Comments about ‘Legislators learn more about climate change’

97.4% of scientists isn't a broad consensus?

If the scientific community consensus stems from the "preponderance of the evidence" and that any alternative explanation has failed to withstand rigorous scrutiny, then where is the evidence that shows the major contributor is man-made generation of CO2 gasses? Should not this be the focus of providing proof that global warming is indeed caused by human beings?

Rep. Lorie Fowlke (R-Orem) said, "I hope that the scientific community in some way will be able to reach a broader consensus..."

What?!?! 97.4% of climate scientist in agreement is not a broad enough consensus for you? Not even the Utah State Legislature has that kind of broad agreement. How does someone like this get elected?

There are 3 issues: 1. Buying foreign oil, 2. Air pollution and, 3. Climate change. The first two are not in question and are very negative. Let's act on the issues we know and reduce emissions.

Maybe the ostrich caucus will pass a resolution declaring Utah a global warming-free state. The climate won't notice, but they'll think they've put one over on Al Gore and President Obama.

"Broad consensus" buys you exactly squat. No one argues man's activities have NO impact.

That's the wrong $64 trillion question. The REAL questions are:

(1) What is EXTENT of that effect?

There is no HONEST answer to that question. Just last month, a peer-reviewed publication by NASA scientists noted the IPCC numbers were off by a factor of 6, and that man-made global warming will amount to not more than two degrees over the next century, with little or no effect on polar ice melt.

(2) What level of change to that effect can we REALISTICALLY make?

Latest estimates are that the radical and ruinously expensive Waxman-Markey cap and tax bill would make a negligible 0.11 degree difference, at most, over the next 100 years.

(3) How much will this highly speculative cap and tax regimen cost?

Even Waxman and Markey admit it will cost $161 billion a year by 2020, $1870 per US family -- rising to $6800 per, by 2035.

Little wonder policymakers are reticent to earmark trillions on such scant evidence.

Makes you wonder why "scientists" are so willing.

The scientist say it's not the sun, not the El Nino, not cosmic rays, and not any other natural element. But when the temperatures do not go up as projected by their statistical models, we are hearing them same that natural conditions have masked the the CO2 caused warming for a decade or so then global warming will return with a vengence. Sounds like there there are still a lot of things that scientist do not understand about the variables impacting the climate.

Global warming legislation is about seizing power.

97.4% is impressive....but how many of that number have no political agenda.....I bet that 99.9% recieve money from AL GORE types....?

97.4% are BIASED!! Not exactly scientific!

perhaps we should just wait 100 years and see? we'll all be gone anyway - and no one seems to care if future generations have to fix what we did...

fact is, we need to stop polluting the earth. we need to harness the power of the sun and water and wind, not build coal plants and more refineries.

to To A Scientist | 2:31 p.m -
what have YOU done to reduce your footprint on earth? if we all do our share, things would change dramatically...

Wouldn't cost you single dime if we drove cars that get 40+ - 50+ MPG.

Fixes that stupid Dependancy on Foreign Oil
Reduces smog and Pollution
Leaves more resources for future generations.

Global Warming becomes a moot point...

Just do the right thing!!!

to To A Scientist | 2:31 p.m -

I'm afraid that this is one of those ultra-far-right-winger-nut-cakes that thinks:

1) Truly believes there is no problem.

2) There is some secret conspiracy.

3) quote 1 verse of scripture out-of-context saying the earth has abundant reasources.

4) Think God will ultimely come down and clean up the mess for us.

I'm all for conserving resources. That just makes sense. I'm also in favor or removing our economy from the clutches of those who do not like us and who support those who wish to destroy us. However,I am not in favor of commiting economic suicide by paying too much attention to the "chicken little, sky is falling" prophets of doom. If their prognostications had been at all accurate, our coastal cities would already be under water from the melting polar caps. I don't see this happening.

I am all for conserving resources also. But this is not about conserving resources. The cap and trade will make people have to choose between food and heat. This is not about pollution. C02 is not a pollutant. You can bring down C02 emissions all you want, that will not get rid of smog, it will not ensure a clean water supply, it will not dissolve plastic and it will not change the climate. This is about making money for those who invested in carbon trading schemes like Barbara Boxer, Kerry and Al Gore.

Count me part of his 2.6% that thinks that man made climate change is hooey fueled by huge research grants. You don't get the big bucks for research unless you buy into this "Emperor Has New Clothes" hysteria.

I remember reading an article by President Jimmy Carter stating we must act now we are almost out of Oil. That was 30 years ago.

"You don't get the big bucks for research unless you buy into this 'Emperor Has New Clothes' hysteria."

Do you really think that multi-billion dollar oil and energy companies don't give out any money to fund research? Here's a hint: They do. A lot of money, as it turns out. You can get your grubby little mitts on a portion of that money from energy and oil companies if you do climate research that they want to hear (i.e., trying to prove that burning their fossil fuels is perfectly harmless). There is money to be had on either side. Your argument holds no water.

Let's NOT take any action!

Let's PRESERVE our complete dependence on foreign oil. Those countries we buy our oil from all love us, anyway.

Let's PRESERVE our gray-brown skies! They make sunsets look wonderful!

Polar bears are irrelevant to me, and I'm not planning on visiting Vanuatu, anyway.

Big bucks? Seriously? Smart people who want money go into business, and dumb people don't become scientists.

Remove the agenda and what do you have on either side? The fact is that change is the only constant this earth has ever seen. Lets be good stewards and leave the politics out of it. I live in Alaska, yes there are some receding glaciers up here, but there are also some that are advancing. There are plenty of arguments for both sides. How bout we stop arguing about something that is not going to go away, take care and responsibility for what we have... and who knows, maybe in 10 years they will be telling us that there is another ice age coming like they did in the 70s. This is exactly why I don't let politicians tell me about the weather.

There is plenty of money given out by oil and coal companies to researchers that are willing to sacrifice their souls and lie about the evidence to cover up the damage being done.

That being said I don't really think we should bankrupt the world trying to put an artificial thermostat on the temperature of Earth. We are going to burn all the oil up, whether we do it slow or fast isn't going to matter much in the next few hundred years.

Nuclear power is a great option since it produces no carbon emissions, but unfortunately it will be 20 years before we get any more plants.