Comments about ‘Letters: Bipartisan climate’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 16 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

"tax sources and producers of carbon emissions"? Right there you lost the right wing of the Republican party, if not the entire party (which is increasingly appearing to have only one wing, which might explain why it cannot fly).

higv
Dietrich, ID

Were supposed to never question an UN report? hmmm. How do you explain snow and colder than normal temperatures than? Just a way to destroy prosperity and control people. We cannot control the climate, why let it control us. UN is about control.

Liberal Today
Murray, UT

Yes let's tax those nasty oil and coal companies, for providing the electricity and gas the rich need and pay for, so they will pay the higher rates to cover the taxes, then filter the rich people's money through the federal government, where they can take out 80% for the things we liberals want paid for, and then give a token 20% back to the people.

That is a brilliant sneaky way to raise taxes on the rich.

But won't the rest of us have to pay higher prices too, and only get about a fifth of it back in rebates?

joeandrade
Salt Lake City, UT

The 38 member team has the opportunity to bring forward ideas, challenge assumptions, and make the public aware of the issues and the problem - and to puncture the Governor's growth bubble. Everything that DAQ/DEQ has proposed to 'improve' air quality is needed. But all those 'solutions' are not nearly enough.

The major problem and challenge is growth itself. Every additional body, family, car, business, activity in this valley will contribute to air pollution. That's the real reality.

The solution is to NOT encourage growth along the urban Wasatch Front. That means no new highways, greatly decrease subsidies and incentives for new business, etc. There is more to Utah than the Wasatch Front - and most of 'rural' Utah is eager and willing to accommodate some growth.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

I’m always a bit amazed at how pragmatic & wise former elected officials become when they no longer have to pander to the lowest common denominator of their party – there are exceptions of course (e.g. Sarah Palin).

But unfortunately Gerald to get elected in today’s Republican Party, one must hold fast to two beliefs – 1) taxes are always evil (even net neutral ones like what Bob Inglis and others are proposing to deal with climate change), and 2) climate change, even if it is happening, will not be any big deal because God won’t allow it (or Jesus will return before it gets really bad).

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

@HIGV -- How do I explain snow? It's the result of an atmospheric temperature imbalance. The CO2 spike is causing wilder fluctuations in temperature. So you're going to get more and more intense vacillations, which means giant snow storms (S Dakota this week) and giant typhoons (India this week). It's only going to get worse.

Sensible Scientist
Rexburg, ID

The problem with this letter's opening statement is that the IPCC is a highly political and politicized organization. Its opinions in no way "lay to rest" climate issues.

stuff
Provo, UT

Sorry, but a bunch of agenda-driven foreigners have not laid this issue to reset. 1) Climate has ALWAYS changed, even dramatically. 3,000 year-old sea ports are miles from the nearest ocean, indicating that sea levels dropped in a very major, significant, life-changing way; 2) The UN report ignored the reports own findings that temperate increases have not occurred as expected for the last 15 years; 3) Top MIT scientists lambasted the report for its flaws; 4) Nature is the greatest recycler and purifier. Do you think for a moment that CO2 remains as CO2 in the atmosphere forever? Not hardly, it is quickly absorbed by plant life and turned back into oxygen, on the simplest level. Everything we have or do anything with came from the earth/atmosphere and everything we do will go back to the earth. Period. Man's impact is inconsequential (except for relatively short-lived pollutions that we should take care of.); 5) Naturally occurring gases are a much greater contributor to atmospheric makeup than anything mankind contributes. Use a real measuring stick rather than emotions to do the math.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Let’s see, the third world stands to profit from carbon taxes levied on carbon users – aka a massive wealth transfer from the US to third world despots and NONE of it will reach their people.

With motivation like that, how can ANYONE with any sense NOT question a UN report on climate change?

Tyler,
Hate speech on two fronts – saying those who vote GOP are the lowest common denominator and also attacking those with religious convictions. You’ve outdone yourself this time. Ah, if only you allowed the right to be as “tolerant” as you are!

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@stuff – “Do you think for a moment that CO2 remains as CO2 in the atmosphere forever? Not hardly, it is quickly absorbed by plant life and turned back into oxygen, on the simplest level.”

Yes, it’s called the Carbon Cycle and when it is in balance (like a financial statement) it works great. The problem today is we have thrown that cycle out of balance by overloading one side of the ledger.

So the question now is, “if the Earth (plants, oceans, etc…) cannot recycle all the carbon we put out in a given year, what impact does that extra carbon have on the biosphere?”

@lost in DC – “Hate speech on two fronts – saying those who vote GOP are the lowest common denominator and also attacking those with religious convictions.”

Do you have an argument against my point or were you just going to go with the politically correct ad hominem “hate speech?”

stuff
Provo, UT

@Tyler: "So the question now is, “if the Earth (plants, oceans, etc…) cannot recycle all the carbon we put out in a given year, what impact does that extra carbon have on the biosphere?”

I guess we all suffocate and die from too much CO2 and too little O2. Life sucks.

Actually, there's a range of tolerance for this. So far, no one has died, climate change is not due solely to the amount of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and Mother Nature will take care of any imbalance.

The only real loss is the prohibition against mankind improving living conditions on the earth.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

If we can deny we caused it, we don't have to fix it. And it would be a shame to clean the place up for nothing, eh?

Swiss
Price, Utah

Whose carbon emissions are below those advocated in the KYOTA accord. Only one country the USA. Europe hasn't come near lowering its emissions as the USA has. China and India are spewing Carbon Dioxide and pollution out so that they make the Wasatch Front on their worst day look like clear days.
Any volcano puts out more CO2 in few days than mankind has since the industrial revolution started in England. The fires caused by the mismanagement of our western forests put out tons of CO2.
So lets raise our energy prices, let put the Navajos and Hopis out of work by shutting down their power plant. As a matter of fact lets shut down our coal plants, lets limit our hydropower plants in the name of a few warm water trash fish, lets not build any new nuclear power plants. let stop fracking.
After that what will we have accomplished unilateral economic disarmament. Gee we may finally freeze to death in the dark.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Tyler D "Do you have an argument against my point...?"

What point? Painting caricatures is not the same thing as making a point.

"...what impact does that extra carbon have on the biosphere?"

Something entirely different than the climate models predicted: zero global warming in the past 15 years (which the authors of the IPCC report chose simply to ignore.)

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Nate – “What point? Painting caricatures is not the same thing as making a point.

Thought I did make a point – Pledge signing Tea Party Republicans hate any tax and think climate change is no big deal. And what’s the fun of making a point if you can’t make it provocative or satirical?

And you and others have made a fair point about the models (I think… haven’t studied it in depth), and I’ve said it before that at the end of the day you (climate deniers) may be right. It may turn out that the Earth has a much bigger self-cleansing mechanism than we think.

But I (along with most climate scientists) doubt it. And what’s more, the Deniers are simply making guesses and having “faith” in their views – they haven’t “earned” their doubt through scientific inquiry.

Doubting AGW because the models need refinement is like doubting modern economics because economists cannot predict where stock prices will be in the future. Should we go back to a tribal/barter society based on that fact?

(Almost) always enjoy your comments Nate…

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

Tyler D and gang

Anytime science and politics are mixed, you get GIGO.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Swiss – “Any volcano puts out more CO2 in few days than mankind has since the industrial revolution started in England.”

A totally bogus claim – please google this.

What’s more, volcanos spew lots of ash and particular matter into the atmosphere which contributes to cooling and serves to off-set the warming effects of CO2. Further, volcanos are one-off events which are easily absorbed in a relatively short time (year or two at most) by the Carbon Cycle and thus completely different from what we’re doing – putting carbon in the atmosphere at a continuous & ever increase rate, making it impossible of the Carbon Cycle to ever “catch up.”

@m.g. scott – “Anytime science and politics are mixed, you get GIGO.”

Definitely some truth to your point. And from what I’ve read over the last couple years, most climate scientists (IPCC notwithstanding) have learned this lesson and are staying totally out of politics these days.

Which they should… their job is to simply do the best (factual & unbiased) science possible and pass along their findings to society.

Reached comment limit…

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Tyler D "I...haven't studied it in depth"

A course of action suggests itself.

"what's more, the Deniers are simply making guesses and having 'faith' in their views -- they haven't 'earned' their doubt through scientific inquiry."

I think that when you look into it, you will find that climate skeptics base their objections more on science than on religion. Scientific inquiry begins when someone notices that the real world doesn't behave according to accepted theory. Asking the question, "Why are the models wrong?" is an example of scientific inquiry.

An example of what scientific inquiry is NOT, is saying something like, "A lot of other people believe this, so it must be true." Unfortunately, too many climate alarmists think this way.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Tyler D "But I (along with most climate scientists) doubt it."

By the way, I think you overestimate the breadth of climate alarmism in the scientific community. Please see "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" on the Forbes website.

to comment

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