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

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.


Herbert is just jealous of Gore's Nobel Prize and wants to get one himself!


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.

Good for Warming

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.


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.


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.


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.



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

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

Is your name Thomas Malthus?


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.


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.


@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...

John Pack Lambert

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.

John Pack Lambert

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.

John Pack Lambert

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.

Re: Utah is cleaning up the air

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.

Kevin of the Terrace

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.


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

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?

to comment

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