Comments about ‘What others say: GOP and climate change’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 13 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Back in the 1950's the Republican party always won the votes of educated Americans. That support has been eroding. Starting in 1988, Democrats have won the votes of Americans with advanced degrees, although four year college graduates still tended to vote Republican. In 2008, for the first time, these four year college graduates also abandoned the Republicans. Keep running against science guys, it helps the Democrats.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Huntsman is doomed as a Republican. His intelligence and common sense are not welcome there.

Esquire
Springville, UT

The Republican Party on this has reverted back to the mid-19th Century. They are not fit to lead in the modern world.

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

I dont understand why this is such a HUGE issue. Most if us don't understand the science behind Global anything, as we are not scientists. So you either trust the scientific community or you don't.
A POLITICIAN who claims Global Warming isn't human caused or claims it is... is only spouting off some opinion. The reality is NONE of these politicians are going to make sweeping changes to policy to combat global warming.
Our environmental policies should responsible, otherwise what else can we do? Stop using oil?
This issue is nothing more than rabble rousing, and no politician can or will do anything about it.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

The reason wealthy people I know support Republicans are low capital gains taxes and lower top marginal tax rates in general.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

So long as prominent GOP candidates reveal themsevles to be willfully and beligerently ignorant on real-world, evidence-rich subjects like global warming and biological evolution, they will lose elections, and on those occassions when they win they'll make the nation dumber, poorer and weaker.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

My LDS leaders have always told me a few things -

1. Study it out in your mind. [Science]
2. The act on best choices [using some common sense], and having faith.

Denying the study of Science is Conservatives 1st BIG mistake.

Not acting or choosing the good, better, or Best Choice by willfully not tending and taking care of Mother Earth [as commanded] is their Second.

"A man can not be saved in ignorance" can also apply here.

God will not clean up or save you from your pollutive mess because you've "Ignored" there is even a problem.

I can't wait for Perry or Bachmann to tell us all the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

BTW - We need a President, not an Evangelical Preacher in the WitheHouse.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Tree-Hugger | 9:25 a.m." but if you study the science, the best that you can come up with with respect to Global Warming is that the science is not settled.

Forbes magazine recently came out with an article titled "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" where they describe how only recently NASA found that the Earth releases a lot more energy back into space than GW computer models thought.

The scientific journal Nature published an article "Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation" The name is really confusing, but the summary of the Nature article written by the Canadian National Post is quite good. Read "The sun shines some light on global warming orthodoxy".

The science is not settled. That is why science does not rely on popular belief, but a 95% confidence interval to establish scientific fact. This has yet to be met by the global warming alarmist scientists.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

For science NOTHING is ever settled (thankfully)! The door is not closed to new discovery on any topic, new information is altering some views on gravity. The longer the prevailing view is not contradicted with convincing (to the scientific community) evidence, the stronger the presumption that it is fact. Scientists make their reputation poking holes in established views that is why when something holds a 95%+ support for a long period (decades) it becomes settled until the opposite is proven.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

I've always found it ironic that the GOP has largely denied the scientific evidence of climate change when the technologial energy solutions to address climate change would benefit red states -- from wind energy in the Midwest to solar and geothermal in the desert southwest. Oil reserves are dwindling or are just too expensive to extract in America (e.g., oil shale and tar sands aren't economical), so preserving the status quo 19th century technology of oil doesn't make much sense for America's future.

Some red states are moving ahead on renewables. Iowa now produces over 20 percent of its electricity from wind energy, and Texas is now the biggest producer of wind energy. Perhaps climate change isn't the driver of this trend, but the sheer economic benefit of home-grown and non-off-shorable jobs that clean energy creates is worthwhile to those red states.

Of course, some call the GOP the "Grand Oil Party," so perhaps economic benefit has less to do with the GOP's stance on clean energy than politial contributions from Koch and other oil/fossil fuel interests that keep the GOP in their pocket.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

No one has convinced me that "global warming" is entirely human caused. Just a paltry 35 years ago, all the climate scientists stated we were going into a new ice age. I remember the doom and gloom of that. Also caused, according to the scientists, by so called "greenhouse gasses".

There are too many forces at work on this earth to make humans the culprit. Yes we do some dumb things, but in the long run, an eruption of a major volcano like Mt. Pinatubo does far more harm to the climate than humans. Also the activity of the Sun has a great effect on our climate.

Maybe what we need is a good asteroid hit to mess up the climate also. The point is, the science of global warming is based on computer models that are only as good as the people who program the information into the computers, including their bias.

The earth goes through cycles. That is a scientifically proven fact. No computer models needed. Just like the ebb and flow of life.

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

"Stuck in the Middle Ages" -- does he mean the Little Ice Age?

And by the way, what warming?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "It would be far more accurate to compare Perry to Pope Urban VIII, who put Galileo on trial for heresy in 1633 . . . ."

Yeah -- greenies love to gloat over having won the debate on global warming. It'll just make it all the more satisfying when their monstrous, freedom and treasure-swallowing socialist contrivance comes tumbling down around their ears -- probably about November, next year.

Of course, they've tried to set up their scam so it can't be proven wrong -- climate warms? Global warming. Climate cools? Global warming. Or, most tellingly of all, climate stays the same? Global warming.

We've got to hold their feet to the fire, though. At some point, when it becomes clear that none of their doomsday scenarios will come to pass, we'll need to mercilessly laugh and poke fun of them.

They need to know they can't just meander along to the next manufactured crisis -- like they did from population bomb to global warming -- without someone calling them on it.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

The LA Times, like most liberals, knows the conventional narrative about Galileo. As usual, the facts were more complicated.

It wasn't just the Catholic Church that was opposed to Galileo's heliocentric theory. (They'd started out OK with it, but later decided they couldn't let the upstart Protestants outbid them on fidelity to scripture.) There was a strong scientific consensus that the Earth was stationary, supported by what was (at the time, based on the evidence available) powerful logic.

One major piece of scientific evidence that didn't fit Galileo's theory was the lack of observed stellar parallax. If the earth in fact moved around the sun, then there should be a difference in the angles at which various stars were seen at different seasons, when the Earth was in different places in its orbit.

None was observed. Therefore (the majority of the scientists concluded), the Earth must be stationary.

What wasn't understood at the time, was how far away the stars actually were. And instruments weren't accurate enough to measure the parallax (or angle-shift) that does, in fact exist, as was confirmed much later.

Few of you liberals who think yourselves scientifically superior knew any of this.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

John Locke identified a critical test of intellectual honesty, which is that an honest man does not hold any opinion with more certainty than the evidence permits.

The liberal conventional insinuation that the certainty with which significant anthropogenic global warming can be predicted, is remotely on a level with the certainty with which the theory of evolution can be accepted, is not a mark of intellectual honesty.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

"Perry's answer has been to issue proclamations urging people to pray for rain and to slash firefighting budgets."

Another lie by the Times, to which thankfully I no longer subscribe. Texas's operating budget for firefighting has increased every year in Perry's administration, moving steadily up through the $70 million range. Last year, there was a one-time increased expenditure for a capital acquisition program -- for the purchase of new equipment. Next year, it goes back to around $75 million -- That is, the operating budget is still increasing.

Counting the expiration of one-time capital expenditure programs as "slashes" in operating budgets is one of the oldest Democrat tricks in the book. Doesn't make it any more honest.

I've always opposed the notion that you can't be a good Mormon and a Democrat, but Democrat politics have come to be so contemptuous of the concept of truth that I'm starting to wonder.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

"Back in the 1950's the Republican party always won the votes of educated Americans. That support has been eroding."

Interesting that in the 1950s, there was far more intellectual and political diversity on American college campuses. They have become much more ideologically monolithic. BYU has more diversity of opinion today than the average progressive campus.

So an interesting pattern has developed: Democrats get the votes of the undereducated (who tend to be clients of the welfare state). They also get most of the votes of people with graduate degrees -- by and large, the professionals involved in *administering* the welfare state, or who get their bread and butter from the hyper-liberal universities, where faculty are hired in part based on considerations of "collegiality," which more often than not means simply not rocking the groupthink boat too much.

Meanwhile, mere college graduates continue to be conservative. Which suggests that if you're educated enough to think -- but not so hyperspecialized in your education that your employment prospects depend on your joining the conventional-wisdom liberal herd -- you will be more conservative.

Which isn't surprising. The facts of life are conservative.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

TheProudDuck |
John Locke identified a critical test of intellectual honesty, which is that an honest man does not hold any opinion with more certainty than the evidence permits.

and yet your opinion is given as fact, silly duck

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

These same Conservatives probable pooh-poohed the 98% of the Scientists who said smoking causes cancer.

They believe tolts on their radios like El-Rush-Bo and his nicotine stained fingers who keep telling them that smoking is actaully GOOD for your health.
[And Oxycotain, and Viagra]

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

So, I'm trying to imagine this Utopian world the ultra-Conservative Tea Partiers must also imagine....

No EPA
No Education
No Public Works
No Social Security
No Medicare
No Healthcare

Where laws are passed, but never enforced -- $$$ is King and bribes allow authorities to simple look the other way.

A regular paradise of Unbridled and Unregulated Freedom!
Where people and Corporations are Free to what they want, when they want -- where people can buy, sell, trade and produce without any Government interference or over sight at all.

But -- when I do try to see their vision of America, I see places like Somalia, Rwanda, Columbia, Mexico, Zimbabwe, or another 3rd or 4th World Country in extreme poverty.

Lack of Food & Hunger, Mal-nutrition, Disease, Drugs, Alcohol, Sex, Human Slavery and every other form of horrible debautry comes to mind
Meanwhile - these so-called "Patriots" are trashing our Constitution by trying to revoke the 14th and 17th ammendments, then hamstringing our Military and Government during times of crisis by forcing a Balanced Budget.

I see their vision of America.
I don't like it, want it, or support it.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments