On the front page of The Daily Universe’s July 20 issue was an article titled “Farmers reject global warming.” I looked with futility for the article’s counterpart, “Climatologists virtually unanimous in acceptance of global warming.”
I have no problem with journalists informing the public that farmers (or anyone else for that matter) don’t believe in global warming. What is frustrating is the article’s implication that farmers’ opinions somehow carry the same weight as the many scientific studies that have proven the planet is heating up. The denial of global warming seems to be epidemic in Utah. Even among students at BYU, the reality of global warming has been treated with skepticism and even animosity. I can’t help but to ask, “Why?” I can only guess the consumers of the aforementioned article fall into the same category of those who maintain the lunar landing was a hoax.
Unfortunately, the issue of global warming has become a war on expertise in which the media still feels the need to tell both sides of the story — the facts according to experts and the facts according to everyone else.
Jeremy Kuhre
Southlake, Texas
Feeds 
CO2 comprises only 0.038% of our atmosphere. Human contribution to it, by burning fuel to heat and light our homes, is less than 1/40th of that amount. Yet climate alarmists claim that tiny amount is the main cause of the warming that took place up until 2000.
Man’s CO2 contribution is only 0.00095% of the total atmosphere. That is equivalent to our adding one drop of warm water every three days to a 2,641 gallon tank full of cold water. Who would seriously believe that adding that much warm water could have any appreciable effect on the tank’s water temperature?
By supporting the Waxman-Markey Cap and Tax bill, our legislators justify doubling or tripling all citizens’ gas, electric and gasoline prices. We don’t waste fuel; here in Wisconsin’s climate, we need it to be able to live! We have to use heat over half the year here. By taxing it so heavily, Congress will cause real suffering in Wisconsin and likely drive people out of this state; and for what? A totally false claim that there is a human-caused catastrophe of warming!
If our legislators are really worried about a “carbon footprint,” why are they supporting a bill that supposedly addresses that topic, but doesn’t mention building more nuclear power plants? Nuclear is the only fuel source with no carbon footprint, and has been safely used for over 50 years, in Europe, on Navy subs, and here in the US.
I looked with futility for the article’s counterpart, “Climatologists virtually unanimous in acceptance of global warming.”
Quite simply, that situation doesn't exist, get used to it.
Personally, I really don't care all that much whether or not global warming is actually happening. However, if the threat of global warming gets us to lower our pollutant emissions and actually take better care of the planet I'm all for it! If don't change our habits we may not hurt the planet through "global warming" but we'll certainly be causing irreversible damage in other ways. So for the mean time, I'm all for using global warming as a means to an end.
So are the politicians. Enjoy having to pay higher taxes and the crippling blow to the economy and our way of life in the name of "saving the planet."
It's funny how the debate has become some polarized... you either "save the planet" or you "destroy the economy" as if those are the only two options. No need to start spouting off false dilemma logical fallacies. It is certainly possible to do a better job at protecting the environment and boost the economy at the same time. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive, contrary to what a lot of politicians would also like you to think.
I hate to break this to you, but climate models that rely on thousands of assumptions to not "prove" global warming. In fact, global warming stopped in 1998 and the planet has been cooling since. How can the planet be heating up when numerous regions of the world saw record low temperatures and snowfall for the first time in decades (or even ever in recorded history)?
If you want the word of scientists over farmers, check out http://www.petitionproject.org/ A site that records the names of 31,000 scientists who refute the argument using the scientific method, not computer models based on assumed knowledge on a subject that we hardly know anything about. After all, climatologists can't forecast the weather 2 weeks in advance, so what credentials do they have to attempt to predict the entire planet's climate 100 years in advance?
Not only that, what are the politicians saying about global warming? That they can save us all by skyrocketing our taxes and eroding our freedoms even further. They claim that carbon emissions are the cause of the "warming" when C02 is not even the most potent greenhouse gas; it's water vapor. Not only that, but C02 is an absolute necessity for life on this planet and mankind's emissions account for less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. That's generally what happens when we put our trust in the arm of flesh.
Many of the skeptical scientists have come to the same conclusion that the sun and solar activity are the primary factors that affect the earth's climate. To say that we, as humans, can affect the entire climate and then claim we can "save" the planet by changing the climate back is pure arrogance, pride, and the natural man at work.
If you want to talk about one-sided bias, try and find any articles that also talk about the benefits of global warming. With a warmer planet, there's more rain, more land that can be cultivated for food, more prosperity. Recall Nephi's words that all things typify of Christ. Our planet revolves around the sun as our lives should revolve around the Son. When the sun shines brighter, the earth prospers in a physical sense. When the Light of Christ shines brighter and the gospel is prevalent, the earth prospers in a spiritual sense.
The whole thing is indeed a hoax and, just like any missionary will tell an investigator, you need to start researching these things for yourself rather than simply listening to what other people tell you. To say that the "debate is over" and that global warming is "proven" without providing that actual proof is lazy, ignorant, and an insult to the real scientists who aren't doing this for political reasons or for a fat paycheck courtesy of the taxpayer. I urge you to re-read and understand D&C 88:77-80 where the Lord commands us to come to a knowledge of the doctrine of the kingdom and how it will help us to better understand practically everything in regards to fields of science, history, current events, and more.
PS: There's a piece of evidence that proves the lunar landing was real. Do you know what it is? If not, you can't make blind comparisons based on something you don't understand.
This is a rebuttal of Dave's commentary. Dave and I obviously see things differently, but I'm sure there's truth on both sides of the issue. If I were you, unless you're Dave Paradise, I'd probably not read this. I'm not an expert by any means, but I've read a decent amount on the subject and whatever else I lack, I make up for in dedicated wikipedia research. Also I love to watch the office with Kim in my free time. I feel this gives me a clearer understanding of the world around me.
Dave, you obviously seem heated. Here are my thoughts. You refute global warming by saying that some parts of the world have just had their coldest years on record. You say the earth has been cooling since 1998. Please peruse http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-04-16-march-temperatures-em... to see that 2009 is shaping up to be the 8th hottest year on record.
I have to admit that you got me interested when you told me about petitionproject.org. I started researching it for you, and I stumbled upon an interesting fact. This petition was initially sent to thousands of scientists with an article claiming that global warming was false. In fact, this article was designed to look like a peer reviewed article from the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. As soon as the Academy found out, they sent out an article disclaiming the fraud and reaffirming the reality of climate change. Go here to read about it: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_....
Then you get into politics. I won't argue any of that. You do however make the mistake of saying that "C02 is not even the most potent greenhouse gas; it's water vapor." While it is true that CO2 is not the most potent, neither is water vapor. You may have been confused because water vapor is the most common of the greenhouse gases. Among the most potent are the DuPont chemicals that have since been largely eradicated. Perhaps the reason CO2 is the most targeted of the GHGs is because while CO2 is neither the most potent, nor the most prevalent, it is definitely the one we have the most control over. Also, it is easier to pronounce.
You say, "With a warmer planet, there's more rain, more land that can be cultivated for food, more prosperity." Oh Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave. Where did your elementary environmental class teacher go wrong? Just kidding, Dave. It is true that there will likely be more rain (1 point Dave), and as permafrost becomes land, yes, there will be more land (another point Dave). I hope you also learned that that rain will be less frequent and it will rain harder. This leads to increased runoff and decreased soil penetration (2 points Science). Unfortunately, the increased rainfall will not be good for agriculture in most parts of the world. Why don't you run that by the farmer climatologists featured in the Daily Universe's article!?
You say there will be more land that can be cultivated for food. You're probably referring to the permafrost of Canada and Russia which scientists estimate will receive 80% of the benefit of global warming. Do you realize what drastic changes have to occur to turn Siberia into farm country? Are you really asking for that? To keep it short(er), ice and snow are one surface on earth that reflect nearly all solar energy back towards space. Melted ice (water), on the other hand, is extremely absorptive. Losing ice surface area and increasing water or land surface area creates a dangerous spiral that further warms the earth.
The truth is, the smartest men in the world recognize that this stuff is happening. It doesn't mean we need to all buy Volkswagens and make burlap clothes, but it does mean that our newspaper is going to be on Conan O'Brien pretty soon for claiming that sheep farmers are an authority on climate change. I think as students we should all do ourselves the favor of understanding why the world believes the earth is warming.
To conclude, I would like to let everyone know that I'm not inactive. I'm not a democrat. I'm not even edgy (unless I'm writing things like this apparently). I'm a senior studying Construction Management, and over the years I have studied more and more about green building and come to realize that we can make positive changes to the world around us. I've really tried to be educated and not be influenced by propaganda, and I really think "environmentalism" isn't as dirty of a word as I once thought. Probably from reading this, you'll think I'm an environmental wacko. Nah, I'm just kind of annoying and I thought it would be funny to respond like this. Anyway, I hope everyone who reads this will forgive me for being sarcastic and maybe give this issue a second thought.
Very well put Matt. I applaud your research and insight. It's funny how this issue has become so politicized that people will go out and find the data that supports their stance on both sides of the issue. It would be nice if we could all just set our politics aside, realize that global warming, climate change, or whatever else you want to call it is happening and that it is something that we do need to address as opposed to just trying to rationalize it away.
Very Important new information. Be sure to read this: “Sulfate Lens Enhances Climate Warming Properties of Atmospheric Soot”. Part of the debate is that we don't all agree on what's causing Global Warming. Another part of the debate is that Cap and Trade is a new cost of living tax, during a recession, that will have a much bigger price tag than what is estimated.
There is no unanimous concrete proof of Indirect Land Use Change or Global Warming based on CO2. What we have is inconclusive and conflicting information, skewed by hidden agendas, cap and trade politics, and Global Warming advocates with their fingers in the pie of future profits. The EPA has “cherry-picked” the data, in order to portray CO2 as the cause of Global Warming, when the real cause is BLACK CARBON SOOT.
As long as thousands of Scientists and Scholars still believe that CO2 is not causing Global Warming, the issue is still subject to debate – until we get it right.
Calling people who disagree with you idiots or implying that they are is a good example of an ad hominem argument.
The fact that Al Gore's Global Warming is treated with "skepticism and animosity" is a good thing it is after all only a theory, scientific consensus by no means proves the theory, in fact the theory of global climate change is a poor one because in can not be tested or proven right/wrong, in any scientific lab today. The theory of the sun going around the earth was a good theory too, it had consensus and even had a very cool looking mathematical mode that could accurately predict the movement of the heavenly bodies through the ether, with some adjustment it could still be accurate today. The point is the theory was still wrong and was based around the assumption that the sun orbited the earth, and they still were able to come up with the science to prove it. The same is true today except we have computers.