Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: Good for business, good for economy’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 6 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Tuesday, Aug. 5 2014 10:21 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
showlowdoc
Show Low, AZ

Another doomsdayer remanufacturing utterly useless facts that have nothing to do with mankind changing the climate in any serious way. Can someone at Deseret News please just take a break, and find out why so many intelligent people from across the world are calling the bluff on this debunked theory? It's preposterous to think that CO2 at all, let alone man-made CO2, can be the driver of catastrophic global warming. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but runaway greenhouse warming is not possible. I love how everything "will" be so bad, all in the future. That's all they have to do on--fearmongering of what "will" happen. Shameless.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

"The world will end unless you put me in charge of it."

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

A CARBON TAX is now responsible for destroying the economic prosperity of a nation. With less than two months since the Gillard Government introduced the carbon tax in Australia, businesses and consumers are beginning to feel the pain of increased costs that are directly associated to the carbon tax. Prices of nearly everything are inflating, especially food prices. Everything rabid environmentalist promised about the wonderful benefits of implementing a carbon tax is turning out to be totally false! Aussies will soon be forced to repeal their carbon taxes to avoid at total collapse of their entire economy.
Will we learn from other's experiences or will we doom ourselves to repeat their mistakes?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

No no no... You don't you get it? The more businesses we can destroy... the better it is for the economy!

It would be better if EVERYBODY worked for the Government. Because we ALL know the Government creates jobs... not businesses!

David Folland
SANDY, UT

For those who continue to deny the reality and risks of climate change, like some who have commented on this excellent op-ed, it's time to take off the blinders. It's not only 97% of climate scientists and every professional scientific organization in America that recognizes that human-caused climate change as happening and as a significant risk, it's business leaders throughout that world. Organizations that have taken a stand on the risks of climate change include the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the reinsurance company Munich Re, every U.S. property and casualty company, the U.S. military (see it's Quadrennial Review). There is also an organization called BICEP, Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, that supports policies to address climate change, and includes Nike, eBay, the Outdoor Industry Association, and many others. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

The author made the mistake of assuming that the EPA and other global warming advocates actually care about the environment and about the well-being of people in general. Their whole agenda is about power (political not energy) and they want to wield as much of it as possible so that they can do "what is best for us" which usually entails enriching themselves and their friends at our expense.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@JoeCapitalist2 – “Their whole agenda is about power (political not energy)…”

You touch on the entire reason this has become a political issue (when it should be a purely scientific one) and why so many have adopted the dogmatism of denial as a political strategy.

This approach may work in the short term, but history (including your children and grandchildren) is going to judge the denier dittoheads quite harshly (right up there with the Catholic Church viz-a-viz Galileo, Creationism, and slave holders).

So, rather than continue with all the denier nonsense, why not focus your energies on market friendly approaches to mitigation (e.g., cap & trade or a revenue neutral carbon tax)?

showlowdoc
Show Low, AZ

@ David Folland,

Ah, yes, the "97% agree" tactic. That was based on one very flawed study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the "97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc (because they didn't like the original 80% who agreed) and cherry picked what they wanted to get to the comfortable "97% agree" (100% agreeing would be too unbelievable to the general public).

That doesn't even speak to the actual raw data coming in. Did you know that catastrophic global warming exists only in scenarios's predicted by computer models? Did you know that we've had about 17 years to test the validity of those models with actual ambient air temperature and that the real temperature data reveal a wildly divergent result from what the computers predicted? The earth is simply not nearly as sensitive to CO2 as the vast majority of climate scientists predicted.

Read the children's book, "The Emporer's New Clothes" to discover a profound lesson on the psychological phenomena of "Groupthink". It's what led to the downfall of Rome, the rise of the Third Reich, Phrenology, and many, many other outrageous ideas. It is also happening today in American acedamia.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

This op-ed is weak. So we should let the EPA control our lives?

Whatever the EPA is for! Im against!

Whatever big coal and oil companies are for, I'm for too!

Coal and oil are truly altruistic. They don't care about profit, all they care about is what's best for us. Environmental people are weak commies looking to control our lives.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey 2 bits -

"The more businesses we can destroy... the better it is for the economy!"

Realists disagree.

We know that a clean energy economy can employ a LOT of people.

Not only that, but once a clean energy infrastructure is in place, the price of energy will decrease.

Ever heard of supply and demand? If there's a large supply of clean energy, the price for energy overall will drop.

And NOTHING stimulates the economy like cheap energy. Just think of how much money from your paycheck goes toward paying for energy. As far as your concerned, that money is pumped into a hole in the ground left by the removal of fossil fuels. Don't you have better things to do with your money?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

When a businessman says something is "good for business, good for economy" he has the assumption that the "economy" includes consumers, workers and ordinary people and their good is tied to the business good. It probably stems from the business notion that ordinary people are just cattle provided by the world for the benefit of business. It ain't necessarily so.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey ShowLodoc -

“That was based on one very flawed study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the "97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc”

WRONG

Your comment is based on misinformation circulating on the internet via Right Wing La La Land.

Lying Right Wing websites say that, but reality and Politifact disagree. Check out the Politifact article entitled “Do scientists disagree about global warming?”

Right Wingers are still in denial, but that doesn’t change the facts.

Face the facts.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Ultra Bob,
Re "he has the assumption that the "economy" includes consumers, workers and ordinary people"....

What "Economy" DOESN'T include consumers and workers???

Without consumers and workers... you HAVE NO Economy!

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@showlowdoc – “Did you know that we've had about 17 years to test the validity of those models…”

Two points –

1st, in any scientific discipline it is always the predictive models that are the last piece of the puzzle to fill in our knowledge (see medicine & economics as tow prime examples of this fact). The causal fact that excess CO2 (above the natural carbon cycle – google it) causes warming (and whatever other disruptions that may entail) is undisputed. If you doubt this I would suggest a rudimentary study of the planet Venus.

2nd, we are continuing to warm however it is currently happening mostly in the oceans (which are also acidifying at alarming rates). Do you want to guess when this overflow heat/carbon trapping capacity of the oceans will be exhausted, not to mention how the oceans will be damaged in the processed?

The fact that children’s books are informative on this issue for you is telling…

Thinkin\' Man
Rexburg, ID

What climate change? Nothing happening today is unprecedented.

They're tilting at windmills!

Esquire
Springville, UT

For those who thing addressing climate change is bad for business, you are like those who resisted computers because it would be bad for the typewriter industry. It's new economic activity and investment, folks!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

As new energy sources become available and become more affordable, businesses will adopt them. As for punishing them for being in business TODAY, and using the energy sources that are available TODAY... I don't know about that.

When energy from wind is more economical and more reliable than the alternative... who would NOT use it? Why spend MORE than you need to for energy when you are competing with companies that are using the newer/cheaper/renewable energy sources?

As for forcing them to use more expensive... less reliable energy sources... that probably won't work. They can't shutdown production just because the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. They will need something more reliable...

showlowdoc
Show Low, AZ

Tyler,

I'll try to take it easy on you...Nobody disputes that CO2 causes warming to a certain level. The main question is how sensitive is the feedback mechanism to CO2? Well, a bunch of climatologists predicted what would happen based on a very sensitive feedback process. After 17 years of real time data, they have been proven to have less than a 3% chance of being correct. Would you bank on a 3% chance? I wouldn't.

Let's go back and evaluate the first, second, third and fourth assessments of the IPCC. All the models used that so breathlessly hyped an average increase of >3C were predicting changes in ambient air, NOT THE DEEP OCEAN. Now that those models have completetly failed, someone came up with the idea that "all the heat is now in the ocean" so they can keep the scare-mongering up. Shameless.

Ah, the Venus rebuttal. I'm sure the atmospheric pressure being 90 times the earth's pressure has nothing to do with surface temperatures being so much hotter. Next time I cook dinner, I'll just try pumping a lot of CO2 in my oven instead of turning on the electric. A brilliant idea!

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

GaryO: “Hey ShowLodoc -

That was based on one very flawed study, yes one, by Peter Doran of the University of Chicago. They got to the "97% agree" statement by going back post-hoc”

WRONG
Your comment is based on misinformation circulating on the internet via Right Wing La La Land.”

No Gary, you are the misinformed one. If you had bothered to read the survey to which showlowdoc referred (Doran/Zimmerman 2009), you would have found these details: 10,257 scientists were invited to participate in the survey. 3,146 responded. Of those responding only 79 were “chosen” for the final result. 77 answered “yes” to two questions that the majority of us who are skeptical of doom and gloom climate change would likely answer “yes” to. Presto "97% consensus".

Mountanman: Australia repealed their destructive carbon tax this year in mid July. Canada is rolling back its “green engery” efforts. Spain and Japan are also seeing the light. The alarmist scam is running its course, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.

showlowdoc
Show Low, AZ

Gary O

I looked at your reference--It refers to two studies, one was the one I referred to (the Eos study), the other by the National Academy of Sciences, which in fact, never did a survey of practicing climatologists. In fact, they referred BACK to the EOS study for that.

I'll forgive your naivete.

To everyone else interested in the truth, please just Google "climate models v. reality". There's some good graphs.

to comment

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