Deseret News | Reader comments: Governor's climate report misleading

Reader comments
My view: Governor's climate report misleading

skeptic | 5:11 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

I was always suspicious of those who claimed to be to be able to predict something as complex as the worlds climate let alone its temperature when we can't even get a decent wheather forcast for the next week. Sounds like the governor and his "council" watched Gores movie and just used his "science" which has been proved to be full of innuendo and no basis in actual facts.

What's this guy's point? | 6:55 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

So what's this guy's point? Utah should stick with the status quo of being dependent upon $100-per-barrel oil and dirty coal? Clearly, whether climate change is real or not, the solutions to address it will bring about energy solutions that will steer us away from pouring money into cancer-causing sources of power and into countries that use our oil dollars against us (such as Iran, Venezuela, etc.) with terror and nuclear bombs... funny, there's a story in the Trib this morning about a small wind project breaking ground in Spanish Fork. The wind project will bring jobs, tax revenues to the local school, and price-stable power to the community without an ounce of pollution or carbon -- AND Utah's energy dollars stay local. When will we wake up and see that pouring our energy dollars abroad doesn't benefit our energy and national security. If we pour our energy dollars into America's rural communities (in wind, biofuels, solar), it could spark real economic development in our own country, create local jobs, and shut off the flow of dollars abroad that drives anti-Americanism!

More Exxon-funded nonsense | 7:13 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

In 2002, Exxon donated $193,200 to the American Legislative Exchange Council. The following year this had jumped to $290,000, including $140,000 specifically earmarked for "global climate change" and a further $50,000 for "energy and climate change".

Mr. Simmons is simply doing his master's (Exxon) bidding.

Each point made in this article has been refuted by genuine climate scientists.

Shame on the Deseret News for printing the lies of the "skeptics."

Comments continue below

bigmc | 8:43 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

There is no scientific evidence that man is causing any global warming. Adding a minute amount maybe but not causing it. Junk science and media hype are what this is all about. It will have extreme negative impacts if all the "green" and "save the planet" measures are put in place. You think the cost of living is high now, just wait until all these measures kick in.

AlpacaFamilia | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

It is the doctrine of another great Utahn, Carl Rove; tell the lie as big as you can and repeat it as often as you can and soon enough people will believe it. Almost all anti-Global Warming and 100% of the anti-Gore rhetoric is from dubious sources with ties to the oil industry. Come on folks.

skeptic | 10:27 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Two points:
1. If you discount results based on funding, then anything funded by environmental groups who already believe in global warming should be discounted. They are extremely biased to begin with.
2. Utah should make decisions that's best for us but ONLY with valid data. It's not wrong to get the right picture before making decisions. And for those of you who will inevitably state that point will be too late, I advise you to remember when many of the same scientists and environmental groups were proclaiming the next global ice age.......................

Bottom line, let's learn what we can and apply lessons based on actual knowledge.

MEB | 10:28 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

"Tell a like as big as you can, and repeat it as often as you can, and soon enough people will believe it."

You mean, something like "almost all anti-global warming and 100% of the anti-Gore rhetoric is from dubious sources with ties to the oil industry."

Come on folks.

jww | 10:42 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

It's sad to see so many Global Warming advocates resort to fallacious arguments and calls for restrictions on freedom of speech in order to support their position.

Let's assume that money donations are an indicator of bad science (even though it is not - science stands or falls on its own merits). Global warming advocates complain about donations from Exxon, for example.

Senator James Inhofe pointed out the following in his speech titled "Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming":

"The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle."

The US goverment has also spent billions of dollars on climate research, far more than the paltry sums Exxon may have given. This shows that there is far more money incentive to promote global warming (alarmists get more money from the government) than there is to deny it.

To AlpacaFamilia | 10:51 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

"tell the lie as big as you can and repeat it as often as you can and soon enough people will believe it." This describes Al Gore and the Global warming fear mongers perfectly.

Uh . . .Alpaca . . ? | 11:50 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

If you have proof that 1934 was not the warmest year in the last century and a half, please provide it.

If you have proof that the Antarctic ice pack isn't getting thicker, please provide it.

If you have proof that the United States (source of a large portion of the world's "greenhouse gases") has been showing the same kind of warming as the rest of the world, please provide it.

Please learn to think for yourself. You look really silly when you spout a party line that even the environmentalists aren't agreed on.

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 12:07 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

The fact that China has now become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is on track to continue doubling that by 2050 or earlier, means that no matter what the US does to decrease its emissions of CO2, the only thing we will accomplish is to force all new industry to move to China to get electric power.

If we want to decrease greenhouse warming, it would make more sense to take active and cheaper steps to increase the natural rate of removal of CO2 from the air by fertilizing ocean plankton with iron dust (there have been many successful proof of concept experiments) and shading the earth with artificial particulates lofted into the stratosphere (an actual scientific proposal). Trying to decrease our CO2 emissions without harming our economy is like (literally) holding our breath, since our own breathing is a major source of CO2. Indeed, cows in the US emit more CO2 and methane than all cars in the US! And the effect of lowering current CO2 emissions won't come for 40 years, since CO2 accumulates.

Instead of becoming hungry, constipated and breathless, let's fight climate warming with smarter and cheaper means.

Thomas | 12:11 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

If the data stands up, it doesn't matter if the researchers who collected it were funded by Exxon, Greenpeace, or the Wizard of Oz. The data is the data. Science is ill-served by ad hominem, "you're paid by Big Oil!" attacks.

"Come on folks" isn't an argument.

The truth is that the earth has gotten warmer since 1850, and, knowing what we do about the ability of atmospheric CO2 to cause the earth to retain solar energy as heat, at least some of this warming is caused by human-caused emissions of CO2. The farther people get from that basic premise, the farther we get from any kind of true scientific consensus. The "consensus" is consistently overstated by global-warming alarmists.

None of the above ought to be controversial to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the issue of climate change.

Objective thinker | 1:02 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

In a heated political debate, always look at the data yourself. The editorial writer is absolutely correct in his evaluation of data and research--I've looked at the same data and come to the same conclusions myself (I'm a university professor in Geological Sciences). Global Warming is hype.

KH | 1:43 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

I don't think the guy's point was, "Stay with the status quo". Where did you see that in the article?

He's saying, "We don't need a blue ribbon pannel of burocrats putting out mis-information to scare people into being conservative with energy, emissions, etc". We need to conserve for the right reasons. Not because a blue ribbon pannel told us we should.

Most people are conserving already. We all need to do as much as we can. If you're not conserving already, Al Gore and a blue ribbon pannel of experts in Utah isn't going to get you started. It's a life-style thing, not a political issue to me. Conservation is something most people were doing before Al Gore came along and will continue doing regardless of the latest political fads that blow us to and frow.

It's possible global warming is caused by all the hot air being spewed by politicians trying to convince us that little people like us can't solve the problem, the only possible solution is to give them more political power to control our lives and force us to concerve.

Crazy thinking | 2:51 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

There are quite a few people today who dismiss Global Warming assuming they don't have to worry or do anything because God will take care of everything for them (because they pray a lot or something).

I suppose with this logic (or faith) then we all might as well just roll over and say: "If God wants to let the Earth burn up, become over-populated, run out of food or water, etc., etc., It must be God's will.

samhill | 3:03 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

I'm very pleased to see this article. I'm even more pleased by some of the more cogent and well-reasoned responses urging us to maintain a more well-reasoned approach to this topic.

Personally, when someone can make a persuasive argument as to the cause for the climate changes that produced the repeated advance and retreat of continental-wide and thousands of feet thick sheets of ice during the last several hundred thousand years (long before SUVs were even a gleam in the eye of those dastardly and gluttonous American consumers) I will then listen to their "knowledge" regarding future changes in the climate.

Until then there is simply too much hysteria and baseless recrimination of dissenters mixed in with their "data" for me to credit them with anything more than brainless emotionalism. In other words, there is simply too much “Chicken Little” in the “global warming” marketing campaign to take it very seriously. Particularly with someone like Al Gore as its principal spokesman.

skeptic | 4:48 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

For those wanting proof.
1. James Hansen of NASA, "I'm being censored" fame recently revised his warmest years data based on looking at his raw data and correcting for errors like sensors next to building heat emitters. In other words, the proof is actually from a huge warming advocate.
2. The new data shows the US only having a small amount of warming at around .6 degrees during the entire century. You can't even make a statistical correlation with that.
3. Do a Google on the Antarctic ice pack. What you will find is that the ice pack IS getting bigger while the peninsula is getting smaller.

You should do your own fact checking before assaulting a my view article accusing them of what you failed to do.

burning question | 5:43 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Ask your self this question -

Is the brownish-yellow air we are all breathing,
healthier today for us than it was last year?

AlpacaFamilia | 8:04 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

Give me a significant study not funded by the oil industry, or by some right wing outfit, that significantly challenges the conclusions of 98% of the scientists trained in the area of climatolagy. By the way, I'd love to know where "Objective Thinker" teaches Geology. That would be interesting information.

Thomas | 8:38 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

"Burning question" -- What do you think?

I can state as a matter of undisputed fact that the LA Basin air that *I'm* breathing is one heck of a lot healthier than it was when I was growing up in the seventies. Thank goodness for the Clean Air Act and the catalytic converter.

Can't speak for Utah, but I suspect doing away with Geneva Steel went a long way for y'all, too.

Alpaca -- Exactly what "conclusions" am I supposed to address?

Aside from the basic consensus I stated earlier (that the earth has warmed since 1850 and human emissions of CO2 are responsible for some portion of the warming), what is it that 98% of climatologists have concluded?

James | 10:48 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

The price of oil being at $100 a barrell has as much to do with energy policy and access to natural resources as it does the free fall of the US Dollar.

It is no small coincidence that the Fed cuts interest rates by first 0.5%, then 6 weeks later another 0.25% and we see the price of oil climb well past the $70 a barrell mark. And expect it to go higher.

The price of food goods are also rising. This one is related to a weaker dollar, also the rising cost of oil (double whammy on food) plus the rising cost of cattle feed.

The rising cost of cattle feed is directly related to the increased use and production of ethanol. This is a corn based fuel additive that has very mixed results, but is subsidized by Congress, so lots of farmers are producing it. This means that there is less feed for cattle, driving up meat and dairy. And since more land is being used to grow corn for ethanol, less land for other crops, those prices go up as well.

Poor energy policy, and subsidizing farmers over $100 billion plus has got to end!

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.