Comments about ‘Herbert challenges reality of global climate change’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 16 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Re; Kevin

C02 and Methane reflect sunlight down on the earth? Baloney! What experiments of physics are you referring too? The sun's rays come from space toward the earth and CO2 and Methane would have little if any effect on reflecting, and even if they did, why wouldn't they reflect the sun's rays away from the earth, just like clouds and water vapor do! Your science is junk! Stay off those wacko websites, they are filling your head with junk!

Real environmental crisis

As a scientist myself, I have proven we may run out of C02 unless mankind steps in to save the planet. Photosynthesis is the reason! Plants adsorb C02 out of the atmosphere and in the presence of H0H and sunlight synthesize carbon into two 6 carbon chain sugar molecules and releases 02 back into the atmosphere. For every ton of sucrose and fructose plants produce, they will adsorb 6 tons of C02 out of the atmosphere. I entered this data into my computer model and learned we need approx. 9.376 billion tons of C02 each year to sustain life on the planet! Futher, my research shows that we could run low on C02 within 15 years unless mankind steps in to save the planet! Do it for Mother Earth! Do it for our children!

Cade Foster

One good idea would be to download the latest NIPCC book titled "Climate Change Reconsidered". It's a PDF document.

On reading this document it is obvious that there is no real "consensus" on climate change and that we lack understanding of many important aspects of "climatic systems".

Rather than assuming we know everything about a natural phenomenon, we should first tackle what we do not know.
This is the first step on the road to enlightenment.

BTW, I am a doctorate-level applied-scientist/engineer and
the NIPCC book was a comfortable read for me. Unfortunately, this may not be the case for many people that do not have a science background.

I suppose this is one of the main problems with this whole "climate change" (formerly "global warming") issue.

i.e. Science has been thrusted upon the average person that may not have been well prepared to digest this science due to their background not being science-based.

If this was done by accident or by design, I do not know.
But, I would not be surprised if this was done by design in an attempt to falsely sway the people.


... have got to be kidding me...

people actually believe in catastrophic global warming... hahahahahahahahahaha

(I mean climate change)

It's not even worth debating the "science" is so bad!!

Coal Miner

I don't know if CO2 is bad or not.
I just know what is the primary source of CO2.
Its people.
Or rather, birth rate.
The more people in the world, the more consumption of energy.
So how come poor countries with the highest birth rate, that will produce a lot of future energy consumers, and produce a lot of mouths to feed, blame the western world that happens to have the lowest birth rate?


If you discount the opinions of scientists funded by oil companies, then you must also discount the ones funded by government grants. If they find that man-made climate change isn't happening their grant money dries up. They have to keep searching for data to support it and keep people scared or they will be out of a job. You can't eliminate the findings of one group of scientists based on their financial motivations without doing the same with the other side. Then only those scientists with nothing to gain by either result can be believed. They must be truly objective. In today's scientific world I tend to believe those who question global warming because they are risking their jobs and credentials when they question it. They may be blackballed by those who have a desired outcome and agenda rather than an objective approach.


If you don't think it's political, chew on this list of the top recipients of environmental special-interest cash from 2000-2004:

1. John Kerry
2. Al Gore
3. Paul Wellstone
4. Barbara Boxer
5. Bill Bradley
6. Mark Udall
7. Jay Inslee
8. Jeanne Shaheen
9. Jean Carnaham
10. Barack Obama

Do I even need to include their party affiliation?


Just what we need another global warming "skeptic".

Wow a Guv from the "gravity is just a theory" gang.

This is the same group who pushed the most delusional policies on America in human history, that caused America's spectacular decline that collapsed our economy, eliminating the middle-class, destroyed the International American Economic System, decimated our military power and ended America's domination of the world, making sure we are so weak NOBODY is afraid of us anymore, they are getting some power back! YEA!

Now the Chinese are roaring past America and gaining economic speed on us BECAUSE they are becoming more efficient and technologically advanced than America to combat global warming.

I guess we will just wave as they zoom by America. To think these guys are losing to China. That proves their "ideas" are the greatest failures and delusions in human history.

To think combating global warming will be one of THE drivers of economic growth-but NOT in Utah.

I guess California will get all the 21st century technology. And Utah will become America's Mississippi of the 21st century-they don't believe in global warming either.

John Pack Lambert

The anti-having children rhetoric earlier has gotten me to thinking that "Liberal" is the wrong name. These people do not believe in freeom, they believe in controlling the lives of others. They believe in deneying men and women the right to bring forth as many children as they want and to fulfill God's command to multiply and replenish the earth.
Yes, we have to be wise stewards of the earth. However, God also wants us to have children to help more people experience earth life.
On the question of global warming. The claims that many nations will be flooded seem over blown. Increased heat will also mean increased evaporation, more rain, decline in deseret areas and related occurances.
The great time in history was the mideval warm period when the great Cathedrals were built, when Greenland was settled by sedentary farmers and similar occurances. We are not yet to those temperature levels.
So even if anthropogenic global warming was proven, which it is not, that does not mean that things are bad.

re: RE: Thinker | 5:34 p.m.

"Have you ever considered that God is myth? Teaching your children about God is great but probably less true than global warming."

The difference between teaching God and global warming is that there is a 50% chance that God exists while there is a 0% chance that man-made global warming exists.

its all good

TO - re: its all good | 5:36 p.m

["Is your name Thomas Malthus?"]

why yes it is. how did you know? are you going to explain to your children that you destroyed their planet?

Re: JH

What planet are you on? The Chinese are more environmentally efficient than we are? Hello?

Are you talking about the China that is building an average of one coal-fired power plant PER WEEK in order to keep up with their economic growth?

Are you talking about the China that has such bad air pollution they had to shut down most of the industry around Beijing last year in order to have clear skies for the Olympics?

Are you talking about the China that eagerly snapped up the steel-making equipment from the "filthy" Geneva Steel works in Utah County and shipped it back home to use there?

Are you talking about the China that refused to sign Kyoto ten years ago and refuses to consider carbon caps today because they don't wish to hamstring themselves economically?

I am continually amazed at the ability of environmentalists in general and Global Warming Believers in particular to ignore facts and modify reality in order to maintain their illusions.

Re: JH @ 9:44 am

You are spot on IMO. A lot of our manufacturing jobs are going overseas, because there are minimal regulations in China. You get cheap labor plus no mountain of legal/environmental paperwork. The net effect is, if we are really hurting the envirornment the more we have China produce our products the more we are hurting the environment.

You mentioned Geneva Steel and they did produce pollution locally. How that effected the global environment/climate not one of us really knows. We can all throw out our theories, but at the end of the day that is all they are.

Politicians/environmentalists act like they have all of the data points needed, but we only have a very small data sample and it isn't sufficient to support the claims that they are making. Bottom line. The beauty of global warming for them is they can make all of these rules/regulations and at the end of the day no one really knows if they work or not. If things go good they can claim that they do, and if not they can claim that we need more rules/regulations. Herbert is right for being skeptical.

re: JH

"Now the Chinese are roaring past America and gaining economic speed on us BECAUSE they are becoming more efficient and technologically advanced than America to combat global warming."

No, the Chinese are gaining on us because they don't care about global warming. They pollute way more than the U.S. with their advancing but still older technology. Imposing legislation like cap and trade or the Kyoto treaty will further slow America's progress (which through innovation has actually helped reduce pollution because most American consumers are environmentally conscious to begin with) because we're the only country that would follow it.

Have you been to China and other 3rd world, advancing countries? They are dirty dumps.

RE: John Pack Lambert

"They [liberals, to be renamed later] believe in deneying [sic] men and women the right to bring forth as many children as they want and to fulfill God's command to multiply and replenish the earth."

To replenish the earth of what? People? This is a serious question. Are not the 6+ billions of people currently residing on the planet not the most in the history of the 3rd rock? If so, then it's replenished, right? If not, what was the previous highest census for mother earth?

Or is the earth to be replenished of its massive cities and metropolisis? Mega skyscrapers? Pregnant teens? Technological wonder and infrastructure? Single parents and latchkey kids? Internet gambling and pornography websites? Astronomical personal and national debts? What, exactly, is this commanded replenishment?

RE: 9:09

Where did you get the statistic that there is precisely a 50% chance that God exists and zero chance that global warming exists? I want to see that data!


Do you mean Al Gore could have been wrong? Shocking.

Climate Change

Why has the term "Global Warming" been changed to "Global Climate Change"? Of course the climate is changing, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. The climate is ALWAYS changing. Now lets quit pretending that man can control climate change so we can address more important issues. Of course we won't have a convenient lie to justify more government control.


So, we are not to be better stewards of our environment? We should not limit polution and other behavior which is detrimental? We should not be more efficient, ignoring new technology, but instead rely on 19th century technology? Think about it, we can do better (and my fellow LDS members should be first in line). Argue all you like, but don't make decisions based on what goes on in your locality or at one snapshot in time.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a gas that is vital for sustaining life on the earth. And the current power technology is not 19th century. If you are going to make it a religious issue then you would be well served by not promoting lies to try an prove your point.

To PP | 2:25 p.m.

Did anyone say anything about not being better stewards of our environment? You don't have to be a nut job to care about the environment. I have less of a "carbon foot print" than probably 90% of the so called environmentalists. I buy enough wind power to power my home. I live 3 miles from work and have a very modest size house. My wife does not commute because she is a full time mom. I do these things because it makes sense to me not because I believe in the man made climate change fairy tail. It is possible to be a good steward of the environment AND not subscribe to Al Gore's lie. The man made climate change myth is all about power and money.

to comment

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