Comments about ‘In our opinion: Natural disasters should be off-limits for political debate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

I think the radical Left's fear of anything that they can't control i.e., the weather, brings to light their fears regarding their insignificance in the face of natural events. How sad to live your life as a secular being having no past nor post mortal future in your mind and thinking you must control everything in the present to have any hope for a few miserable years before the lights go out on a personal level.

It's not about the weather, it is about control of others to try and bring an modicum of security to one's self.

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

The headline I clicked on didn't have the same intention ans the article I read. The article is a national stanza to do nothing because we're not everyone in the world.

Do you think the mighty USA is completely powerless to lead when lesser countries are actually trying to mitigate their impacts on climate change?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

From the headline I was expecting more. Oh well.

But at least there is the acknowledgement that climate change is an issue and that human activity is a cause.

It is certainly true that no one weather event can be tied to climate change and that there have always been tornadoes and hurricanes.

As to the claim that "Any proposed legislation to combat climate change . . . would have no discernible impact on global temperatures unless nations like China and India adopt similar measures." True to a point. To clean the beach, you need everyone to stop throwing litter on the sand, not just the richest 1/4 of the beach goers.

But it is not true that the efforts of the 1/4 will do nothing. Also, it will be impossible to convince the other 3/4 to stop if the richest 1/4 won't stop. Eventually, we all need to be involved.

Stalling and waiting for "the other guy" to go first puts us into an odd game of "chicken". No one goes and the problem just keeps mounting.

Folks worry about other nations controlling us. But if we lead, then we are in control of our destiny.

Dietrich, ID

How do you explain tornadoes before the industrial revolution. We are mere ants here we can't change the climate why let it control us?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Isn't it confusing when a godless Congress blames one party for an "act of God"? What would offend God more, not passing an unbalanced budget, or 50,000,000 abortions? What would offend God more, a stalemate in Congress or a nation that is determined to undermine the most sacred unit: the family?

If personal acts lead to natural disasters, then perhaps the liberals in government should make a long list of programs and projects that are offensive to God and then "repent" by changing those programs and projects so that God would not be offended.

Anyone who reads the scriptures knows that there will be many horrendous "natural" disasters. Those who are sensitive to spiritual things understand what is happening. Those who have studied the prophecies know that these tornadoes and hurricanes are minor occurrences compared to other events. The prophets used the word "wickedness" when they assigned blame for these calamities. Maybe Congress should focus on the word "wicked" instead of focusing on the word "Republican".

Salt Lake City, UT

Whatever problems we have, "Climate Change" is being used not to fix them but to suck up large amounts of money and political power. The writer correctly points that out.

We know heavy pollution can cause problems, (China before the games) but water vapor is much more an issue along with methane than Co2. Co2 makes great plant food. We need to protect rain forests.

We need clean energy, clean air, clean water, clean land and energy independence.

We also need to encourage energy efficiency and technologies such as ground source heat pumps.

Coal is reportedly being removed fast enough in Utah that it could last only 15 to 45 years for use in Utah at current rates.

Many existing coal source locations could shut down soon, and we have increased risk of other mining collapses if they don't.

We will need more electricity to offset a reduction in the use of foreign oil, and we can't afford to just rely on coal.

How much oil and gas is untapped in Utah and can we get it without hurting our state treasures?

Do we have existing dams that we could add hydro power to, without putting more land underwater?

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Climate change is being used to suck up political power? How, by NOT doing anything about it?

Hook line and sinker. Red radio has you in the boat.

Salt Lake City, UT

The front headline reads, "In our opinion: The Republicans need to support fighting climate change". The article headline reads, "In our opinion: Tornado politics".

Those are two **very different** intros!

When I first saw the front headline I thought, "Oh no! Not another ridiculous push to "fight" climate change based on a particularly bad weather event!" When I actually read the article I found that I agree with virtually everything it (and its preceding headline) says.

What gives here?!?!

Does the Deseret News have separate editorial teams for headlines versus articles?

Los Angeles, CA

I can't personally stop global crime so why shouldn't I steal? I can't personally bring about world peace, so why should I not kill? Lots of people are immoral and I can't change that, so why should I be chaste?

This opinion piece is devoid of morality. It is also devoid of foresight. For the world to change, somebody has to do the right thing because it's right and somebody needs to step out and be a leader in trying to slow climate change. Why not us?

Somewhere in Time, UT

Somebody needs to do a better job of checking that the headlines match the articles.

I don't believe anything can be done by mankind to change or effect the climate. The climate has been changing since time began. The only thing we possibly can do (if we believe the climate is changing) is to make adjustments accordingly. The climate has changed many times and mankind has always survived by adjusting to those changes. A thousand years ago the climate was much warmer than it is now and the people of that time lived a much easier and more prosperous existence. When the climate cooled down, they had a much more difficult time surviving. I don't believe there is any proof that a warmer climate would be detrimental. That's assuming it's even happening.

The idea that we, as mere mortals, can do anything to change earth's climate is colossal arrogance.

one old man
Ogden, UT

This entire article is simply a stupid capitulation to those who are in denial of facts.

Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Wastintime: I'm so tired of listening to climate change advocates claiming they are morally superior based on their belief in something that has not even been proved. I've just seen too many scientists who don't believe in global warming to be convinced. In fact, environmentalst future projections have been dismally inaccurate since the 50s.

What is devoid of morality is the notion that the poor don't have the right to keep warm or afford a car to drive. Only those who can afford solar power or hybrid vehicles should have a right to those luxuries. They shouldn't be allowed to have affordable fossil-fuel based cars or power. That elitest line is what's without morality.

I say this as one with a home totally powered by solar energy off the grid. I'm fortunte that I can afford this, but I don't believe others who can't afford what I can should be forced to freeze in the dark.

American Fork, UT

Repeat the utah armchair climatologists' motto: If we deny we caused it, we don't have to fix it. It's simple, lazy, selfish and foolish, but we're stickin' with it.

Pleasant Grove, UT

I guess it's no secret what the headline writer's opinion is on this topic.

However, the climate itself seems to be battling climate change. Global average temperatures have not increased in 15 years. As it turns out, we were wise not to base our policy decisions on some kooky fad.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

The DN has its head in the twister. Fact: Rampant pollution is causing climate change worldwide. Fact: The Republican party has consistently resisted not only the facts but any measures to temper pollution. Why is this? Because the Republican party is always more interested in short-term corporate profits than in the environment. That's also a fact.

Tooele, UT

Re: "But it is not true that the efforts of the 1/4 will do nothing."

Yeah, it is. Even honest climate "scientists" admit as much.

If AGW is an actual, palpable phenomenon, and if it is as advanced as Al Gore, the IPCC, and other such climate hucksters insist, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop, or even slow its effects over anything shorter than a 500-year [the persistence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere], or so, period.

By then, will Earth's residents even desire a return to a colder, drier, less plant-friendly environments? And, why should we presume to make that decision for them?

AGW alarmists have simply failed to make a case for heaving tonnes of money at such a nuanced, unproven, indeterminate "problem," particularly when they can't even define the effect we would be seeking by such foolhardy and destructive overreaction.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Cats – “I'm so tired of listening to climate change advocates claiming they are morally superior based on their belief in something that has not even been proved.”

Depends on how you define “proof.” Are you looking for the same level of proof that tells you 1+1=2… if you are you’ll be disappointed as no science ever proves anything by that standard.

Regarding the kind of proof science does provide, it might be enlightening to understand the difference between a healthy skeptic and a myopic denier. The following article provides a clear distinction between the two… which one are you?

“Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers” – by Dr. David Brin

@Nate – “Global average temperatures have not increased in 15 years.”

This is a canard… 1998 was an unusually hot year largely due to El Nino so using it as your starting point will skew the data.

Makanda, IL

Of course it is a bit of a stretch to connect any single weather event with climate change, but these are the types of things we can certainly expect a lot more often. Insisting that because we can't know if *this one* is a product of climate change, we should just go on with business as usual is incredibly short-sighted. Endorsing not changing our own bad behavior until the Chinese change theirs first is hardly the kind of standing for something the DesNews should be proud of.

Holladay, UT

The reason we are seeing more destructive storms in recent years is because we have more developed land to be destroyed. There are a lot of tornadoes that don't get reported outside of the Weather Channel because they were in rural areas with few man-made structures.

The earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the ice age, that is obvious to anyone who is willing to study the facts. Since the industrial revolution there has been an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Has this created an increase in the warming of the planet? I would say yes. As the earth continues to warm the tundra in Siberia will melt and release massive amounts of methane which will lead to even more warming. I just don't think any amount of climate change policy will reverse the trend. In my opinion we should focus our attention on how to adapt to the changing climate.

Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Matt4226: You are making my point exactly. If the climate is changing, let's learn how to adapt to it rather than bankrupting ourselves trying to stop it. I don't believe there is one thing we can do to stop climate change. The climate has constantly changed since the beginning of time. Mankind has survived by adapting to it. That's the correct approach.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments