Published: Sunday, Feb. 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Today's Headline: "Storm pumping up Utah's snowpack, January
coldest month since 1949." This headline: "Time for climate change
action". So, which is it? Contradictions anyone? Exactly what actions should
be taken? Do we spend time and money trying to find ways to warm thing up or
cool things down? What exactly should be done and has any considered the
futility of it or the costs? Exactly what would the benefits be? More cold
weather are more warm weather?
"carbon fee and dividend legislation"If you tax people enough they
will stop breathing, happy?Whether or not you think C02 is just
plant food, that idea is not worth considering. Promoting renewable
energy, clean air, water, land are good things that almost everyone agrees is a
good thing. Why don't you start there.
Although I sincerely applaud this letter writer -- Tha sad fact of
the matter is most Utahns will still take the word of 3 or 4 AM radio college
drop outs, stting in a studio, and with know severe political bias... [saying that global warming is a hoax, isn't happening at all, and that
Al Gore Inc. is the root cause of the rumor]. over 100% of the
World's entire Scientific and University communities acknowledge Global
warming.[99% agreeing it is man-made, with a few dis-agreeing].Something has to be done.Ignore the radio, and Stop ignoring
reality, the earth, and the problem.
@ LDS Tree hugger. It's utterly amazing that so many journalists and others
inundate us regularly with scare stories demanding that the United States take
fierce anti-warming action while scarcely ever pausing to mention the possible
futility of it all — or the cost.Those costs will get us if we do
fight back, and those saying so aren't just radio hosts of the kind that
make leftists urge censorship. They are people like William Nordhaus, a Yale
economist. He has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world
were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers
to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion.Nordhaus believes
if India and China do not join the parade, nothing is accomplished by any
American program, and the Chinese have not been spotted signing up. Some
climatologists say the trends are mild.One of them is Patrick Michaels who
was at the University of Virginia for 30 years. His study convinces him nothing
disastrous lies around yonder bend. Another is Richard Lindzen of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He believes gloomy computer simulations
We can't control the climate why let it control us. Just a move to give
people empowerment and hurt prosperity that makes our lives more comfortable.
Why bite the hand that feeds us. We eat and use products thatsome people say
people make climate dangerous production. Why work there and use them than?
Storm in Northeast and cold spells in this hemisphere. We have zero control
LDStreehugger what makes people you beleive more right than people conservatives
beleive. Even among scientists there is not unanimous consent.
This reminds me of a controversy raging when I was studying geology in college
in the early 1960's. The debate then was over "continental
drift."How did that turn out?Continental drift is
now a proven fact.But its consequences didn't mean much for the
humans who depend upon this planet as their spaceship. IF climate changes is
proven in the future as was continental drift, and nothing at all has been done
to try to control it, what will be the consequences to human life on earth?Is this something we can simply dismiss -- or does it deserve careful
investigation and solutions? All of humanity may depend upon how effectively we
The trouble with the tree-huggers is that their leaders are backing off.Just last week one guru was upset because they were planning a wind farm in
his town. He explained that wind energy was so much hot air.And the
developer of the Pruis says their's no future in the electric car.Then we can talk about how bio-fuels leave a huge footprint to process AND
raise the price of food.And for all the global warming talk no one has
been able to explain how fossil fuels are bending the jet stream.
What to do? We might start by building nuclear power plants to replace those
"nasty" CO2 generators. We might plant more to use the excess CO2 and
convert it to that Oxygen all animal life needs. We could petition Mother
Nature to restrict volcanoes and other disasters which contribute to warming.
Like the pumps purchased to pump the Great Salt Lake into the western desert, we
can purchase a lot of huge fans to blow all the stainted air our of the Wasatch
Front.The last things we should consider is the removal of
employment opportunities and the taxing of everyone in pursuit of un-attainable
results. We must "adapt"
"LDStreehugger what makes people you beleive more right than people
conservatives beleive. Even among scientists there is not unanimous
consent."Because he is believing what the vast vast majority of
what climate scientists say.And there will virtually never be
"unanimous consent" among scientists on any issue.Heck,
maybe the world is still flat.
Why is it man made global warming advocates shoot thier own arguments out of the
discussion. The letter writter says this is the worst drought in 50 years. We
have to make drastic cuts. The writter refers to the five year drought of 1988.
But what man made event resulted in the 1933 drought or the 1988 drought.
Droughts have occured for centuries. Remember the reason the Israelits ended up
in Eygpt, was a seven year drought that affected the entire region. Drought
struck the American Southwest back in the 13th century, drought in the lower and
central Mississippi River basin between the 14th and 16th century, droughts in
Iowa in 1721, 1736, and from 1771 to 1773, there were at least three major
droughts in nineteenth century North America. What about all those across
Europe and Africa. Man made or created, hardly. Now on to a real discussion of
real causes. Read the IPPC 2014 leaked report. Co2 not as big as they thought.
The problem with both sides of the climate change argument is that they ignore
the more fundamental issue, namely, the assumption that endless economic growth
is the answer to all our problems. Both sides keep wanting to feed the beast as
much as possible. One side wants to feed it carbon-based fuels. The other side
wants to feed it wind, hydro, solar, and other so-called green fuels. But if we
keep feeding the beast, it will soon devour us. What happened in 2008 was just
the tip of the iceberg. What we need to do is rethink completely our
basic economic assumptions, beginning with the question, "What is the
purpose of an economic system?" Let me give you a clue. The answer is not to
simply convert as many resources as possible into consumable products and then,
by consuming them, convert them into waste. This is madness on a grand scale. Do
we really think we can forever perpetuate the corporate system we have been
addicted to since the 1860s?Why are we always asking the wrong
As for media it is a reinforcer of what people choose to beleive rather than an
enforcer. A conservative is more likely to listen to Fox news and Rush and Sean
wheras a liberal is more likely to listen to NPR and MSNBC. They listen to
people not to be informed but to be reinforced. Those that listen to something
they don't agree with do to discuss why they are wrong not to be informed.
What climate change are you talking about? Temperatures are in the normal
range. Precipitation is within the normal range.What climate
change? Please answer that before pretending politicians can do anything about
I'm beggining to see a clear pattern on dealing with all the problems we
have in the world today.Gun problems, Fiscal problems, Global warming problem, Healthcare problems,Homeless problems, UnEmployment problem,Economic problems, etc., etc., etc. We have one group of people trying to study things out, come up
with an idea to solve them, and try to actually DO something about
them.And then we have the other group - Who say NO to
everything, and want to do NOTHING about any of it.There's a
reason why they have the reputation of being the party of NO.
Re: Mountanman "Today's Headline: "Storm pumping up Utah's
snowpack, January coldest month since 1949." This headline: "Time for
climate change action". So, which is it? Contradictions anyone? " Of
course you must know that as the global mean temperature climbs this will lead
to more violent swings in weather behavior, and more violent storms.
@ Marxist. I am honestly trying my best to understand this issue. You and others
are telling us that if it is colder than normal it is because it was warmer than
normal and if it is warmer than normal it is because it was colder than normal?
What is should the "normal" temperature be? Sorry, I just do not believe
we have the power to control the climate, fossil fuels and junk science computer
models not withstanding! The sun has the most impact on our climate and not even
Al Gore can control that as he laughs all the way to his huge bank account he
has personally profited from this issue! Why he is now richer than Mitt Romney
and you know how much you hate him!
**'EPA inventory shows Utah's sources of greenhouse gas' - By Amy
Joi O'Donoghue - 02/05/13 - Published by the Deseret News
'WASHINGTON — The nation's power plants continue to be the
single largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions, according to new
information released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency.'
It is much easier to bury head in sand and hope the 1950's return. Let the
grandkids take care of the problems.
There are 2 time honored theories about the 'disastrous weather we have
been experiencing these last many years.Darwinism - the earth has
gone through many climate changes through its history, and those creatures that
adapt, survive.Religion-ism - the world is iniquitous and the people
are being warned by their God to straighten up or face destruction.Then there is the new theorySecularism - We are the Gods of this
world and we can fix the climate how we want it, if you will just fork over all
your money and give up your life. Let's go with the time
honored approaches over this new one. It sounds too kooky.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments