Comments about ‘BYU and University of Utah professors wanted Legislature to listen to them on climate change’

great article. i don't pretend to know all about climate change but I sure don't like how those people were treated. it ain7t right.

Open dialogue needs to happen. Though I do like the reach for independence of the Utah State legislature from the federal government, they really need to make sure they cross their t's and dot their i's. Otherwise it makes them look like idealogues pushing an agenda, and it weakens their argument.

Here is my take.


1) If the evidence for it were really there, why did the name have to be changed from global warming to climate change?

2) If the evidence for it were really there, why the fraud?

I may not be a college educated weather expert, but I am smart and wise enough to recognise a hoax when I see it.

The saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me comes to mind on this one.

I don't blame the legislature for not wasting time with "global warming". There are enough real issues to deal with.

This climate change business is nothing but a joke, we need to take care of mother earth but cap and tax is not the way to go about it. I support the Utah State Legislature for the statement they are trying to make. I really question that the earth is getting warmer and taking place because of man, that man is the cause. The history of earth is full of climate change times well before man was on earth. We don't need the federal goverment making drastic changes in taxes to save the climate, its just a big power grab!

Please tell me what a sociologist can add to the Climate Change argument?

There is more to this story then is being told. The BYU professor sent a letter? If he really wanted to be heard why did he not go up to the session. Normal citizens go up there everyday to make sure they are heard, but this professor is upset because his letter was not taken with more clout?

Again, there is more to this story not being reported.

It didn't matter which scientists testified or what they said. The legislature was not about to change their minds over scientific evidence.

If the legislator in the article thinks he is so intelligent, then how come he doesn't know there are things he's not an expert in? He is the definition of an idealogue.
There are experts in the state of Utah who focus on climate change AS IT AFFECTS THIS STATE. Those are the people that should be involved, and not a special interest, like Desert Power. It disgusts me who our own state legislature appears even worse than our national legislator.
Apathetic voters. That's the problem. The interest in local politics is way too low. Hopefully this can change.

I read this article and I can't figure out what it is about. Are you for or against climate change. My guess is you are against the legislature but I'm not sure. it's not objective it's pointless. How about you report what the errors are. Why should the legislature listen to them? make the story interesting or I won't listen either.

One simply has to document growing vegetables in Greenland and grapes in England in the Medieval warming period to know that carbon dioxide is not the culprit. The Sun and the Earth's natural cycles are. Even Al Gore can't affect the Sun and the Earth. Using un-adulterated data, the Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years, and has cooled for 9 years.

Cap and Trade is simply another scam to "redistribute wealth" to accomplish Obama's "progressive" scheme to transfer the United States' wealth to third-world countries.

"For people like me who are intelligent, I hope, but not scientists, we have a hard time buying into this," he said. "The whole idea was to say, 'Gee, let's take a deep breath, slow down and let's look at this for a while.' "

If a politician has to tell people he is intelligent, there are bigger issues. Sure he is intelligent. So is that pond scum over there. That pond scum does not have to justify whether they are intelligent or not. I am assured the politician has a higher IQ than the pond scum though.

The real issue was the ability to reason. That is where the politician would lose out to the pond scum. The pond scum knows that if something is bad it should avoid it. The politician does not. They seem to seek it out time and time again. Too bad pond scum doesn't often run for public office.

You know what they say about opinions, everybody has one and they all think theirs is the best.

this article gives a good example of why people aren't believing in climate change. the quoted experts are two engineers and a sociology professor. where were the climatologists? it seems like doctor has replaced elder as the new title for missionarys selling things people are just supposed to take on faith. having worked with people in the academic research community, i can say that heresy to the common dogma in the academic world is almost as bad as heresy in the religious world was in the middle ages.

Haven't we wasted enough time on the subject of climate change? Its getting to be like the boy who called wolf. Given all the legislature had to do, I'm surprised anyone got even 2 minutes to talk about this, they would have been fools to devote 45 minutes towards the subject.

We breathe the dirtiest air in the nation during winter inversions, yet our legislature passes bills to restrict the EPA.

The companies who pollute our air are given 45 minutes to present, but professors, experts in their field, get two minutes to present their collective work.

It is clearly time to go to your neighborhood caucus meetings and vote for people who will bring our state back from the lunatic fringe.

When the power speaks on the Hill few if any, regardless whether the power is right or wrong, speak out. It is only after the truth comes out that they say I am so sorry, we were misinformed.

So...a sociologist who believes in AGW didn't get listened to as much as he wanted, and this is news? What does he think, his opinion should count double?

I get it, not sure why you were lost. It was not about climate change, but the process that the legislature is going through to pass legislation.

The irony is that the bill in question was asking the federal government to slow down and make sure they have all the fact before making a decision. At the same time, those who sponsord this bill refused to slow down themselves, and listen, and rammed this through. If you fail to catch the irony in that, not sure how better to draw the lines about what is happening on capital hill in SLC.

These people are more worried about having their names associated with popular sounding topics rather than fully vetting out the subjects and giving both sides opportunity to participate in creating a well formulated and balanced piece of legislation.

The professors should not be surprised when the public representatives reflect the public reaction to a very serious violation of public trust by their colleagues.

Global warming was presented as a proven fact and resulted in major energy policy shifts with cancellation of generation units - all based on falsified data.

The reaction should not be a surprise....

This article did not establish a premise. Is the bill for, or against the climate change theory? This article is a bunch of gobble-de-goop.