In our opinion: Defeat Waxman-Markey bill


Return To Article
  • Fed Up
    June 29, 2009 7:14 p.m.

    Do politicians think that the average American is just going to lie down and take it as his energy costs go right through the roof because of this ill conceived piece of legislation? Back in colonial days the people became fed up with their government trying to control every aspect of their lives so they revolted.
    Thus far, the silent majority has not been politically active ,but take away the America we have known and loved and you have a real revolution on your hands. We will not give up our standard of living for a chicken little the sky is falling theory. There are thousands of scientists who do not even agree with the idea of global warming.
    The inmates are truly running the asylum when it comes to Congress.

  • To Anonymous @ 10:44 am
    June 29, 2009 2:43 p.m.

    Nor are you going to convince anyone with your empty fallacies. The appeal to ridicule ("lame and silly," "Pathetic!") simply ridicules the argument without refuting it, as you have done. Hopefully, those in high school will be taught to think and argue more critically and effectively than that.

    Also, I agree with "Stupid is as Stupid Does." Let's vote them all out, and then amend the Constitution to provide for term limits. We need term limits so that the new "ins" don't become as corrupt and self-serving as the present ones.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    What a completely lame and silly editorial!

    I don't necessarily support this bill, but this editorial must have been written by a high school freshman!

    Pathetic! You aren't going to convince anyone by this article.

  • Stupid is as Stupid Does
    June 29, 2009 1:22 a.m.

    Another lame brained bill by our politicians. They won't feel this, because they get chaperoned around the nation, will give themselves another pay raise and listen to idiots like Al Gore, who sits in his energy guzzling mansion and jets around in an energy guzzling jet.

    I keep telling you, vote them ALL OUT, EVERY SINGLE CURRENT CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR. Get rid of them and start over. The message they need to understand is to start thinking and listening to the public and those who do not have a vested interest in your bills. In six years we could get rid of every single sitting congressman and woman and send a strong message. WE WILL NO LONGER PUT UP WITH YOUR STUPIDITY.

  • CJ
    June 28, 2009 7:32 p.m.

    One more disaster in a chain of disasters by Obama. He won't be happy until he has taxed us all out of existence and turned the country into a socialist third world nation. He is fomenting a complete catastrophe from which we will never recover.
    Anyone who voted for this guy is just as guilty as he is. Socialized medicine? Energy tax? Amnesty? Defecits in the trillions? Wake up everyone, the country is going down,, big time!!!

  • HK
    June 28, 2009 11:39 a.m.

    rsp, you are absolutely correct! Matheson knows that if he voted for the bill, he would be voted out in 2010!

  • Anonymous
    June 28, 2009 10:59 a.m.

    I wasn't sure what to think of this bill. With Rush, Fox News and Beck against it, it must be good for Americans and America. When was the last time conservatives put their nations well being over self?

    Look at the history of lies. Any money trickle your way lately?

  • John Gilmore
    June 28, 2009 10:49 a.m.


    really, really disappointing editorial. I suspect the new editor of the newspaper has something to do with taking such a hard line anti-science stand.

  • John Gilmore
    June 28, 2009 10:48 a.m.

    "The debate on man-made global warming is far from over. You've chosen to read only the liberal environmental rhetoric. You haven't even considered that the theory of man made global warming breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of heat transfer. Please do YOUR homework. Let's have a real scientific debate!"

    there's nothing liberal or conservative about facts. Talk to a climatologist. Better yet, talk to a chinese one who doesn't understand the american political debate. Dr. Jiming Jin, Utah State University, will give you fantastic information about the complexity of climate change. He'll not mention politics once, and when you ask why, he'll say it's because politics are a choice, and people can try to solve problems how they like, he'll just focus on the facts about the warming we will see in the near future.

    The problem is that democrats are completely tainted. We all know they're just dragging their feet. Republicans are at least fully committed to one cause and only one cause: Corporations. It's hard to trust that this bill is what we really need.

  • wYo8
    June 27, 2009 2:16 p.m.

    just remember all these comments when 2010 comes around. vote these idiots out of office.

  • Lionheart
    June 26, 2009 10:12 p.m.

    @Steve: If it passed, welcome to America, the new third world.

  • Steve Glaser
    June 26, 2009 7:13 p.m.

    It passed!

  • mountain man
    June 26, 2009 6:20 p.m.

    this 1200+ page bill that is being rammed through is obviously an attempt to catch us unaware, they filed the bill last night gave the house 3 hrs to debate something nobody will have read and demand a vote

    the other thing that troubles me. Is this CONSTITUTIONAL? where does the gov get the authority to regulate CO2 a naturally occurring atomospheric gas that by the way plants need to produce oxygen.

    This will be a huge transfer of wealth that will dwarf the trillions being sent to the middle east.
    companies will be paying through the nose to despot tin horn dictators for these new carbon credits, and as we all know businesses don't incur cost with out passing them on to the consumer.

  • the way it is
    June 26, 2009 6:14 p.m.

    Liberals take action.
    Conservatives do nothing but whine about liberals.

  • rsp
    June 26, 2009 5:55 p.m.

    Evidently MAtheson knew Pelosi didn't need his vote to pass the bill so he could safely look like a "blue dog" Democrat for his constituents.

  • the truth
    June 26, 2009 5:15 p.m.

    Liberals are crying we need a solution.

    But the truth is THIS is NOT a solution,

    by all acounts we can spend trillions and trillions of dollars, and work on it for 100 years,

    and make only a neglible difference in the climate, if at all,

    obviously this NOT the solution.

    And earth is NOT dying, an will remain quite inhabitable for for the forseeable future,

    lets NOT over-react because some enviromental extremeists think thr sky is falling,

    it obviously is not.

    We are supposed to be GOOD stewards, and biblically speaking, just stewards,

    NOT stupid stewards or foolish stewards or extreme stewards.

  • great air to breathe
    June 26, 2009 4:32 p.m.

    All I know is that I always enjoy breathing in that beautful orange-brown air of Salt Lake City.
    Throw in a bit of what locals call "lake-stink" (sewage) and Mmmmmm. Oboy, oboy! It even tastes good!

  • rsp
    June 26, 2009 3:42 p.m.

    I agree with this column wholeheartedly. Maybe someone can explain how this bill would help not only our economy but the environment also. Look at the big picture. Kill coal powered manufacturing in America and those factories simply move to china or India so there will not be any net benefit at a global level. I called Matheson's office and they said he was voting "no". Hear Hear!

  • KM
    June 26, 2009 2:47 p.m.

    @only in utah.
    We do care about our natural beauty in Utah, its one of the most beautiful places on the face of the earth. It wasn't always so; before the pioneers arrived, if you've seen the pictures, it was dessert. But, the dessert has blossomed like a rose, thanks to Man and Gods good providence.
    The second part of your post is just the usual class warfare tripe that we are used to hearing from the marxists wanabees.

  • Skeptic
    June 26, 2009 2:14 p.m.

    Kudos to the D News. Waxman Markey is an asinine piece of legislation. Irrespective of whether you believe the models that predict human-caused warming over the next 100 years, the question that never gets asked by the Kool Aid drinkers at the other newspaper in town is this: how much warming will we avoid with Waxman Markey? The undisputed answer is: none. That's because, by 2050 70% or more of the global manmade CO2 emissions will come from China and other non-OECD countries. America's contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels will be less than 15% without Waxman Markey. The models show that we could shut the entire U.S. down, drive U.S. manmade CO2 to zero, and doing so will have no meaningful effect on average global temperatures. Waxman Markey won't work. It's a tax on the way we live our lives, laden with pork, impossible to administer, mind-numbingly complex, and certain to be rife with fraud.

  • lost in DC
    June 26, 2009 2:06 p.m.

    still waiting for anyone to identify themselves as paying the extra $2 per kilowatt hour for green power from rocky mountain power, or who is completely off grid without a fossil fuel burning back-up generator. If you exist, congratulation. Anyone else in support of this bill who doesn't meet those standards is blowing hot air.

  • nice comment JWW
    June 26, 2009 1:20 p.m.

    You hit the nail on the head! MMGW laws will affect all Americans - in their pocketbooks with additional loss of jobs!

  • Include Nuclear Power
    June 26, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    The goal of cleaning up the air and using less oil is laudable.

    I hope congress will not pass this unless the bill is ammended to remove restrictions of building nuclear power plants.

    Otherwise this will be a big hit to our economy, something that is bad in the best of times, and right now is very very bad.

  • JWW
    June 26, 2009 12:59 p.m.

    Global Warming and Cooling is a natural process and ANYTHING man may have done to affect it is immeasurable next to natural changes. Cap and Trade of Greenhouse Gases will do NOTHING to affect the climate, no matter how good it makes you feel. What it will do is cost everybody (rich and poor alike) thousands of dollars per year as the cost of energy skyrockets. President Obama has admitted this increase in energy costs (search YouTube for proof).

    Remember, MMGW is NOT happening in any measurable way. Climate change happens naturally and no matter how you FEEL about it there is nothing we can do about it. We will not be "saving" the planet if a cap and trade tax is passed. All we will accomplish is more taxes for ZERO (or rather negative) benefit.

  • Lionheart
    June 26, 2009 12:56 p.m.

    @Jeff: Terrific posts.

  • Thomas Dawkins
    June 26, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    I have become concerned that the 'solutions' for climate change are more about government grabbing power, and being able to tax more.
    Nuclear power has definite downsides, but if it's between that and destroying the planet. It's an obvious choice.

  • RedShirt
    June 26, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    To "To Redshirt: | 11:21 a.m." You mean the one that says "Periodic fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance" You also have "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" peer reviewed and published in the Geological Socieyt of America, which states "We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy."

    Lets not leave out "The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" published by Science Magazine, showing that it is solar cycles altering the North Atlantic Climate.

    Hmm...that seems to support what Dr. Tim Patterson says. Apparently there are scientists who have published peer reviewed papers who say that the driving factor in climate chage is solar variations or CRF.

  • Jeff
    June 26, 2009 12:30 p.m.

    RE: To Redshirt

    So does your "Real peer reviewed journal" explain why in the last 18 months global temperatures have decreased about 50% of what they increased in the preceding 18 years? Does it explain why in the 70's there was a global cooling scare (there were actually plans being made to purposely melt the polar caps), or the warming scare in the 30's or the cooling scare in the 1890's? Or maybe the ice age 10K years ago or the mini ice age in the 1600's, or the fact that the archeological record shows that temps in the amazon have been almost 10 degrees hotter than they are now and the plant and animal life flourished.

    I'm guessing the answer would be no -- shocking.

    Yes, thinking that it could have anything to do with that blazing nuclear reaction is the sky is completely absurd.

  • Jeff
    June 26, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    This bill will not do anything to reduce global CO2 emissions. Any company that can't play within the guidelines will just move their operations overseas. Because most other countries have lower standards than we currently have, these companies will actually then pollute more than they did before the bill was passed. This is basic business, basic economics, basic human nature, and basic common sense.

    For all the Nuclearphobs. France currently produces 98% of their power via nuclear plants. When it's done right, it is very safe. As far as waste goes, our current waste from all nuke plants in the history of the U.S. could be stored on one football field and be 15 feet deep - that's not a lot. In addition, France is using a new technique of reusing their spent uranium and have reduced waste to 4% of what we do in this country. Wind, solar, and geo are great, but not consistent. You must have a consistent source which means fossil fuels, hydro, and/or nuclear.

    BTW, if this bill passes, Al Gore is a billionaire. Now that's an inconvenient truth, isn't it.

  • to: Patient
    June 26, 2009 12:01 p.m.

    Thank you for making my point!

    The earth is a system and must be considered as a whole rather than looking at "individual molecules."

    So let's talk about molecules: Your ridiculous argument reminds me of the clueless pundits that said CFCs were destroying the Ozone layer. Well, we passed those laws and it cost Americans $ billions of dollars. So please tell me how a CFC molecule that is heavier than air got to the ozone layer. Your individual molecule statement shows your scientific ignorance and the fact that all you know how to do is quote liberal scientists who even now continue to change their minds. Do some homework!

  • Idahoan
    June 26, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    "You'd think being blessed with incredible natural beauty, Utah would be full of caring people.

    Instead the loud mouthed SUV, ATV, gimme, gimme, gimme crowd makes all Utahns look stupid and greedy."

    They do care. That's why they don't want this bill to pass. It's another recipe for financial disaster. This isn't about "gimme, gimme, gimme," unless you're the government or Al Gore. It's about taxing us through deceitful means (cap and trade) to achieve nothing in return.

  • lost in DC
    June 26, 2009 11:28 a.m.

    what we do will be pittance in comparison to what the chinese will be doing. this does nothing to address one of the fastest growing polluters on the planet. in this reguard the economic slow-down is beneficial because if aren't buying as much chinese consumer goods, they won't be poluting quite as much.

  • To Redshirt:
    June 26, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    (Y)ou should read The Geologic Record and Climate Change by Dr. Tim Patterson In his paper, he shows that there is a high correlation between sunspot cycles and temperature. He has a graph that plots out sunspot cycle duration, temperature, and CO2. The sunspot cycles and temperature curves nearly mimic eachother, while the CO2 graph is totally on its own.

    In what peer-reviewed journal did Pattersons paper appear? None.

    And have you read what other climate scientists make of Dr. Pattersons paper? I doubt it.

    Not a whiff of a background in statistics, Fourier series, power spectrum, atmospheric physics, etc.

    Patterson has only a vague correlation with the reality of climate.

    Talk about disingenuous. But people lap it up because he has apparent credentials, and they dont have the tools to assess the argument.

    But in a _real_ peer-reviewed science journal (Geological Society of America, March 2004, Royer, et al) youll find this: CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate.

    Pattersons been proven wrong. Will you believe the evidence, or is your political ideology more important than evidence?


  • Lionheart
    June 26, 2009 10:59 a.m.

    Wall Street is waiting with bated breath for this one. Cap and trade will be the new "new" economy. Massive fortunes will be made on this one. Even though nothing of value will be added. More air castle instuments will be traded. American taxpayers prove there is a sucker born every minute.

  • RedShirt
    June 26, 2009 10:42 a.m.

    To "Patient | 10:10 a.m." why is water vapor self regulating and CO2 isn't regulated through the earth's biosphere?

    If CO2 is a driver for temperature, then doesn't it give way to more land mass that can sustain plant life? Doesn't increased ocean temperature facilitate algae blooms? Both would last as long as there is the increased temperature and CO2 limits.

    Supposing we switch over to a hydrogen based fuel system, wouldn't we be causing a worse problem because of the significantly increased amount of water being dumped into the atmosphere?

  • @Susan
    June 26, 2009 10:39 a.m.

    Contact your congressman. Contact your senator.

  • Get a real job
    June 26, 2009 10:28 a.m.

    Will all of you paid liberal commentators get a real job instead of heaping your manure on us day after day? The globe is cooling, not warming. Man has little or no effect on it either way. This bill would be economic suicide. It's lunacy for anyone except those who hate and want to destroy our country.

  • Sue Fuson
    June 26, 2009 10:12 a.m.

    Howdo we make sure this bill will be defeated???

  • Patient
    June 26, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    Why can't we control the greatest GHG, water vapor, oh that's right we couldn't tax the citizens in 80% of the states.

    Yes H2O is a potent greenhouse gas. However, water vapor as a global atmospheric constituent is constant and entirely self-regulating. CO2 is not. The fact that youd even bring that issue up reveals how little you know about GW.

    The debate on man-made global warming is far from over. You've chosen to read only the liberal environmental rhetoric. You haven't even considered that the theory of man made global warming breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of heat transfer.

    Dumbest argument of the month!

    Peer-reviewed research in professional science journals is liberal rhetoric? I have to ask, what on earth are YOU reading?

    The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to individual molecules, it applies to the net flow of energy in an entire system. There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Professional climate scientists are smart enough to remember their undergraduate physics courses, which youve either never taken or have forgotten.

    Guys, ignorance isn't something to be proud of!

  • RedShirt
    June 26, 2009 10:05 a.m.

    To "Oh Please | 9:25 a.m." you should read "The Geologic Record and Climate Change" by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University. In his paper, he shows that there is a high correlation between sunspot cycles and temperature. He has a graph that plots out sunspot cycle duration, temperature, and CO2. The sunspot cycles and temperature curves nearly mimic eachother, while the CO2 graph is totally on its own.

    You also have the problem with the green movement being so opposed to nuclear power, which could actually make the US a CO2 negative producing nation. If we replaced all fossil fuel power sources with nuclear power, that would give us enough waste heat to be able to produce auto fuel from the waste heat. (Sandia labs and other groups have figured out how to synthesize fuel from CO2) The CO2 could be collected from some newly developed "artifical trees" that are highly efficient at collecting CO2 and producing liquid CO2.

    You are probably thinking, what about the spent fuel rods, those are easily reprocessed using technology from the 1970's. You also probably think that water is an issue, but its not because nuclear plants can_be_air_cooled.

  • @Oh Please
    June 26, 2009 10:04 a.m.

    As the earth cools down, (in a period no sunspot activity, magnetic bursts)the CO2 levels will go down. The question really is what is best for human activity in relation to the environment. The misery level of humans is not dependent on the ambiant environment, they have shown an immense ability to adjust to the earth environment. Human misery is related to the overpopulation and scarcity. Only a higher culture and enlightenment will lead to a drop in population.

  • Only in Utah!
    June 26, 2009 9:50 a.m.

    You'd think being blessed with incredible natural beauty, Utah would be full of caring people.

    Instead the loud mouthed SUV, ATV, gimme, gimme, gimme crowd makes all Utahns look stupid and greedy.

  • Oh Please
    June 26, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    So we just let the CO2 levels rise to the tipping point and hope for the best? The semi-educated on this thread should read the latest New Yorker article on CO2 poisoning and see what we're facing. (At least give it a shot, although it might be tough going for you...)

  • KM
    June 26, 2009 9:11 a.m.

    @anon 8:44
    A sitting President asking a national tv network to do an all day info-mercial for him and his huge power grab enviro bill? Now that is a laugh that makes me want to cry!!
    Comrade - out...

  • RedShirt
    June 26, 2009 9:11 a.m.

    TO "liberal larry | 6:21 a.m." it isn't just conservatives that see this bill as bad news.

    Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University, says "In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse."

    In other words, all this is is one big tax being wrapped in global warming. It will have little to no effect on CO2 emissions.

  • Lionheart
    June 26, 2009 9:08 a.m.

    They need to ram this bill through, because facts on the ground (the earth) is exposing the lie of global warming. This is purely a huge and vicious tax on the American people. More money to dissapear into the government maw.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    A Utah paper asking for Utah politicians to defeat a bill. Now that is a laugh. The total lack of influence on the national level is the result of a one party system, driven by the compulsion to throw reason out the door in favor of extreme conservatism. Sorry, but if it comes from Utah, it will have zero effect.

  • lost in DC
    June 26, 2009 8:36 a.m.

    Robert Jacobson, anonymous 7:46, you appparently did not read the editorial. they did offer an alternative - build more nukes.

    I see, Liberal Larry, are YOU paying the extra $2/kilowatt hour RMP charges for green electricity? How does making electricity more EXPENSIVE make electric cars feasible?

  • Conservative Sense
    June 26, 2009 8:19 a.m.

    Nuclear is a solution.(But no union nuclear plants)

    Greedy industry? Why not greedy government?

    This congress and this president are wanting to change the way we live and many of you are buying into it. You want to FIGHT industry that makes the things that you want and need but you ROLL OVER when the government wants to curtail your freedoms or take your money.

    The earth has been hotter and colder than it is now.
    Humans have concrete weather data for only about 130 years.
    Hurricanes and tornados have happened in the past as they do now.
    My weatherman was wrong yesterday about the temperature and the rain potential.
    We are letting POLITICIANS control our lives.

    Think with your minds not your hearts.

  • to I see...
    June 26, 2009 8:17 a.m.

    The debate on man-made global warming is far from over. You've chosen to read only the liberal environmental rhetoric. You haven't even considered that the theory of man made global warming breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of heat transfer. Please do YOUR homework. Let's have a real scientific debate!

  • Thinkin' Man
    June 26, 2009 8:09 a.m.

    If the stated goal of this bill is to combat climate change (which it is), and scientific studies show the results of the bill would have negligible impact on climate (which they DO), then the bill is worthless.

    The bill isn't about air pollution, it's about carbon dioxide (which isn't part of air pollution). Those are two vastly different problems.

    Nuclear power already has a 50 year near-perfect track record of producing safe, clean electricity. That's enough to make it the obvious solution.

    The stereotyping above by liberal writers about conservatives and industry is appalling.

  • Why no nukes!
    June 26, 2009 7:52 a.m.

    People claim nuclear is the answer... and yet, these same people criticize the government and greedy business for all the ills in our society... They don't trust government healthcare! They don't trust government running GM or the banks -- But they trust the federal government to regulate and oversee the safety of nukes and nuke waste? And they trust private industry for protecting society from leaks, radiation, etc.? Please!

    We need safe energy where we don't have to rely on incompetent government and greedy "let's cut corners" industry to make decisions about our fate! Invest in wind, solar, and geothermal energy -- no toxic waste and no fears of incompetent government beaucrats!

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 7:46 a.m.

    I completely agree with Robert Jacobson on this. Lots of sniping, but no solutions. Always putting industry ahead of wise stewardship. Something has to be done. The same crowd fought the clean air act and other anti-pollution measures many years ago and, low and behold, we are better off for it. Enough of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Let's move forward with something. Besides, then the GOP was in charge, what got done except the weakening of the law, regulations and enforcement on environmental issues.

  • Cosmo
    June 26, 2009 7:39 a.m.

    All those that worship at the feet of Obama, and Gore, should lead by example. Remove the power box from your house, return your cars, give up all your money to the government, and when you get ill, just roll over and die!

  • John Timmel
    June 26, 2009 7:36 a.m.

    Until there are viable alternatives ready to pick up the slack, we will be hurting the poorest of Amreicans the most.

    Every state should build a brand new nuclear reactor. Look at what they are doing in Japan and France. Comparitively nuclear is much cleaner and more efficient than anything else we have out ther.

    This Bill goes too far.

  • Conservative Sense
    June 26, 2009 7:27 a.m.

    Why can't we control the greatest GHG, water vapor, oh that's right we couldn't tax the citizens in 80% of the states.
    In this bill why does only 20% of the money go to environmental projects? Can you say 'paying for future entitlements'?
    In this bill why do non-CO2 emitting entities recieve allownaces? Can you say 'patronage'?
    In this bill why does the West Coast and Northeast actually make money? Cay you say 'wealth transfer'?
    If this bill was truely for the environment and controlling that giant .03% of the atmosphere then our dear leaders would mimic the Sulfur Dioxide model used, in the past, to control Acid Rain.
    Start thinking with you minds and not your hearts.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 7:19 a.m.

    ...to the point where Americans would have little choice but to use less. That means they would be forced into buying fewer laptop computers, iPods, televisions and other electrical appliances." This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

  • evolutionfish
    June 26, 2009 6:26 a.m.

    Think of the innovations that could be made in clean energy if this bill were passed. Anyone who could figure out a way to produce clean energy in a way that was efficient enough to meet out wants (not really needs) would make lots of money. This could spur governments and private businesses to invest in researchers that are trying to find such technology.

  • liberal larry
    June 26, 2009 6:21 a.m.

    This editorial typifies the problem with conservatives. They seem to have lost all sense of personal responsibility. They want to have cheap electricity at the cost of clean air, but they refuse to be accountable for cleaning up the pollution. I thought personal responsibility was supposed to be a hall mark of conservatism?

  • I see...
    June 26, 2009 5:35 a.m.

    So because a good and necessary thing will be difficult to do, we shouldn't do it?

    And as for your photo caption about climate change being "still hotly debated," all I can do is urge you to pay closer attention to the actual science.

    I know the message boards here like the think there's some kind of "debate" going on, but a review of the findings published in any number of professional science journals makes it abundantly clear that the question is not if man-made global warming is happening, the question is what are we going to do about the reality of man-made global warming.

  • Obamaless
    June 26, 2009 5:29 a.m.

    While you're at it, run on up to Yellowstone and figure out how to plug up all those mud baths, geysers and yes even the volcano building under the Yellowstone Lake. We'll be so much better off once we've fixed this crisis!

  • Solution is Simple:
    June 26, 2009 5:01 a.m.

    Go nuclear, fear-mongers notwithstanding.

  • Robert Jacobson
    June 26, 2009 1:10 a.m.

    So what's your solution? None. A completely negative editorial whose outcome would be an uninhabitable earth. So much for being stewards of Creation.