rush Limbaugh as fact.

    That’s fine with me. It helps illustrate my point.

    “Conservative “facts” are often firmly rooted in Right Wing La La Land. Let them enjoy their shared delusions. That's about all they have.

    Hey Redshirt –

    “where green energy has been pushed very hard it destroys 2 jobs for every job it creates . . .”

    Who says? Rush Limbaugh again?

    “Conservatives” have it easy, don’t they?

    Who need free will and a mind, when you’ve got Rush Limbaugh to tell you what to think?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 6, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    What is the difference between a handout from the government and being repaid what was guaranteed by the government in return to Social Security taxes, Medicare Taxes and other TAXES levied by the government to "help" us in our retirement years?

    It's good to know that some who work for the government will return to the government all the benefits, all the pension, and all of the promised health care because THEY don't believe is taking anything from the government. I don't believe in taking anything from the government EXCEPT what the government OWES us for paying into their Ponzi scheme.

    Is Al Gore authorized to levy a "carbon tax" on us for NOT doing what he tells us to do (even though he is one of the biggest energy users in the United States)? Where in the Constitution does it tell us that Al Gore, or any other citizen who is not a member of Congress has the right to levy taxes according to HIS personal feelings?

    When people decide that they are part of a "privileged class" who are exempt from law, then the "equality" that so many are demanding is moot.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 6:40 p.m.

    @Tyler "significant ocean warming in recent years is an established fact"

    Fortunately, this is a claim that can be checked out. I used the time series calculator on NOAA's website and found that the 21st century trend is a -0.03 C. per decade (years 2001-2014). If you include all the years for which we have records, the trend is only +0.05 C. per decade. Apparently our missing heat is hiding somewhere else.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 6, 2014 8:50 p.m.

    Has the anti global warming movement gotten so far down the road that they will actually say that pollution isn't bad for you? Who cares if the earth temperature moved a degree one way or another... when you can look out your window and see the air - that is not healthy for you. Nothing that you can visibly see coming out of a smoke stack or a tail pipe is good for you... period.

    This doesn't have to be a defense of global warming.... it can be stated as simply as clean air and clean water. If we are so concerned about future generations that we obsess about how much debt we are leaving them, why are not he same people equally obsessed with leaving future generation a place as good or better than the one we inherited.

    Unfortunately the answer seems pretty transparent. This isn't about global warming or anything of the like. It is about money - full stop. The concern about future generations should be consistent... and in this case, hardline conservatives are sending really mixed messages. They care about the budgets their kids inherit, not the environment we will leave them with.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 6, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    Climate change deniers don't appreciate that the environment is an interconnected whole, and that small changes can create huge changes elsewhere in the chain, for example - giant methane blow-holes in Siberia have many scientists worried about runaway climate change. The warming Arctic Ocean created by AGW is allowing the release of methane from the ocean floor and immediate environs. Methane is CO2 on multiple steroids as a warming gas. This could produce immediate and catastrophic climate change.

    Five years from now EVERYBODY will believe global warming is occurring as a consequence of man's activities.

  • David Folland SANDY, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    We're all entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts. As I read the comments about the scientific consensus, or lack of it, on human-caused climate change, it's clear to me that those who don't recognize or accept the scientific consensus have created their own "facts." I encourage anyone who would like to understand the basis for my statement that 97% of scientists agree to look at the Skeptical Science website for discussion of this.
    And for those who recognize that there is indeed a consensus, yet brush it off because they contend that the consensus can be wrong, I would ask, what if the consensus is right?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    @David Folland "look at the Skeptical Science website"

    Okay, I did, focusing on the article "Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature." Here are my initial observations.

    First, their admission that two-thirds of the abstracts took no position on the cause of global warming. This means that only one-third did. Doing the math, 97% of one-third is 32%. Your position on global warming is supported by only 32% of the abstracts surveyed. (The self-ratings fared even worse at 14%.)

    Second, this subjective survey was made by volunteers at the Skeptical Science website -- not independent researchers, but people who have made a strong commitment in favor of one position. Biased researchers doing subjective categorizations. Do you see anything wrong with this?

    Third, this was treated as a yes or no question, but there is a wide range of yes, and a wide range of no. If the Skeptical Science team were to survey my position, they would probably lump me in with the 97%, when in fact I believe that man's contribution is insignificant, and extremely unlikely to result in catastrophe.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    David Folland: "Skeptical Science"

    The "consensus" discussed at the SkS website comes from Cook et al., 2013. Even Richard Tol, a scientist and true believer in global warming, describes the Cook paper this way:

    "A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand.... Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

    The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed)."

    Easy to google details about the many flaws in this study.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Aug. 7, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    @Nate – “Apparently our missing heat is hiding somewhere else.”

    Except that you misplaced a decimal point – it is not +0.05 per decade, it is +0.5 (and rising at an unprecedented rate).

    I wonder what a 4-5 degree rise in ocean temperature will mean for our grandchildren?

    @RedShirt – “To "Tyler D" you are wrong… Just look to Mars and the moon Triton”

    We have little history of temperature measurements on other planets/moons and therefore can make no informed guesses regarding long term trend and trajectories (which is not the case for Earth).

    As for Mars, most scientists think the recent warming is related to dust storms. What they know for certain is it has nothing to do with the solar cycle.

    If you read the scientific websites (you must read further than only when you think you found the “gotcha” question), this will be clear to you.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    To "Tyler D" I read it, and they were quite clear that saying that Venus is proof of global warming is like saying the earth is flat.

    The facts are that the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is not sufficient to account for the temperature changes that your ilk claims. If CO2 was as responsible as you claim, then Venus and Mars should be hotter than they are.

    You do realize that without any data of the temperature history of Venus, and the fact that humans have not been to Mars, that Venus only proves that climate change is natural. Scientists think that when global warming started there it was H20 warming the atmosphere, then when that boiled off, we were left with CO2.

    How do you propose we cut H20 in the atmosphere so that we don't follow Venus?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    @Mike Richards -- My guess is you're getting out (at least in Medicare) much more than you paid in.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    Redshirt: "How do you propose we cut H20 in the atmosphere so that we don't follow Venus?"

    Careful! You don't want to give these geniuses any more ideas. They might petition the EPA to classify H2O as a pollutant, as they have CO2 - considering that water vapor is by far the most plentiful and dominant greenhouse gas ;)

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    @Tyler D "Except that you misplaced a decimal point..."

    Not so. You're looking at the per-century trend. Plot it again, and make sure to click "per Decade." It makes a difference.

    No wonder you were alarmed.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 7, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    @Tyler D "...rising at an unprecedented rate..."

    I just have to comment on "rising at an unprecedented rate." I referred you to the years 2001-2013 in order to show you that ocean temperatures are not currently rising. If anything, they are declining. The rate of change is within the margin of error, so we'll just call it flat.

    And I'm curious about what prompted you to say "unprecedented." We just looked at the entire recorded span from 1880-2013, and you can see with your own eyes the trend line from 1933-1942, which was +0.34 C. per decade. Show me any ten years with a steeper trend than that.

    (For those of you who are joining us late, we are talking about the Climate at a Glance time series calculator on the NOAA website.)

    I have to assume that your "unprecedented" claim is based on rates of change projected by computer models. As you can see, theory diverges from reality. Which will you believe?