Quantcast

Comments about ‘Herbert challenges reality of global climate change’

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tautological

I like it when people declare the debate over in the middle of a debate. As a matter of definition, as long as people are debating, a debate is not over. The debate regarding the roundness of the world, for example, is over. I have never heard a single person argue in favor of flatness. No debate. Global Warming? Lots of debate all the time.

I'm Cold

If Global Warming continues at this rate we won't have a summer in a few years.

Global Warming or Not...

This Global Warming argument IS ridiculous! Evidence is rampant that the earth has gone through many periods of climate change. It will always change. True or not- the fact is that we SHOULD take care of our earth. We drink the water, eat food from its soil, and breathe the air. It is our home.

Who needs a huge debate and lots of research? Suck on the exhaust pipe of a running car for a few seconds and then tell me if you think it's healthy. Drink tainted water or breathe the air downwind of ANY type of refinery or plant with significant emissions. It stinks- and it dirties the air.

Both we and the politicians need to quit arguing and start just doing the basics of taking care of this awesome home we call earth. Each of us individually has that same responsibility.

Solstice

Of course we'll have to wait until summer actually gets here...

There is NO debate...

If we ARE causing global warming, then we should take better care of our earth.

If we ARE NOT causing global warming, then we should take better care of the earth.

Who cares? Our plan and debate should always be on how to be cleaner and more earth-friendly. I first learned this when I watched the movie when I was a kid of all of those Disney bears singing the anti-litter song, "You can pick it up, put it in the bag- boomp-boomp," doing their "rump-bumping" as they went along.

I applaud any move to greener, renewable resources (solar, wind, etc). We are way behind where we should be on this. Of course we should recycle and be smart about our waste. The real waste is the argument of global warming. Of course our emissions are bad for us- look at the folks in the big cities and industrial areas of China. The climate will change regardless of our emissions. But if we don't continually improve our care of our home, our environment, our health, and our children's health, will pay the price.

Heaven help us!

Boy, I'm going to really miss Jon Huntsman Jr.

Anonymous

Who cares what an un-elected toady of this states establishment thinks?

Maybe after Herby is out of office; he can open a think tank to compete w/ Al Gore's crusade.

Rocket

Here are the global climate data for all you pagans who want to force the rest of us to join your earth-worshipping heathen religion and sacrifice our freedoms on the altars of your god of global climate change:

Two years ago, as the sun was supposed to be starting the next solar cycle, nothing happened. No sunspots for the new cycle appeared, the total solar irradiance started dropping, and solar wind pressure dropped to lows never before recorded. As a result of the decrease in solar output the earth's climate started cooling quite rapidly as evidenced by people freezing to death in the Andean highlands of Peru and Bolivia, snow for the first time in 80 years in Baghdad and in places on the Arabian peninsula where local dialects have no word for snow because of how infrequently it happens. Here in the US, we just had the coldest and snowiest winter in over 80 years or on record, depending on the location.

CO2

For those that believe that regardless of whether global warming is real or not, we should follow the new air standards just to take care of the earth, you may want to reconsider. Carbon Dioxide was not a pollutant until the global warming debate and if this theory is not true, it still poses no harm. The problem arises when considering whether we should spend all of our resources and effort battling a naturally occuring compound that may not have negative impact on the environment. Should man made global warming not be real, all these resources could be spent toward real environmental issues like water quality, air pollutants (SO2,CO,fugitive dust etc...), rather than chasing a phantom pollutant that we expel with every breath and that plants actually require. Before people dismiss the importance of this debate, you should consider whether you want the US to spend trillions of tax dollars and possibly sacrifice your way of life based on a theoretical model made by a scinetific commuunity that only 30 years ago was predicting global cooling.

David

For those who say "The science is settled" and "The debate is over", you can easily tell by these comments that it's not over!! Most of the so-called scientific "facts" in Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" were disproved in a court of law in Britain recently. The court made the showing of the film to school students illegal without appropriate disclaimers. Also, the IPCC removed the "hockystick" graphic and theory in subsequent reports after Gore had used it in his movie.
I would like to ask all of the alarmist believers who have written their comments to answer one question. The global temperature during the medieval was significantly warmer than it is today and people, animals and plants thrived. How was it so warm with so little CO2?
If you want to know why so many people are pushing the "climate change" scare, follow the money! That tells it all.
Go Mr. Herbert. I already like you as as our next governor.

Re: David

i love the "follow the money" argument because it destroys your own argument.

Compare the money made by auto and oil corporations by dismissing global climate change. Now compare that to money Al Gore makes from a movie or advisory positions on Hedge Funds.

One is vastly different (and larger) than the other.

Try to think before you speak.

Anonymous

Herbert, a former County Commissioner and Real Estate Agent, is challenging the majority of scientists published views?

That says a lot right there. Brash AND dumb.

JN

You say "people" say human impact on the earth is minimal. It would be more accurate to say, "some people", but don't let the facts get in your way.

Governor Huntsman, I miss you! What were you thinking to have Mr. Herbert as your running mate?

Anonymous

Herbert told a lobbyist who approached him at the meeting that when it comes to energy issues, "regardless of the debate on the science, I'm a capitalist."

That says it all right there. Procrastinate at the cost of humanity all for the sake of $$$. You're listening? Yeah right.

@ things have canged

"As a matter of fact, in the times of the dinasaurs, CO2 was in much greater concentration in the atmosphere than it is today, it was hotter then too."

Yep, and you see dinosaurs everywhere now don't you?

Data

"Are human activities responsible for the warming climate?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists believe that it is very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) that most of the warming we have experienced since the 1950s is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."

This is from the EPA's Climate Change site. I'd put the URL but the comment section won't allow posts with URLs. Just google EPA and Climate Change. They have plenty of information for everyone to read.

No warming ...

No warming, just hot air.

Anonymous

Too bad Utah lost Governor Huntsman who was more a realist than an ideologue.

OOPS!

climategate

to comment

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