Tough consequences

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Lucas APO, AE
    July 30, 2011 6:27 a.m.

    I think it's terrible that this man who loves Utah is sent 2 years in prison because of peacefully 'demonstrating' in a Governments' event. And Dear DN editor, this is not about global warming, he never talked about it yesterday. He said: "I am here today because I have chosen to protect the people locked
    out of the system over the profits of the corporations running
    the system." Tim DeChristopher at his sentencing

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    July 29, 2011 10:12 p.m.

    Global warming alarmists ignore prevalent evidence that disproves their global warming claims. It is more neigh to a belief system or quasi-religion than a science. Since 2007 many Americans have come to disbelieve this extremist groups obsessive beliefs in global warming. A.K.A. the founder of Greenpeace included among other former devotees. One can still respect the earth and yet not swallow their ideas that are so often clothed in radical hyperbole.

  • oldschool Farmington, UT
    July 29, 2011 4:49 p.m.

    Man-caused global warming is a hoax that is supported by inadequate scientific research, much of which has been compromised over political considerations. Guess which group is larger? The scientists who signed a UN document asserting man-caused global warming, or the scientists who signed a document calling man-caused global warming an unproved theory? Does anybody recall that the original temperature measurements used to create the theory of man-caused global warming were destroyed while adjustments that tended to prove man-caused global warming were preserved? I find it interesting that if temperature measuring stations that have been urbanized are taken out of the equation, there appears to be no global warming over the past decade or so. When I closely examine former vice-president Al Gore's outrageous and exaggerated claims over global warming, it's obvious that the left loves the idea of man-caused global warming as a means to demand the changes they seek, such as less gas and oil exploration, socialized transportation (as ineffective and as prohibitively expensive as that might be), more wilderness and a redistribution of wealth.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 29, 2011 4:39 p.m.

    Fossil fern said: Could some one please explain what the evil climate scientists have to get out of saying that we're going to have to radically change our lives.

    They make billions and billions selling oil and coal on the open market, oh wait that's the people who care about our health and our children's futures, right?

  • fossil fern SOUTH HADLEY, MA
    July 29, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    Could some one please explain what the evil climate scientists have to get out of saying that we're going to have to radically change our lives, very fast, to avoid dire consequences. It doesn't seem like these guys and gals are out to win a popularity contest, mansions in Malibu, etc. etc.. Motive, please.

    July 29, 2011 3:49 p.m.

    "Global warming is the codeword for genocide."

    That's one of the weirdest statements I have ever read. What do you even mean by it? That global warming will end up killing us all? Or that efforts to curb global warming will end up killing us all? Either way you've got some 'splaining to do.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    July 29, 2011 2:57 p.m.

    Global warming is the codeword for genocide.

  • govt rocks Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2011 2:50 p.m.

    Our judicial system beds to be reformed so punishment for victimles crimes do not end up costing tax payers money for incarceration. Is society changed for the better by throwing dechristophern in jail for two years because he caused a delay in a land auction that was illegal to begin with? I don't think so.

    July 29, 2011 1:03 p.m.


    The "conclusions are disputed by an overwhelming number of his colleagues", does not seem to take into account 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,029 PhDs, are not a handful "contrarians" who signed the Petition Project that the claim of settled science and an overwhelming consensus in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong.

    Overwhelming majority of scientists? Seems you missed 31,000 who don't agree, in your count.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    July 29, 2011 12:34 p.m.

    Just because DeChristopher wasn't protesting on behalf of an entire people, doesn't mean he wasn't practicing civil disobedience. Reversing your logic, DN, if I kill a man, it's not really murder, because Hitler killed 6 million. Was his contribution to society more modest than Rosa Parks or Ghandi. Undoubtedly. But he saw a situation he thought he could help, and sacrificed his freedom for it. And for that, he should be commended.

    PS - I don't blame the judge in this situation at all. His job is to uphold the law, not decide which ones should be followed. Everybody involved...the police, Mr. DeChristopher, and the judge played their proper role in the situation. Now it's up to citizens to demand proper changes occur.

  • brobrigham Bountiful, UT
    July 29, 2011 12:14 p.m.


    Is the article you cited the last word? End of discussion? The author of your article was Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who's conclusions are disputed by an overwhelming number of his colleagues. He has a long history of denying human-caused global warming.

    Spencer has connections to the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, ICECAP, all think tanks who have received big money from ExxonMobil. The author of the Forbes article you cited is also connected with one of these groups.

    Spencer is the equivalent of the handful of scientists funded by Big Tobacco who question the relationship of smoking and cancer. One can always find the contrarian, but what are the overwhelming majority of scientists saying?

  • brobrigham Bountiful, UT
    July 29, 2011 11:51 a.m.

    Mr. DeChristopher did a noble thing. That specific federal auction was unlawful and illegitimate. He focused attention on an abuse that would have slid under the radar for the overwhelming majority of us. Now the issue has moved from the blogs and publications of a few environmentalists to articles in the world's leading newspapers. Thank you, Mr. DeChristopher.

    July 29, 2011 11:13 a.m.

    Chris B.,
    "Horrible person" for disrupting an auction? Did he injure someone that I didn't hear about? People have gotten less jail time for doing much more harm. It scares me to think you might be on a jury someday.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 29, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    Depends on what your protesting...

    Representative Mike Noel and the protest riders who broke the law when they drove their ATVs up the riverbed May 9 did so under the watchful eye of federal law enforcement officials, who did not cite them. Noel has since said the protest riders had a right to do what they did and the feds were acting inappropriately to even be there watching them, taking down their license plates, no less, and threatening possible citations.

    This is the same Mike Noel who wants bogus oil-and-gas-lease-bidder Tim DeChristopher prosecuted to the full extent of the law...
    ...So some laws count, and some don't, depending on whether they agree or not with your politics.

    Why hasn't Mikey been thrown in Jail?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 29, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    cjb | 9:51 a.m. July 29, 2011
    Bountiful, UT

    "...Listening to Coast to Coast last night on KNRS, I listened to a climate scientist..."


    Ha, ha, ha.

    Enough said.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2011 10:37 a.m.

    Would have been cheaper to sentence him to life in a cave and a bike to get to his next demonstration.....

    July 29, 2011 10:26 a.m.

    It's unfortunate the defendant, a Global Warming alarmist, was not aware back before his civil disobedience, of the facts presented in a recent article in peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" and reported in Yahoo! News article titled: "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism." The study finds far less future global warming will occur than the UN computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

    Perhaps it would have saved him a lot of grief, $, and a few years in jail.

    This whole Global Warming farce seems to be unraveling since the 2009 Climategate data manipulations found in e-mail exposured from The University of East Anglica.

    I wonder if Al Gore will have to give back his awards due to his promoting a farce?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 29, 2011 10:15 a.m.

    DN is wrong. Dee Benson is no different from Judge John B. Scott who fined Rosa Parks and charged her court costs.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    July 29, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    The Bush administration's move to auction these parcels without required environmental impact studies violated federal law, as a judge later ruled. That ruling would probably have been too late to rectify the error- by the time that case was decided, development on the parcels would likely have already commenced.

    I don't see that there was any way to keep the illegal sale from proceeding outside of bidding for the parcels.

    I don't see why DeChristopher is tying his actions so much to climate change concerns- the climate change impact of a few new gas leases is marginal at most. But regardless of what you think of that, his action was civil disobedience directed at making the government play by its own rules, at curbing Executive branch abuses of power. To claim, as the DN does, that this has no merit because you don't think those executive actions "oppressed entire sets of disadvantaged and downtrodden people" is to give most despotic abuses of Executive power free rein.

    This ruling will be appealed, and Benson's move to prohibit the necessity defense won't stand in appellate courts. They may still find DeChristopher guilty, but they'll at least let him make his case.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 29, 2011 9:51 a.m.

    In the time of the dinasaurs the earth was hotter that it is now. In the ice age it was cooler. The earth constantly changes. Nothing new here. Who is to say we wouldn't be better off if the earth heated up from its present temperature? Or who is to say we wouldn't be worse off?

    From what I read, the earth was heating up prior to the industrial age, and it is now heating up, except for about the last 7 years.

    Listening to Coast to Coast last night on KNRS, I listened to a climate scientist who said the UN scientists who predict global warming are wrong in that they don't take into account the negative feedback that increased cloud cover causes as the earth heats up. Meaning that if the earth gets hotter, clouds will increase which will help cool the earth. He said this means global warming won't be as much as UN scientists predict. He says other scientists agree with him but they are afraid to speak out for fear they will be put on the black list for grant money.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2011 9:41 a.m.

    What a waste of my taxes to defend this horrible person.

    Enjoy your 2 year prison sentence. I wish it were longer.