Quantcast
Utah

Utah Legislature: House formally questions global warming

Comments

Return To Article
  • Ungreen - Tucson
    Feb. 12, 2010 8:17 a.m.

    I had a lot I was going to say but I ran out of time. I have to go out and burn my trash.
    You see, if the AGW THEORY is true, then we should all keep our cars running night and day to warm things up, It's cold outside!

  • Climate realists
    Feb. 11, 2010 5:07 p.m.

    The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Additional CO2 has less effect than the prior CO2. It is like adding a 6th blanket on your bed when you already have 5. At some point its effects are so small as to be meaningless. Climate is dominated by 60 year tide cycles and 1,000 year cycles that brought on the little ice age, which ended in 1850. What do you think should happen when something called the "little ice age" ends?

    It is like leaving your freezer door open. The food does not suddenly become warm. The temperature in your freezer will move slowly to a new equilibrium. That is what has been happening over the past 160 years since the end of the little ice age.

  • G
    Feb. 11, 2010 4:07 p.m.

    A small stream of sulfur dioxide injected into the stratosphere will cool the Earth to whatever average temperature we please, at much less cost than carbon caps.

    The fact is that humans can change the climate by modifying the concentrations of trace gases in the atmosphere, studies have shown that this would not necessarily be expensive, and if we wanted we can probably push it in whatever direction we choose. Of course that creates a conflict of interest between countries at different latitudes and elevations. For example, Russia and the Federated States of Micronesia would probably have different global temperature preferences.

    It's also true that we can seed clouds and trigger earthquakes (deep injection wells) but usually don't go out of our way to.

  • dlharman
    Feb. 11, 2010 11:29 a.m.

    Matt: I hate to keep repeating myself: definition of a THEORY: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"

    You are just deluding yourself if you don't believe the reality that CO2 absorbs longwave infrared radiation. It's an experiment that is conducted in any high school science classroom. There are many videos on YouTube that can be googled.

    The Law of Thermodynamics refers to NET energy. All bodies that have heat can radiate it. All bodies can receive radiated energy.

    So what if CO2 levels were at 7000 ppm in the past. Humans weren't here then. The problem is that you and I live now, in this reality.

  • Matt
    Feb. 11, 2010 8:46 a.m.

    Greenhouse gas "THEORY" says the the CO2 molecule will trap the heat radiating away from the earth and re-radiate the heat back down to the earth. Two problems with this theory first heat cannot be trapped. Second the troposphere is cooler the the earth so heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body. So for the greenhouse "THEORY" to be true it would have to contravene the first two laws of thermodynamics. Anyway the CO2 levels have been 200 times higher in the past ( 7000 ppm ) than they are now so I fail to see a problem.

  • Liberdoll
    Feb. 11, 2010 7:24 a.m.

    I'm a liberal and I believe in global warming because it just sounds right. While growing up I was repeatedly told in school that we are destroying the earth. I was never told air pollution was getting less and less every year, or that forests are much better managed and healthier. Now I believe we are destroying the earth because that's what I was told, so global warming must be true, because, if it weren't, then I'd have to find another theory to support what I've been told and told and told and told. Why would all my teachers lie to me? You think they were all wrong. They all told me we're destroying the earth so it must be true. There is no other option. Global warming is true and we are destroying the earth. I believe it in my heart because I've been told and told and told that we're destroying the earth. We're bringing armageddon. The earth is going to fly into the moon and pool ball bounce through the universe. We're destroying the earth I tell you. Global warming has to be true.

  • Royal Families thank you
    Feb. 11, 2010 6:22 a.m.

    Ah, Utah, the Royal Families and dictators of the oil producing nations of the world thank you for your wise and profound declaration that the "science" behind climate change is a fib. We know that moving to alter the wonderful status quo of America's oil addiction to us is not good for our nations' economic futures and the future of terrorism.

    We have a wonderful symbiotic relationship that shouldn't be threatened. If it wasn't for your military here in the Mideast to protect our (we mean "your") oil fields, what would your military do? Our relationship provides jobs for your military and the corporations that make the weapons to support our (we mean "your") cause!

    Keep your oil addiction! We keep our oil income! We love to provide a home for your military. Rooting out the funding for terrorism must come from a different means -- but not from curbing oil use. And we promise never to allow gas to go above $3 or $4 a gallon ever again!

    Global warming is a fib! Even our scientists funded by our oil organizations say so!

  • dlharman
    Feb. 10, 2010 6:42 p.m.

    BYU Engineer:
    Surely as an engineer you are aware that spectral radiance analysis can be used to determine temperature.

    It isn't the minute by minute temperature that is being measured (either by satellite, balloon or ground-based thermometer). It is the average temp. Temps are taken at the same times and places and then an average per day / month / year / location are compiled into a global average mean and compared against a base period looking for an anomaly. The trends are also statistically averaged over 5 years or longer year periods to see through fluctuations from ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) etc. When the averaging is ignored we tend to have people running around claiming that we are in a cooling period when we aren't.

    The RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.153 C/decade.
    The UAH analysis finds +0.12C/decade.

    Those increases may not seem like much but represent trillions of watts of excess energy that eventually has to do something.

  • BobP
    Feb. 10, 2010 5:05 p.m.

    Anthropogenic climate change started on bad data but with generally good intentions. It has become a scam to redistribute weatlh and power.

    That fact that some of the data was "tricked" has now been exposed.

    Many of the so called GW scientists are primarliy interested in keeping the hog trough of grants full.

  • BYU Engineer
    Feb. 10, 2010 4:57 p.m.

    I see temperature swings of 40 degrees from day to night. I see temperature swings of 100 degrees from summer to winter. I have a hard time finding temperature sensors that are more accurate than +/- 1 degree (some people don't understand significant figures). I see temperature differences from one side of campus to the other. Temperatures are constantly changing because of solar radiation, wind, cloud cover, humidity, and etc. None of which really reflects heat content.

    I have never heard of a satellite that can read temperatures at different altitudes, different ocean depths, underground, or even more than a small fraction of the earth at any given time.

    Yet we are told that the entire Earth has warmed by 0.1 degrees in the last twenty years. Where did this magic number come from? It certainly couldn't have come from current technology or known science.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 10, 2010 4:50 p.m.

    climate change is real it happens every day every year every century naturally the last three years the globe cooled to 1950 levels since the little ice age around 1470 the globe has warmed end of ice age great for most everything to get out of the deep freeze
    since the high use of carbon since 1950 or so the globe warming has not followed that trend line and the globe is still under the average temp of the globe look it up on the net

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 10, 2010 4:11 p.m.

    This is like atheist voting on a resolution on whether god exists. They have no education in climate science and they didn't go out to challenge their beliefs.

  • Not too bright
    Feb. 10, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    Utah legislators do not believe in global warming just like their predecessors thought the world was flat and you would fall off if you went too close to the edge.

    Utah legislators are trying to fund a NASA mission to the sun. Warned that they may burn up, they said that they would travel at night...

  • @Neighbor - 11:52am
    Feb. 10, 2010 12:39 p.m.

    So, you have read the resolution. Was it the amended resolution that passed the house?

    If so, then why are the words an insult to the citizens of the State?

  • Calendar
    Feb. 10, 2010 12:10 p.m.

    It is not going to get hotter. It is going to get colder. On the calendar of the Great Year in astronomy it shows that winter is coming, an ice age.
    It is easy enough for a child to figure out. A child looks at a calendar and is told that all calendars are made to predict weather. Then the child is asked if it snowed in January of this year, what weather should you expect in January of 2011?
    It is the same with the calendar of the Great Year which spans 26,000 years. It is for weather. If the beginning of the Great Year marked the starting era of an ice age that lasted 17,000 years, what weather should the planet expect after the beginning of the new Great Year that begins as 2012 ends?

  • Neighbor
    Feb. 10, 2010 11:52 a.m.

    I read the resolution, HJR12, and find the words an insult to the citizens of the state. Legislatures do not practice science, often they do not even know what science is about. If the legistaure wants to take a political position (in any direction), that's fine. Please leave science out of the descision. It just makes us all look foolish. This serves only to impeed investment in Utah.

  • UseYourBrain
    Feb. 10, 2010 11:52 a.m.

    The entire UN-IPCC report is nothing more than a collection of anecdotal evidence of data that supports the preconceived conclusion. NONE of the data proves that manmade CO2 emissions and ONLY man-made CO2 emissions are the direct cause of the warming trend.
    They dismiss Ozone, biomass burning, sulphates, dust, aviation contrails, land use, and even SOLAR. Further, the level of true scientific understanding on any of these alternative causes is miniscule. Even with an oscillation in global temperature that mimics the sunspot cycle, they dismiss it as insignificant. They ignore that the sunspot cycle may also effect other forms of radiation given off by the Sun than infra-red and visible light. Ask any Ham radio operator how the sunspots affect propagation.
    The report reminds me of the story about the blind men and the elephant BUT with IPCC report there is only one blind person taking one feel of the elephant, the others were discarded as they had no "peer review'" (and the person doing the peer review is not only blind, but biased.)

  • Other Factors
    Feb. 10, 2010 11:47 a.m.

    Keep in mind there are many other factors that do contribute to global warming and cooling (climate change), as it did during the Little Ice Age [early 1300s to about 1855], e.g., radiation fluctuations received from the sun, changes that occur in the oceanic currents (thermohaline circulation), changes in oceanic water temperature and their movement over their surface, changes in the amount of water vapor suspended in the atmosphere, sulfuric emissions from major volcanic eruptions, etc.

    Have those variables from these other factors been measured and tracked along with measured increases of atmospheric CO2, which by the way, is less than 0.05% of the total atmosphere of the earth? Many of these other factors could very well be a much bigger player to the current warming trend than the increase of atmospheric CO2.

    So far, I have not seen (nor has anyone provided) any published scientific evidence that directly ties the current warming trend to increased anthropogenic generated emissions.

  • Interglacial John
    Feb. 10, 2010 9:07 a.m.

    I find it amusing that alarmists tout the fact that they can find scientists who will testify to the validity of AGW. I can find scientists who believe in ghosts. This is meaningless. What alarmists cannot find is proof of man made global warming. This is why they point to a nebulous "consensus" or the 3000 page IPCC report as a whole. There is no specific evidence of man made global warming, only inferrence. While that may make a great ghost story, it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. One of the largest losses we have witnessed in this hysteria is not the glaciers or the polar ice cap, but the "scientific method". Alarmists have abandoned the gold standard of scientific scrutiny in favor of fools gold.

  • RE: Dixie Dan
    Feb. 10, 2010 8:35 a.m.

    Dixie Dan "If Glenn Beck supported Global Warming, this would be a non-event in our legislature."

    Are you kidding? The legislature is standing up to scientist from the only true church on the face of the earth. That's more then standing up to Glenn Beck.

    Great job legislature for standing up to this scam.

  • two different things
    Feb. 10, 2010 7:44 a.m.


    I'm glad there is a state that is standing up to fight this lie, and that's what it is, a lie, a scam. The EPA needs to concentrate on cleaning up real problems.

    Improving our environment and throwing billions of dollars to reducing CO2 are two different things.

  • The chorus
    Feb. 10, 2010 7:31 a.m.

    The chorus is growing among legitimate climate scientists who are scrambling to save something of their reputations as more ugliness dribbles out about the badly politicized nature of the entire global warming movement.

    From Great Britain, to Canada, to the US, to Australia, New Zealand, and now Africa and Latin America - the list of phony baloney reports on which the IPCC developed their carbon trading and economy-destroying policies for governments to follow continues to grow.

  • control the people
    Feb. 10, 2010 7:27 a.m.

    We can never control the weather, we can never control the climate, but if we pretend we can control the weather and the climate, then we can control the people.

    If the people will do whatever we say they should, if they'll only use so much of what we say, if they'll only drive what we say, if they'll only live the way we say, if they'll only eat what we say then the weather will change, then the climate will change.

    So that's the answer, control the people.

  • Dixie Dan
    Feb. 10, 2010 7:13 a.m.

    If Glenn Beck supported Global Warming, this would be a non-event in our legislature. Pity!

  • re byu alum
    Feb. 10, 2010 7:06 a.m.

    I was going to point out flaws in your "arguement", but then I realized that you graduated from byu and you probably wouldn't be able to understand anyway.

  • DY
    Feb. 10, 2010 6:22 a.m.

    BYU alum, you have been sitting around KoolAid bar instead of paying attention to the issue with an open and deliberative mind. The "scientific debate" of any theory will, and must, continue until the theory becomes scientific law by empirical confirmation and repeated replication which is based on sound, honest, apolitical data being compared to historical evidence spanning many thousands of years. Such a macro view of scientific data is compelling if you read and understand that the earth has entered into and recovered from myriad cycles of warming and cooling cycles. Only the last 120 years is being used to measure change within the context of millions of years of historical evidence that earth has been both cooler and warmer than now. Industrialization unquestionably never played a part in climate changes prior to the starting point of "greenhouse gases" caused by carbon emissions eminating from human activity.

    Here's a proven scientific point to consider given that you have ignored the prior comments. The single greatest source of CO2 emissions is oceanic activity, sans any human effects.

  • Global Cooling?
    Feb. 10, 2010 6:21 a.m.

    After being swamped by "hard" data that the world was entering an ice age ('60s & '70s)I am skeptical of all scientific data "proving" we are now about to "burn" the planet to death.

  • Re: BYU alum | 11:44 p.m
    Feb. 10, 2010 2:20 a.m.

    If you really believe "...this is not a matter of scientific debate anymore", then obviously you failed to notice the reference to another scientific paper referenced in (Scientists@7:23p), posted above, that contradicts who you just postulated.

  • dlharman
    Feb. 10, 2010 1:02 a.m.

    ".. the following scientific paper titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" as recorded in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007)"

    The author, Art Robinson told the Seattle times that: "he has done no direct research into global warming." May 1, 1998.

    The paper was attached to the Oregon Petition Project, was NOT peer reviewed and the National Academy said "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

  • Tom in Oregon City
    Feb. 10, 2010 12:50 a.m.

    BYU alum: your statement that this is "NOT a matter of scientific debate anymore" is simply laughable. There is even debate inside NASA, where James Hansen works. Sea level changes, ice extent, glacier growth and retreat, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, precipitation, low-level cloud albedo... all these and more are under serious debate, by qualified people. Please do yourself a favor, and realize (1) scientists have to eat, and will follow the money just like you will; (2) politicians like to control things, and will pay for results that give them an excuse to do that; (3) poorer countries would love to tap the "carbon" pockets of the rich ones; (4) CO2 is simply not capable of driving climate, at 0.04% of the atmosphere; (5) what effect CO2 has is logarithmic, so increases have even less effect; (6) water vapor is almost 50 times as significant a warming gas... oh, there's just too much more, and these posts are limited. I have read lots of papers, and studied. Then I signed the Oregon Petition.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 10, 2010 12:16 a.m.

    Graphs that show the world's CO2 emmissions and temperature over the last 400,000 years show that once every 80,000 years or so the levels rise dramatically. Guess when the last time we had a temperature spike was? You guessed it... about 80,000 years ago. And the rate is the exact same as in those previous ones. Those stupid neanderthals should have learned to cut down on the fossil fuel burning.

  • BYU alum
    Feb. 9, 2010 11:44 p.m.

    Any legislator that denies global warming at this stage doesn't deserve public office. This is NOT a matter of scientific debate anymore. Climate change is real.


    Denying it for political gain? disgusting AND/OR stupid.

  • Wake up !!!
    Feb. 9, 2010 10:59 p.m.

    Al Gore is in it for the $$$. Global warming is about politics and greed. How many theories were false in Gore's movie? A lot. Global warming is a cycle.

  • You have no data!
    Feb. 9, 2010 10:41 p.m.

    Fact is, the data that supports man-made global warming is flawed. Around 80% of the temperature recording stations in the United States are in areas where external influences are polluting the data collected from them. For example: one station was modified with a transmitter to transmit the temperature readings elsewhere. The transmitter was placed RIGHT NEXT TO THE THERMOMETER! What do transmitters and other electronic devices do? Give off heat. Example #2: one station had a microwave tower built next to it. The exhaust vents from the tower point directly at the station. What comes out of those vents? Yep, heat. Example 3: Another station was situation in the middle of a city, surrounded by asphalt and brick buildings, with the exhaust from an air conditioning unit blowing right on it. Oops. Example 4: One station was moved from one place to another. The data from before the move and after now do not correlate, since they were taken from two different locations.

    If the data is flawed, then the "experiment" must be thrown out. If you want to prove man-made global warming, then you have to start over again from the beginning.

  • Suburbs of SLC
    Feb. 9, 2010 10:16 p.m.

    There has been plenty of specific evidence to show that climate change may or may not be caused by man. The problem is that the Legislature is using this resolution to politicize the issue even more than the EPA. As one of the BYU scientists testified (at last weeks committee meeting before the full House meeting), he did not believe in man-caused climate change, but using the bad science in the resolution as a justification to oppose climate change was not good public policy.

    For instance, their claims that all science opposing climate change was being suppressed, despite the evidence in the above comments, and Google, that disagreeing reports do exist perfectly well.

    My favorite was the clause that said the IPCC could not be trusted because they rely on other scientists' work rather than their own science. As compared to the Utah Republicans, who did their own science? Or rather ignored all science...

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 9, 2010 10:08 p.m.

    I'm surprised the legislature didn't blame teachers for climate change.

  • religion
    Feb. 9, 2010 9:26 p.m.

    Those who don't believe there is a God who created the earth and heaven, tend to be the one's who have made a religion out of "global warming."
    BTW, why are you so afraid of discussion and debate on this matter?

  • Phred
    Feb. 9, 2010 9:22 p.m.

    The EPA decided to clean up the pollution in eastern Kentucky and Tennessee. They determined that by far the greatest contributor to atmospheric haze was a species of pine tree and they would have to cut down the majority of forests in the area to have any significant effect.

    There is a reason they call them the Great Smoky Mountains!

  • Spoc
    Feb. 9, 2010 9:17 p.m.

    To Clueless at 5:13,

    My great grandfather's journal recounts that it was common practice any time of year to bring an extra shirt when traveling from Orem to Salt Lake. Not because of road dust, but because by the time you arrived after this day long trip your shoulders would be quite black from the coal and wood soot that fell on all travelers in the Salt Lake Valley. It was not so bad in Utah Valley.

    I am sure when they did have inversions and no one had any other alternative for heating that winter inversions could be quite deadly.

    What you need to recognize is that man does not cause inversions, he just makes them visible.

  • Revelations
    Feb. 9, 2010 7:48 p.m.

    The London Times (Feb 8th) recently published the following report:

    "The UN's 2007 Report on Global Warming is under fire again… Chris Field, new lead author of IPCC's climate impact team, says he can find "no evidence" to support a claim in the report that rain-fed North African crop yields could be reduced by as much as 50% by 2020 because of Global warming…

    "[This] revelation follows IPCC's retraction of a claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, and other inaccurate claims about Amazon deforestation."

    With these kinds of "revelations" by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), I would think that one should take pause about how much other data may be flawed before continuing to advocate that global warming is directly attributable to emissions generated by mankind.

  • Re Find a Clue
    Feb. 9, 2010 7:42 p.m.

    Since when has the human race caused high pressure over the Great Basin. Temperature Inversions have been in Utah long before all those bad guys came to town.

  • Blame Utah
    Feb. 9, 2010 7:31 p.m.

    Utah is the cause for climate change and global warming!!!

  • The Professor
    Feb. 9, 2010 7:27 p.m.

    As a retired Professor from one of Utah's major universities, I can assure you that not all of us buy the "Climate Change Theory" ( formerly Global Warming ).
    I have studied this for over 40 years and do not find that the science is in any way settled and those that say it is are not being honest.
    I agree that the resolution will not make much differnce in the debate, but I believe that an opposing view to what is proposed by the radical agenda in Washington needs to be made.

  • Scientists
    Feb. 9, 2010 7:23 p.m.

    Scientists

    Re: L Romney | 5:19 p.m.

    Not all scientists are on the "same page" when it come to claiming that the current warming trend is directly tied to anthropogenic generated emissions. For example, you may want to take some time to read (in its entirety) the following scientific paper titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" as recorded in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007), 12, p79-90. In the paper's conclusion, it states the following (summarized):

    "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape… The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects."

    The Legislators' may have this one 'right.'

  • brrrr
    Feb. 9, 2010 7:11 p.m.

    So if the cold weather across this country keeps going, that’s evidence of climate change. And if it doesn’t, that’s evidence of man-made warming. It’s a win-win for the warming fear mongers.

    when you see the reasoning for assuming man is to blame, you see exactly the same kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose reasoning.

    Last year The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) exposed how the EPA had suppressed a scientific study that concludes natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature changes.

    Those who've been spreading global-warming fears must be waking up each morning and asking themselves: What's going to happen today? A new revelation about the corruption of climate science has become almost a daily event.

  • Bob G.
    Feb. 9, 2010 6:56 p.m.

    We have significant atmospheric inversion problems in Utah which need to be addressed. However, CO2 is not a significant global climate problem. A good Canadian web site that has many peer reviewed papers on this subject is www.friendsofscience.org. The distortion of good climate science has been going on for about three decades.

  • KMW
    Feb. 9, 2010 6:14 p.m.

    "Guy With A Brain": You should really get your info from somewhere besides Faux News. That's not what the scientists were saying. The ultra right purposefully took things out of context. Read all the conversations in full, they say something completely different than what you're claiming.

  • The Earth is Flat
    Feb. 9, 2010 5:47 p.m.

    And Republican legislators think the Sun revolves around Utah too.

  • L Romney
    Feb. 9, 2010 5:19 p.m.

    It is correct that the Earth has gone through many cycles of hot and cold. The difference this time is THE RATE OF CHANGE that is being documented. Instead of taking thousands of years to create a significantly harmful change, we are talking about decades.

    Our legislature may not be able to understand the science, but to disregard the scientists from Utah's major universities (BYU, U of U, Utah State), or to dismiss them as being part of a world conspiracy is ridiculous.

    We can spend all our time talking about past cycles or we can do something now to prevent a future full of harmful changes for life on this Earth. If we move quickly to a green, non-polluting way of life the worst that will happen is the creation of new green jobs to help our economy, freedom from the tyranny of foreign oil, cleaner air to improve our health, and many species saved from extinction.

    It is a waste of taxpayers money to spend time on a resolution that has no force of law, and isn't even likely to be read by congressmen or federal agency officials.




  • Find a clue
    Feb. 9, 2010 5:13 p.m.

    Did we not just go through 5 weeks of man affecting the climate here in Utah called inversion? Do you think the pioneers had red air, don't drive days? How can anyone living in the valley say that man doesn't cause changes in the weather??!?!?

  • I agree
    Feb. 9, 2010 4:57 p.m.

    It's a natural occurance for chucks of ice the size of small states to continually break away from the polar ice caps.

    Are people in Utah really this unintelligent?

  • A Guy With A Brain
    Feb. 9, 2010 4:50 p.m.

    There is no such thing as man-made global warming.

    I know this.

    So did the scientists who were sending e-mails to one another not to disclose what was really going on to the public.

    Oops....

  • What ever.
    Feb. 9, 2010 4:41 p.m.

    I am looking to pack my thing and move out of this state. Utah is a case lost........................