Comments about ‘Dan Liljenquist: National climate assessment’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 15 2014 4:23 p.m. MDT

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

"Thomas Malthus, who famously predicted that population growth in Europe would lead to the extinction of the human race." Famously predicted my foot! Malthus was not an idiot. His main concern was the state of the lower economic classes whom he believed were often hurt by population increases. His concern was to occasionally put brakes on population increases through various means such as postponed marriage and absolute chastity outside of marriage. If population couldn't be controlled is such ways, population brakes like food shortages could afflict the lower classes. Malthus did not subscribe to the notion that mankind was fated for a catastrophe due to population overshooting resources.To my knowledge he never predicted the extinction of the human race.

Your uniformed views of Malthus makes me question your views of climate change.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

"The overall human condition is far better today than it was in 1895 when we first started recording global temperatures."

So, because we have made economic and scientific advancements over the last 119 years we shouldn't worry about the dire consequences of global warming?

Mr. Liljenquist is an economist by training, after reading this I'm convinced that he knows no more about climate science than the man on the street. Rather than have people write outside of their area of expertise, why not have a qualified professional like BYU's Summer Rupper, a climate scientist, give us their opinion?

micawber
Centerville, UT

I agree that we need to be adaptable to deal with climate change. That includes being willing to embrace renewable energy, being willing to cooperate with other countries like China and India, and thoughtfully considering economic policies that will help shift consumption patterns. But I think some people argue that we need to adapt while at the same time rejecting out of hand any of the changes that are key to adaptation.

airnaut
Everett, 00

When a politician wanna-be,
writes one newspaper article after another,
and consistantly sides with the 3% of the Global Warming deniers,
and argues against "Science",
and loathes the EPA,

Who do we believe --

The Scientists who report Science based on facts and data?
or
The Political Politician Newspaper writer who will say or do anything to get elected?

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

Well said Dan!

I suspect I'm probably more worried than you about the deleterious effects we are having and are likely to have on our environment. But, the almost hysterical and very UNscientific stance of many of the staunchly zealous environmentalists seem almost as great a threat to our civilization.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Dumping of massive amounts of carbon will do something. When everyone in Mexico and China has two cars and a SUV will it still be a non-issue?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

And please don't forget the additional 1.2 Billion people in India...

America = 320 Million

For 100 years, Americans have been telling the world to be "just like us".

Can you even imagine what the world will be like in 20-30 years when --
India (1.2 bil), China (1.35 bil), Mexico (200 mil), and Brazil (200 mil) ==
all have people living like people do here in Utah?...
4,000 sq ft houses, 2 cars, SUVs, and Trucks -- and driving 80mph?

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

This:

"Based on their own models, if Americans immediately stopped consuming all fossil fuels and collectively held our breath for the next 80 years, at best we would see a 0.5 Fahrenheit degree reduction in what climatologists predict will be a 4 degree increase in average global temperatures."

So, what do you True Believers intend to do? This is your 97% talking. Better get into line and march.

Sell the car, unless it runs on wind, solar, or biomass. And what's with all that exhaling?

Get to it. You have a world to save.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"they vastly underestimate mankind’s ability to adapt, survive and progress in a changing world."

Seriously Dan? Have you listened to your fellow Republicans? There's no discussion in their minds at all. It's all a hoax, not real, a socialist plot to gain control over the economy, a ruse to make money. Need I go on?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Ole Danny Boy is doing is monthly pandering to the tea party.

As much as he tries to appear as a moderate, he always goes back to his low information voter roots. He loves that tea party calling tree!

It's time the rest of us move on. Those who believe that the earth is flat and that the cure for diseases is to bleed people need to be left behind. We need to stop enabling ill-educated low information voters from having any influence on our politics.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Yes, climate change has occurred naturally throughout a Earth's past. That's irrelevant, because the rate of change we're currently causing is happening about 10,000 times faster than prior natural changes. Species simply can't adapt naturally that fast.

Lillienquist seems to be taking he attitude that as long as he can crank up his A/C a little more there's nothing to worry about. That's incredibly short-sighted.

The choice now before is whether we land softly or clash hard. Continuing business-as-usual is simply not an option. We do NOT need to shrink the global economy, but we do need to vigorously expand our efforts to to wean our economy away from fossil fuels. Technologies and business models exist to make this succeed. Germany already gets the overwhelming majority of their energy from renewable sources - we're capable of that, too. Even better, in fact.

Failing to make the effort only guarantees that you fail.

Climate change denialists need to acknowledge reality and pay attention to the actual science instead of the oil and coal companies who will cheerfully wreck the planet so long as they can make a quick buck from it.

FT
salt lake city, UT

I think it's refreshing to finally hear a right wing conservative finally admit the science is correct and climate change is real and human beings play a role in it. The real debate should not be on the science but on the solution(s), if any. I believe human beings are no different than any other animal species when it comes to controlling their actions to avoid over extending the carry capacity of their environment.
Mother Nature has been around for over a hundred million years, long before man or any religon which he created. She'll survive the era of man, just as she survived every other era in her existence.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Nate – “This is your 97% talking. Better get into line and march.”

The first step to solving any problem is to first recognize there is one (and what the causes are).

Problem is in America today we have a situation where facts, evidence and data appear insufficient to changed highly politicized minds. These minds (ironically, often very religious) do not believe in a God designed natural order of things (in this case, a natural carbon cycle) where changes to this natural order occur over hundreds of thousands of years (one time shocks like volcanoes and meteor strikes notwithstanding).

Instead they believe we can ignore this natural order, do whatever we want to alter it in unprecedented & ever increasing ways, and the results will be either negligible are awesome (more CO2 means more plants).

By the way, this is the hubris I was referring to in my earlier “you’re smarter than God” comment.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

It was one of the warmest winters on record globally. The inability of easterners (California had their warmest winter on record) to realize that a cold winter out east doesn't mean the entire globe had one too is their own problem. The reason for calling it climate change instead of global warming is that the latter makes it seem like it's just warmer temperatures. The former highlights the broad impacts from glacial melt to ocean acidification.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

I'd be interested in knowing how many times Dan voted in the legislature to actually DO
something about this problem. How many times, on the other hand, did he vote as told by industry/business lobbyists who warned that a wrong vote might result in his being labeled a "neo-malthusist"?

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Dan, I appreciate your views on the necessity for adaptation to change. Why then do your conservative friends resist any and all attempts to "adapt"? I refer to the rah-rah approach to draining every last drop of oil and burning it, the constant mockery of alternative energy sources, the continual efforts to hobble environmental regulation? Why the never-ending drumbeat of attacks on EPA, BLM, and any agency that seeks to "adapt" instead of riding roughshod over our fragile planet? Why for instance the "conservative" howling over GSE Monument, which prevented the rape of the lovely Kaiparowits Plateau for its coal? I submit that the hearts and minds of conservatives are located in their wallets. Please refute if you can.

Mormon Ute
Kaysville, UT

A well thought out and well written opinion piece. While I have disagreed with Dan in the past, I agree with his position on climate change. We know our climate is changing and that we have an impact on it. What the different sides of this issue disagree on is how much of an impact we can have and how we should be reacting to climate change. The idea that the government should be stepping in and forcing us all to accommodate one side of this issue is ridiculous, but of course this is the same government that has forced us all to buy their version of acceptable health care or be penalized. So we shouldn't be surprised.

Our government should also not be engaged in protecting everyone from the effects of climate change. Our climate is affected by events we have no control over. Studies of the deep layers of arctic ice have revealed particles from coal burned in England in the 1800's. We should all be prepared to react to the impacts of climate change in our own lives and in our own ways.

Eliot
Genola, UT

Dan admits that global climate change is real. That means he does not deny climate change nor side with those who do. Furthermore, he makes it clear that he believes climate is influenced by human activity. His piece questions the efficacy of current policies to deal with climate change. He has neither addressed nor denied the science behind global climate change. Instead, it appears he is looking for a place to start a civilized debate on what we can do to protect the future of our planet and our posterity. For this, Dan is mercilessly attacked and mocked by many who would have us believe they are open-minded or at least capable of considering thoughts and ideas different from their own.

Madsen Hall Magic
Centerville, UT

I am curious to know why the weatherman has a difficult time getting the 10 day forecast right, but we can predict long-term climate under the guise of "climate chaos" or "climate change" or "gullible warming"...oops, that was supposed to be "global warming".

I don't see Gore, or Obama, or Clinton, or other liberal leaders giving up their SUVs, their jet travels, their big houses that burn through lots of energy. They live the high roller life but ask the rest of the "little people" to scale it down, significantly. See, I believe they only want us to stop using fossil fuels, but they don't really intend the same for themselves. How else would Obama fly all over the world? I don't think his jets will work with a wind mill attached to the fuselage.

And liberal posters here, who drive their vehicles and live in AC homes, want the people in India, China, Mexico and Brazil to not even think about attaining the American lifestyle.

I just see and hear a lot of hot air...and its not from the climate.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Open Minded Mormon "As an Aerospce [sic] Engineer..."

...you design planes that burn large quantities of fossil fuels. And you do it for money.

@Tyler D "The first step to solving any problem is to first recognize there is one (and what the causes are)."

Now that you think you know...what is the next step? Have you given up burning fossil fuels? The High Priests of Climate Science have spoken. Wake up, man! The planet is stake.

Your belief system says you can affect the climate. I think that's hubris, but it's what you believe.

Or do you?

Actions speak louder than words, you know.

to comment

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