Reader comments
Herbert challenges reality of global climate change
219 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 3:03 p.m. June 16, 2009
re-re-knowwhat | 2:30 p.m
["Still no proof provided from the extremist claim"]
now that's calling the kettle black... are the extremeists the ones for saving the planet or against it? pls elaborate...
["Still no proof provided from the extremist claim"]
now that's calling the kettle black... are the extremeists the ones for saving the planet or against it? pls elaborate...
A_Chinese_American | 3:31 p.m. June 16, 2009
I still don't get it: Why those people change the wording to "Global
Climate Change" from "Global Warning"? I am 100% sure climate has
changed and is changing and will change, this does not need any science! The
question remaining to our ordinary people still is: how people change the
climate? is it good or bad? 100 million years ago, without people, climate was
changing? why? how big the human factor is? I still don't get it! I got my
applied physics degree 20 years ago.
Comments continue below
Aaron | 3:34 p.m. June 16, 2009
Jfs, Nasa only came up with the conclusion that some ice caps would increase,
after the observations didn't match their hypothesis. 2nd do you know when
the glaciers on Mt. Cook peaked? It was about 7500 years ago. We are barely
scratching the surface when it comes to understanding how the climate works.
Three cheers for Gary | 3:41 p.m. June 16, 2009
Finally a governor who will refute the Enviro Nazis. This has sure been an
awfully hot summer. LOL!
Utah is cleaning up the air? | 3:56 p.m. June 16, 2009
What Utah's air is clean? You're in denial man, have you seen the
inversion lately? Have you actually looked at the science? A recent desnews
article stated that Logan had some of the worst air quality in the country. I
agree lets bring in nuclear waste and increase carbon emissions, great idea,
burn baby burn.
2+2=5 | 3:56 p.m. June 16, 2009
I have "experts" and Al Gore supporting the facts on this!!!!!
After you take a pair of 2's, put them through an intense simulated "ice age", then put them through an intense simulated "global warming", then add in their "carbon print" you miraculously come up with a pair of 2.5's, making the "theory" a "fact" that indeed, without any doubt, because the debate and the science are "over", 2+2=5.
Al Gore said so, and so does his long line of sheep following him. Plus I read it on the internet through google - so it must be TRUE
After you take a pair of 2's, put them through an intense simulated "ice age", then put them through an intense simulated "global warming", then add in their "carbon print" you miraculously come up with a pair of 2.5's, making the "theory" a "fact" that indeed, without any doubt, because the debate and the science are "over", 2+2=5.
Al Gore said so, and so does his long line of sheep following him. Plus I read it on the internet through google - so it must be TRUE
A_Chinese_American | 3:58 p.m. June 16, 2009
About 35 years ago, those so-called scientists told us, "Global
Cooling", "Ice-age is coming!" I did some research for the titles
of those books. They are looks very scary as same as right now "Global
Warming" books. Is this movement another hypo to "stimulus the US
economy"? What a shame.
Thomas Thompson | 4:22 p.m. June 16, 2009
The Gov's comments about global warming suggest -- not to put it too gently
-- that he should not be permitted to serve as the leader of our state. Global
warming is now beyond scientific dispute; man's culpability for this
looming catastrophe is also now well beyond dispute. Where has Mr. Herbert been
that he doesn't understand these immutable facts?
goforit | 4:32 p.m. June 16, 2009
are not any of you going to demean or disparage the BYU professor who is a
leading authority on these matters? And what about BYU funding part of a large
study?
Reason | 4:39 p.m. June 16, 2009
Wow, good for Herbert. In my book he just moved up another notch or two.
In the article, Nick Bridge suggests that Herbert see dealing with climate change as taking a risk management approach, and he gives the analogy of a car with a 30% chance of brake failure speeding toward a cliff. But the problem with a risk management approach on global warming is that it is one-sided. It looks at the potential risk of doing nothing, thereby pushing us to take action, but it DOESNT look at the risk of TAKING that action. The proposed solutions to the supposed global-warming problem have GREAT risk they will have certain massive brake failure, because they will be so destructive to our economy and our freedom, and all based on a theory that has many holes in it. Sorry, but I dont want to get in that car.
Herbert is right, and my hat is off to him. Hopefully he will have the guts to actually pull Utah out of the foolish Western Climate Initiative. The debate is far from over.
In the article, Nick Bridge suggests that Herbert see dealing with climate change as taking a risk management approach, and he gives the analogy of a car with a 30% chance of brake failure speeding toward a cliff. But the problem with a risk management approach on global warming is that it is one-sided. It looks at the potential risk of doing nothing, thereby pushing us to take action, but it DOESNT look at the risk of TAKING that action. The proposed solutions to the supposed global-warming problem have GREAT risk they will have certain massive brake failure, because they will be so destructive to our economy and our freedom, and all based on a theory that has many holes in it. Sorry, but I dont want to get in that car.
Herbert is right, and my hat is off to him. Hopefully he will have the guts to actually pull Utah out of the foolish Western Climate Initiative. The debate is far from over.
Anonymous | 4:46 p.m. June 16, 2009
Herbert is just jealous of Gore's Nobel Prize and wants to get one himself!
KVD | 5:01 p.m. June 16, 2009
Herbert asked. "Help me understand the science."
Subscribe to Climate Progress. Read the daily blogs of Dr. Joseph Romm, Ph.D. in physics from MIT. In 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Please become educated on this issue. The future of our children depends on the decisions we make now.
Subscribe to Climate Progress. Read the daily blogs of Dr. Joseph Romm, Ph.D. in physics from MIT. In 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Please become educated on this issue. The future of our children depends on the decisions we make now.
Good for Warming | 5:05 p.m. June 16, 2009
If the earth is warming, why is that a bad thing? Personally I would think a
warmer earth would provide many benefits to mankind (longer growing seasons,
more usable land, etc.)
Besides, what's the optimal temperature for our Earth anyway? We know it was colder in the Ice Age a mear 10K years ago. Who decides what the optimal temperature is? Another question, if we decide what the optimal temperature should be, how in the world can we keep the earth at a steady temperature, that sounds like quite the task.
Besides, what's the optimal temperature for our Earth anyway? We know it was colder in the Ice Age a mear 10K years ago. Who decides what the optimal temperature is? Another question, if we decide what the optimal temperature should be, how in the world can we keep the earth at a steady temperature, that sounds like quite the task.
Thinker | 5:09 p.m. June 16, 2009
I may have been in the last class in Utah schools where a teacher dared teach
that we should study the facts and think for ourselves, instead of merely
parroting the media.... That was in the early 60s. I have looked at my childrens
school books the past 20 years and become aghast at the massive propaganda
campaign that has been going on, teaching children the opposite of what God
tells us. Most of the comments here in favor of the global warming myth simply
reflect the conditioning they have received over many years in the public
schools. I have tried to teach my children to not believe everything they hear
until they measure it against common sense and God's word. I would suggest
that all of us do that, but it might be difficult for all of you who have been
taught from your youth to NOT think for yourself, but merely engage in knee-jerk
reactions to any stimuli that opposes your conditioning. Otherwise, the
global-warming-caused-by-humans myth would have been scoffed out of existence
years ago, when if first left the lips of Spotted Al.
Reason | 5:13 p.m. June 16, 2009
Some in favor of global warming solutions state that even if it turns out that
mankind is not responsible for global warming, we will still have cleaner water
and air or well still leave the world a better place for our children, etc.
But this is nonsense. These supposed solutions will likely leave the world a
much WORSE place, because they will be so destructive to our economy, our
property rights, and our freedom.
The wealthiest countries are the healthiest. But when you destroy much of that wealth in an attempt to appease the theoretical boogeyman of global warming, then the nation is much poorer and less able to pursue matters that have significant PROVEN health benefits. And the destruction of freedom is not worth it, either. Its like throwing a man in prison, but making sure his cell has ventilation we could congratulate ourselves: Sure, hes in shackles, but at least he has fresh air.
The wealthiest countries are the healthiest. But when you destroy much of that wealth in an attempt to appease the theoretical boogeyman of global warming, then the nation is much poorer and less able to pursue matters that have significant PROVEN health benefits. And the destruction of freedom is not worth it, either. Its like throwing a man in prison, but making sure his cell has ventilation we could congratulate ourselves: Sure, hes in shackles, but at least he has fresh air.
Reason | 5:21 p.m. June 16, 2009
Re: Goforit, 4:32pm: If youre talking about Prof. Pope at BYU, then, yes, Ill
go ahead and respond. His work did not stick with standard scientific and
statistical practices, and he refused to make his data available for peer
review. So his supposed proof is in reality only wild guesses and means
nothing.
jfs | 5:23 p.m. June 16, 2009
Aaron
Don't take me wrong, global warming has been going on for thousands of years. I believe there is no corrolation between global warming and carbon emmissions. I loose about two out of three posts to these sites on the DN. Don't know why. The papers ran a story a few days ago citing a south america glacier that is continuing to grow.
Don't take me wrong, global warming has been going on for thousands of years. I believe there is no corrolation between global warming and carbon emmissions. I loose about two out of three posts to these sites on the DN. Don't know why. The papers ran a story a few days ago citing a south america glacier that is continuing to grow.
RE: Thinker | 5:34 p.m. June 16, 2009
Have you ever considered that God is myth? Teaching your children about God is
great but probably less true than global warming.
re: its all good | 5:36 p.m. June 16, 2009
Is your name Thomas Malthus?
JWW | 6:10 p.m. June 16, 2009
I'm glad to see Lt. Governor Herbert speak some common sense. However, the
debate about MMGW should be over. There is insurmountable evidence that it is
one of the biggest, politicized HOAXES of all time.
Grimble | 6:13 p.m. June 16, 2009
To knowwhat@ 1:31:
The 700 signers of Sen. Inhofe's minority report were not climate scientists--they included virtually any scientific field. So, as a portion of ALL scientists in the U.S., which the Census Bureau states is 3.5 million, 700 is a pretty tiny number. Furthermore, a number of scientists listed on it later protested that they had not consented to putting their names on it.
The U of I survey, on the other hand, identified the specialties of the responders. The ONLY field in which doubters outnumbered believers was, surprise surprise, petroleum geologists. 90% of ALL scientists, and 97% of CLIMATE scientists believe in global warming. In other words, the more someone knows about climate science, the more likely they are to believe in climate change.
There's lots of good scientific information right in our own back yard. Steven Peck and Richard Gill are both BYU climate science experts who have been working very hard to try to educate their fellow Mormons about the reality of global climate change. But Utahns are so blinded by their gleeful, childish Gore-hate, it's a difficult job.
The 700 signers of Sen. Inhofe's minority report were not climate scientists--they included virtually any scientific field. So, as a portion of ALL scientists in the U.S., which the Census Bureau states is 3.5 million, 700 is a pretty tiny number. Furthermore, a number of scientists listed on it later protested that they had not consented to putting their names on it.
The U of I survey, on the other hand, identified the specialties of the responders. The ONLY field in which doubters outnumbered believers was, surprise surprise, petroleum geologists. 90% of ALL scientists, and 97% of CLIMATE scientists believe in global warming. In other words, the more someone knows about climate science, the more likely they are to believe in climate change.
There's lots of good scientific information right in our own back yard. Steven Peck and Richard Gill are both BYU climate science experts who have been working very hard to try to educate their fellow Mormons about the reality of global climate change. But Utahns are so blinded by their gleeful, childish Gore-hate, it's a difficult job.
Grimble | 6:28 p.m. June 16, 2009
@Grimble at 1:37 said:
"Well, please can you give us the date of the Church press release confirming their belief in global warming or climate change?"
The Church turned off the lights to the Salt Lake Temple on March 28, 2009, from 8:30-9:30pm, in observance of Earth Hour. Scott Trotter, spokesman for the Church, discussed the Church's participation in a Trib article that appeared on March 26th.
The meaning of the Church's participation is pretty unambiguous. The goal of Earth Hour, from organizer's official website, was "to reach the target of 1 billion votes by the time world leaders meet in Copenhagen for the Global Climate Change Conference in December 2009. This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol."
But of course, not amount of evidence seems enough to convince Utahns. They'll insist a custodian accidentally leaning on the light switch...
"Well, please can you give us the date of the Church press release confirming their belief in global warming or climate change?"
The Church turned off the lights to the Salt Lake Temple on March 28, 2009, from 8:30-9:30pm, in observance of Earth Hour. Scott Trotter, spokesman for the Church, discussed the Church's participation in a Trib article that appeared on March 26th.
The meaning of the Church's participation is pretty unambiguous. The goal of Earth Hour, from organizer's official website, was "to reach the target of 1 billion votes by the time world leaders meet in Copenhagen for the Global Climate Change Conference in December 2009. This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol."
But of course, not amount of evidence seems enough to convince Utahns. They'll insist a custodian accidentally leaning on the light switch...
John Pack Lambert | 6:35 p.m. June 16, 2009
To the 9:32 commentator,
True, the person may have used bad exaples, but their point is still valid. Prior to Copernicus it was accepted scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth.
True, the person may have used bad exaples, but their point is still valid. Prior to Copernicus it was accepted scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth.
John Pack Lambert | 6:48 p.m. June 16, 2009
To the 1:37 commentator,
I do have to agree that the comment you were responding to was uncalled for. However, there are multiple issues in your response.
1- There is no evidence that the person who you responded to lives in Utah. That is an assumption on your part.
2- Considering that he was responding to the accusation that "people in under-educated regions of the world believe it is okay to over-procreate", he is not the one who introduced calls for fewer people. His statements needs to be understood as a response to the claim that the world is over populated.
If the world has TOO MANY PEOPLE, and IF you believe this is a major problem, than it the notion that drastic measures to reduce the population are called for follows, and this respondents statements made sense in that context. They were a response to claims the world was over populated, and do not seem to in anyway reflect the actual views of the person who made them.
Again, your accusations are without base and caused by a failure to consider the actions of other people in context.
I do have to agree that the comment you were responding to was uncalled for. However, there are multiple issues in your response.
1- There is no evidence that the person who you responded to lives in Utah. That is an assumption on your part.
2- Considering that he was responding to the accusation that "people in under-educated regions of the world believe it is okay to over-procreate", he is not the one who introduced calls for fewer people. His statements needs to be understood as a response to the claim that the world is over populated.
If the world has TOO MANY PEOPLE, and IF you believe this is a major problem, than it the notion that drastic measures to reduce the population are called for follows, and this respondents statements made sense in that context. They were a response to claims the world was over populated, and do not seem to in anyway reflect the actual views of the person who made them.
Again, your accusations are without base and caused by a failure to consider the actions of other people in context.
John Pack Lambert | 7:06 p.m. June 16, 2009
To Grimble,
Stop claiming turning lights off at earth hour was a political act. It was not clearly stated as such. If the CHurch wanted to support action on global warming, they would make an actual statement about it.
It is interesting that the liberals are much faster than the conservatives to try to force the Church into being a supporter of their plans, despite all the claims to the contrary.
The Church has no position on global warming. I think people on both sides need to tone down the rhetoric. Although you are not spiling the hate as much as some, your blanket assults on the character of the residents of Utah are uncalled for, and you need to accept that by attacking Herbert you are standing on the side of dogmatism and against open thought.
Stop claiming turning lights off at earth hour was a political act. It was not clearly stated as such. If the CHurch wanted to support action on global warming, they would make an actual statement about it.
It is interesting that the liberals are much faster than the conservatives to try to force the Church into being a supporter of their plans, despite all the claims to the contrary.
The Church has no position on global warming. I think people on both sides need to tone down the rhetoric. Although you are not spiling the hate as much as some, your blanket assults on the character of the residents of Utah are uncalled for, and you need to accept that by attacking Herbert you are standing on the side of dogmatism and against open thought.
Re: Utah is cleaning up the air | 9:03 p.m. June 16, 2009
Actually, you're the one in denial. But I've noticed that's not
uncommon for environmentalists; they seem incapable of accepting anything less
than news of human-caused catastrophes.
Based on data from the EPA and the Utah Division of Air Quality -- you know, the scientists who actually measure the pollution and determine compliance -- there are four incontrovertible facts about Utah's air quality:
1. The air quality along the Wasatch Front is better today than at any time during the past 50 years;
2. Aside from a few weeks in the winter and a few weeks in the summer, the air quality in Utah is rated "good" by the EPA;
3. Trends from the monitoring data indicate that the levels of all six toxic pollutants have been steadily declining for the past 20 years;
4. And prior to new stricter air standards adopted in 2006 and 2007 all of Utah's urban areas -- including Logan -- were in compliance with EPA standards.
Incidentally, the data from global temperature monitoring are not "cooperating" with the panic-mongers, either: Over the past 20 years the average global temperature has remained roughly the same.
Based on data from the EPA and the Utah Division of Air Quality -- you know, the scientists who actually measure the pollution and determine compliance -- there are four incontrovertible facts about Utah's air quality:
1. The air quality along the Wasatch Front is better today than at any time during the past 50 years;
2. Aside from a few weeks in the winter and a few weeks in the summer, the air quality in Utah is rated "good" by the EPA;
3. Trends from the monitoring data indicate that the levels of all six toxic pollutants have been steadily declining for the past 20 years;
4. And prior to new stricter air standards adopted in 2006 and 2007 all of Utah's urban areas -- including Logan -- were in compliance with EPA standards.
Incidentally, the data from global temperature monitoring are not "cooperating" with the panic-mongers, either: Over the past 20 years the average global temperature has remained roughly the same.
Kevin of the Terrace | 9:07 p.m. June 16, 2009
Look, it is a fact that CO2, Methane and other gases reflect the suns radiation
back down to the earth. We know this from experiments in physics. We know this
also from astronomy. Venus is hotter than it should be relative to its distance
from the sun alone. The reason, green house gases. Likewise Mars is colder than
it should be relative to its distance fromt the sun. Again the reason, it is
devoid of greenhouse gases. Its not just conjecture. There has always been a
carbon cycle on the earth which has operated under a balance with carbon
fixation by plants and carbon release by decomposers, volcanoes, oceans etc.
However, for many millions of years large carbon sources have been locked up in
the ground in the form of fossilized plants. The worlds ecosystems, and our own
agricultural systems, have evolved to be adapted to these conditions. It took
millions of years to remove this carbon source. Now we are releasing CO2 at a
pace of millions of metric tons per year. It will in fact have an effect. The
unknown is how these systems will react to warmer temperatures. It is foolish to
ignore the possible consequences.
Cambridge | 9:13 p.m. June 16, 2009
If we grant for the sake of discussion that the most dire predictions of
man-caused global warming and ensuing disaster are correct, we are left with the
evidence that the proposed solutions, most notably cap-and-trade, will make such
a small impact as to avert none of the predicted calamities.
Re: Kevin of the Terrace | 9:28 p.m. June 16, 2009
Yes, but what will the effect be, and is it worth impoverishing ourselves in an
effort to avert a "crisis" that is actually quite manageable?
We already have a good idea of how the earth will react to excess CO2 emissions; it's called the past 200 years.
Since the early 1800's the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from roughly 280 parts per million to about 390 parts per million today, or about 30 percent.
Yet the actual measured temperature increase is only about 1.8 degrees fahrenheit during that same time period, less than a degree increase per century. Clearly, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration does not produce a proportional increase temperature.
Yet we are asked to believe that another 40% increase of CO2 will suddenly create a runaway greenhouse effect that will threaten all life on earth, even though it didn't in the past.
More importantly, the climate models of 20 years ago which were used to create the global warming scare in the first place did not even come close to predicting the actual temperatures today. So why should we believe them now?
We already have a good idea of how the earth will react to excess CO2 emissions; it's called the past 200 years.
Since the early 1800's the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from roughly 280 parts per million to about 390 parts per million today, or about 30 percent.
Yet the actual measured temperature increase is only about 1.8 degrees fahrenheit during that same time period, less than a degree increase per century. Clearly, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration does not produce a proportional increase temperature.
Yet we are asked to believe that another 40% increase of CO2 will suddenly create a runaway greenhouse effect that will threaten all life on earth, even though it didn't in the past.
More importantly, the climate models of 20 years ago which were used to create the global warming scare in the first place did not even come close to predicting the actual temperatures today. So why should we believe them now?
Re; Kevin | 9:40 p.m. June 16, 2009
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 | 10:03 p.m. June 16, 2009
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 | 11:53 p.m. June 16, 2009
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.
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.
You... | 12:37 a.m. June 17, 2009
... 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!!
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 | 6:05 a.m. June 17, 2009
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?
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?
Mc | 8:28 a.m. June 17, 2009
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.
Kirkland | 8:42 a.m. June 17, 2009
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?
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?
JH | 9:06 a.m. June 17, 2009
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.
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 | 9:08 a.m. June 17, 2009
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.
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. | 9:09 a.m. June 17, 2009
"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.
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 | 9:21 a.m. June 17, 2009
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?
["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 | 9:44 a.m. June 17, 2009
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.
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 | 12:26 p.m. June 17, 2009
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.
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 | 12:37 p.m. June 17, 2009
"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.
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 | 12:55 p.m. June 17, 2009
"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?
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 | 1:33 p.m. June 17, 2009
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!
Golleeee | 2:08 p.m. June 17, 2009
Do you mean Al Gore could have been wrong? Shocking.
Climate Change | 2:19 p.m. June 17, 2009
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.
PP | 2:25 p.m. June 17, 2009
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.
------------
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. | 3:44 p.m. June 17, 2009
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.
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.
Related content
- Bring the true spirit of Christmas 8:36 p.m.
- Ex-Flash center suffers stroke 8:34 p.m.
- A Tiger-like finish for Furyk 8:21 p.m.
- Vick triumphs in return to Atlanta 8:18 p.m.
- Raiders shock the Steelers 8:16 p.m.
- Saints move to 12-0 8:11 p.m.
- NFL notes: Stafford may sit 8:09 p.m.
- Small ball: Palmer leads Dixie St. 8:07 p.m.
- Violence erupts after Greek riots 8:03 p.m.
- Laureates call for gender balance 7:54 p.m.
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- BYU professor killed in crash
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- Tiger's SUV, personal life are a wreck
- Jazz upset by Wolves
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
314 - Letters: Liberal because LDS256
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing212
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest113
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony94
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
TCU would beat down Alabama, Texas or Cincinnati, so they pit them against...
I'm looking forward to this matchup. A game in BYU's second home stadium...
Total BCS rip off I was hoping for a TCU florida matchup and a Boise Iowa...
Big win? Didn't BYU beat this team by 30? Oh well, there's still the...
If some of you up there skipped going to the Golden Corral three times and...
A rather comical example. GB went on the View and was called out about a lie...
Caden Anderson is clearly the best reciever in 1a
2nd quarter with about 3 minutes to go before half time we have a twelve...
Thank you for your sacrifice & service to our country!!
This isnt even a bowl game anymore for the kitty cats. How can you be excited...
Advertisements
thats fine - its all good. We won't be around when it all falls apart anyway. you, on the other hand, with your dozens of kids, will have ruined your childrens future. and I'm sure you'll say God had a hand in it...
so its all good...