Reader comments
My view: Not all Americans have been 'greenwashed'
96 comments | Read story
Timj | 4:03 a.m. April 13, 2009
Sounds like a free advertisement for Sutherland's Earth Week 2009. Wonder
of Deseret News charged them for printing the article. If they didn't,
they should have.
News for you... | 6:43 a.m. April 13, 2009
Fortunately, science isn't settled according to Gallup polls.
Most Americans are scientifically illiterate - that's a fact. Most can't tell you the reason for Earth's seasons or why the Moon goes through its phases. A significant number of Americans think the Apollo missions were faked. We've dumbed-down our society, and widespread public science illiteracy (e.g. the "Hog Wash!" comment above) is the natural consequence.
So - the Sutherland Institute, that Right-of-Attila-the-Hun "think-tank" doesn't believe in Global Warming. Is this a big surprise to anyone?
Facts are facts - although in this state people are adept at clamping their eyes shut, sticking their fingers in their ears and humming loudly anytime they're presented with science that challenges their beliefs.
Most Americans are scientifically illiterate - that's a fact. Most can't tell you the reason for Earth's seasons or why the Moon goes through its phases. A significant number of Americans think the Apollo missions were faked. We've dumbed-down our society, and widespread public science illiteracy (e.g. the "Hog Wash!" comment above) is the natural consequence.
So - the Sutherland Institute, that Right-of-Attila-the-Hun "think-tank" doesn't believe in Global Warming. Is this a big surprise to anyone?
Facts are facts - although in this state people are adept at clamping their eyes shut, sticking their fingers in their ears and humming loudly anytime they're presented with science that challenges their beliefs.
Comments continue below
Stick with status quo | 6:44 a.m. April 13, 2009
I too choose to not believe in global warming. I mean, look at how great our
lives are with oil dependency, providing jobs for our military overseas and all
to protect our oil access. Look how we showed Samoli pirates this week with our
military might to keep our oil shipping lanes free!
The solution to global warming is switching our whole energy infrastructure to domestic, clean energy source like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Soon we'll be driving electric cars -- but what will that get us? Our Mideast oil dollars will dry up and go into domestic rural communities and American companies like Tesla and GM (if it can get its Volt's out the door). Like Rush Limbaugh, I ain't ever going to drive an Prius or electric car!
The problem with renewable energy is that it is price stable -- unlike that exciting yo-yo cost of oil, coal, and natural gas -- and well, that would not be any fun! Our energy bills would be the same price every month, year in and year out. How boring! I like to play pricing games with my local gas station, trying to predict what gas will cost everyday!
The solution to global warming is switching our whole energy infrastructure to domestic, clean energy source like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Soon we'll be driving electric cars -- but what will that get us? Our Mideast oil dollars will dry up and go into domestic rural communities and American companies like Tesla and GM (if it can get its Volt's out the door). Like Rush Limbaugh, I ain't ever going to drive an Prius or electric car!
The problem with renewable energy is that it is price stable -- unlike that exciting yo-yo cost of oil, coal, and natural gas -- and well, that would not be any fun! Our energy bills would be the same price every month, year in and year out. How boring! I like to play pricing games with my local gas station, trying to predict what gas will cost everyday!
Not a belief system | 7:34 a.m. April 13, 2009
People make the mistake of thinking of climate change as something they can
"believe in". Well, here's a shocker... it's not a belief
system, it is a fact. Atmospheric science is something that is well studied and
understood, and these scientists are finding that climate change is happening
faster than previously imagined.
The real question is why at "think tank" like the Sutherland Institute, with no scientific background, wants to distort the facts and try to get people to question these facts. Who is financing them? Their web site won't say... they obviously have something to hide. My guess is that their sponsors are afraid of change, and want to delay it. But the more we delay actions to combat climate change, the more it will cost, and the worse the effects will be.
Sutherland supporters apparently are looking at short-term profits; not the long-term economic chaos that will occur if we don't take control and plan for these climatic changes now.
The real question is why at "think tank" like the Sutherland Institute, with no scientific background, wants to distort the facts and try to get people to question these facts. Who is financing them? Their web site won't say... they obviously have something to hide. My guess is that their sponsors are afraid of change, and want to delay it. But the more we delay actions to combat climate change, the more it will cost, and the worse the effects will be.
Sutherland supporters apparently are looking at short-term profits; not the long-term economic chaos that will occur if we don't take control and plan for these climatic changes now.
Huh | 7:44 a.m. April 13, 2009
News for you says "facts are facts" but fails to provide any. Good,
work, I'm now convinced!
Stick with status quo shifts the argument. Nowhere in Mr. Monson's column did he say we don't have problems with energy dependency, pollution, etc. Thinking folks who don't believe that man contributes significantly enough to climate change to have an impact on its "fix" (even with economically disruptive drastic reductions and restructurings), can nevertheless tackle these problems. Mr. Monson does not suggest we don't and your comments are disingenuous because they infer he does. Clever, perhaps, but intellectually dishonest.
Stick with status quo shifts the argument. Nowhere in Mr. Monson's column did he say we don't have problems with energy dependency, pollution, etc. Thinking folks who don't believe that man contributes significantly enough to climate change to have an impact on its "fix" (even with economically disruptive drastic reductions and restructurings), can nevertheless tackle these problems. Mr. Monson does not suggest we don't and your comments are disingenuous because they infer he does. Clever, perhaps, but intellectually dishonest.
Facts | 7:50 a.m. April 13, 2009
I'm sick of everyone saying that global warming is a fact. That depends on
when you're measuring and still does not account for the level of fault to
be assigned to humans. Without knowing that level of fault, we can't even
begin to know what, if any, significant effect even a reduction to a zero carbon
economy would have on any climate change. Further, carbon (which is always
what's trotted out by the greens as the evil sin) is a small portion of
greenhouse gases. Methane is far greater. In fact, a UN report a couple of
years ago said that methane from cows poses a greater threat for climate change
than all the world's cars put together. So, PETA will have to rethink that
whole be kind to animals bit if we're to tackle that problem. It's
either handbags or forced feeding of Beano. Either way, let's put money
there instead of on artificially capping carbon emissions and disrupting our
economy.
Kevin | 7:53 a.m. April 13, 2009
@Hog Wash!!!! | 12:51 a.m. April 13, 2009
"The biggest heist pulled off on the American people that I can think of to date."
No, that would be religion.
What you people are too dumb to understand is that, even if global warming weren't factual, clean air and water are vital to our health, well-being, and even survival. Why are you all so dumb not to realize that?
What do you think when you walk out into an inversion on a "red air" day? Is that OK with you?
"The biggest heist pulled off on the American people that I can think of to date."
No, that would be religion.
What you people are too dumb to understand is that, even if global warming weren't factual, clean air and water are vital to our health, well-being, and even survival. Why are you all so dumb not to realize that?
What do you think when you walk out into an inversion on a "red air" day? Is that OK with you?
Reliable Source | 8:20 a.m. April 13, 2009
Research published last month indicates that Americans actually don't like
chocolate. This is backed up by a Gallup pole from some unknown date that
indicated only 30% of Americans even knew chocolate was candy. From this
information, we must infer that Easter is nothing more than a marketing scam
targetted at convincing our children that chocolate should be part of their
religious beliefs in order to increase future sales.
Um, I'm intelligent and mature enough to admit that I know very little about climatology and am not qualified to either confirm or debunk the subject of Global Warming. I am educated enough to recognize a several hundred word advertizement disguised as an Op Ed. No real references other than vaguely throwing around the name "Gallup". Pretty disappointing coming from someone who works for a research group. I concur that DN should charge them for the Ad space.
I do know this. #1 Nature kills. #2 We don't understand enough about climate to even get tomorrow's weather right. Then there's all the documented health problems caused by pollution. If we have the choice between poking a sleeping bear or not. I'm kinda leaning towards not.
Um, I'm intelligent and mature enough to admit that I know very little about climatology and am not qualified to either confirm or debunk the subject of Global Warming. I am educated enough to recognize a several hundred word advertizement disguised as an Op Ed. No real references other than vaguely throwing around the name "Gallup". Pretty disappointing coming from someone who works for a research group. I concur that DN should charge them for the Ad space.
I do know this. #1 Nature kills. #2 We don't understand enough about climate to even get tomorrow's weather right. Then there's all the documented health problems caused by pollution. If we have the choice between poking a sleeping bear or not. I'm kinda leaning towards not.
BH | 8:37 a.m. April 13, 2009
I believe in global warming. Otherwise we would still be in the ice ages. The
real question is whether mankind is having any significant effect on it. The
biggest source of heat in our solar system is certainly the sun. Its hard for
me to think that its variations don't have more to do with our climate
changes than anything puny man can do.
Mike | 8:38 a.m. April 13, 2009
Geez. And a paltry 32 years ago, Newsweek was touting that we were headed for
an ice age. Same science, same scientists.
FSM | 9:06 a.m. April 13, 2009
In a recent FSM survey 95% of US citizens know that any 'policy
analysis' at the 'sutherland institute' is a total moron and
should never be trusted. The other 5% were also morons.
huh? | 9:07 a.m. April 13, 2009
"Similarly, last month a Pew survey found that only 30 percent of Americans
rate dealing with global warming as a "top domestic priority," enough
for last on a list of 20 possible priorities."
So, does anyone else find this math not quite right? Out of 20 choices, almost 1/3 of Americans worry about global warming more than anything else. In order for global warming to be last, the other 19 possibilities would to EACH have at least a full 1/3 (or 33%). So, according to this article, a minimum of 627% of Americans think global warming is NOT a "top domestic priority."
627% of Americans - and we are supposed to trust these guys on something as complicated as science?
So, does anyone else find this math not quite right? Out of 20 choices, almost 1/3 of Americans worry about global warming more than anything else. In order for global warming to be last, the other 19 possibilities would to EACH have at least a full 1/3 (or 33%). So, according to this article, a minimum of 627% of Americans think global warming is NOT a "top domestic priority."
627% of Americans - and we are supposed to trust these guys on something as complicated as science?
Re: Mike @8:38 | 9:29 a.m. April 13, 2009
Mike said: "And a paltry 32 years ago, Newsweek was touting that we were
headed for an ice age. Same science, same scientists."
Yes, Newsweek ran that story.
No, that's not what most climatologists were thinking.
In 2008 the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a survey (Peterson, Connelley & Fleck) of 71 peer-reviewed climate science articles published in professional science journals between 1965 and 1979. Of them 7 predicted global cooling, 20 took a neutral position (predicting neither global warming or cooling) and 44 predicted global warming.
The 1977 Global Report 2000 to the President of the United States stated, Rising CO2 concentrations are a concern because of the potential for causing a warming of the Earth.
In 1979 the National Academies of Science issued this summary of the research available: If CO2 continues to increase, there is no reason to doubt that climate change will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.
Now, will you guy _please_ drop the inane argument about scientists in the 70s predicting and Ice Age and start paying attention to the real science?
Yes, Newsweek ran that story.
No, that's not what most climatologists were thinking.
In 2008 the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a survey (Peterson, Connelley & Fleck) of 71 peer-reviewed climate science articles published in professional science journals between 1965 and 1979. Of them 7 predicted global cooling, 20 took a neutral position (predicting neither global warming or cooling) and 44 predicted global warming.
The 1977 Global Report 2000 to the President of the United States stated, Rising CO2 concentrations are a concern because of the potential for causing a warming of the Earth.
In 1979 the National Academies of Science issued this summary of the research available: If CO2 continues to increase, there is no reason to doubt that climate change will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.
Now, will you guy _please_ drop the inane argument about scientists in the 70s predicting and Ice Age and start paying attention to the real science?
Cora | 9:30 a.m. April 13, 2009
@ Kevin. Yes Kevin, they are to dumb.
Oh Please | 10:08 a.m. April 13, 2009
Sutherland Institute and their conservative ilk just love stinking, filthy,
gunky air because to them it smells like money. I'm continually amazed at
their ability to make those of us who are against filth into the
"enemy."
Mr. Irony | 10:14 a.m. April 13, 2009
Well, that's a relief. As long as most Utahns think there's no climate
change, that must mean there isn't any climate change. Reminds me of the
turkeys who think everything's just fine . . . until the day before
Thanksgiving.
I'd be more inclined | 10:28 a.m. April 13, 2009
to buy the man made global warming crisis if it weren't for who is at the
front pushing it. People that have lied to me before and I'm sure will do
it again. These are people who hate freedom and love government. I really
don't believe they are sincere in all that they are saying. If they were
they would be on Sen. Kennedy for his opposition to wind turbines in his
neighborhood as they are the oil companies for wanting to drill off the US
coast. When the icons of big government, like the Kennedeys and Al Gore (with
his big homes, private jets and phony carbon offsets), start getting heat then I
will start to look at this as a real and not a manufactured crisis.
Sarah | 10:34 a.m. April 13, 2009
Utah is a beautiful place with beautiful mountains, amazing canyon lands,
awesome snow, and many many places to hike and backpack. Unfortunately to spend
much time breathing the "fresh air" in Utah is the equivalent of
breathing in second hand smoke.
It truly does not matter if global warming is a hoax or not. What matters is our planets well being, and ultimately our own. To take care of our earth and our waste in a responsible fashion is what we should be focusing on. The issue of climate change will effect all of our lives on a large scale. It is ALL of our problem. Don't people care what happens to the polar bears drowning or birds and fish that can't breath our polluted air and water or the dieing bumble bees? The way you help is your own choice. Recycle, or buy less, and PLEASE don't get sucked into the: buy -> throw away -> work-> watch TV-> buy cycle. And please stop fighting with each other. Americans are famous for fighting about an issue with each other and then going home to dinner. Lets DO something.
It truly does not matter if global warming is a hoax or not. What matters is our planets well being, and ultimately our own. To take care of our earth and our waste in a responsible fashion is what we should be focusing on. The issue of climate change will effect all of our lives on a large scale. It is ALL of our problem. Don't people care what happens to the polar bears drowning or birds and fish that can't breath our polluted air and water or the dieing bumble bees? The way you help is your own choice. Recycle, or buy less, and PLEASE don't get sucked into the: buy -> throw away -> work-> watch TV-> buy cycle. And please stop fighting with each other. Americans are famous for fighting about an issue with each other and then going home to dinner. Lets DO something.
lowonoil | 10:42 a.m. April 13, 2009
One need look no further than the Sutherland Institute for proof that what we
call "Think Tanks" are no such thing.
They are special interest propaganda machines.
They are special interest propaganda machines.
Anonymous | 10:44 a.m. April 13, 2009
If it would have been Rush/Beck et all, claiming Gwarming was real, I wonder if
the head in the sand Utah mind set would fall all over them selves trying to
clean up the dark colored air that we have in inhail?
Derek Monson | 10:44 a.m. April 13, 2009
Re: huh? @9:07-
The pew survey let people choose multiple "top" domestic priorities. In other words, they simply asked "is X a top domestic priority in your mind?" That's why only 30 percent rated global warming as A top domestic priority, rather than THE top domestic priority. If you want to find the survey so you can understand it better, keep reading.
Re: Reliable Source @8:20-
The article provides enough information to find the surveys I cite, if you're actually interested in looking at them. A few simple Google searches using words from my article will lead you to the surveys.
For the Gallup survey, use the words Gallup, environmental, problems, global, and warming - it will be the second link. For the Pew survey, try Pew, survey, policy, and priorities - it will be the first link.
One correction to the article: the Gallup survey, not the Pew survey, was from last month. The Pew survey was in January.
The pew survey let people choose multiple "top" domestic priorities. In other words, they simply asked "is X a top domestic priority in your mind?" That's why only 30 percent rated global warming as A top domestic priority, rather than THE top domestic priority. If you want to find the survey so you can understand it better, keep reading.
Re: Reliable Source @8:20-
The article provides enough information to find the surveys I cite, if you're actually interested in looking at them. A few simple Google searches using words from my article will lead you to the surveys.
For the Gallup survey, use the words Gallup, environmental, problems, global, and warming - it will be the second link. For the Pew survey, try Pew, survey, policy, and priorities - it will be the first link.
One correction to the article: the Gallup survey, not the Pew survey, was from last month. The Pew survey was in January.
Hatuletoh | 11:00 a.m. April 13, 2009
Like my good friend Ed used to say, visitors to the Beehive State are always
welcome, but advised to set their watches back 50 years.
Let's develop renewable and clean energy resources just because it's the wise thing to do. We justly scream about "mortgaging our children's future" when politicians engage in defecit spending--and I'm sure the Sutherland Institute shrieks the loudest--so let us carry that logic to it's natural conclusion when thinking of energy policy.
Let's develop renewable and clean energy resources just because it's the wise thing to do. We justly scream about "mortgaging our children's future" when politicians engage in defecit spending--and I'm sure the Sutherland Institute shrieks the loudest--so let us carry that logic to it's natural conclusion when thinking of energy policy.
Lew Jeppson | 11:00 a.m. April 13, 2009
Yes, the environmental community needs to understand that economics is a science
of trade-offs. People have to be able to make a living, and the world's
urban poor require basic services, which may exacerbate global warming.
Nevertheless, global warming and environmental degradation are real, and require
action. Both sides of this debate need some degree of balance, including
Sutherland.
ECR | 11:10 a.m. April 13, 2009
HOGWASH said "How many millions has Al Gore and his thugs ripped off from
this GREAT NATION, while basking in the sun, flying personal corporate jets
around the world, limo service provided for he and his culprits and the list
goes on."
So, HOGWASH, you seem to have all the answers, why don't you answer those questions? Instead of making outrageous charges by posing ridiculous questions, why don't you provide some hard evidence. Otherwise your opinions are worth no more than your name.
So, HOGWASH, you seem to have all the answers, why don't you answer those questions? Instead of making outrageous charges by posing ridiculous questions, why don't you provide some hard evidence. Otherwise your opinions are worth no more than your name.
Adam Shaffer | 11:16 a.m. April 13, 2009
All of the sources you mention are very biased. If you are really trying to find
out if global warming is real you should look at the data rather than talking
about economics. IF global warming is real it will be much more expensive to
ignore it than to deal with it now.
Christiopher | 11:21 a.m. April 13, 2009
IF there were no such thing as Global Warming, what would be the problem of
developing new clean energy sources that create new jobs, and gets us off our
Mid-East oil dependency?
ANSWER: Absolutely nothing is wrong with that.
ANSWER: Absolutely nothing is wrong with that.
@ "Kevin | 7:53 a.m." | 11:28 a.m. April 13, 2009
Kevin,
Man caused global warming IS religion to many.
Those who are totally converted can't see why EVERYONE isn't converted. They feel the world would be better off if EVERYONE believed the way they do, so they spend as much time and effort as they can trying to convince and convert others. Sound familiar?
I'm not saying this trying to convert people is a bad thing. I think it's a good thing, but you need to see it for what it is... religion (and Al Gore is the head of this sect).
To me, the science of global warming and the fervor behind the Global Warming Evangelists are 2 seperate and different topics.
Another religious_rationalization_example from Kevin...
Kevin says, [What you people are too dumb to understand is that, even if global warming weren't factual, clean air and water are vital to our health, well-being, and even survival. Why are you all so dumb not to realize that?]
That's like the logic church going people sometimes use when they say, "Even IF the church isn't true, at least it's teaching you to be a better, more forgiving, and gentle person"!
Man caused global warming IS religion to many.
Those who are totally converted can't see why EVERYONE isn't converted. They feel the world would be better off if EVERYONE believed the way they do, so they spend as much time and effort as they can trying to convince and convert others. Sound familiar?
I'm not saying this trying to convert people is a bad thing. I think it's a good thing, but you need to see it for what it is... religion (and Al Gore is the head of this sect).
To me, the science of global warming and the fervor behind the Global Warming Evangelists are 2 seperate and different topics.
Another religious_rationalization_example from Kevin...
Kevin says, [What you people are too dumb to understand is that, even if global warming weren't factual, clean air and water are vital to our health, well-being, and even survival. Why are you all so dumb not to realize that?]
That's like the logic church going people sometimes use when they say, "Even IF the church isn't true, at least it's teaching you to be a better, more forgiving, and gentle person"!
Bill Keshlear | 11:35 a.m. April 13, 2009
Global warming is just a hoax perpetrated by the media (excluding of course the
Deseret News), environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more
big government.
Have we heard that before from the Sutherlands?
Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and well supported by sound science: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; National Academy of Sciences; State of the Canadian Cryosphere; Environmental Protection Agency; The Royal Society of the UK; American Geophysical Union (AGU); American Meteorological Society; American Institute of Physics; National Center for Atmospheric Research; American Meteorological Society; Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.
Sutherland-types never critique these people or their colleagues at every major institution in the world that deals with climate change.
But sound science appears beyond Roy Spencer, one of Monsons professional deniers. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has advocated environmental policy that's based on a "Biblical view" rather than science.
Have we heard that before from the Sutherlands?
Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and well supported by sound science: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; National Academy of Sciences; State of the Canadian Cryosphere; Environmental Protection Agency; The Royal Society of the UK; American Geophysical Union (AGU); American Meteorological Society; American Institute of Physics; National Center for Atmospheric Research; American Meteorological Society; Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.
Sutherland-types never critique these people or their colleagues at every major institution in the world that deals with climate change.
But sound science appears beyond Roy Spencer, one of Monsons professional deniers. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has advocated environmental policy that's based on a "Biblical view" rather than science.
Derek Monson | 11:36 a.m. April 13, 2009
To those posters who are concerned about air quality (e.g. Kevin @7:53,
"Reliable Source" @8:20, and Sarah @10:34, etc.):
No one argues that "red air" days and health problems from air pollution are bad things. If you'll notice, however, my article is not about air pollution...it's about global warming.
It's not global warming (i.e. carbon dioxide emissions) that are dirtying our air. You're not going to end up with lung problems in your later years because of all the carbon dioxide that you breathed in during your younger years.
Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere will do nothing to lessen the frequency of "red air" days or solve the health problems caused by particulate air pollution.
If you disagree with my arguments or position on global warming, fine. I would love to know why. But don't do yourself and everyone else the disservice of thinking that I am somehow subtly calling for an end to any environmental regulations on air pollution. Global warming and air pollution are two separate issues.
No one argues that "red air" days and health problems from air pollution are bad things. If you'll notice, however, my article is not about air pollution...it's about global warming.
It's not global warming (i.e. carbon dioxide emissions) that are dirtying our air. You're not going to end up with lung problems in your later years because of all the carbon dioxide that you breathed in during your younger years.
Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere will do nothing to lessen the frequency of "red air" days or solve the health problems caused by particulate air pollution.
If you disagree with my arguments or position on global warming, fine. I would love to know why. But don't do yourself and everyone else the disservice of thinking that I am somehow subtly calling for an end to any environmental regulations on air pollution. Global warming and air pollution are two separate issues.
rusby | 11:37 a.m. April 13, 2009
When everyone repents and turns fully to god. (Myself included) Then I will
worry about global warming. However, I somehow don't think that it will be
an issue then.
RedShirt | 12:05 p.m. April 13, 2009
To "Stick with status quo | 6:44 a.m." you said that we should be
"switching our whole energy infrastructure to domestic, clean energy source
like solar, wind, and geothermal energy." Yet you leave out the most
reliable source. Nuclear is clean and constant. Wind and solar energy, if that
was all that we had, would be priced based on daily production.
Wind is not constant, and the sun does not shine at night, nor do you get as much solar energy to the ground at night. Geothermal energy is constant, but there are not many places that can support it. You also have the environmentalists that shut down wind power plants at certain times of years to allow birds to migrate through without being chopped up. Solar, is not efficient enough to use for large scale power production.
For now, nuclear power is the best option. We have mounds of spent fuel rods that could be recycled and turned into new fuel rods to generate more power. Currently we could build more power plants, and not have to mine more fuel, if we reprocess the spent rods that we have.
Wind is not constant, and the sun does not shine at night, nor do you get as much solar energy to the ground at night. Geothermal energy is constant, but there are not many places that can support it. You also have the environmentalists that shut down wind power plants at certain times of years to allow birds to migrate through without being chopped up. Solar, is not efficient enough to use for large scale power production.
For now, nuclear power is the best option. We have mounds of spent fuel rods that could be recycled and turned into new fuel rods to generate more power. Currently we could build more power plants, and not have to mine more fuel, if we reprocess the spent rods that we have.
Gus Talwynd | 12:13 p.m. April 13, 2009
An article from a policy analyst with the Sutherland Institute can only be
written only support a particular agenda. This is certainly not an expression
of an impartial perspective. Rather it is it the voice of a group that is
opposed to the whole concept of global warming because it is consistant with
their mission.
Global warming is one part of a general development occurring in the world today. Denying that man-produced emissions of organic compounds is a contributor to climate change is without merit. Air pollution is visible to anyone with the eyes to look outside, and the source of this pollution is well documented.
The exact percentage contribution of these pollutants to global warming may be debatable, but to totally ignore their effect is to stick one's head in the sand. Most people would not want to acknowledge that their behavior is contributing to making the world a less desirable place. They prefer to think that the products and pleasures they enjoy do not have a negative effect.
However, neither do people want to be manipulated by the people at the Sutherland Institute and be told that they don't have anything to worry about.
Global warming is one part of a general development occurring in the world today. Denying that man-produced emissions of organic compounds is a contributor to climate change is without merit. Air pollution is visible to anyone with the eyes to look outside, and the source of this pollution is well documented.
The exact percentage contribution of these pollutants to global warming may be debatable, but to totally ignore their effect is to stick one's head in the sand. Most people would not want to acknowledge that their behavior is contributing to making the world a less desirable place. They prefer to think that the products and pleasures they enjoy do not have a negative effect.
However, neither do people want to be manipulated by the people at the Sutherland Institute and be told that they don't have anything to worry about.
To Derek Monson | 12:18 p.m. April 13, 2009
From huh?
Poor math or a poorly written article - whatever. Still calls into question your ability to deal with a complicated subject like science.
Allow me to rewrite your sentence to get across your point: Similarly, a recent PEW survey questioned respondents on which 20 public policy items they viewed as having top priority. Only 30% indicated global warming as a matter of top concern - compared to 85% for the economy and 82% for jobs.
And, since you brought it up in your article, you should probably also mention that energy is viewed as a top concern by 60% of respondents and the environment by 41%. (And then there is the really fun fact that lobbyists such as yourself are viewed as a top concern by 36%.)
Poor math or a poorly written article - whatever. Still calls into question your ability to deal with a complicated subject like science.
Allow me to rewrite your sentence to get across your point: Similarly, a recent PEW survey questioned respondents on which 20 public policy items they viewed as having top priority. Only 30% indicated global warming as a matter of top concern - compared to 85% for the economy and 82% for jobs.
And, since you brought it up in your article, you should probably also mention that energy is viewed as a top concern by 60% of respondents and the environment by 41%. (And then there is the really fun fact that lobbyists such as yourself are viewed as a top concern by 36%.)
Charlie | 12:35 p.m. April 13, 2009
None of the climate models of the 90's predicted that average global
temperatures would fall throughout most of this decade. Why would anyone still
believe them when they've been discredited by actual events?
question rhetoric | 12:49 p.m. April 13, 2009
I believe in stronger air poluttion laws and better envornmental controls on
mining and I even support banning billboards - but I also think the histronics
surrounding global warming do the matter a disservice. The green man has cried
wolf once too often. I dont want to waste money on questionable science that
will cripple our economy while allowing others (such as China) to make an even
bigger environmental mess.
ds | 1:10 p.m. April 13, 2009
Everything I do to be 'green' also saves me money. What is the harm
in that?
Derek Monson | 1:19 p.m. April 13, 2009
To huh? @12:18-
The fact that you didn't understood what I wrote, and then failed to back up your criticism by checking the actual results of the survey says nothing about my abilities to deal with anything. Your post and critique is a poor comment on your own abilities, not mine.
The fact that you didn't understood what I wrote, and then failed to back up your criticism by checking the actual results of the survey says nothing about my abilities to deal with anything. Your post and critique is a poor comment on your own abilities, not mine.
Kevin | 1:20 p.m. April 13, 2009
Derek Monson | 11:36 a.m. April 13, 2009
"Global warming and air pollution are two separate issues."
I'm actually not arguing against skepticism at all. I believe you are presenting a false dichotomy, though. Assuming global warming is a real effect, air pollutants other than carbon dioxide are claimed to contribute. Calls for cleaner-burning engines and less coal emissions all tie into arguments for cleaner air.
Other than that, I'm neutral on global warming, but interested in how options in engineering and power production may have a secondary benefit of clean air.
To those comparing this to religion: whatever. I'm against bamboozling of all kinds, including those made in the name of science.
Science by design, though, is eventually self-criticizing and self-correcting. Religion is not.
"Global warming and air pollution are two separate issues."
I'm actually not arguing against skepticism at all. I believe you are presenting a false dichotomy, though. Assuming global warming is a real effect, air pollutants other than carbon dioxide are claimed to contribute. Calls for cleaner-burning engines and less coal emissions all tie into arguments for cleaner air.
Other than that, I'm neutral on global warming, but interested in how options in engineering and power production may have a secondary benefit of clean air.
To those comparing this to religion: whatever. I'm against bamboozling of all kinds, including those made in the name of science.
Science by design, though, is eventually self-criticizing and self-correcting. Religion is not.
Anonymous | 1:22 p.m. April 13, 2009
Carbon dioxide is not air pollution. Those who think it is should stop
breathing, as they are contributing to CO2 pollution.
Reason | 1:45 p.m. April 13, 2009
Re: Derek Monson: Good op-ed and follow-up. Global warming is less about
science and more about politics and ideology. We dont need government mandates
to address the problem of global warming mandates that will likely have little
effect on global warming, but will seriously damage our economy and our freedom.
RedShirt | 1:46 p.m. April 13, 2009
To "Anonymous | 10:44 a.m." the thing with Beck is that he won't
make a conclusion about something unless he has the facts in front of him. He
has come out against global warming because the facts pull both ways. You can
find peer reviewed studies that show that climate changed is not man caused as
easily as you can find that say that man causes climate change.
The point is, give a hoot, don't pollute. But, at the same time, don't jump on the bandwagon just because the government says it is good.
The point is, give a hoot, don't pollute. But, at the same time, don't jump on the bandwagon just because the government says it is good.
Funny! | 2:34 p.m. April 13, 2009
Believing an article on climate change written by a member of the Sutherland
Institute is like letting a member of the Flat Earth Society dictate U.S. policy
on space exploration.
Neither organization has credibility in the real world.
Neither organization has credibility in the real world.
Comparision | 2:36 p.m. April 13, 2009
Is greenwashed the environmental equivalent of "hannitized?" Either
way, you have surrendered your thinking to someone else.
An Observer | 3:11 p.m. April 13, 2009
These liberals and progolbalwarmers, are siliest bunch,
NOt one them attack the arguments just the messdenger,
IF your best argument is they are conservative,
then liberals and enviromental wackos really are in trouble.
The real question is: why do liberals want global warming to be true?
It's all about the having the States taking (MORE!?power over the people, business and industry, the economy, and the money.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio (LIBERAL left-wing nuts),
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy (SCIENCE).
NOt one them attack the arguments just the messdenger,
IF your best argument is they are conservative,
then liberals and enviromental wackos really are in trouble.
The real question is: why do liberals want global warming to be true?
It's all about the having the States taking (MORE!?power over the people, business and industry, the economy, and the money.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio (LIBERAL left-wing nuts),
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy (SCIENCE).
re: comparison | 3:12 p.m. April 13, 2009
Like surrending your mind to Al Gore?
It works both ways - so why is it that only people who disagree with you are "Hannitized" (did you get your talking point from James Carville?)
It works both ways - so why is it that only people who disagree with you are "Hannitized" (did you get your talking point from James Carville?)
another extremists nut | 3:14 p.m. April 13, 2009
Glenn Beck is another Apocalypse Now fool.
"America is doomed!"
"Head for the hills - we're all gonna DIE!"
"Death! Chaos! The end times, people!"
And this is Beck on one of his happier days.
A high-school grad only. A recovering alcoholic.
A bad, over-the-top style actor -
The perfect hero for extremist fundamentalist cuckoos like RedShirt.
LOL!
"America is doomed!"
"Head for the hills - we're all gonna DIE!"
"Death! Chaos! The end times, people!"
And this is Beck on one of his happier days.
A high-school grad only. A recovering alcoholic.
A bad, over-the-top style actor -
The perfect hero for extremist fundamentalist cuckoos like RedShirt.
LOL!
More RedShirt BS | 3:22 p.m. April 13, 2009
Things extremist RedShirt forgot to tell us about his new guru, Glenn Beck:
(these are taken directly from the mouth of Limbaugh Jr. Glenn Beck
On Taxes: Falsely claimed the U.S. is the number two highest taxed country in the world.
On Energy: Falsely claimed drilling in ANWR alone would yield 100 million barrels a day.
On Global Warming: Falsely claimed that the globe was the hottest and Americas temperature peaked in 1934.
On Sub-prime Crisis: Falsely claimed that the sub-prime lenders were blackmailed into lending to the poor and minorities by community organizers.
On The Iraq War: Falsely claimed that the U.S. went into Iraqto prevent World War III.
On the Middle East: Falsely claimed that Palestine is being run now by Hezbollah, President Abbas is an extremist.
On Obama: Falsely claimed that Fidel Castro endorsed Obamas candidacy.
Given Becks principled disregard for the facts, its no wonder that Sean Hannity recently welcomed beck to Fox News Channel saying, Youre a perfect fit, a great addition to family
(these are taken directly from the mouth of Limbaugh Jr. Glenn Beck
On Taxes: Falsely claimed the U.S. is the number two highest taxed country in the world.
On Energy: Falsely claimed drilling in ANWR alone would yield 100 million barrels a day.
On Global Warming: Falsely claimed that the globe was the hottest and Americas temperature peaked in 1934.
On Sub-prime Crisis: Falsely claimed that the sub-prime lenders were blackmailed into lending to the poor and minorities by community organizers.
On The Iraq War: Falsely claimed that the U.S. went into Iraqto prevent World War III.
On the Middle East: Falsely claimed that Palestine is being run now by Hezbollah, President Abbas is an extremist.
On Obama: Falsely claimed that Fidel Castro endorsed Obamas candidacy.
Given Becks principled disregard for the facts, its no wonder that Sean Hannity recently welcomed beck to Fox News Channel saying, Youre a perfect fit, a great addition to family
Lack of "reason" (@1:45) | 3:30 p.m. April 13, 2009
"Global warming is less about science and more about politics and ideology.
We dont need government mandates to address the 'problem' of global
warming mandates that will likely have little effect on global warming, but
will seriously damage our economy and our freedom."
Oy.
You can be ignorant and sanguine about GW, but our own Dept. of Defense in _2003_ issued a report warning that the threat to world stability and U.S. security arising from the geopolitical stresses caused by global warming are greater than the threat of terrorism.
"Eco-refugees" and escalating international tension over increasingly scarce water and arable land are huge concerns.
How's that for damaging your economy and your freedom?
Oy.
You can be ignorant and sanguine about GW, but our own Dept. of Defense in _2003_ issued a report warning that the threat to world stability and U.S. security arising from the geopolitical stresses caused by global warming are greater than the threat of terrorism.
"Eco-refugees" and escalating international tension over increasingly scarce water and arable land are huge concerns.
How's that for damaging your economy and your freedom?
RedShirt | 3:35 p.m. April 13, 2009
To "An Observer | 3:11 p.m." thank you for that post.
It goes along with government saying smoking is bad for the smoker and the people around them. If smoking is so bad, why not ban it, rather than taxing it.
If excessive CO2 emissions are so bad, why not cap them, rather than creating a new tax base?
It goes along with government saying smoking is bad for the smoker and the people around them. If smoking is so bad, why not ban it, rather than taxing it.
If excessive CO2 emissions are so bad, why not cap them, rather than creating a new tax base?
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.
- Everyone wins in rival food drive 7:00 p.m.
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons 6:32 p.m.
- Interception ends comeback bid 6:15 p.m.
- Cougars cruise past San Francisco 6:13 p.m.
- Utahns in giving mood 5:35 p.m.
- Kirilenko will not play tonight 5:33 p.m.
- Holiday window-shopping 5:10 p.m.
- Kingsbury books 'Wedding Singer' 5:09 p.m.
- Gems losing out in box office 5:09 p.m.
- Winter vacation rental can be bargain 5:08 p.m.
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
302 - BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS245
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry188
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing176
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage128
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Y fans trying to minimize the quality of two BCS wins by the U are hilarious....
Wow, lots of bashing of BYU profs here! Do you know who approves every...
Couldn't agree with you more! June can't come soon enough!
We have had two kids commit suicide at my school alone in the last 3 weeks,...
If you want to vote Bob Bennett out of office, then you had better get...
I hope you're not trying to say that the Book of Mormon is about how bad...
You must be the same guy that predicted a 20 point BYU win over USU in...
If you're referring to "In God we trust" on money, the founding fathers...
Remember Cougar fan, if the Utes had had their 2008 season back in 1984, then...
Tim Tebow in the post-game interview: Alabama is a "...classy program,...
Advertisements
How many millions has Al Gore and his thugs ripped off from this GREAT NATION, while basking in the sun, flying personal corporate jets around the world, limo service provided for he and his culprits and the list goes on.
So many of you are "GREENWASHED" from his kool-aid or green jello.
Last I checked, we're way above snow pack in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. What does Mr. GORE have to say about that???? Ohhhhh that's right, a piece of ice broke off the North Pole.....cry me a RIVER!