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
climate change

The climate always changes and always will. I am not sure that man has a lot to do with it.
The question isn't if global warming exists, the question is does human behavior have much impact? I doubt it.

Re: Don't confuse him with facts

"Fact number one is that Utah is polluted to the point of having some of the worst air quality in the US. Watch out China, Utah is not content with having the worst air in America, we want the worst air in the world!"

Really? That's not according to what the actual scientists at the Utah Division of Air Quality and the EPA say. Go to the Division of Air Quality's website where they write that

"Despite these challenges, Utah's air continues to improve. As noted in the last two previous reports - 2006 and 2007 - in the early 1980s, Utah struggled to meet the health standards for four of the six criteria pollutants identified by the EPA. By 2006, all Utah counties attained current federal air quality standards."

And then there's the EPA, who on their "Air Compare" website, list Salt Lake City as having significantly less air pollution days than Los Angeles and Tuscon, AZ.

Fact is, Utah's air is cleaner today than any time in the past 50 years, and it's getting cleaner.

Sorry to confuse you with facts, but I have noticed lately environmentalists are having a hard time accepting reality.


Actually, scientists in the Middle Ages--or natural philosophers, as they were known--always knew the world was round. It was the uneducated and superstitious who believed the earth was flat. Perhaps those who question climate change, and humans' role in bringing it about, ought to take a page from history and become educated themselves--that is, read the science for yourselves, not conservative bloggers and talking heads, before you decide. The truth is pretty persuasive if you expose yourself to it.


adamant proponents of Man-made Global Warming and their solutions sound like those described by C.S. Lewis who employ fire extinguishers during times of flood.


(2Ti 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The whole GW debate is SO difficult to sort out due to the fact that there are agendas evident on all sides. It seems impossible to glean the truth.

Also...So many tie pollution up with their perceptions of GW...These are seperarate but related issues.

The repeated remarks implying that doing something about GW even if it is not real won't hurt anything, is a silly statement in that whatever we do will require resources and decision making that will drastically affect how we live. It is akin to me taking my personal resources (Such as the house payment) and spending it all on food storage in case of a food shortage. After all what could it hurt?

I am with Gary Herbert in that I am unwilling to pull the trigger on policy and resource allocation for an idea that is still so hotly debated.


thank you obama for taking huntsman away. now we can have a real governor with a real backbone again, not some flimsy moderate intent on making their fan base happy at the rest of the public's expense...


It is about time a Gov spoke up on 'global warming'. Just because Al Gore said the debate is over, it is not. There are many who disagree with Al, it is another way for government to control our lives and collect more taxes. To 'how embarrassing', those who have bought the line of Gore and others just have their head in the sand.


Even if most all of the world's esteemed scientists were wrong, and you non-believers found science to fit your preconceived notions of how things should be, and then you convinced the world that there was some secret conspiracy headed by Al Gore, dont you still like to breathe clean air? Are not the annual inversions, the statistically proved shorter life expectancy for Utah County residents (thanks to the former Geneva Steel mill), and all the other bad things that come out of living in an inversion enough to make you want to do something to improve the air quality / environment, or is it more important to make or save a buck at the expense of the general populations welfare?

Yahoo again

Mainstream Utahans have a common sense that is more discerning when it comes to propaganda from the left. People like yourself are more concerned with labeling dissenters as "flat earthers" or worse akin to "holocaust deniers". You don't want to debate the science of Global Warming, in fact you refuse to. You look at anyone who disagrees with a contempt and disdain calling us "uneducated" and "refusing to acknowledge evidence". I believe your attitude is arrogant and prideful.

Just listen to the words of our future Governor as he asks for proof, not saying he has the conclusive answers but acknowledging that there are respectable scientists on both sides of the argument. Thanks again to Mr. Herbert, and may more people like him stand up to the prideful and arrogant people like you.

The Rock

I live in Washington State.
A friend of mine had the courage to question global warming in public. It made the national press.
The kind, tolerant people who believe in global warming were calling this man around the clock (and they had a two week old baby).

The Global Warming orthodoxy cannot tolerate a heretic. The only thing they can do when somebody has the courage to ask hard questions is name calling and harassment.

1. CO2 is a naturally occouring gas.
2. CO2 is essential to life.
3. Climate patterns do not track with CO2 for the long haul.
4. As temperatures increase CO2 is released from the ocean indicating that increased CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause of higher temperatures.
5. Water vapor is the most significant green house gas. Note how much warmer it is when there is cloud cover.
6. It was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is today during the mideval warming period. That was a very prosperous period of European history.

Those with the courage to question global warming are reiducled and harassed.

Think for yourself. How could a minor change in CO2 levels destroy a planet?


"The debate on global warming is over." That reminds me of the statement in the late 1800's that "all science has been discovered". I am old enough to remember that when I was in college it was concluded that the earth was doomed because of global cooling and that the world was running out of food. All of this was wrong and proclaimed as fact by "scientist" as fact then. Our present "scientist" are just as wrong today.
Over the years I did enough research in my graduate and post-graduate education to learn one thing. Many of my peers were very smart but had no common sense and therefore came to wrong conclusions and that many of them had an agenda when they did their research. They either wanted to prove their pet theory, want to fit in with the group/department, or they had a book or theoretical model to pitch. Needless to say I became a real skeptic of a lot of research but then again that has helped me in applying what I learned to my real world job.


Re @grover: After working in the insurance industry for many years, I also have the same portfolio of insurance coverage as you with one exception: earthquake coverage. Geologists (not to be confused with Climatologists) tell us that Utah has had a major quake every 500 years. It has now been nearly 550 years since the last big (6 or over)one. My hopefully informed decision is to buy coverage against what could be a catastrophe. You on the other hand, blithely go without and if the event occurs will expect the government to come in and rescue you. Who will be the "socialist" then Pub?


The best part of this story is that Herbert asks the group to help him understand the science, but then, when an actual scientist gives a presentation on how climate change works, Herbert steps out of the room. Classic! Herbert is obviously a guy who doesn't want to be confused by the facts.


Science is not determined by polls. Or comment boards. The plural of anecdote is not data.


in other news, some idiots still think the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, that sneezing is really demons trying to escape your body, and that the earth is really only 6,000 years old!

I'm curious as to where the new Gov. got his degree in some sort of earth Science? Perhaps he has a degree in Climatology? Or at least Meteorology? What? Oh wait; he's a former President of the Utah Association of Realtors? Ha, that's it! He's our man on understanding climate change!

But the whole global warming thing is just made up garbage from a bunch of tree hugging hippies. Yea, I'm sticking with that one.


Global warming or climate change as they call it now, is nothing more than a money making operation for people like Al Gore and his cronies. Go look up all the Boards Al gore is on and Hedge Funds he is involved with and you will really see whats going on. He is promoting "climate change" on behalf of several companies so they can line their pockets from all this nonsense and he is making tens of millions for his efforts. As they say "follow the money"


Pima County, AZ (Tucson) had ZERO unhealthy days while Salt Lake County, UT had NINE unhealthy days. Facts can be confusing when you lie. From the EPA Compare Air web site using the general population. There is a Glacier in Alsaka, Portage Glacier that has treated many miles from the visitors center that was built at its base in the 60's. I think as much as 10 miles or more. I don't know if humans are causing this but don't lie.


The global warming argument is, like, the same as the argument about whether the earth is round or flat. Hello! Everyone knows that if the earth was round and we sailed to the otherside we would be upside down! Im so glad Herbert is our gov. Such impressive logic he has!


For asthma and lung disease sufferers its 37 to 1 SLC to Tucson
Heart disease is 22 to 1
Older and children is 37 to 1
And active outdoors is 27 to ZERO

So those of you who wish to post facts and quote a web site should actually go to the web site.


Ok, now please don't confuse liberals with actual facts and logic... let me try! Of course "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

1. There are limited resources in this world.
2. We need to decide what's the best use of those resources - otherwise known as cost/benefit analysis.
3. If the world spent 50% of world GDP on efforts to combat greenhouse gasses, we would reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by about 1-3%, depending on whose models you use. This might result in a temperature reduction of about .01 to .1 degree, again depending on whose models you use. That amount of reduction is not enough to actually make any difference.
4. Meanwhile, efforts to feed the hungry, clean up other forms of pollution, pay for medical care, help third world countries develop so that they pollute less, would all go begging.
5. Those who promote climate change tend to ignore facts that don't fit their preconceptions - Arctic ice is thicker than they thought, Antarctic ice is growing, solar activity actually DOES affect variations in global temperatures (who'da thunk!).

to comment

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