SLTrib: Snowstorm squelches climate change protest

Snowstorm squelches climate change protest
By Judy Fahys

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 12/30/2009 06:36:58 PM MST


A downtown protest of the climate change talks in Copenhagen became a victim of Wednesday's snowstorm.

"Not many people showed up because of the blizzard conditions," said organizer Clea Major, an international studies student at the University of Utah.

It didn't take long for the six friends to pack up a bullhorn and posters they'd planned to use for their "scream-in," an outlet for their frustration about the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks earlier this month to curb the pollution blamed for climate change.

Still, they chatted with a few passers-by during the commuter-hour protest near the Gateway, and explained that, blizzard aside, climate change is expected to bring chaos to the global climate, said Major.

She called Wednesday evening's effort a success and possibly the first in a series. As for the snow, it's not entirely new; a protest she attended last year in Washington, D.C., suffered a similar fate.

"There is always the irony element," Major said.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14096723

Views: 22

Comment by Ricky Smith on December 31, 2009 at 5:50pm
I guess one snowstorm is all the evidence climate change deniers need to be certain that there is no such thing as climate change. Regardless of the debate surrounding climate change, we could certainly use some cleaner air to breathe. This pollution is ridiculous.
Comment by David Lifferth on December 31, 2009 at 5:59pm
Ricky,

Count me in as a one of the climate change deniers. I am convinced that "global warming" or its new incarnation "climate change" is a creation of phony scientists with a political agenda.

However, I agree with you that the focus should be on reducing real pollution, such as particulates, and not the ludicrous argument that plant food (C02) is warming the planet.
Comment by Ricky Smith on January 1, 2010 at 8:57am
David, just show me the data that proves the climate is not changing, that C02 is not a greenhouse gas, and that C02 gas concentrations in the atmosphere are not rising and then I will be with you. By the way, like any plant food (C02) you can always overfeed the fish. I remember overfeeding my fish and increased the fragile toxicity of the water which in turned killed the fish. Just some (food) for thought!
Comment by David Lifferth on January 1, 2010 at 9:11am
Ricky:

1) the climate is not changing
BBC: What happened to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

2) I can't find the article on C02 that I am looking for, let me get back to you on that one.

3) that C02 gas concentrations in the atmosphere are not rising :
Science Daily: "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Comment by Ricky Smith on January 1, 2010 at 5:29pm
David, I find it interesting that you cite the BBC article as as your evidence that earth's global temperatures have not risen in the past 11 years, yet the same article says that CO2 levels are rising, therefore you direct me to another website showing that CO2 levels have been stagnant for the last 160 years. So is the article only half correct? If that is the case perhaps the entire article is incorrect or the entire article is wholly correct. Like many individuals on both sides of the debate, you are picking and choosing those articles and websites that support your personal beliefs and discrediting those that don't. That is why the global warming issue is so confusing to the general public because of the talking heads that have no science background trying to sway people to have a certain, uninformed personal opinion. As an earth scientist, I am first to admit that the earth is a very complex system that is not very well understood, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the earth has been warming for the last 13,000 years (with a few anomalies here and there). Man is releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and one doesn't have to go far to see it actually happening. If man didn't exist, that extra CO2 wouldn't be released out of the earths carbon storage system (coal, oil, natural gas, peat, plankton, trees, etc), so man is obviously impacting the atmosphere. Whether or not man is making a significant impact is really what the debate should boil down to, yet some people are actually running around and saying man is having no impact at all on our planet. That just baffles my mind, especially in Utah. Like most Utahns, I grew up in a religion that stressed for its members to be "stewards of the earth" but even members of my own religion try to rationalize the meaning of that wisdom by saying that God "will take care of us so we don't need to worry." That also baffles my mind because if God wanted us to be mindless zombies, he wouldn't have given us intelligence. Again, I am an earth scientist and the proof that the earth has been warming and that the warming has been accelerating is right in front of us. In a few moments, I will post a website that has simple, visual data that should speak for itself. News articles from both points of view don't really mean much to me since they never cite any raw data and I'm a raw data type of person and the following website provides some raw data that most laymen can understand. What you will see is a comparison of two Arctic polar ice satellite images. One is from August 31, 1999 and the other is from August 31, 2007. Now the BBC article says that since 1998 the earth has no longer been warming. I would agree with that assertion in part, because only since 2007 has there been some improvement in the ice pack. If the earth has no longer been warming since 1998, how do people explain the large amount of ice loss between 1998 and 2007? Play with the site. It is actually quite fun.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=31&a...

Only time will tell if the last two years is just a minor cooling trend that will give way to further rise in global temperatures or if it is part of a natural cycle. It is irresponsible for those on both sides of the debate to say they know for sure because they don't, but in the mean time human beings need to take a long, hard look at what we are doing to the planet because we don't have another one to move to. It was also irresponsible of those UK scientists to scrap data that showed that the earth has been cooling for the past two years. Scientists on both sides need to be up front with their data and recommendations and not play politics. If they really believe in their concerns, then they shouldn't discredit themselves by doing stupid stuff like that. A scientists job is to make the case for their concerns by using data and a politicians job is not play scientist but ask hard, tough questions before they make a committed decision. Scientists need to keep and open mind, but so do politicians. If global warming is real and yet politicians refuse to believe it because they might not get re-elected for making tough decisions, then perhaps the human race deserves to suffer.

By the way David, since you are a faithful BBC reader, here is a site that may interest you:

2009 set to be the 5th hotest on record
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8400905.stm
Comment by David Lifferth on January 10, 2010 at 4:43pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-T...
"The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-T..."

Comment

You need to be a member of DavidLifferth.com ©2019 to add comments!

Join DavidLifferth.com ©2019

Interesting Links

© 2019   Created by David Lifferth.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service