It doesn't really matter what the science will eventually show. If it
turns out that WE are causing the planet to heat up we should reduce our use of
foreign oil, reduce our emissions to clean the air and find better ways to use
renewable energy sources. If it turns out that WE are not causing the planet to
heat up we should reduce our use of foreign oil, reduce our emissions to clean
the air and find better ways to use renewable energy sources. I agree that ones
view depends on ones point of view but is there anyone who doesn't really
think we need to do these things regardless of how the science pans out?
""We should be doing things that make sense anyway."That
sums it up right there. Who cares if the planet went up a degree or two - or
not. That isn't the point. We know that pumping lots of junk into our
air is bad for us - we don't need global warming to know that. In the
winter in Utah, the annual inversion layers go from being fog, to smog. And we
know the source of where those pollutants come from. We don't need to know
about global warming to understand the local impact of too much junk going into
our air.So, lets let the scientist keep studying global warming...
and lets address the things we do know. We know cars and industr put too much
junk into the air. We can fix that... we really can....and still have cars...
and still have industry. Let's stop arguing about what we don't know,
and start acting on what we do.
It still amazes me how critics of global warming continue to create so many
straw man arguments. World population continues to grow an incredible rate and
you don't have to be a scientist to know that man can, and will, exceed the
carrying capacitiy of our environment. Also, what type of environment do we
want our kids to live in? Climate change is just one of the consquences of over
population. Human beings are no different than any other animal species on
this planet. If we exceed the carrying capacity of the land, Mother Nature will
cull us back as she has any other species that has ever roamed the Earth.
The author is right. It is absolutely amazing and hypocritical beyond belief
that so called environmentalists use unproven "science" theory to
promote man made global warming but reject proven science that would actually
save the planet! During the '70's a scientist named Norman Borlaug,
concerned about the growing population and the stagnant food supply began to
experiment with plant breeding, commercial fertilizers and pest control (real
science). His work more than doubled the food production on the same acres of
farm land and Dr. Borlaug was given the Nobel Prize and his work was called,
"the Green Revolution" Agriculturalists called it "high yield
agriculture" because it provided the most nutritious, most abundant and the
most affordable food the world had ever seen. Rabid environmentalist opposed
it, not with science but on emotion and fear mongering. Today the second green
revolution has arrived which has unlimited potential for food production and
could be the answer to world hunger. Its called genetic engineering and, yes,
rabid environmentalists oppose it. again not with science but on emotion.
Conclusion: Rabid environmentalism has always been based, not on science as they
claim but entirely on emotion including and especially man made global warming.
Senator Bennett, I like you better as a writer than a senator. Washington
politicians have been ducking the real issues for way too long and I think if
you didn't know it then, you do now. Climate change, another opportunity
for votes, captures all the fear about the future. The hullabaloo over
'overpopulation', 'scarcity', 'sustainable growth'
is a fraudulent farce beyond compare. Let there be no mistake what I am saying.
Should we be wise stewards? Yes! Should we indoctrinate kids with the idea that
if we don't stop having babies, if we don't start living in huts, if
we don't start walking to work, or riding bicycles, then somewhere in the
near future two people huddled around the last berry bush will be the result.
The earth is full; there is 'enough and to spare'. Respected
scientists say that the earth is capable of taking care of upwards of 80 billion
people. The energy resources of this country and around the world are just
beginning to unfold. Even Barack Obama, socialist as he is, will benefit from
what is going on despite his best efforts to thwart it. Yes to common sense. No
to false premises!
Much of the blame for how polarized this issue has become must fall directly on
Al Gore. He’s an alarmist of the first order and typical of an elite class
of politicians whose hubris (and hypocrisy) knows no bounds. The
fact that he gave rise to equally knuckle-headed “hoax theory” folks
like Rush Limbaugh is simply Newton’s Third Law of Motion playing out in
the political arena.As the scientist in this article says, there are
things we should be doing anyway that simply make sense – things like
weaning ourselves off foreign oil, reducing pollution, funding basic research
into sustainable energy (which will likely be exclusively the sun in 100 years),
and conservation for its own sake - something that used to be a hallmark of the
conservative party not to mention the “light cop” that was my
conservative Grandpa. And is it ironic that both conservative and
conservation contain the root “conserve?” We may not
fully understand the planetary effects of our modern lifestyle, but it’s
the only home we have so we should at least treat it with care and caution.
Tyler... great comments.... lets do the right things - regardless.
"There is an old saying, "Your view depends upon your point of
view""Here is my new saying. "more and more, your view
depends on your politics"I never understood how views on climate
change have become almost completely partisan.We used to choose our
politics based on our views. Now politics dictates our views and deviation from
that view is career ending for a politician.
"Of the nine hottest years on record, eight have come since the year
2000." And despite the early cooling effects of La Niña, 2012 was
among the hottest 10 years ever recorded, exceeding the long-term average for
the 36th straight year. (From a NASA and NOAA report.)So, who's
right? I think I'll to with NASA and the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Association over a retired senator who has talked to a few
scientists.See Barry Bickmore's column in the SL Trib for the
view of a scientist who was a climate-change doubter, until he started looking
at the data.
@HS Fan "...[M]an can, and will, exceed the carrying capacitiy [sic] of our
environment."No, we can't, and we won't. By
Tyler D,I have zero problem with doing the right things anyway. I
do however think that most scientists urge a bit more speed than does Senator
Bennett. The problem here is how to turn a battleship - an exceedingly large
and lumbering battleship. We can spin the wheel hard but it won't begin
turning for a long while. I think we need to make the right choices now. The
problem with some of these arguments is that it gives us the feeling that we are
okay (after all, we are making the "right" choices now).While I am no alarmist, I think we need a bit more concern in order to hurry
our actions along.
The liberals are simply doing what they have always done - they manufacture data
to support our fears so that they can raise taxes.Look at the root
of what's going on. It is a tax grab, pure and simple. Does Al Gore care
about global warming? Hardly! He flies around the world in his private plane
that spews more emissions per trip than our individual automobiles will spew in
a lifetime of driving. His palatial house uses more electricity than many small
towns, i.e. it requires coal to be burned to generate that electricity. Has anyone suggested to Al Gore to "cool it"? Has anyone
pointed out to him that commercial flights can take him where he needs to go
without the added pollutants caused by his jet? Has anyone asked him to turn
off 90% of the lights in his palace? Sure, we've asked, but our requests
fall on deaf ears. He thinks he is "special", just like all the other
activists who exempt themselves as they tell us what we need to do to save the
So, "One scientist" - who will not allow you to identify him or her and
therefore cannot have their background and training or the validity of their
words or anything else verified - told you something and because you are the one
repeating it we are supposed to take this at face value?Why are
there no sources listed in your article?Why should we take as fact a
single utterance of this opinion piece?
Mr. Bennett ended where he should've started. Yes, let's do the right
things anyway. The question is what are the right things? For conservatives, the
right thing is to pay lip service to earth "stewardship," but if it
interferes with making a buck, forget it. I'm an old man now and I have
watched this pattern for many decades. Whenever it's a question of saving
the environment or exploiting it, you can predict with infallible certainty who
is going to be in favor of exploitation. It's the conservative, who
ironically is never in favor of conserving anything.
Re: ". . . we should reduce our use of foreign oil, reduce our emissions to
clean the air and find better ways to use renewable energy sources."Agreed. But, that's not the question at the root of this issue.The real question is the velocity at which we should proceed, and the
premium we should pay, in personal and national treasure, to produce quick, but
misguided, even dangerously hubristic change.Lost-in-the-sixties
"green" radicals, yesterday's malodorous demonstrators against
everything American, insist we should "pay any price" to immediately
reduce emissions. They disingenuously deny we've made significant progress
in cleaning our air and water. They demand we run our economy into the ditch by
foolishly, ruinously adopting every phrenology-influenced theory of climate
change. That we mindlessly chase lower-quality, higher-cost energy, or that
last, tiny percent of cleaner air or water.But then, they've
never been very credible.The issue is not, should we be good
stewards. It is, rather, should we run faster than we are able, in directions we
are unsure will help?
You have got to love Robert Bennett comments for side stepping the issue as they
say the devil is in the detail.Firstly “China passing the
United States as the world's largest source of CO2”. Well lets look
at per capita figures Australia is the world's biggest emitter of CO2
emissions at 19 tonnes, followed by the US at 17.3 tonnes and Saudi Arabia at
16.5 and China have reached 7.2 tonnes (let than HALF the US and Australia). It
would be interesting to know how much of the Chinese CO2 is due to export
manufacturing.“But temperatures have not risen with them. The
planet is right about where it was in 1997”. Such a simple statement
which clearing does not look at the detail already alluded to in other comments.
Maybe Robert now he has retired should look at “Chasing Ice” the
documentary.Please take off your political glasses and look at the
big picture without greed in your heart. We have one planet and we are all
equal in Heavenly Fathers eyes, lets start acting that way.
Re: "Please take off your political glasses and look at the big picture
without greed in your heart."Clearly, you're talking to
Senator Bennett did not go far enough. He could have reported that nobody has
succeeded in establishing statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and
global temperature. If it were an important factor in global temperature, there
would be an obvious correlation. I'm not aware of any scientist
who doesn't think the direct effect of atmospheric CO2 is a bit of
greenhouse effect. Fortunately, it apparently isn't strong enough to make a
measurable difference.The only measurable impact of increased
atmospheric CO2 is increased plant growth. Based on that, the "right
thing" would be to stay the course. Of course, the burning of fossil fuels
releases other junk into the air, so we really ought to be making electricity
with nuclear energy. Wind and solar are not sustainable, but nuclear is.
The problem is that climate change and proposals to fix the problem don't
fit conservative values and sensibilities of free market principles, belief that
God would allow climate change to hurt humanity's ability to live, love of
oil and coal given its cultural significance in America's history, etc.Consequently, one needs to discuss climate change's solutions to
fit the world view of conservatives.For example, Iowa -- that
conservative, agricultural state full of good farmers and Republicans -- now
gets almost 25 percent of its electricity from wind power! Yes, it's true.
In fact, wind is growing fast in windy conservative states, and bringing
significant economic benefits to good conservative folk. Even Wyoming is
building a power line through Utah to get its wind power to Nevada!Here's another nice thing about wind. It is price stable. The price of
wind is the same today as it will be 20 years from now because it has no fuel
costs. Can't do that with oil, natural gas, or coal. The conservative
economic value of wind and solar is that it diversifies energy sources to
stabilize future energy costs, reducing risks in the marketplace. Republicans
The liberals are funny. They are agreeing that global warming my not be true,
but still wants to continue down the same broken path. According to the
liberals who produced the film "Cool It", the proposals that involve
more taxes and cutting emissions is wrong.Thanks to global warming,
the earth will be capable of feeding millions of more people. Why do you
liberals want to cut our food supply on a project that your own economists and
environmentalists say is not effective?
Dear Mr. Bennett,Even if humans weren’t a contributing factor
in global warming, wouldn’t we be wise to reduce pollution and curb our
human tendency for excessive material consumption and its subsequent disposal,
slow the overuse of natural resources, limit our unchecked population growth,
stop the destruction of ecosystems, wildlife and their habitats, drive
fuel-efficient cars, live in smaller homes, understand that all resources are
finite, and begin to realize that everything humans do has a negative effect on
the Earth?Even if humans weren’t a contributing factor in
global warming, what would it hurt to act as if we were? I can only see good
coming out of it.
Let me respond for Mr. Bennett.History shows beyond a reasonable
doubt that there is a direct correlation between the wealth of the nation and
how well it takes care of the environment. Standard of living is also directly
related to cost of energy. Measures that artificially increase the cost of
energy also reduce the standard of living, and inevitably result in long-term
harm to the environment in spite of the intentions of those who promote such a