Deseret News | Bishop leads GOP protest of climate-change order

Reader comments
Bishop leads GOP protest of climate-change order

Everyone else | 11:45 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Dear Congressional Western Caucus,

YOU are the special interest group with a narrow agenda to exploit our public lands in the name of oil and coal company profits.

Sincerely,

Everyone else

cachsoul | 11:48 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

what poor representation we have.

Anonymous | 12:13 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Bishop took time from his busy schedule catering to nuclear waste interests to say something? I am shocked.

Comments continue below

Great Representation | 12:24 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

No, we have great representation in utah delegation and with Bishop and Chaffetz. Otherwise, a majority of voters would not have elected or re-elected them. Duh. The entire climate change (notice how they've changed it from global "warming" since there is considerable evidence that the globe is cooling in places) is just subterfuge by liberals and socialists to try and scare everyone into accepting government control of every aspect of our lives. And we have lots of bloggers on this and other fora who are being paid by George Sorros, Move-On radical groups, trying to promote the Obama Socialistic agenda. So dont' be deceived by the little carping snipes like cachsoul posts. And how arrogant is it for someone like "everyone else" to presume that they speak for everyone else? The votes say otherwise.

CE1 | 12:33 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Time to start the chant now. OTO "One term Obama".

autodoc | 12:34 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Thanks to Rep Bishop, we have someone who will stand up to the (Know it all's) in Washington, and try to protect our rights to use our lands approporatly and not make restrictions so stupid that in 20 years, some will say "Did we really do that?

Beav | 12:42 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Why should the comments of the previous posters be deemed credible? They believe that climate change is settled science, which is very far from the truth. Al Gore devotees every one.

Bishop demonstrates ignorance | 12:42 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

The west, more than any other region in the country, depends on snow in the mountains for water supply in the summer. These "natural" resorvoirs recharge ground water and supply running water to almost every community in the west. In fact the run off from snow melt, not man made resorvoirs, supplies the majority of water we all count on. A very small increase in temperature turns winter snow into winter rain causing floods with water blasting through the canyons WITHOUT any recharge of ground water and no water left to feed summer streams and rivers. I thought Bishop was the peoples representative, not a hired gun for big business. Shows you what I know - silly me.

Cats | 12:45 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Good for you Congressman Bishop. You are representing your constituents and the interests of the nation. "Everyone Else" is NOT everyone else.

Anonymous | 1:01 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Sounds like Bishop the blind one, He and Chaffetz, the tantrum thrower would like nothing more than for the human race to regress back to the stone ages.

Woo Hoo | 1:02 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Federal Hate crimes was just signed into law! YES!!!!

Reason | 1:09 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

“Great Representation” and “autodoc” are right on-target. Representatives Bishop and Chaffetz are doing a great job representing us. I congratulate them for standing up to the administration’s efforts to make our lives more complicated, more expensive, and less free.

@Cats | 1:11 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I fully agree. Them other peoples don't listen to Beck and Rush, so how could they know science?
Bishop, you the man. We should blast this earth to pieces like the Lord said we could.
To heck with using logic, science, and brains. To heck with the kids and grandkids.
Lets live for today.
YEE_Haw!!!

Kudos Bishop | 1:12 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Thanks for your position and leadership on this important issue for Utah. Keep up the good work.

RE: Bishop dem ign | 1:58 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I am one who believes in global climate change. Because the earth has went through several ages of different climates in its history. However, it has little to do with human behavior. Most reservoirs are NOT natural and have been built by and for the benefit of man. If the environmentalist had their way, every man made dam would be tore down. We would have no water in the west. Man has been changing and utilizing the resources of the earth since he appeared on the earth. Why now do we need to change human behavior? In the centuries that we have been on the earth, we NOW need to bow down to Obamanation and never touch the resources that god has provided us.

Thanks | 2:02 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Bishop for a reasoned response to the Marxist/Enviros who are trying to take control of every aspect of our lives and leave our children with unbearable debt.
There is a crisis of energy comming our way because of this group of radicals that would like nothing better than to have the populace crying for mercy...which they will recieve none from this group of human-hating, self-loathing Maoists.

Anonymous | 2:17 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I think Obama needs to give more money to Brazil to help them drill for oil. Isn't so called climate change a global deal and not just the Western States, maybe someone should tell Obama. We need to become more dependent upon our enemies for fossil fuel.

Anonymous | 2:21 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I think Obama should give more tax payer dollars to Brazil to help them drill for oil. Maybe I don't understand but isn't so called climate change a global issue, maybe someone ought to tell Obama. Besides who better to tell us about our resources than George Soros who has raped and plilage in the name of capitalism for a long time now. He will save us.....

Anonymous | 2:29 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Bishop is bought and paid for by the people who want to bring more nuclear waste to Utah because he feels this state is a great dump.

This group who support | 2:51 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

our interests as a State should be supported by the citizens of Utah vs. the eastern enviornmental whackos who invade us here. What about their own territories in which they live. Really folks, true Utahns who love this state are justy as sensitive to the needs of our lands as those who just want to bassque in the enviornment while they try to deny us of our rights for mulitiple use. We should be proud of Bishop and the rest of the Group. Where are the demos when it comes to Utah...hiding behind the skirts of Joe Camel, our new crafty, dictator?

funny | 3:05 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

climate changers of today..... are yesterdays, the world is flat!

CuzICan | 3:10 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Humans aren't gods, mother nature or father time. We can not control global climate regardless of how we fool ourselves. The Earth will reclaim itself; always has and always will. The phrase "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust" also refers to everything man has made from products of the earth: roads, homes, cars, clothing, etc. Everything we have comes from the earth. Furthermore, it is obscene and morally wrong that we send all of our money and jobs over seas when we have the resources, work force and means to be wholly self sufficient in our energy production. Our "natural" resources were put here for a reason: to be used responsibly. Utah and the Western States have an unbelievable amount of coal, oil, gas and other petroleum related products usable to the entire country; more than most politicians know. If we don't utilize what we've got available to us, it will be lost, and so will we. Personally, I don't want to be one who sits home freezing in the dark.

Captian Kirk | 4:59 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

The "science" on climate change is anything but conclusive and there is not a consensus.

It is stupid and/or corrupt to create public policy based on inconclusive science.

xscribe | 5:23 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Time will tell who's right and who's wrong. Sure hope those who profess to care about their children and grandchildren are right, and that we have nothing to worry about and don't need to change our ways.

As for CuzlCan: No one is saying we "control" mother nature or father time. Those who believe in global warming only believe that man has very rapidly changed the weather and can do simple things to slow down the warming process.

I think anyone who thinks that we can put the kind of smoke and pollutants into the atmosphere for as long as man has done so and think that it doesn't produce or have a consequence is in huge denial.

Spock | 5:59 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Dear Kirk - depends on what you call conclusive. If you mean florescent bulb use will end climate change, then I agree. If you mean that climate change is real, and that humans are driving it, then you should stop and ask yourself who you're letting interpret your climate change data. Must be someone other than a climatologist. Perhaps a petroleum engineer?

Anonymous | 6:31 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Bring power back to the states. We should be careful with our natural resources, but we should also be able to USE our God given resources. Environmentalists in their zeal, take things too far! We shouldn't take credit or blame for changes in the climate. These are also acts of God. Give him the credit.

@ 12:42 (Save the Snow!) | 6:37 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

If you are worried about lack of snow due to global warming, then the correct approach would be to reduce CONSUMPTION, not production. If you restrict PRODUCTION in Utah, then Utah will just consume oil produced elsewhere. At the end of the day, you haven't saved the snow, but you have moved jobs elsewhere.

re@kats | 6:58 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I find it very interesting and laughable that someone like @katz talks about not worring about our kids or our grandkids when many of this political ilk, have agreed to and passed, economic policy that most-certainly will harm our children and grandchildren. This is a fact, that defecit is tangable and REAL...climate change, and its effects, is up for debate and discussion. If we really are concerned about future generations, then demand Washington to control spending!

OilMan | 7:44 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

"Let us work together to develop sound policies to manage our federal lands based on sound science and stakeholder input." Sound science...what does that mean in utah? The inpupt of the state armchair climatologists association, I presume? Realistically, however, what does any of this matter? If there was anything out there worth going after, someone would have done it a long time ago. There isn't, and wont be until energy gets a lot more expensive. By then, the hand of free enterprise, manifest as extremely high consumer costs, will alleviate the issue of climate change.

xscribe | 8:48 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

@re@kats: The harming of our children and grandchildren due to the stimulus that was passed is not a fact and is also up for debate. You even use the term "most-certainly," which lends itself to debate. Aren't we the children and grandchildren of parents and grandparents? Aren't we paying off their debt? I agree the deficet is tangible. As for it being harmful for our children and grandchildren is up for debate and only time will tell, just as it will for global warming and who's right and who's wrong on that issue.

Midwest Member | 10:19 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Al Gore gives me the brain pain, but even the simplest dolt among us can see that the climate has changed dramatically in the last century. Even if we agree to disagree on the science, we can't deny that pollution is harmful here and now. My mother can't visit my sisters in Utah without getting bronchitis from your dirty air. I for one don't appreciate being a victim of the petroleum industry. If conservatives walked their talk, we'd be leading the world in seeking out new energy technology. But there's the rub. They're not. Conservative, that is. Oh, and first poster, my friend "everyone else." Thank you for picking up on the same irony that I noted. Amen and Amen!

mark | 11:13 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I get a bit confused on the oil issue.

We do not want to buy foreign oil. Many people claim that we are fighting the war over foreign oil.

We do not want to drill in the United States because it will destroy our land and our beaches.

Yet I touch oil every day. My cloths are oil (polyester), my telephone, cell phone, car, bike, water bottle, table top, fabricates, carpet, paint, ink, this computer, Carbon Fibers, and on an on.... I do not think there is any man made items today that does not have oil in it or on it. Oil is also a major fuel of this nation and the world.

Where are we to obtain this natural resource? From corn or plants? How much oil does it take to produce oil type products from plants? A surprising large amount. The oil like materials from plants generally do not produce the high quality products that come from oil.

So what is the real issue? Greed, Control, Wealth, Power, Superiority, ???

We need this precious material, so use it with knowledge, wisdom, and prudence. And leave it better than we found it.

steve | 11:52 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I think Bishop represents how utahns think, and that is a real tragedy

Good for Bishop | 12:40 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

Unfortunately States have no rights anymore.

Cow belching | 12:44 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

The earth gets cooler and warmer. IF you figure that WE are causing most of it, you have to take into account things most people don't.

0. The solar wind is at a 50 years low, which could cause global cooling.
1. The rain forests are critical. Burning and clearing rain forests are a bigger deal re: greenhouse gases than cars. Remember the Harrison Ford ad with the tape on his chest being ripped off?
2. You have to take into account that Methane Gas, (not burned) released in to the air is much worse than burning it. Methane gas is worse than CO2 re: "greenhouse" gases.
3. You have to take into account that methane released into the atmosphere often comes from several non-man sources: Wetlands, cows belching, termites, permafrost, etc.

Most of us are willing to agree with cleaner air, water and land, that said, I am not worried about the CO2. I am worried about the cow belching and termites. :)

Reality check | 5:29 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

For those above who claim "man" can't change the planet, stop and think about how man has, particularly in the last century. What force is slashing and burning rainforests? Man. These are the lungs of the earth, creating our oxygen, but we're steadily disrupting this life-dependent process. What force is pouring mercury in the atmosphere so that we can't eat the fish and waterfowl in Utah? Man -- from coal-fired power plants. What force is overfishing the ocean for seafood? You got it, man! What force is creating "heat islands" around major cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas, so night temperatures have risen and don't cool off? Man -- with asphalt and concrete buildings that absorb heat and radiant heat through the night. What force has polluted all the rivers in China? Man -- with his factories to produce cheap products for Walmart shoppers.

In sum, for people to say that we must be "humble" in thinking that man "can't" change the earth, well take a look at what "progress" has accomplished so far! Denying man's contribution to climate change from the exhaust of our millions of cars and power plants is absurd.

Anonymous | 6:55 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

The first commenter "Everyone else" is 100% correct. For the life of me, I can't understand why we can't be better stewards of our planet. Bishop is all about serving someone's interests to make money. Period.

lost in DC | 7:30 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

@cats, can't debate the merits, so you call names and insult. weak.

I thought they were PUBLIC lands, it looks to me like Bishop and the other western repubs want to keep them open for PUBLIC use, rather than restrict them just so some eastern environazi can feel like he got his money's worth out of his campaign contribution to BO.

Dave | 7:46 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

In the name of fairness I suppose that anyone erecting a windmill will have to prove that taking energy from the wind will not alter climate paterns. Solar panels relecting heat from the sun will not plunge us into an ice-age.

Sensible Scientist | 9:23 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

1. "Global warming" proponents grossly oversimplify the atmospheric system, relying too heavily on CO2 as a driver.
2. The effects of warming a few degrees are grossly exaggerated in "An Inconvenient Truth" and current arguments that predict disaster.
3. The natural climate cycle influence in the past century's temperatures cannot be separated from observations; all warming could be natural.
4. Climate models are interpretive; they are not data.
5. Disagreeing with "global warming" has nothing to do with being a good steward of the earth or working to reduce air and water pollution.

Captain Kirk | 11:54 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

@ Spock | 5:59 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Climate change is real and always has been. It gets colder and it gets warmer. Even before humans.
Did humans cause the ice age or the global warming that ended the ice age?

There is much debate on the cause of global warming, if global warming is even bad, the amount of global warming, and if global warming will continue.

CO2 theories are in question. Does CO2 cause global warming or does global warming cause more CO2.
The latest research actually suggests the latter.

Personally ... I would be much more afraid of global cooling. Global cooling would certainly be disastrous while global warming could actually be good.

So why should we cap CO2 when we don't even know if it is causing a problem?

There is much corruption surrounding all of this and
there are not enough solid and valid answers to form public policy.

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.