Reader comments
Mankind blamed for global warming
29 comments | Read story
RB | 4:04 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Well, that settles it for me: humans are destroying the planet. The Utah
experts have spoken (or regurjitated the pop thinking). No matter many
so-called experts are now back-peddling, Utah has decreeded otherwise. Let it
be written; let it be done. Amen.
Richard McFadden | 4:27 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
I was taken by surprise that a report like this would come from conservative
Utah. My hat is off. Cognitive Dissonance is alive and well in Utah so many
will continue to deny that global warming exists and that man is playing a major
role. But maybe, just maybe this will change the thinking of a few.
James | 4:42 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
And thus continues Governor Huntsman's drive as our first openly
Environmentalist Governor. Over time he will wreck havoc on our economy.
And as for this issue being beyond a doubt, man made. What about the revelation of just last week that NASA data has been skewed and that in fact it is no where near as warm as claimed? Does that matter? Does it matter that this is nothing more than like the media getting bored, nothing to report on so suddenly they cover every shark attack that happens. By the end of the summer everyone is talking about the 'dramatic number of shark attacks.' Only to later find out it was actually a much slower year for shark attacks. The media just hyped it up.
Governor Huntsman need to be impeached.
And as for this issue being beyond a doubt, man made. What about the revelation of just last week that NASA data has been skewed and that in fact it is no where near as warm as claimed? Does that matter? Does it matter that this is nothing more than like the media getting bored, nothing to report on so suddenly they cover every shark attack that happens. By the end of the summer everyone is talking about the 'dramatic number of shark attacks.' Only to later find out it was actually a much slower year for shark attacks. The media just hyped it up.
Governor Huntsman need to be impeached.
Comments continue below
Daniel S. | 7:15 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Before the epic "Yes it is, No it isn't" comment argument about
man's responsibility for global warming begins, I just want to say that it
really won't matter. Before we ever get to the dreaded 450 ppm, we are
going to experience shortfalls of economically producable reserves of all the
major hydrocarbon fuels. We are going to meet some of the most ambitious CO2
reduction goals not by determined effort, but simply by running low on fuel.
Google "Peak Oil"
Google "Peak Oil"
DustBowl | 7:53 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Isn't it ironic that conservatives in this area only follow their elected
leaders as long as they read from the Republican handbook. As soon as one sways
with a bit of independent thinking, or colors "outside the lines" they
all rally for an impeachment.
Clean air will destroy the economy.
Clean air will destroy the economy.
Conservative conservationist | 8:19 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
What do "conservative" and "Republican" have to do with each
other? Anyone who thinks Hunstman is a conservative is a fool.
Sterling | 8:34 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
This isn't a conservative vs. liberal issue. No one is debating that the
earth is getting warmer. No one disputes that CO2 is a contributing factor. If
man produces CO2 then clearly man is responsible, to some degree, for global
warming. Now before we start panicking, there are a few other facts that should
also be given just as much fanfare.
1. The earth is not a stable place.
2. The greatest effect on the earths temperature is the sun.
3. The earth spends more time in history without ice-caps, than with ice-caps. The state we live in today is not the earth's typical state.
4. Methane is many-times over a more effective green-house gas than CO2.
for more info go to junkscience.com
We must be idiots if we're going to bury CO2 emissions underground.
1. The earth is not a stable place.
2. The greatest effect on the earths temperature is the sun.
3. The earth spends more time in history without ice-caps, than with ice-caps. The state we live in today is not the earth's typical state.
4. Methane is many-times over a more effective green-house gas than CO2.
for more info go to junkscience.com
We must be idiots if we're going to bury CO2 emissions underground.
Glade | 8:38 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Alternative source for energy is all well and good, but, how much would
litigation promoted by the environmentalist group cost. History shows they
oppose any project which offers alternative energy.
BSINUT | 8:52 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Who was on the "Blue Ribbon" committee? Was there any suggestion as to
how these ideas could be implimented? What about the impact of these measures on
the economy and food production costs? How effective will the measures be in
acheiving the desired goal. What is the goal? How much did this report cost the
state and how is it different from all the other blue ribbon reports by other
states and agencies?
What's happened to Utah politics? First "Rocky" and now Huntsman.
What's happened to Utah politics? First "Rocky" and now Huntsman.
grundle | 8:53 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Did this task force take into account NASA's recent revelation that the
temperture figures were over reported and in error? Isn't the global
temperture delta over the last 30 years the foundation of the whole global
warming movement? Just wondering?
Wouldn't it be ironic if the experts declared that man was responsible for global warming and there was no global warming?
We have already read that the scientific community unanimously agrees on all the talking points of global warming (usually in the context of discrediting any dissenting voice) will they now unite in discrediting NASA? Just wondering?
Wouldn't it be ironic if the experts declared that man was responsible for global warming and there was no global warming?
We have already read that the scientific community unanimously agrees on all the talking points of global warming (usually in the context of discrediting any dissenting voice) will they now unite in discrediting NASA? Just wondering?
Roy | 9:01 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
The earth's median tempature was higher in
the time period of 1920 - 1939. Go check the
historical record.
Man is not responsible for global warming!
The God created animals all over the planet
release for co2 into the air every hour than
mans use of petroleum using devices.
Most scientist that formulated the "global warming"
theme have clearly stated that actuality does not
confirm the thesis as stated for global warming.
the time period of 1920 - 1939. Go check the
historical record.
Man is not responsible for global warming!
The God created animals all over the planet
release for co2 into the air every hour than
mans use of petroleum using devices.
Most scientist that formulated the "global warming"
theme have clearly stated that actuality does not
confirm the thesis as stated for global warming.
Old-timer | 9:21 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
It still surprises me how often we are swayed into panic by the crisis of the
month, year, decade, I can remember when I was a young woman that there was a
huge fear, with articles in all the popular magazines of the day, that another
ice age was coming soon.
Of course we should be "good stewards" of the earth, and of course we should explore all the innovative technology possible to do so--solar, wind power, lots of possibilities. But we do have a couple of groups with prior agendas driving this particular controversy--the big oil interests (have you ever wondered why cars can't be more economical--try checking out the interlocking directorates of the big oil and automotive companies--it's interesting). Then we have a good few people in the environmental movement whose underlying mission is population reduction and anything that serves that goal is taken up and used.
There are reputable scientists on both sides of this issue, solid ones. But it seems true that dissenting voices about global warming are ridiculed, not seriously considered, by the media.
I guess the solution is for all of us to quit breathing--of course, the forests won't like that--they need CO2.
Of course we should be "good stewards" of the earth, and of course we should explore all the innovative technology possible to do so--solar, wind power, lots of possibilities. But we do have a couple of groups with prior agendas driving this particular controversy--the big oil interests (have you ever wondered why cars can't be more economical--try checking out the interlocking directorates of the big oil and automotive companies--it's interesting). Then we have a good few people in the environmental movement whose underlying mission is population reduction and anything that serves that goal is taken up and used.
There are reputable scientists on both sides of this issue, solid ones. But it seems true that dissenting voices about global warming are ridiculed, not seriously considered, by the media.
I guess the solution is for all of us to quit breathing--of course, the forests won't like that--they need CO2.
92Landcruiser | 9:27 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Well, the Republicans have said it's a myth, so therefore it is clearly a
myth.
No scientifically determine if there is something to concept that man may cause global warming, if the neo-cons say it's a myth then lets just forget about it and follow their lead. They clearly know what they're doing, I've even heard The Good Lord inspires them.
No scientifically determine if there is something to concept that man may cause global warming, if the neo-cons say it's a myth then lets just forget about it and follow their lead. They clearly know what they're doing, I've even heard The Good Lord inspires them.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 9:45 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
It was warmer in 1934 in the US than any year since. "The last 50
years" includes 25 years of the cooling period from 1935 to 1975. Why the
downturn, even while CO2 emissions were exponentially growing? The only
hypothesis advanced by the UN IPCC is that sulfates from coal burning
counteracted warming. All we have to do is stop controlling sulfate emissions,
and the temperature should drop!
The problem with government programs like this is that they impose burdens without any cost-benefit analysis. The evaluations that have been done conclude that we could shut down our economy and it would make almost no difference to global warming becuase the CO2 is already there, and we will see NO difference for at least 50 years! Regulators will just want to impose more and more ineffectual regulation, at great cost. We will kill ourselves while China and India keep CO2 growing.
These programs are like decreasing sewage pollution by making all adults wear diapers.
The only cost-effective way to fight warming is to remove CO2 from the ambient air (e.g. growing trees, fertilizing oceans), and actively shade the earth with particulates. The costs of fighting warming globally instead of locally are negligible, especially if we let the economy grow naturally.
The problem with government programs like this is that they impose burdens without any cost-benefit analysis. The evaluations that have been done conclude that we could shut down our economy and it would make almost no difference to global warming becuase the CO2 is already there, and we will see NO difference for at least 50 years! Regulators will just want to impose more and more ineffectual regulation, at great cost. We will kill ourselves while China and India keep CO2 growing.
These programs are like decreasing sewage pollution by making all adults wear diapers.
The only cost-effective way to fight warming is to remove CO2 from the ambient air (e.g. growing trees, fertilizing oceans), and actively shade the earth with particulates. The costs of fighting warming globally instead of locally are negligible, especially if we let the economy grow naturally.
jeremykidd | 10:18 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Just one thing to add to the discussion, and that is that the majority of carbon
dioxide emissions came in the latter half of the 20th century, and most of the
warming that happened took place in the first half of the 20th century. The
so-called scientific consensus on global warming has been spending a huge amount
of time trying to show us that CO2 causes global warming, but any statistician
could tell you that when temperatures rise before CO2 emissions go up, that
can't even be considered correlation, much less causation.
I might also point out that all the models that indicate that global warming is caused by mankind specifically exclude any consideration of what effects the sun might have on warming. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you can remove from consideration the ultimate source of all warming on earth (excluding minor heating from the earth's core) and still expect to gain any useful knowledge.
I might also point out that all the models that indicate that global warming is caused by mankind specifically exclude any consideration of what effects the sun might have on warming. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you can remove from consideration the ultimate source of all warming on earth (excluding minor heating from the earth's core) and still expect to gain any useful knowledge.
RocDoc | 10:27 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Check the facts: there is NO correlation in the past (including the past
century) between CO2 concentration and temperature. In reality, CO2 rises
always lag behind temperature rises by hundreds of years. This simple,
indisputable fact pulls the rug out from under the global warming alarmism.
Global warming has therefore been thoroughly debunked, and fighting this
windmill is a terrible waste of resources.
Dr Coles | 10:36 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
The 100 year old con on climate change.
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com
Paul Revere | 10:45 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
There is a powerful group of people who don't believe in God. They want to
conquer the whole world.(read Ether 8). They made up this global warming scare.
How do you conquer a nation? Read the communist manifesto. You outlaw God using propaganda (10 commandments/crosses coming down, all Muslims and Mormons are terrorists, all Catholic priests are child molestors, religions cause all of the wars/fighting/terrorism). They are trying to get rid of guns (ask the NRA), they fight freedom of speech, unless it fits their agenda, they are trying to kill off as many of us as possible (the fewer of us there are the easier it will be to march their Chinese/Russian army in here and defeat us).
So they push the homosexual agenda, the abortion agenda, the global warming agenda. They are trying to convince everyone that there is no God, and way too many of us, and we need to stop populating this country. Then they'll crash the economy (The US does not own the Federal Reserve, they do.) They just saved the economy by pumping billions into it and they can crash it too, when the time is right, and half of us will starve to death (less than 2% of the country farms and then only if they have a loan at the beginning of the year). After that it will be easy to conquer the US (or so they think). They have used their money to nearly take over the entire government (including in Utah), and we are in trouble. The only way to beat it is for everyone to repent. Truth is stranger than fiction.
How do you conquer a nation? Read the communist manifesto. You outlaw God using propaganda (10 commandments/crosses coming down, all Muslims and Mormons are terrorists, all Catholic priests are child molestors, religions cause all of the wars/fighting/terrorism). They are trying to get rid of guns (ask the NRA), they fight freedom of speech, unless it fits their agenda, they are trying to kill off as many of us as possible (the fewer of us there are the easier it will be to march their Chinese/Russian army in here and defeat us).
So they push the homosexual agenda, the abortion agenda, the global warming agenda. They are trying to convince everyone that there is no God, and way too many of us, and we need to stop populating this country. Then they'll crash the economy (The US does not own the Federal Reserve, they do.) They just saved the economy by pumping billions into it and they can crash it too, when the time is right, and half of us will starve to death (less than 2% of the country farms and then only if they have a loan at the beginning of the year). After that it will be easy to conquer the US (or so they think). They have used their money to nearly take over the entire government (including in Utah), and we are in trouble. The only way to beat it is for everyone to repent. Truth is stranger than fiction.
Anonymous | 10:59 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Get with it and look at "ALL" the evidence not just that which makes
your case!
Anonymous | 11:42 a.m. Aug. 28, 2007
This article states the same old diatribe of 'Consensus'. There IS NO
consensus, unless you count the consensus of scientists that buy into the Man
Made GW theory.
Amable Caballero | 12:03 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Global warming? No global warming? A homosexual/commie/leftwing plot? A
neo-con/military industrial plot? Gosh, what's an atheist like me to do?
Ah, I've got it! I'll just pray that some "god" will put
out the fires that are burning THE WEST and freeze back the ice caps that are
melting [look at the satellite pix, sniff the air around you for smoke, etc.]
and just pronouonce BE HEALED! to the startling rise in asthma in children,
etc.. [Shucks, WE didn't do it grandkids! GOD did it as punishment! Sorry,
just get over it!]
Or better still, just read the idiotic "whistling in the dark" denial statements above. Now THAT should be "chilling" enough to cool off any planet!
Or better still, just read the idiotic "whistling in the dark" denial statements above. Now THAT should be "chilling" enough to cool off any planet!
Not convinced... | 12:26 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Just because some state agency or the government says something is not enough to
convince me that something exists. I've seen the evidence and believe the
earth is getting warmer. To put this on man is just too easy a solution in my
mind.
I can't help but think that if all the factories where shut off, that everyone stopped driving their cars, and that all "human" petrol emissions ceased today that the earth would start getting cooler. There is much more to the warming of the earth than what our little knowledge of it dictates.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for taking care of our planet. Recycle, walk or ride a bike rather than drive, don't litter, use locally grown and produced product, stop the vast amount of shipping via sea-going cargo haulers, etc. But I'm not at all convinced that doing this will stop the earth from doing what it has done for thousands of years.
I can't help but think that if all the factories where shut off, that everyone stopped driving their cars, and that all "human" petrol emissions ceased today that the earth would start getting cooler. There is much more to the warming of the earth than what our little knowledge of it dictates.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for taking care of our planet. Recycle, walk or ride a bike rather than drive, don't litter, use locally grown and produced product, stop the vast amount of shipping via sea-going cargo haulers, etc. But I'm not at all convinced that doing this will stop the earth from doing what it has done for thousands of years.
Douglas | 12:39 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Thank you, Governor Huntsman. You are a true leader.
Lynne | 1:23 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
With a nod to James, Sterling, Roy, Old-timer, Raymond!, Jeremy, RocDoc, Dr.
Coles, Anonymous and Not convinced (it is gratifying to read what some thinking
people have to offer, and see so many of them): This state committee is not on
top of their research. NASA recently revised their temperature history to
eliminate a Y2K problem. The warmest year was lowered, I believe, to 1934. If
you�re reading this, you�ve already
read other�s comments on this.
In 1993 I was studying science at the U of U and the Climatology course I took was specifically to study Global Warming. In 1993 I was on this bandwagon. As late as 2005 I started reading what real scientists are saying. Even the conclusion of my professor in that Global Warming class allows for some intelligent thinking: The ocean is our �garbage can,� and it has a 1,000 year cycle. Even if we did cause G.W. it will take 1,000 years to remediate it. The most we could conclude in 1993 is that it would be a good idea to preserve the ozone and a very good idea to preserve our forests and work on the pollution that accompanies our industry and driving. And why not do what is good, rather than blame us for the world�s problems?
If you look at evidence from the past you can see that there were times it was warmer than now, and times it was cooler. Try doing some research. There is a lot! Like Greenland was called that because it was once green, and its ice is thickening rather than being lost. There is so much more!
Al Gore is promoting hysteria for monetary purposes � he�ll be selling carbon credits. Why won�t anyone listen to good sense without having people like Gore hyping lies?
In 1993 I was studying science at the U of U and the Climatology course I took was specifically to study Global Warming. In 1993 I was on this bandwagon. As late as 2005 I started reading what real scientists are saying. Even the conclusion of my professor in that Global Warming class allows for some intelligent thinking: The ocean is our �garbage can,� and it has a 1,000 year cycle. Even if we did cause G.W. it will take 1,000 years to remediate it. The most we could conclude in 1993 is that it would be a good idea to preserve the ozone and a very good idea to preserve our forests and work on the pollution that accompanies our industry and driving. And why not do what is good, rather than blame us for the world�s problems?
If you look at evidence from the past you can see that there were times it was warmer than now, and times it was cooler. Try doing some research. There is a lot! Like Greenland was called that because it was once green, and its ice is thickening rather than being lost. There is so much more!
Al Gore is promoting hysteria for monetary purposes � he�ll be selling carbon credits. Why won�t anyone listen to good sense without having people like Gore hyping lies?
wilson | 3:22 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
The report sounds just like a summary of the federal program. You should have
noted that there are other opinions by scientists that say global warming is not
man made.. How much CO2 does Utah put out compared with the rest of the world?
Why should utah's energy costs go up for a cause that will have no overall
world impact. The gov. is just grand-standing again. How about the other side
of the story
Cris Coleman, rural Missouri | 3:32 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
It is interesting that even in a supposedly conservative newspaper like the
Deseret News, there is no objectivity in liberal-sponsored issues such as the
global warming melodrama. The first thing reporter, Joe Bauman, stated was that
a�state blue ribbon task force on climate
change� has stated
�emphatically� WE
�are to blame for global warming.�
I have several problems with this. First, what is a �state blue ribbon task force�? Who are its members? What concerns do they represent? We know one was a Sierra Club member. Big surprise there! We know another represented a consortium of energy users, supposedly in the opposite environmental camp. That�s it.
Second, the use of the word, consensus, which is a majority or general agreement, on the subject of global warming. There IS no consensus, let alone a majority, unless we are speaking of a consensus of environmentalists.
There is much disagreement from weather scientists, as well as from other respectable scientists. Of course, none of their voices are being heard, just the two agreements from task force members who helped make the recommendations. That�s objective!
Then there are the questions not asked, such as: Where are all these billions of dollars coming from to fund all these recommendations? Were any members of the task force asked this question? The answer is apparent.
Environmentalists are great for coming up with often ludicrous solutions, but not so great at coming up with ways to fund them, other than from OUR pocketbooks (not theirs�theirs are federally funded).
Overall, this was a poor job of reporting on a very emotionally charged subject, typical of today�s liberal newspapers. At best, a series of articles should be written, expressing the many sides of the issue.
I have several problems with this. First, what is a �state blue ribbon task force�? Who are its members? What concerns do they represent? We know one was a Sierra Club member. Big surprise there! We know another represented a consortium of energy users, supposedly in the opposite environmental camp. That�s it.
Second, the use of the word, consensus, which is a majority or general agreement, on the subject of global warming. There IS no consensus, let alone a majority, unless we are speaking of a consensus of environmentalists.
There is much disagreement from weather scientists, as well as from other respectable scientists. Of course, none of their voices are being heard, just the two agreements from task force members who helped make the recommendations. That�s objective!
Then there are the questions not asked, such as: Where are all these billions of dollars coming from to fund all these recommendations? Were any members of the task force asked this question? The answer is apparent.
Environmentalists are great for coming up with often ludicrous solutions, but not so great at coming up with ways to fund them, other than from OUR pocketbooks (not theirs�theirs are federally funded).
Overall, this was a poor job of reporting on a very emotionally charged subject, typical of today�s liberal newspapers. At best, a series of articles should be written, expressing the many sides of the issue.
Jeff | 3:43 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
Sorry to see Utah follow this line of thinking. The motives for this are clear:
1) Get a majority to acknowledge this falsehood, 2) Establish a point of control
to manage "problem" (U.N.), 3) Global tax to "solve"
problem, 4) Global laws to manage commerce and production. Why don't we all
see this for what it is--power and control.
Ray | 7:02 p.m. Aug. 28, 2007
In the book The Voter's Guide to Enviromental Politics Polis publish in
1968 by Friends oF The Earth.
The enviromentalist said they had to destroy the big Energy Companies. So that they emplement
their plan of (Less Power To The People) this was also the name of the chapter. The plan was that each home would be allowed eoungh power the run just the basic items. Anything above that the cost would be prohibitive. They also said the the people must governed by committee and this is what this committee is doing. Read The Book
The enviromentalist said they had to destroy the big Energy Companies. So that they emplement
their plan of (Less Power To The People) this was also the name of the chapter. The plan was that each home would be allowed eoungh power the run just the basic items. Anything above that the cost would be prohibitive. They also said the the people must governed by committee and this is what this committee is doing. Read The Book
Mike | 11:07 a.m. Aug. 29, 2007
I wonder how many of these commenters are sock puppets.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
A state blue ribbon task force stated emphatically that humans are to blame for global warming.
Related content
- Soccer MVPs know how to win 1:56 a.m.
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009 1:56 a.m.
- High school soccer: Past MVPs 1:37 a.m.
- Senators want food tax restored 1:27 a.m.
- Utah women lag in higher education 1:16 a.m.
- Hatch empathizes with Muslims 1:14 a.m.
- Matheson gets no thanks from GOP 1:13 a.m.
- Mitchell seeks to block witnesses 1:12 a.m.
- Party insiders may take on Bennett 1:11 a.m.
- Input sought on nondiscrimination 1:11 a.m.
- TCU showdown has big implications
- Seniors helped BYU regroup
- Lambert surprisingly tops news
- Hope for single moms
- Bystanders framed for child porn
- Korver and Miles to be evaluated
- Soccer MVPs know how to win
- Utah Jazz Extra: Whose hot/not
- Matheson gets no thanks from GOP
- Newhouse Hotel, an explosive end
- House passes health care bill
228 - TCU showdown has big implications183
- Lobo suspended182
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys154
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd118
- Thousands protest health bill114
- RSL rallies to advance103
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy97
- Utes pound winless Lobos89
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Why do so many people live so close to refineries in Utah and elsewhere?
Advertisement
Latest comments
Sounds like a good option if you can't or won't switch to AT&T for the...
I worked with and around Bill Sederburg for 5 years while he was at...
hand. He needs to work on his moves to the basket and rebounding. Lateral...
play Fez or Koufos tonight. He went with a smaller line up and Boozer, Okur...
I've met Bennett before and he is a nice man. He also knows the Constitution...
That's never been a secret. Everyone will pay for it except those that don't...
I agree with NonMormon. I am active LDS, and I enjoy Ash's articles, and I...
I kept saying don't resign Milsap, especially after Portland offered that...
BYU is the slowest team that has ever been in the top 25. Utah will put up a...
i think u have the cowboys ranked too low! at least an A- LOL nice work!
Advertisements