Herbert challenges reality of global climate change

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • OOPS!
    Nov. 30, 2009 10:11 p.m.


  • Anonymous
    Aug. 13, 2009 10:47 a.m.

    Too bad Utah lost Governor Huntsman who was more a realist than an ideologue.

  • No warming ...
    June 20, 2009 11:33 a.m.

    No warming, just hot air.

  • Data
    June 20, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    "Are human activities responsible for the warming climate?
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists believe that it is very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) that most of the warming we have experienced since the 1950s is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."

    This is from the EPA's Climate Change site. I'd put the URL but the comment section won't allow posts with URLs. Just google EPA and Climate Change. They have plenty of information for everyone to read.

  • @ things have canged
    June 20, 2009 4:01 a.m.

    "As a matter of fact, in the times of the dinasaurs, CO2 was in much greater concentration in the atmosphere than it is today, it was hotter then too."

    Yep, and you see dinosaurs everywhere now don't you?

  • Anonymous
    June 20, 2009 3:49 a.m.

    Herbert told a lobbyist who approached him at the meeting that when it comes to energy issues, "regardless of the debate on the science, I'm a capitalist."

    That says it all right there. Procrastinate at the cost of humanity all for the sake of $$$. You're listening? Yeah right.

  • JN
    June 19, 2009 7:38 p.m.

    You say "people" say human impact on the earth is minimal. It would be more accurate to say, "some people", but don't let the facts get in your way.

    Governor Huntsman, I miss you! What were you thinking to have Mr. Herbert as your running mate?

  • Anonymous
    June 19, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    Herbert, a former County Commissioner and Real Estate Agent, is challenging the majority of scientists published views?

    That says a lot right there. Brash AND dumb.

  • Re: David
    June 19, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    i love the "follow the money" argument because it destroys your own argument.

    Compare the money made by auto and oil corporations by dismissing global climate change. Now compare that to money Al Gore makes from a movie or advisory positions on Hedge Funds.

    One is vastly different (and larger) than the other.

    Try to think before you speak.

  • David
    June 18, 2009 5:39 p.m.

    For those who say "The science is settled" and "The debate is over", you can easily tell by these comments that it's not over!! Most of the so-called scientific "facts" in Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" were disproved in a court of law in Britain recently. The court made the showing of the film to school students illegal without appropriate disclaimers. Also, the IPCC removed the "hockystick" graphic and theory in subsequent reports after Gore had used it in his movie.
    I would like to ask all of the alarmist believers who have written their comments to answer one question. The global temperature during the medieval was significantly warmer than it is today and people, animals and plants thrived. How was it so warm with so little CO2?
    If you want to know why so many people are pushing the "climate change" scare, follow the money! That tells it all.
    Go Mr. Herbert. I already like you as as our next governor.

  • CO2
    June 18, 2009 4:45 p.m.

    For those that believe that regardless of whether global warming is real or not, we should follow the new air standards just to take care of the earth, you may want to reconsider. Carbon Dioxide was not a pollutant until the global warming debate and if this theory is not true, it still poses no harm. The problem arises when considering whether we should spend all of our resources and effort battling a naturally occuring compound that may not have negative impact on the environment. Should man made global warming not be real, all these resources could be spent toward real environmental issues like water quality, air pollutants (SO2,CO,fugitive dust etc...), rather than chasing a phantom pollutant that we expel with every breath and that plants actually require. Before people dismiss the importance of this debate, you should consider whether you want the US to spend trillions of tax dollars and possibly sacrifice your way of life based on a theoretical model made by a scinetific commuunity that only 30 years ago was predicting global cooling.

  • Rocket
    June 18, 2009 4:29 p.m.

    Here are the global climate data for all you pagans who want to force the rest of us to join your earth-worshipping heathen religion and sacrifice our freedoms on the altars of your god of global climate change:

    Two years ago, as the sun was supposed to be starting the next solar cycle, nothing happened. No sunspots for the new cycle appeared, the total solar irradiance started dropping, and solar wind pressure dropped to lows never before recorded. As a result of the decrease in solar output the earth's climate started cooling quite rapidly as evidenced by people freezing to death in the Andean highlands of Peru and Bolivia, snow for the first time in 80 years in Baghdad and in places on the Arabian peninsula where local dialects have no word for snow because of how infrequently it happens. Here in the US, we just had the coldest and snowiest winter in over 80 years or on record, depending on the location.

  • Anonymous
    June 18, 2009 2:19 p.m.

    Who cares what an un-elected toady of this states establishment thinks?

    Maybe after Herby is out of office; he can open a think tank to compete w/ Al Gore's crusade.

  • Heaven help us!
    June 17, 2009 6:05 p.m.

    Boy, I'm going to really miss Jon Huntsman Jr.

  • There is NO debate...
    June 17, 2009 5:46 p.m.

    If we ARE causing global warming, then we should take better care of our earth.

    If we ARE NOT causing global warming, then we should take better care of the earth.

    Who cares? Our plan and debate should always be on how to be cleaner and more earth-friendly. I first learned this when I watched the movie when I was a kid of all of those Disney bears singing the anti-litter song, "You can pick it up, put it in the bag- boomp-boomp," doing their "rump-bumping" as they went along.

    I applaud any move to greener, renewable resources (solar, wind, etc). We are way behind where we should be on this. Of course we should recycle and be smart about our waste. The real waste is the argument of global warming. Of course our emissions are bad for us- look at the folks in the big cities and industrial areas of China. The climate will change regardless of our emissions. But if we don't continually improve our care of our home, our environment, our health, and our children's health, will pay the price.

  • Solstice
    June 17, 2009 5:42 p.m.

    Of course we'll have to wait until summer actually gets here...

  • Global Warming or Not...
    June 17, 2009 5:42 p.m.

    This Global Warming argument IS ridiculous! Evidence is rampant that the earth has gone through many periods of climate change. It will always change. True or not- the fact is that we SHOULD take care of our earth. We drink the water, eat food from its soil, and breathe the air. It is our home.

    Who needs a huge debate and lots of research? Suck on the exhaust pipe of a running car for a few seconds and then tell me if you think it's healthy. Drink tainted water or breathe the air downwind of ANY type of refinery or plant with significant emissions. It stinks- and it dirties the air.

    Both we and the politicians need to quit arguing and start just doing the basics of taking care of this awesome home we call earth. Each of us individually has that same responsibility.

  • I'm Cold
    June 17, 2009 5:29 p.m.

    If Global Warming continues at this rate we won't have a summer in a few years.

  • Tautological
    June 17, 2009 5:21 p.m.

    I like it when people declare the debate over in the middle of a debate. As a matter of definition, as long as people are debating, a debate is not over. The debate regarding the roundness of the world, for example, is over. I have never heard a single person argue in favor of flatness. No debate. Global Warming? Lots of debate all the time.

  • To PP | 2:25 p.m.
    June 17, 2009 3:44 p.m.

    Did anyone say anything about not being better stewards of our environment? You don't have to be a nut job to care about the environment. I have less of a "carbon foot print" than probably 90% of the so called environmentalists. I buy enough wind power to power my home. I live 3 miles from work and have a very modest size house. My wife does not commute because she is a full time mom. I do these things because it makes sense to me not because I believe in the man made climate change fairy tail. It is possible to be a good steward of the environment AND not subscribe to Al Gore's lie. The man made climate change myth is all about power and money.

  • PP
    June 17, 2009 2:25 p.m.

    So, we are not to be better stewards of our environment? We should not limit polution and other behavior which is detrimental? We should not be more efficient, ignoring new technology, but instead rely on 19th century technology? Think about it, we can do better (and my fellow LDS members should be first in line). Argue all you like, but don't make decisions based on what goes on in your locality or at one snapshot in time.
    CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a gas that is vital for sustaining life on the earth. And the current power technology is not 19th century. If you are going to make it a religious issue then you would be well served by not promoting lies to try an prove your point.

  • Climate Change
    June 17, 2009 2:19 p.m.

    Why has the term "Global Warming" been changed to "Global Climate Change"? Of course the climate is changing, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. The climate is ALWAYS changing. Now lets quit pretending that man can control climate change so we can address more important issues. Of course we won't have a convenient lie to justify more government control.

  • Golleeee
    June 17, 2009 2:08 p.m.

    Do you mean Al Gore could have been wrong? Shocking.

  • RE: 9:09
    June 17, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    Where did you get the statistic that there is precisely a 50% chance that God exists and zero chance that global warming exists? I want to see that data!

  • RE: John Pack Lambert
    June 17, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    "They [liberals, to be renamed later] believe in deneying [sic] men and women the right to bring forth as many children as they want and to fulfill God's command to multiply and replenish the earth."

    To replenish the earth of what? People? This is a serious question. Are not the 6+ billions of people currently residing on the planet not the most in the history of the 3rd rock? If so, then it's replenished, right? If not, what was the previous highest census for mother earth?

    Or is the earth to be replenished of its massive cities and metropolisis? Mega skyscrapers? Pregnant teens? Technological wonder and infrastructure? Single parents and latchkey kids? Internet gambling and pornography websites? Astronomical personal and national debts? What, exactly, is this commanded replenishment?

  • re: JH
    June 17, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    "Now the Chinese are roaring past America and gaining economic speed on us BECAUSE they are becoming more efficient and technologically advanced than America to combat global warming."

    No, the Chinese are gaining on us because they don't care about global warming. They pollute way more than the U.S. with their advancing but still older technology. Imposing legislation like cap and trade or the Kyoto treaty will further slow America's progress (which through innovation has actually helped reduce pollution because most American consumers are environmentally conscious to begin with) because we're the only country that would follow it.

    Have you been to China and other 3rd world, advancing countries? They are dirty dumps.

  • Re: JH @ 9:44 am
    June 17, 2009 12:26 p.m.

    You are spot on IMO. A lot of our manufacturing jobs are going overseas, because there are minimal regulations in China. You get cheap labor plus no mountain of legal/environmental paperwork. The net effect is, if we are really hurting the envirornment the more we have China produce our products the more we are hurting the environment.

    You mentioned Geneva Steel and they did produce pollution locally. How that effected the global environment/climate not one of us really knows. We can all throw out our theories, but at the end of the day that is all they are.

    Politicians/environmentalists act like they have all of the data points needed, but we only have a very small data sample and it isn't sufficient to support the claims that they are making. Bottom line. The beauty of global warming for them is they can make all of these rules/regulations and at the end of the day no one really knows if they work or not. If things go good they can claim that they do, and if not they can claim that we need more rules/regulations. Herbert is right for being skeptical.

  • Re: JH
    June 17, 2009 9:44 a.m.

    What planet are you on? The Chinese are more environmentally efficient than we are? Hello?

    Are you talking about the China that is building an average of one coal-fired power plant PER WEEK in order to keep up with their economic growth?

    Are you talking about the China that has such bad air pollution they had to shut down most of the industry around Beijing last year in order to have clear skies for the Olympics?

    Are you talking about the China that eagerly snapped up the steel-making equipment from the "filthy" Geneva Steel works in Utah County and shipped it back home to use there?

    Are you talking about the China that refused to sign Kyoto ten years ago and refuses to consider carbon caps today because they don't wish to hamstring themselves economically?

    I am continually amazed at the ability of environmentalists in general and Global Warming Believers in particular to ignore facts and modify reality in order to maintain their illusions.

  • its all good
    June 17, 2009 9:21 a.m.

    TO - re: its all good | 5:36 p.m

    ["Is your name Thomas Malthus?"]

    why yes it is. how did you know? are you going to explain to your children that you destroyed their planet?

  • re: RE: Thinker | 5:34 p.m.
    June 17, 2009 9:09 a.m.

    "Have you ever considered that God is myth? Teaching your children about God is great but probably less true than global warming."

    The difference between teaching God and global warming is that there is a 50% chance that God exists while there is a 0% chance that man-made global warming exists.

  • John Pack Lambert
    June 17, 2009 9:08 a.m.

    The anti-having children rhetoric earlier has gotten me to thinking that "Liberal" is the wrong name. These people do not believe in freeom, they believe in controlling the lives of others. They believe in deneying men and women the right to bring forth as many children as they want and to fulfill God's command to multiply and replenish the earth.
    Yes, we have to be wise stewards of the earth. However, God also wants us to have children to help more people experience earth life.
    On the question of global warming. The claims that many nations will be flooded seem over blown. Increased heat will also mean increased evaporation, more rain, decline in deseret areas and related occurances.
    The great time in history was the mideval warm period when the great Cathedrals were built, when Greenland was settled by sedentary farmers and similar occurances. We are not yet to those temperature levels.
    So even if anthropogenic global warming was proven, which it is not, that does not mean that things are bad.

  • JH
    June 17, 2009 9:06 a.m.

    Just what we need another global warming "skeptic".

    Wow a Guv from the "gravity is just a theory" gang.

    This is the same group who pushed the most delusional policies on America in human history, that caused America's spectacular decline that collapsed our economy, eliminating the middle-class, destroyed the International American Economic System, decimated our military power and ended America's domination of the world, making sure we are so weak NOBODY is afraid of us anymore, they are getting some power back! YEA!

    Now the Chinese are roaring past America and gaining economic speed on us BECAUSE they are becoming more efficient and technologically advanced than America to combat global warming.

    I guess we will just wave as they zoom by America. To think these guys are losing to China. That proves their "ideas" are the greatest failures and delusions in human history.

    To think combating global warming will be one of THE drivers of economic growth-but NOT in Utah.

    I guess California will get all the 21st century technology. And Utah will become America's Mississippi of the 21st century-they don't believe in global warming either.

  • Kirkland
    June 17, 2009 8:42 a.m.

    If you don't think it's political, chew on this list of the top recipients of environmental special-interest cash from 2000-2004:

    1. John Kerry
    2. Al Gore
    3. Paul Wellstone
    4. Barbara Boxer
    5. Bill Bradley
    6. Mark Udall
    7. Jay Inslee
    8. Jeanne Shaheen
    9. Jean Carnaham
    10. Barack Obama

    Do I even need to include their party affiliation?

  • Mc
    June 17, 2009 8:28 a.m.

    If you discount the opinions of scientists funded by oil companies, then you must also discount the ones funded by government grants. If they find that man-made climate change isn't happening their grant money dries up. They have to keep searching for data to support it and keep people scared or they will be out of a job. You can't eliminate the findings of one group of scientists based on their financial motivations without doing the same with the other side. Then only those scientists with nothing to gain by either result can be believed. They must be truly objective. In today's scientific world I tend to believe those who question global warming because they are risking their jobs and credentials when they question it. They may be blackballed by those who have a desired outcome and agenda rather than an objective approach.

  • Coal Miner
    June 17, 2009 6:05 a.m.

    I don't know if CO2 is bad or not.
    I just know what is the primary source of CO2.
    Its people.
    Or rather, birth rate.
    The more people in the world, the more consumption of energy.
    So how come poor countries with the highest birth rate, that will produce a lot of future energy consumers, and produce a lot of mouths to feed, blame the western world that happens to have the lowest birth rate?

  • You...
    June 17, 2009 12:37 a.m.

    ... have got to be kidding me...

    people actually believe in catastrophic global warming... hahahahahahahahahaha

    (I mean climate change)

    It's not even worth debating the "science" is so bad!!

  • Cade Foster
    June 16, 2009 11:53 p.m.

    One good idea would be to download the latest NIPCC book titled "Climate Change Reconsidered". It's a PDF document.

    On reading this document it is obvious that there is no real "consensus" on climate change and that we lack understanding of many important aspects of "climatic systems".

    Rather than assuming we know everything about a natural phenomenon, we should first tackle what we do not know.
    This is the first step on the road to enlightenment.

    BTW, I am a doctorate-level applied-scientist/engineer and
    the NIPCC book was a comfortable read for me. Unfortunately, this may not be the case for many people that do not have a science background.

    I suppose this is one of the main problems with this whole "climate change" (formerly "global warming") issue.

    i.e. Science has been thrusted upon the average person that may not have been well prepared to digest this science due to their background not being science-based.

    If this was done by accident or by design, I do not know.
    But, I would not be surprised if this was done by design in an attempt to falsely sway the people.

  • Real environmental crisis
    June 16, 2009 10:03 p.m.

    As a scientist myself, I have proven we may run out of C02 unless mankind steps in to save the planet. Photosynthesis is the reason! Plants adsorb C02 out of the atmosphere and in the presence of H0H and sunlight synthesize carbon into two 6 carbon chain sugar molecules and releases 02 back into the atmosphere. For every ton of sucrose and fructose plants produce, they will adsorb 6 tons of C02 out of the atmosphere. I entered this data into my computer model and learned we need approx. 9.376 billion tons of C02 each year to sustain life on the planet! Futher, my research shows that we could run low on C02 within 15 years unless mankind steps in to save the planet! Do it for Mother Earth! Do it for our children!

  • Re; Kevin
    June 16, 2009 9:40 p.m.

    C02 and Methane reflect sunlight down on the earth? Baloney! What experiments of physics are you referring too? The sun's rays come from space toward the earth and CO2 and Methane would have little if any effect on reflecting, and even if they did, why wouldn't they reflect the sun's rays away from the earth, just like clouds and water vapor do! Your science is junk! Stay off those wacko websites, they are filling your head with junk!

  • Re: Kevin of the Terrace
    June 16, 2009 9:28 p.m.

    Yes, but what will the effect be, and is it worth impoverishing ourselves in an effort to avert a "crisis" that is actually quite manageable?

    We already have a good idea of how the earth will react to excess CO2 emissions; it's called the past 200 years.

    Since the early 1800's the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from roughly 280 parts per million to about 390 parts per million today, or about 30 percent.

    Yet the actual measured temperature increase is only about 1.8 degrees fahrenheit during that same time period, less than a degree increase per century. Clearly, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration does not produce a proportional increase temperature.

    Yet we are asked to believe that another 40% increase of CO2 will suddenly create a runaway greenhouse effect that will threaten all life on earth, even though it didn't in the past.

    More importantly, the climate models of 20 years ago which were used to create the global warming scare in the first place did not even come close to predicting the actual temperatures today. So why should we believe them now?

  • Cambridge
    June 16, 2009 9:13 p.m.

    If we grant for the sake of discussion that the most dire predictions of man-caused global warming and ensuing disaster are correct, we are left with the evidence that the proposed solutions, most notably cap-and-trade, will make such a small impact as to avert none of the predicted calamities.

  • Kevin of the Terrace
    June 16, 2009 9:07 p.m.

    Look, it is a fact that CO2, Methane and other gases reflect the suns radiation back down to the earth. We know this from experiments in physics. We know this also from astronomy. Venus is hotter than it should be relative to its distance from the sun alone. The reason, green house gases. Likewise Mars is colder than it should be relative to its distance fromt the sun. Again the reason, it is devoid of greenhouse gases. Its not just conjecture. There has always been a carbon cycle on the earth which has operated under a balance with carbon fixation by plants and carbon release by decomposers, volcanoes, oceans etc. However, for many millions of years large carbon sources have been locked up in the ground in the form of fossilized plants. The worlds ecosystems, and our own agricultural systems, have evolved to be adapted to these conditions. It took millions of years to remove this carbon source. Now we are releasing CO2 at a pace of millions of metric tons per year. It will in fact have an effect. The unknown is how these systems will react to warmer temperatures. It is foolish to ignore the possible consequences.

  • Re: Utah is cleaning up the air
    June 16, 2009 9:03 p.m.

    Actually, you're the one in denial. But I've noticed that's not uncommon for environmentalists; they seem incapable of accepting anything less than news of human-caused catastrophes.

    Based on data from the EPA and the Utah Division of Air Quality -- you know, the scientists who actually measure the pollution and determine compliance -- there are four incontrovertible facts about Utah's air quality:

    1. The air quality along the Wasatch Front is better today than at any time during the past 50 years;

    2. Aside from a few weeks in the winter and a few weeks in the summer, the air quality in Utah is rated "good" by the EPA;

    3. Trends from the monitoring data indicate that the levels of all six toxic pollutants have been steadily declining for the past 20 years;

    4. And prior to new stricter air standards adopted in 2006 and 2007 all of Utah's urban areas -- including Logan -- were in compliance with EPA standards.

    Incidentally, the data from global temperature monitoring are not "cooperating" with the panic-mongers, either: Over the past 20 years the average global temperature has remained roughly the same.

  • John Pack Lambert
    June 16, 2009 7:06 p.m.

    To Grimble,
    Stop claiming turning lights off at earth hour was a political act. It was not clearly stated as such. If the CHurch wanted to support action on global warming, they would make an actual statement about it.
    It is interesting that the liberals are much faster than the conservatives to try to force the Church into being a supporter of their plans, despite all the claims to the contrary.
    The Church has no position on global warming. I think people on both sides need to tone down the rhetoric. Although you are not spiling the hate as much as some, your blanket assults on the character of the residents of Utah are uncalled for, and you need to accept that by attacking Herbert you are standing on the side of dogmatism and against open thought.

  • John Pack Lambert
    June 16, 2009 6:48 p.m.

    To the 1:37 commentator,
    I do have to agree that the comment you were responding to was uncalled for. However, there are multiple issues in your response.
    1- There is no evidence that the person who you responded to lives in Utah. That is an assumption on your part.
    2- Considering that he was responding to the accusation that "people in under-educated regions of the world believe it is okay to over-procreate", he is not the one who introduced calls for fewer people. His statements needs to be understood as a response to the claim that the world is over populated.
    If the world has TOO MANY PEOPLE, and IF you believe this is a major problem, than it the notion that drastic measures to reduce the population are called for follows, and this respondents statements made sense in that context. They were a response to claims the world was over populated, and do not seem to in anyway reflect the actual views of the person who made them.
    Again, your accusations are without base and caused by a failure to consider the actions of other people in context.

  • John Pack Lambert
    June 16, 2009 6:35 p.m.

    To the 9:32 commentator,
    True, the person may have used bad exaples, but their point is still valid. Prior to Copernicus it was accepted scientific fact that the sun revolved around the earth.

  • Grimble
    June 16, 2009 6:28 p.m.

    @Grimble at 1:37 said:

    "Well, please can you give us the date of the Church press release confirming their belief in global warming or climate change?"

    The Church turned off the lights to the Salt Lake Temple on March 28, 2009, from 8:30-9:30pm, in observance of Earth Hour. Scott Trotter, spokesman for the Church, discussed the Church's participation in a Trib article that appeared on March 26th.

    The meaning of the Church's participation is pretty unambiguous. The goal of Earth Hour, from organizer's official website, was "to reach the target of 1 billion votes by the time world leaders meet in Copenhagen for the Global Climate Change Conference in December 2009. This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol."

    But of course, not amount of evidence seems enough to convince Utahns. They'll insist a custodian accidentally leaning on the light switch...

  • Grimble
    June 16, 2009 6:13 p.m.

    To knowwhat@ 1:31:

    The 700 signers of Sen. Inhofe's minority report were not climate scientists--they included virtually any scientific field. So, as a portion of ALL scientists in the U.S., which the Census Bureau states is 3.5 million, 700 is a pretty tiny number. Furthermore, a number of scientists listed on it later protested that they had not consented to putting their names on it.

    The U of I survey, on the other hand, identified the specialties of the responders. The ONLY field in which doubters outnumbered believers was, surprise surprise, petroleum geologists. 90% of ALL scientists, and 97% of CLIMATE scientists believe in global warming. In other words, the more someone knows about climate science, the more likely they are to believe in climate change.

    There's lots of good scientific information right in our own back yard. Steven Peck and Richard Gill are both BYU climate science experts who have been working very hard to try to educate their fellow Mormons about the reality of global climate change. But Utahns are so blinded by their gleeful, childish Gore-hate, it's a difficult job.

  • JWW
    June 16, 2009 6:10 p.m.

    I'm glad to see Lt. Governor Herbert speak some common sense. However, the debate about MMGW should be over. There is insurmountable evidence that it is one of the biggest, politicized HOAXES of all time.

  • re: its all good
    June 16, 2009 5:36 p.m.

    Is your name Thomas Malthus?

  • RE: Thinker
    June 16, 2009 5:34 p.m.

    Have you ever considered that God is myth? Teaching your children about God is great but probably less true than global warming.

  • jfs
    June 16, 2009 5:23 p.m.


    Don't take me wrong, global warming has been going on for thousands of years. I believe there is no corrolation between global warming and carbon emmissions. I loose about two out of three posts to these sites on the DN. Don't know why. The papers ran a story a few days ago citing a south america glacier that is continuing to grow.

  • Reason
    June 16, 2009 5:21 p.m.

    Re: Goforit, 4:32pm: If youre talking about Prof. Pope at BYU, then, yes, Ill go ahead and respond. His work did not stick with standard scientific and statistical practices, and he refused to make his data available for peer review. So his supposed proof is in reality only wild guesses and means nothing.

  • Reason
    June 16, 2009 5:13 p.m.

    Some in favor of global warming solutions state that even if it turns out that mankind is not responsible for global warming, we will still have cleaner water and air or well still leave the world a better place for our children, etc. But this is nonsense. These supposed solutions will likely leave the world a much WORSE place, because they will be so destructive to our economy, our property rights, and our freedom.

    The wealthiest countries are the healthiest. But when you destroy much of that wealth in an attempt to appease the theoretical boogeyman of global warming, then the nation is much poorer and less able to pursue matters that have significant PROVEN health benefits. And the destruction of freedom is not worth it, either. Its like throwing a man in prison, but making sure his cell has ventilation we could congratulate ourselves: Sure, hes in shackles, but at least he has fresh air.

  • Thinker
    June 16, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    I may have been in the last class in Utah schools where a teacher dared teach that we should study the facts and think for ourselves, instead of merely parroting the media.... That was in the early 60s. I have looked at my childrens school books the past 20 years and become aghast at the massive propaganda campaign that has been going on, teaching children the opposite of what God tells us. Most of the comments here in favor of the global warming myth simply reflect the conditioning they have received over many years in the public schools. I have tried to teach my children to not believe everything they hear until they measure it against common sense and God's word. I would suggest that all of us do that, but it might be difficult for all of you who have been taught from your youth to NOT think for yourself, but merely engage in knee-jerk reactions to any stimuli that opposes your conditioning. Otherwise, the global-warming-caused-by-humans myth would have been scoffed out of existence years ago, when if first left the lips of Spotted Al.

  • Good for Warming
    June 16, 2009 5:05 p.m.

    If the earth is warming, why is that a bad thing? Personally I would think a warmer earth would provide many benefits to mankind (longer growing seasons, more usable land, etc.)

    Besides, what's the optimal temperature for our Earth anyway? We know it was colder in the Ice Age a mear 10K years ago. Who decides what the optimal temperature is? Another question, if we decide what the optimal temperature should be, how in the world can we keep the earth at a steady temperature, that sounds like quite the task.

  • KVD
    June 16, 2009 5:01 p.m.

    Herbert asked. "Help me understand the science."

    Subscribe to Climate Progress. Read the daily blogs of Dr. Joseph Romm, Ph.D. in physics from MIT. In 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Please become educated on this issue. The future of our children depends on the decisions we make now.

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    Herbert is just jealous of Gore's Nobel Prize and wants to get one himself!

  • Reason
    June 16, 2009 4:39 p.m.

    Wow, good for Herbert. In my book he just moved up another notch or two.

    In the article, Nick Bridge suggests that Herbert see dealing with climate change as taking a risk management approach, and he gives the analogy of a car with a 30% chance of brake failure speeding toward a cliff. But the problem with a risk management approach on global warming is that it is one-sided. It looks at the potential risk of doing nothing, thereby pushing us to take action, but it DOESNT look at the risk of TAKING that action. The proposed solutions to the supposed global-warming problem have GREAT risk they will have certain massive brake failure, because they will be so destructive to our economy and our freedom, and all based on a theory that has many holes in it. Sorry, but I dont want to get in that car.

    Herbert is right, and my hat is off to him. Hopefully he will have the guts to actually pull Utah out of the foolish Western Climate Initiative. The debate is far from over.

  • goforit
    June 16, 2009 4:32 p.m.

    are not any of you going to demean or disparage the BYU professor who is a leading authority on these matters? And what about BYU funding part of a large study?

  • Thomas Thompson
    June 16, 2009 4:22 p.m.

    The Gov's comments about global warming suggest -- not to put it too gently -- that he should not be permitted to serve as the leader of our state. Global warming is now beyond scientific dispute; man's culpability for this looming catastrophe is also now well beyond dispute. Where has Mr. Herbert been that he doesn't understand these immutable facts?

  • A_Chinese_American
    June 16, 2009 3:58 p.m.

    About 35 years ago, those so-called scientists told us, "Global Cooling", "Ice-age is coming!" I did some research for the titles of those books. They are looks very scary as same as right now "Global Warming" books. Is this movement another hypo to "stimulus the US economy"? What a shame.

  • 2+2=5
    June 16, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    I have "experts" and Al Gore supporting the facts on this!!!!!

    After you take a pair of 2's, put them through an intense simulated "ice age", then put them through an intense simulated "global warming", then add in their "carbon print" you miraculously come up with a pair of 2.5's, making the "theory" a "fact" that indeed, without any doubt, because the debate and the science are "over", 2+2=5.

    Al Gore said so, and so does his long line of sheep following him. Plus I read it on the internet through google - so it must be TRUE

  • Utah is cleaning up the air?
    June 16, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    What Utah's air is clean? You're in denial man, have you seen the inversion lately? Have you actually looked at the science? A recent desnews article stated that Logan had some of the worst air quality in the country. I agree lets bring in nuclear waste and increase carbon emissions, great idea, burn baby burn.

  • Three cheers for Gary
    June 16, 2009 3:41 p.m.

    Finally a governor who will refute the Enviro Nazis. This has sure been an awfully hot summer. LOL!

  • Aaron
    June 16, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    Jfs, Nasa only came up with the conclusion that some ice caps would increase, after the observations didn't match their hypothesis. 2nd do you know when the glaciers on Mt. Cook peaked? It was about 7500 years ago. We are barely scratching the surface when it comes to understanding how the climate works.

  • A_Chinese_American
    June 16, 2009 3:31 p.m.

    I still don't get it: Why those people change the wording to "Global Climate Change" from "Global Warning"? I am 100% sure climate has changed and is changing and will change, this does not need any science! The question remaining to our ordinary people still is: how people change the climate? is it good or bad? 100 million years ago, without people, climate was changing? why? how big the human factor is? I still don't get it! I got my applied physics degree 20 years ago.

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 3:03 p.m.

    re-re-knowwhat | 2:30 p.m
    ["Still no proof provided from the extremist claim"]

    now that's calling the kettle black... are the extremeists the ones for saving the planet or against it? pls elaborate...

  • its all good
    June 16, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    don't believe in global warming? don't think we're ruining the planet with our wasteful ways?

    thats fine - its all good. We won't be around when it all falls apart anyway. you, on the other hand, with your dozens of kids, will have ruined your childrens future. and I'm sure you'll say God had a hand in it...

    so its all good...

  • Aaron
    June 16, 2009 2:51 p.m.

    Plate techtonics are much more violent then man could ever dream of being. They do more damage to the earth than we could ever possibly do. 99% of all species were extinct before the humans started ruining everything. The Earth is extremely resilient. Species have always changed and adapted to their cicumstances, hence natural selection. For those who think we're killing the earth, learn a little about science and how the earth works then come discuss.

  • Sad Reality
    June 16, 2009 2:38 p.m.

    The sad reality is that global warming is real and Herbert will be our governor.

  • Shaun N
    June 16, 2009 2:32 p.m.

    You can still be a good steward of the earth and not buy in to the Global Warming power grab. Fear is a politicians favorite tool to control the masses and both parties are masters at using it. It is refreshing that Herbert is willing to recognize there is disagreement on GW. Just my opinion.

  • re-re-knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 2:30 p.m.

    Still no proof provided from the extremist claim, I gave you the places you could look up the data, but I can planly see you would rather read it on some blog or hear it from your Fuhrer(Gore), than study it for yourself. If you would like me to provide that exact pages and scientist's please let me know. Otherwise go back to your propaganda and name calling distractions.

  • jfs
    June 16, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    NASA says, "In addition to increasing the amount of melting, global warming would also be expected to increase the amount of precipitation in the polar regions.... Global warming could therefore be expected initially to increase both melting and snowfall. Depending on which increase dominates, the early result could be either an overall decay or an overall growth of the ice sheets." Sounds to me like the science is settled. They also said they need more observations to see if climate models are correct.

    Sounds like the models are theories to me.

  • Re: re - Nate | 11:39 a.m
    June 16, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    "what's your point? the issue isn't "average global temperatures" or climate change in Utah."

    Really? I thought that WAS the issue, that increased human-caused CO2 emissions would lead to a significant increase in temperature.

    If the actual data show NO significant increase in temperature over the past 20 years despite a steady increase in CO2 emissions during the same time period that kinda blows the whole Global Warming theory right out of the water, doesn't it?

    Whether or not the polar caps are melting is irrelevant. If the earth's temperature isn't increasing yet the caps are still melting then it might be due to something entirely different.

    That Red Herring, plus your gratuitous anti-Mormon slur only confirms what I posted earlier: In the Great Debate over Global Warming, the sceptics have all the facts. The Believers have only insults and invective.

  • don't believ in global warming?
    June 16, 2009 2:24 p.m.

    do some of you REALLY not believe we are killing this planet? are you stuck in the 1800s?

    how can you possibly look around and NOT think we are ruining the planet?

    wow - I'm at a loss for words. No wonder you all voted for Bush...

  • For 1500 years
    June 16, 2009 2:24 p.m.

    . . . there was near-unanimous (much greater than 97%) scientific consensus that Ptolemy's astronomic theories were correct, and that the universe was mounted on and rotated within a series of nested crystal spheres.

    That consensus did not render Ptolemy's theories correct.

    Teaching point:

    Whenever a "scientist" tries to convince you with a consensus view, it means two things --

    (1) He has insufficient facts to make his case, and

    (2) He's selling something.

  • That's Awesome!
    June 16, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    I have also never been convinced that society has caused a global change of our climate. I am very pleased that we have a leader in our state that feels the same way. I think it is a very arrogant stance to take to think that us little ol humans are powerful enough to cause such a global change. It is even more of an arrogant stance to think we are intelligent enough to stop or change this alleged new global event. The only real answer to the "Gullible Warming" scare is that some people have found a way to make huge amounts of money and have power and control over others. That's really the only reason to come up with such an allegation. Give em heck, Herbert, don't give in!

  • re:re - Knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 2:16 p.m.

    NASA studies indicate that the ice pack in the Antartic has increased by 100,000 square miles per decade for that last four decades. Do your own research knucklehead.

  • re - Knowwhat | 12:58 p.m
    June 16, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    ["I'm sorry but the caps are not melting faster. You better do some research and you will find that Antarctica has some areas melting but the majority of the continent is colder and has more ice that ever before. NASA website will help you with this. Also Artic ice has increased by about 30 percent since 2005. National snow and ice data center.
    Stop drinking the koolaid and do the research"]

    wow - I don't know what planet you're from, but here on earth, the poles are melting faster than ever before. I suggest you actually read some literature and scientific studies rather than just listen to your crazy govenor wanna-be...

    and it's not the kool-aid - it's the idiots that think everything is ok. wow - the ignorance on this site - must be a Utah symptom...

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 1:40 p.m.

    "Herbert told a lobbyist who approached him at the meeting that when it comes to energy issues, "regardless of the debate on the science, I'm a capitalist.""

    I think that says it all right there....

  • @12:36 Are you serious?
    June 16, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    "So what do we do to solve the over-population of humans problem? Can we send you to the gas chamber first?"

    Thanks for that. I can't say I'm surprised to read a fascist allusion / implicit death threat coming out of Utah, the closest thing to Afghanistan the USA has to offer! Look at how great anti-secularism and regression are!

    As for overpopulation, I don't know.. I'd say birthcontrol would be a good start?

  • @Grimble
    June 16, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    Well, please can you give us the date of the Church press release confirming their belief in global warming or climate change? Especially as caused by human activity? No? hmm...

    The Church has always taught the members to be wise stewards of our resources. There's nothing wrong with saving energy, reducing water use, recycling, cleaning up the environment, etc. The Church just built a new Church History Library, which is in the process of receiving LEED certification. Doesn't mean that draconian measures to force all people everywhere to conserve and reduce emissions, destroying the economy in the process is a good idea.

  • Interesting pattern
    June 16, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    While reading these comments I've noticed that Global Warming Sceptics tend to cite real research and real figures, while the Global Warming Believers resort to anti-Mormon sneers and ad hominem attacks on Governor Herbert. For example:

    Sceptic: "Average global temperatures have remained constant or declined slightly each year since 2001. The peak occurred more than a decade ago (1998)."

    Believer: "leave it to mormons to live in a fantasy world. right - no global warming - we should just continue down the path we've been going. and a con man in the 1800s had conversations with God, and your leaders are prophets."

    It's pretty obvious to me which side of the debate is confident and sure of the facts, and which side is uncertain and increasingly desperate.

  • Knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 1:31 p.m.

    Grimble, I guess you need to define what a climate scientist is. Because the 700 scientist that are disenting in the Senate Minortiy Report are surely more than that 3 percent.

  • Aaron
    June 16, 2009 1:29 p.m.

    Wow, what scientific proof or observations do they have to reach their conclusions? According to geological studies, when ever the earth was really warm the deserts of the earth disappeared. So how will the Southwest desert get drier and bigger, when physical geology shows a different observation? Why are some glaciers advancing and some are retreating? Why has antarctica's ice sheet been growing for the past 30 years? Why has the earth been cooling since 2001? May's global temperature in 2009 was .09 degrees Celcius, which was the same as 1979. Why have the oceans cooled for the past 5 years? When was the last continental record high broken? It was 1974 in Antarctica. Why are all of the computer models wrong with respect to our current global temps? The answers to all of my questions are out there, you just have to look int he right places to find them.

  • Grimble
    June 16, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    Also, all of you who refuse to believe the science on climate change better send your angry letters to Church headquarters, since the GA's recently met with Al Gore on the issue and shortly thereafter turned off the external lights of the Salt Lake Temple in support of Earth Hour, which was a world-wide effort to raise awareness of the reality of climate change.

  • Grimble
    June 16, 2009 1:17 p.m.

    How sad that we have to have this discussion over and over and over again on the DN boards.

    Listen, folks, you are welcome to believe what you want, but the FACT is a study conducted by the U. of Illinois found that 97% of climate scientists think that global warming is a reality. Look it up. The people that don't believe in global warming are the people like the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, who released a petition of global-warming doubters that contained the signatures of such respected scientists as Ginger Spice (of the Spice Girls) and several of the fictional doctors from M*A*S*H.

    Herbert is right, there ARE two sides to this debate: the 97% side and the 3% side.

    Those of you who continue to doubt the science on this are making your beds with the people who think dinosaurs wore saddles and that the Earth is flat.

    I don't blame Huntsman for leaving. It would be frustrating trying to lead a state full of so many proudly ignorant people.

  • GB
    June 16, 2009 1:12 p.m.

    Let me get this straight, now you're saying that if the weather isn't exactly right on average that that's proof that we have climate change? So no matter which way it goes, you're right... unless it's the perfect, average temperature.

    You remind of the African village in "The Gods musts be crazy" who had a coke bottle dropped in their village. Pretty big stretch on which to form definitive conclusions.

  • Knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 12:58 p.m.

    RE - nate@11:39am.

    I'm sorry but the caps are not melting faster. You better do some research and you will find that Antarctica has some areas melting but the majority of the continent is colder and has more ice that ever before. NASA website will help you with this. Also Artic ice has increased by about 30 percent since 2005. National snow and ice data center.
    Stop drinking the koolaid and do the research.

  • utah...
    June 16, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    lol - figures fantasy land would be run by a fantasy-boy Herbert. you all deserve each other

  • re: Are you serious?
    June 16, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    So what do we do to solve the over-population of humans problem? Can we send you to the gas chamber first?

  • re - Nate | 11:39 a.m
    June 16, 2009 12:35 p.m.

    ["Average global temperatures have remained constant or declined slightly each year since 2001. The peak occurred more than a decade ago (1998)."]

    what's your point? the issue isn't "average global temperatures" or climate change in Utah. The issue is climate change at the polls. If you haven't figured that out yet, and Utah thinks like you do, no wonder we're in a heap of trouble.

    you people are amazing. yeah - right - there's no problem. the caps are melting faster than ever in history, but it's all good....

    crazy people... but I'm sure your right - Utah will be the last place to see climate change, since you're run by the "only true church" - I'm sure God will look out for you extra specially well...

  • Political consensus = fact ?????
    June 16, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    It is funny how polar ice caps can be melting in one region and growing larger in another, but the melting is of greater concern because it steers the more popular political agenda.
    Wind power better not be the solution to all our country's needs because those things are hideous and take up lots of land (a.k.a. disturb the environment) and kill thousands of birds annually. Could you imagine seeing those hideous wind turbines everywhere that there is potential for a slight breeze. I agree that wind is one energy alternative, but lets not go to excess.

    REMEMBER WHEN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS TAUGHT AS A THEORY INSTEAD OF THE GOSPEL TRUTH OF MODERN SOCIETY. REMEMBER WHEN THE BIG BANG THEORY WAS TAUGHT AS A THEORY. The way things are spoken of these things today you'd think that their is no reason to ever prove these theories as fact, because the general concensus says they are fact. The same goes for global warming I mean climate change because it is not getting any warmer.

  • goforit
    June 16, 2009 11:57 a.m.

    I said Utah County. Cuts in air pollution in US cities over recent decades have added an average of five months of life to their inhabitants, BBC News reported today. It said that a study had matched air pollution in 51 cities with the life expectancy of their inhabitants between 1980 and 2000. It found that people in cities with the biggest shift from polluted to clean air had an average 10 months longer lifespan. Dr C Arden Pope III from the Department of Economics, Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and colleagues from Harvard carried out this research. The work was funded by a number of grants from research agencies including the Association of Schools of Public Health, the Harvard Environmental Protection Agency, Particulate Matter Center, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and funds from the Mary Lou Fulton Professorship, Brigham Young University. The study was published in the (peer-reviewed) medical journal, New England Journal of Medicine.

  • bdub
    June 16, 2009 11:56 a.m.

    Whenever a group declares "the debate is over!", they are just acknowledging that they have reached the shallow depth of their argument and cannot keep going with the discussion. The fact is, no one knows what will happen with natural environment in the future. Should humankind be wise stewards of the environment? yes! Polution is bad and we should be looking for efficiencies in our productiona and use of energy.

    Should panic fueled by power grabbing policy makers make us give up freedoms of commerce, socialize the world economy, and otherwise take away opportunity from future generations? No.

    As long as there is continuing thought and progression of knowledge, the debate over anything is never over.

  • Japan
    June 16, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    when you pepole make light of what man can do to the earth ask the japanese in the citys that we used the atomic bombs on. Bush changed the name of global warming to climate change. The polution levels in salt lake are the worst in my life, and are getting worse. This is caused by automobiles and trucks and pepole are having more breathing problems. The climate is different look at this moth how wet it is, and its still spring by the way.

  • Free thinker
    June 16, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    It looks like Herbert is one of those who think global warming is a political question. Everything good is republican and everything bad is democrat. Just what Utah needs, another politician who decides all issues based on political party.

  • Are you serious?
    June 16, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    The earth is overpopulated with humans. There are several reasons for this, but the biggest one is that people in under-educated regions of the world believe it is okay to over-procreate.

    Because of this over-abundance of PEOPLE, the decisions we make absolutely affect the well-being of our planet. Like it or not, we have taken on a role of stewardship. Regardless of the scientific basis on which climate change is based, the underlying truth is that we are mismanaging the place in which we all live. Efficient use of resources and the promotion of healthy lifestyles is something that would benefit everyone.

  • Nate
    June 16, 2009 11:39 a.m.

    Average global temperatures have remained constant or declined slightly each year since 2001. The peak occurred more than a decade ago (1998).

    Which computer model predicted that?

    No wonder scientists are now quietly distancing themselves from global warming theory.

  • 2 Steps Back
    June 16, 2009 11:38 a.m.

    Huntsman's biggest mistake during his stay as Gov. was made before the election when this clown got the #2 spot.

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    Go Gary!!!!!

  • Thinkin' Man
    June 16, 2009 11:32 a.m.

    Good for Herbert. There's plenty of room for scientific debate as demonstrated by the many reputable, well-known climate scientists like Richard Lindzen who disagree with the popular view.

    The uncertainties in climate forecasting are a log bigger than the bandwagon wants to admit.

  • RoR
    June 16, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    RE Sally

    Can I help you pack?

  • re: Sally
    June 16, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    Yes, Sally, please move! And I'm sure since you are so purely protecting our fragile earth from destruction, that when you move you won't drive a CO2 causing automobile or fly an Airplane, so you'll likely be walking to your new destination. Make sure to wear comfortable shoes that are produced solely from all natural materials only (do they make such a thing?)

    I'm sure your new home won't use evil electricity or CO2 causing natural gas. Its comforting to know that some people like you are protecting the Earth from destruction while others like me aren't. There is such a stark difference between the two of us.

  • figures
    June 16, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    leave it to mormons to live in a fantasy world. right - no global warming - we should just continue down the path we've been going. and a con man in the 1800s had conversations with God, and your leaders are prophets.

    no one bothers listening to your opinion on this simply because you already live in a fantasy world. your new governor simply is proving the point...

  • Listen To The Scientists
    June 16, 2009 11:12 a.m.

    Mr Herbert I thought you were going to keep the politics of one of our most popular Governors (Huntsman) the same! You're already dividing us- climate change is real, Utah had respect because of what Huntsman did for the image and economics of this state. Why don't you learn from him!

    Jon Huntsman I miss you- please come back and keep Utah progressing- seems most Utahan's would rather go back to the horse & buggy days- we need a Governor that will educate himself on the science before he makes such statements!

  • wow - utah
    June 16, 2009 11:12 a.m.

    once again the people of Utah live in a fantasy world, especially Baline Nay.

    Baline - It is comforting to know that you have so much more scientific expertise than the leading experts in the world. Yes - you're quite right - man can have NO effect on the earth - we are but a speck on the environment. And magical seer stones will allow you to talk to god and there really is a special celestial kingdom for mormons....

    Well, all the "no global waarming" pundits do have one thing right. Man cannot possibly kill the planet. No - the planet will be here for millions of years. All man will do is make it uninhabitable for our species, thereby creating the extinction of the human race. Probably just as well.

    That's ok - it won't be me - I'll be gone in the 50 yrs it takes you to ruin the planet, and I have no children. But all you mormons, pumping out kids right and left - your kids will bear the consequences of your actions.

    great politicians you all have there in Utah. Gotta love the fantasy world you have created. Good luck with that.

  • Jim
    June 16, 2009 11:08 a.m.

    From many of the comments, you can see what lemmings the liberals are - if one of their idols say it, i.e. Obama, Gore, a movie star, then the debate IS over about anything. Since when does being a politician, a star or having more money give someone additional gray matter. The lemmings sure think so. That's why they jump on the band wagons of "global warming", "love the terrorists", "socialist healthcare", "only government can solve the problems", etc. etc. etc. They never learn from history. Now, because the lemmings have become so numerous (like a rat infestation), we have a socialist president, a liberal agenda which can only decrease our standard of living, and a focus on making sure terrorists and criminals live better and more comfortable than the majority of the world's population. Not only are all the lemmings running over the cliff together, they are pulling everyone right along with them. They are the modern day hippies and anti-americans that caused so much flack over getting out of Vietnam that getting their way caused the slaughter of MILLIONS of our fellow human beings. UTOPIAS don't work. The "smart" liberals never learn.

  • People say man's impact is minim
    June 16, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    Is this guy serious?

    When has man's impact on earth EVER been minimal?

    Just look at any major city today compared to 100 years ago then tell me man's impact is minimal on the environment including the climate.

  • Al Gore?
    June 16, 2009 11:01 a.m.

    What makes me laugh the most about those who are convinced that Global Warming - oops, I mean the new PC "Climate Change" is real follow obediently behind their pied piper Al Gore. Yes Al Gore, the man who has more Faux Pas under his belt that George W. Bush. The man who claims to have invented the internet and many other wonderful things. How people can take this man serious on any issue is astounding to me.
    One more thing, greenhouse gasses and small particles are two different things. Many times we confuse poor air quality with greenhouse gasses. Yes they contribute, but poor air quality is usually associated with small particles that damage lungs. Part of the debate needs to include this separation.

  • Re: goforit
    June 16, 2009 10:59 a.m.

    Unlike particulates, sulfur oxides, and ozone, carbon dioxide is not a hazardous air pollutant. It is an inert gas that is essential for life itself; without CO2 there would be no plants.

    The levels of every one of EPA's toxic air pollutants along the Wasatch Front have decreased even as the overall CO2 emissions have increased. The two are not necessarily connected.

    And your contention that Utahns die at a much higher rate than the rest of the US is false: Utah has the lowest death rate from lung cancer and other respiratory diseases in the US, largely because Utahns smoke less than anyone else in the US.

    June 16, 2009 10:50 a.m.

    Gary Herbert has guts to tell the gullible governors in the group (Montana's Gov. Schweitzer being a better informed exception) that he does not buy the alarmist hysteria over global warming.

    This is far from a settled fact, despite what some advocates insist. (Misled by Al Gore and others).

    It appears that most of those criticizing Lt. Gov. Herbert in comments above are from outside Utah. Probably from Kalifornia. Ignore them and their foolish ways, and let us Utahns live in freedom.

    Herbert is right to demand PROOF before we squander billions of dollars we don't have on unnecessary climate change stuff, or even worse, get snookered into some "cap and trade" scheme.

    I look forward to voting for Gov. Herbert's re-election again and again!

  • MJH79
    June 16, 2009 10:43 a.m.

    99% of real scientists? Get a grip with reality, dude or dudette. Global warming/change hysteria is all about politics and money. Please check your sources.

  • Dave
    June 16, 2009 10:38 a.m.

    Herbert will be a much better governor for our state, and has the stones to not give into the political pressure the left has put with this "climate change" and the impact human's have on it. How naive are you people, you buy into this global warming crap just like you bought into BHO making a positive impact on our society and history will show how wrong you are on both counts.

  • Would someone
    June 16, 2009 10:38 a.m.

    buy the guy a thermometer?

    Maybe he should spend the summer in St George, when it's a hundred and plenty for weeks at a time...

  • Sally
    June 16, 2009 10:35 a.m.

    How sad... we actually HAD a governor that thought for himself... and wasn't afraid to question things... and now we are stuck with this fool... who just walks around like a bobble head with no real thoughts... he just does what he is supposed to do. It's a scary thing when the governor of our state is stuck in the bubble with the rest of you idiots! I need to move.

  • GP
    June 16, 2009 10:31 a.m.

    I can tell you unequivocally that CO2 is NOT a pollutant. The so-called "scientists" who cannot understand that are on a bandwagon leading to the destruction of America, and the world. CO2 is an important part of life. The earth isn't going to come to an end because of it. True, the earth will come to an end, but not because of CO2. There are thousands of scientists who know and understand this. There are a few scientists who are afraid to stand up for what they know is right for fear of losing their funding, and their grants, and their jobs. Believe me, Herbert is courageous for his small voice questioning what has been happening about this nonsense.

  • Blaine Nay
    June 16, 2009 10:25 a.m.

    Anyone who was awake during those basic science and geography classes back in grade school knows that the earth has always gone through climate cycles They know that the planet was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. They know about Lake Bonneville which coverer much of Utah and Nevada. They know much of North America was covered with 4,000 feet of ice just a few thousand years ago. They know that the oceans were once 500 feet lower than they are to day and that man's CO2 did not cause sea level to rise to where it has been for the past several thousand years. Anyone who has been outdoors long enough to be remotely aware of the incredible power of the Sun (which also goes through cycles) to heat and illuminate the earth is far more powerful even than Al Gore. To presume that man is so powerful he can affect climate in spite of solar and earth climate cycles is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance. I applaud Lt. Governor Gary Herbert for staying awake in those science classes through which the radical environmentalists and Governor Huntsman slept.

  • @9:37
    June 16, 2009 10:25 a.m.

    Ok, now please don't confuse liberals with actual facts and logic... let me try! Of course "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

    1. There are limited resources in this world.
    2. We need to decide what's the best use of those resources - otherwise known as cost/benefit analysis.
    3. If the world spent 50% of world GDP on efforts to combat greenhouse gasses, we would reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by about 1-3%, depending on whose models you use. This might result in a temperature reduction of about .01 to .1 degree, again depending on whose models you use. That amount of reduction is not enough to actually make any difference.
    4. Meanwhile, efforts to feed the hungry, clean up other forms of pollution, pay for medical care, help third world countries develop so that they pollute less, would all go begging.
    5. Those who promote climate change tend to ignore facts that don't fit their preconceptions - Arctic ice is thicker than they thought, Antarctic ice is growing, solar activity actually DOES affect variations in global temperatures (who'da thunk!).

  • Fredd
    June 16, 2009 10:23 a.m.

    For asthma and lung disease sufferers its 37 to 1 SLC to Tucson
    Heart disease is 22 to 1
    Older and children is 37 to 1
    And active outdoors is 27 to ZERO

    So those of you who wish to post facts and quote a web site should actually go to the web site.

  • AJCH
    June 16, 2009 10:21 a.m.

    The global warming argument is, like, the same as the argument about whether the earth is round or flat. Hello! Everyone knows that if the earth was round and we sailed to the otherside we would be upside down! Im so glad Herbert is our gov. Such impressive logic he has!

  • Fredd
    June 16, 2009 10:20 a.m.

    Pima County, AZ (Tucson) had ZERO unhealthy days while Salt Lake County, UT had NINE unhealthy days. Facts can be confusing when you lie. From the EPA Compare Air web site using the general population. There is a Glacier in Alsaka, Portage Glacier that has treated many miles from the visitors center that was built at its base in the 60's. I think as much as 10 miles or more. I don't know if humans are causing this but don't lie.

  • JJ
    June 16, 2009 10:12 a.m.

    Global warming or climate change as they call it now, is nothing more than a money making operation for people like Al Gore and his cronies. Go look up all the Boards Al gore is on and Hedge Funds he is involved with and you will really see whats going on. He is promoting "climate change" on behalf of several companies so they can line their pockets from all this nonsense and he is making tens of millions for his efforts. As they say "follow the money"

  • VOR
    June 16, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    in other news, some idiots still think the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, that sneezing is really demons trying to escape your body, and that the earth is really only 6,000 years old!

    I'm curious as to where the new Gov. got his degree in some sort of earth Science? Perhaps he has a degree in Climatology? Or at least Meteorology? What? Oh wait; he's a former President of the Utah Association of Realtors? Ha, that's it! He's our man on understanding climate change!

    But the whole global warming thing is just made up garbage from a bunch of tree hugging hippies. Yea, I'm sticking with that one.

  • jc
    June 16, 2009 10:00 a.m.

    Science is not determined by polls. Or comment boards. The plural of anecdote is not data.

  • Phoebe
    June 16, 2009 9:58 a.m.

    The best part of this story is that Herbert asks the group to help him understand the science, but then, when an actual scientist gives a presentation on how climate change works, Herbert steps out of the room. Classic! Herbert is obviously a guy who doesn't want to be confused by the facts.

  • Grover
    June 16, 2009 9:58 a.m.

    Re @grover: After working in the insurance industry for many years, I also have the same portfolio of insurance coverage as you with one exception: earthquake coverage. Geologists (not to be confused with Climatologists) tell us that Utah has had a major quake every 500 years. It has now been nearly 550 years since the last big (6 or over)one. My hopefully informed decision is to buy coverage against what could be a catastrophe. You on the other hand, blithely go without and if the event occurs will expect the government to come in and rescue you. Who will be the "socialist" then Pub?

  • Evets
    June 16, 2009 9:53 a.m.

    "The debate on global warming is over." That reminds me of the statement in the late 1800's that "all science has been discovered". I am old enough to remember that when I was in college it was concluded that the earth was doomed because of global cooling and that the world was running out of food. All of this was wrong and proclaimed as fact by "scientist" as fact then. Our present "scientist" are just as wrong today.
    Over the years I did enough research in my graduate and post-graduate education to learn one thing. Many of my peers were very smart but had no common sense and therefore came to wrong conclusions and that many of them had an agenda when they did their research. They either wanted to prove their pet theory, want to fit in with the group/department, or they had a book or theoretical model to pitch. Needless to say I became a real skeptic of a lot of research but then again that has helped me in applying what I learned to my real world job.

  • The Rock
    June 16, 2009 9:52 a.m.

    I live in Washington State.
    A friend of mine had the courage to question global warming in public. It made the national press.
    The kind, tolerant people who believe in global warming were calling this man around the clock (and they had a two week old baby).

    The Global Warming orthodoxy cannot tolerate a heretic. The only thing they can do when somebody has the courage to ask hard questions is name calling and harassment.

    1. CO2 is a naturally occouring gas.
    2. CO2 is essential to life.
    3. Climate patterns do not track with CO2 for the long haul.
    4. As temperatures increase CO2 is released from the ocean indicating that increased CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause of higher temperatures.
    5. Water vapor is the most significant green house gas. Note how much warmer it is when there is cloud cover.
    6. It was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is today during the mideval warming period. That was a very prosperous period of European history.

    Those with the courage to question global warming are reiducled and harassed.

    Think for yourself. How could a minor change in CO2 levels destroy a planet?

  • Yahoo again
    June 16, 2009 9:48 a.m.

    Mainstream Utahans have a common sense that is more discerning when it comes to propaganda from the left. People like yourself are more concerned with labeling dissenters as "flat earthers" or worse akin to "holocaust deniers". You don't want to debate the science of Global Warming, in fact you refuse to. You look at anyone who disagrees with a contempt and disdain calling us "uneducated" and "refusing to acknowledge evidence". I believe your attitude is arrogant and prideful.

    Just listen to the words of our future Governor as he asks for proof, not saying he has the conclusive answers but acknowledging that there are respectable scientists on both sides of the argument. Thanks again to Mr. Herbert, and may more people like him stand up to the prideful and arrogant people like you.

  • goforit
    June 16, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    Even if most all of the world's esteemed scientists were wrong, and you non-believers found science to fit your preconceived notions of how things should be, and then you convinced the world that there was some secret conspiracy headed by Al Gore, dont you still like to breathe clean air? Are not the annual inversions, the statistically proved shorter life expectancy for Utah County residents (thanks to the former Geneva Steel mill), and all the other bad things that come out of living in an inversion enough to make you want to do something to improve the air quality / environment, or is it more important to make or save a buck at the expense of the general populations welfare?

  • Finally!!
    June 16, 2009 9:46 a.m.

    It is about time a Gov spoke up on 'global warming'. Just because Al Gore said the debate is over, it is not. There are many who disagree with Al, it is another way for government to control our lives and collect more taxes. To 'how embarrassing', those who have bought the line of Gore and others just have their head in the sand.

  • tom
    June 16, 2009 9:43 a.m.

    thank you obama for taking huntsman away. now we can have a real governor with a real backbone again, not some flimsy moderate intent on making their fan base happy at the rest of the public's expense...

  • Sad
    June 16, 2009 9:37 a.m.

    (2Ti 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    The whole GW debate is SO difficult to sort out due to the fact that there are agendas evident on all sides. It seems impossible to glean the truth.

    Also...So many tie pollution up with their perceptions of GW...These are seperarate but related issues.

    The repeated remarks implying that doing something about GW even if it is not real won't hurt anything, is a silly statement in that whatever we do will require resources and decision making that will drastically affect how we live. It is akin to me taking my personal resources (Such as the house payment) and spending it all on food storage in case of a food shortage. After all what could it hurt?

    I am with Gary Herbert in that I am unwilling to pull the trigger on policy and resource allocation for an idea that is still so hotly debated.

  • The
    June 16, 2009 9:36 a.m.

    adamant proponents of Man-made Global Warming and their solutions sound like those described by C.S. Lewis who employ fire extinguishers during times of flood.

  • jdp
    June 16, 2009 9:32 a.m.

    Actually, scientists in the Middle Ages--or natural philosophers, as they were known--always knew the world was round. It was the uneducated and superstitious who believed the earth was flat. Perhaps those who question climate change, and humans' role in bringing it about, ought to take a page from history and become educated themselves--that is, read the science for yourselves, not conservative bloggers and talking heads, before you decide. The truth is pretty persuasive if you expose yourself to it.

  • Re: Don't confuse him with facts
    June 16, 2009 9:28 a.m.

    "Fact number one is that Utah is polluted to the point of having some of the worst air quality in the US. Watch out China, Utah is not content with having the worst air in America, we want the worst air in the world!"

    Really? That's not according to what the actual scientists at the Utah Division of Air Quality and the EPA say. Go to the Division of Air Quality's website where they write that

    "Despite these challenges, Utah's air continues to improve. As noted in the last two previous reports - 2006 and 2007 - in the early 1980s, Utah struggled to meet the health standards for four of the six criteria pollutants identified by the EPA. By 2006, all Utah counties attained current federal air quality standards."

    And then there's the EPA, who on their "Air Compare" website, list Salt Lake City as having significantly less air pollution days than Los Angeles and Tuscon, AZ.

    Fact is, Utah's air is cleaner today than any time in the past 50 years, and it's getting cleaner.

    Sorry to confuse you with facts, but I have noticed lately environmentalists are having a hard time accepting reality.

  • climate change
    June 16, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    The climate always changes and always will. I am not sure that man has a lot to do with it.
    The question isn't if global warming exists, the question is does human behavior have much impact? I doubt it.

  • Dr. Booty
    June 16, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    Oh thank Heaven, for Gary Herbert. Finally, we will get a governor who refuses to bow down to the "Green-Weenies". (Unlike Huntsman)
    I applaud our new governor. He knows what we all have known for too long: There isn't any such thing as "Man-Made" Global Warming; this is just a fraud invented by the Leftist's.

  • Breaking News!
    June 16, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    Rational people everywhere recognize that there is an enormous amount of peer pressure to agree with warming advocates and that the "overwhelming number of scientists who agree" with them is the the same argument our children make to us by saying, "all the kids in the neighborhood have x-boxes."

    Just saying the words doesn't make you right. Neither does scoffing at the opposition.

  • Pollution vs Global Warming
    June 16, 2009 9:14 a.m.

    I'm sure we all agree that we don't want to breathe pollution, and that we should be doing what we can to reduce pollution as technology develops. Global Warming/Climate Change is a new enough issue that we don't know enough about it to know whether we should even be concerned or not. The thing we do know for sure is that our seat-of-the-pants "solutions" will costs a lot of money, and won't change things significantly on a global basis. We must also remember our government (us) has been using other people's money for a long time. Maybe we can spend more of our children's money? Maybe our grandchildren's?

  • Emjay
    June 16, 2009 9:01 a.m.

    You don't set public policy (that will cost us unknown trillions of dollars and opportunity costs that can't be quantified) based on a theory that MANY scientists don't even agree with. That would be really stupid.

    Good for Gary Herbert.

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 8:57 a.m.

    Most scientist used to believed that the earth was flat, most scientist used to believe in Dawins theory. Scientist have been wrong on many important issues throughout history and they are wrong on the issue of global warming as well. If you put ice into a glass of water, when it melts, does the water level rise or does it stay the same. Are you smater than a first grader, Al Gore isn't.

  • To YAHOO! @ 8:37
    June 16, 2009 8:53 a.m.

    "...I'm even happier to get a Governor who reflects the values of mainstream Utah!"

    Ahh... "Mainstream Utah Values."

    What are they?

    Disdain for education, reason and expert opinion.

    Willful, stubborn refusal to pay attention to, or even acknowledge, objective evidence.

    Labeling anyone who's opinion you disagree with as "socialist!"

    Taking AM radio know-nothing (but proud of it!)blowhards more seriously than decades of careful research conducted by eminent scientists.

    Yep - those are all good ol' "Utah values."

  • Re; Michael
    June 16, 2009 8:49 a.m.

    "I am not a scientist - I am a pragmatist. I believe in what I can see, touch and feel."

    Good. Then go and Google "UAH global temperature anomaly" and you'll see that according to satellite measurements the earth's surface temperature has remained virtually unchanged over the past 20 years, aside from a spike in 1998.

    The average surface temperature of the earth today is almost identical to what it was 20 years go. Despite the fluctuations there has been no net global warming since then.

  • Don't confuse him with facts
    June 16, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    Herbert is a realtor and having just completed a new home purchase I can say with conviction that realators are not scientists! Don't confuse the man with facts. Fact number one is that Utah is polluted to the point of having some of the worst air quality in the US. Watch out China, Utah is not content with having the worst air in America, we want the worst air in the world!

  • re:Grover
    June 16, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    When you aren't sure of something you buy an insurance policy if the cost isn't prohibitive. Also, how many potential risks out there do you have insurance for? Personally I have life, health, home and auto insurance. I didn't buy Y2K insurance when all computers were going to stop working according to the mainstream press, and I'm not buying the phoney Global Warming insurance which will just be another step toward total Governmental control by the Socialists.

    Wake up and do some research and realize this whole effort is a joke.

  • Knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 8:38 a.m.

    Grover, I think Herbert actually was quoted as saying this, "But again I'm going to be very slow to make radical changes. I'm going to listen, and I'm going to learn."

    Beware that liberal fanatical religion does affect your comprehension skills.

  • YAHOO!
    June 16, 2009 8:37 a.m.

    Thank you for speaking truth in the midst of a horrible effort by the socialist extremist environmentalists to silence any decent. You earned my vote and my support by your unapologetic and honest approach. Yahoo, I'm glad for Gov Huntsman and his new opportunity in China, but I'm even happier to get a Governor who reflects the values of mainstream Utah!

  • all about the $
    June 16, 2009 8:36 a.m.

    Yes, there are climate change deniers just as there are those who deny smoking causes cancer. But does anyone really contend that we are too ignorant to make policy decisions!? Lt. Governor Herbert confuses lack of unanimity with lack of consensus. If we wait for 100% agreement we wait forever (to the advantage of those who profit from the status quo). Are we really debating causation or is this about who will profit and who will pay?

  • skeptical scientist
    June 16, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    The science is not conclusive about human caused global warming AND we're not yet as warm as we were during the time of Lief Erickson.

    Remember from history? He's the guy who grew wine grapes in Greenland while the other Vikings sailed small wooden ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific through clear water. That's right folks, the polar ice was probably completely melted in the time of Lucky Leif.

    Why then, one might ask, do we still have polar bears? Where did they live while there was no pack ice? The answer of course, as already noted, is that nature finds a way.

    When I was in college the big "crisis" was chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). They were supposed to deplete the ozone layer that protects us from deadly solar radiation. So we gave up certain refrigerants and aerosol propellants. THEN Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Phillipines and in a single week put more CFCs into the atmosphere than humans had in a century. The scientific consensus was wrong. Humans are like dust on the planet.

    How arrogant we are to believe that the planet even notices us on geological time scales.

  • Clean the world up anyway!
    June 16, 2009 8:28 a.m.

    Anyone who has ever been to the Wasatch Front should agree on global pollution or global warming, whatever you want to call it. I personally believe that global warming has been over hyped but lets clean the earth up! How anyone living in Utah or SL counties dares take a breath is beyond me. Sorry but it is no FAIRY TALE that Utah is becoming a polluted state, plus our right wing friends want to bring in nuclear waste from other states and countries to contribute to our ever growing waste dump of a state. The reason people want to come to Utah is for the natural beauty, I doubt that will be the case when we are know for nuclear waste dumps and the only state with more pollution than LA. Wise up Utah!

  • Grover
    June 16, 2009 8:21 a.m.

    No one cares what a former Utah county politician thinks about global warming...er I mean "climate change" (to use GOP code). People do care however what the governor of our State thinks. Most decisions that face adults are not of the black and white variety but requiring weighing the pros and cons and making an informed decision. Herbert owes it to Utahns to study the issue and hear from the best minds on both sides of the issue. As one of the "not totally convinced" attendees put it, "when I am not sure of something, I buy an insurance policy just in case."

  • Now We're Talking!!!
    June 16, 2009 8:17 a.m.

    Thank goodness someone has the guts to raise a voice against the political winds trying to force man-made global warming policies down our throats. Being a mechanical engineer, I've studied the greenhouse gas issue. As I've considered the Second Law of Thermodynamics and heat transfer mechanisms in this debate, they are in disagreement with the theory of have man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide or other so-called Green House gasses. Let there be a scientific debate on the issue!!! As it stands, politicians have nothing to lose if they support the erroneous theory because if it turns out to be false, they can simply blame the scientists.

    Yea to Governor Herbert!

  • Knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 8:16 a.m.

    Key points that 700 international scientists argree and say about global warming.
    1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability.
    2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions.
    3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and,
    4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

    Taken from the U.S Senate Minority report, last update March 16, 2009

  • Knowwhat
    June 16, 2009 8:08 a.m.

    Consenus not!
    I am a skepticGlobal warming has become a new religion. - Nobel Prize Winner for
    Physics, Ivar Giaever.
    Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to
    know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. - UN IPCC
    Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
    Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
    fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.
    - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
    Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar
    interaction with the Earth.
    Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting
    warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. - Atmospheric
    physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in

  • dc
    June 16, 2009 8:08 a.m.

    At least he's asking the question.

    To the naysayers, this is a version of Pascal's wager. If we take precautions and it's not true then we've done no harm and have reduced our dependence on foreign oil. We've also saved ourselves lots of money.

    If it is true well they're your children, which you claim to care so much about. They will have a much harder life than you have.

    The earth will survive, we may not.

    $4 gas is coming in any case. Have you watched the prices lately?

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 8:05 a.m.

    Co2 levels have increased, that is correct, but the reality is that the air in the US is actually cleaner. Harmful emissions like SO2 (causes acid rain)and NOX (causes smog & ozone)that actually have an impact on public health are the lowest they have been in 40 years. Check EPA website for facts on SO2, NOX etc. Pretty cool stuff.

  • Jeff
    June 16, 2009 7:55 a.m.

    Thank you Gary! There a few who are willing to stand up for what is right!

    Climate change is nothing more than an avenue to 1) create global and domestic taxes, 2) Give more power to the UN, and 3) push us needlessly to political and social globalism.

    Even if there were climate change, do you think our politicians have power to control it? If you think the answer is for government to mandate we all drive electric cars and tax large wide screen TVs, there is not much hope for you!

  • Utah Doc
    June 16, 2009 7:49 a.m.

    Herbert is right to question the evidence concerning global warming. Quite often the "evidence" to support global warming is skewed to retain research grants... which have been sizable and abundant in recent years.

  • Boneheads
    June 16, 2009 7:43 a.m.

    Utahns are making being willfully ignorant into a virtue.

  • Thank You
    June 16, 2009 7:40 a.m.

    It looks like we are going to have an adult in charge of the state again.

    Have you ever noticed that elitest liberals are "open-minded" unless you disagree with them.

    The fact is that there is no proof that man-made global warming exists. Even the proponents admit that. So liberals keep up the name-calling all you want it isn't going to change my mind.

  • ntrlresourcelwyr
    June 16, 2009 7:35 a.m.

    Yeehaw! Looks like Utah gets to revert to the stone age again. Unfortunately, whether you believe in global warming/climate change or not, this type of thinking is not helpful. It doesn't take a scientist to visibly observe how much junk we're spewing into the atmosphere, our water bodies and landfills. Regardless of whether you're convinced, Herbert, take a stand that the status quo is simply not good enough! If we're going do double in size over the next few decades, we can't keep acting in the current manner. Twice the population equals more than double the problems. Our water resources are already stretched almost to the limit. Our air quality is horrible. New clean water isn't going to appear out of thin air. The air we breathe isn't going to miraculously shed itself of all the particulates we're pumping into it. If you're going to ride the growth train, then you've simply got to learn to do more with less, regardless of whether you buy the climate change argument (and I do, having spent the time to study it and earn a related professional degree).

  • no excuse
    June 16, 2009 7:35 a.m.

    there is no excuse for Lt. Gov. Herbert to not have studied up on this issue. It is his duty to seek out the scientific understanding of the issue. He has staff. He can be briefed. He can sit down with the Governor's staff. He can call upon the state's scientists. He can type in climate change on a Google search. But for him to come to the Governor's Association Meetings as a blank page and say "I don't know anything about this and I'm inclined to think its baloney because a bunch of my rural friends (ranchers, farmers, etc.) feel threatened by it" is inexcusable. He will have a very hard time being re=elected in 2010 if he presents himself this way. Note to Herbert, get smart on big issues like this, and get smart fast. 80% of the folks voting for you are along the Wasatch Front. You won't win by just getting votes from Kane County.

  • Filthy Utah Suprise - Not!
    June 16, 2009 7:35 a.m.

    From the state with some of the worst air quality in the country, it is no surprise that another politician refuses to take responsibility for our actions and values money more than human beings.

    Your children will appreciate the selfishness and Utah's inability to lead when it comes to caring for the planet.

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 7:29 a.m.

    Courage to be stupid.

  • One more Shrub to Weed out
    June 16, 2009 7:25 a.m.

    We just barely got done weeding the White House of one shrub, looks like were about to get another in the Utah Capitol. I can't believe Huntsman would have chosen someone as his lieutenant governor who is this ignorant (of the issues, but ignorant as well). This will be like the dark ages that we just barely got over with when Obama took over.The only hope is we can get another decent person to run against Herbert in the next election.

  • Big Pete
    June 16, 2009 7:16 a.m.

    Hooray for Gary. His courage is commendable.

  • @shecky
    June 16, 2009 7:15 a.m.

    99% of the scientists huh?
    I would say it might be closer to %50
    Just like with everything, for every one scientist that is sure of global warming you will find one who is against it.

  • Thank YOU!
    June 16, 2009 6:59 a.m.

    AMEN! How so many have fallen prey to this fairy tail is beyond me! Way to go, Herbert!

  • Anonymous
    June 16, 2009 6:51 a.m.

    Herbert, like the rest of the naysayers, see what is their immediate vicinity and deny the big picture. Kind of like those who thought the sun orbited the earth. Guys like this will continue Utah's slide into obscurity. Even if clilmate change is not a reality, what's wrong with being good stewards of the environment, and not pillaging the planet? Sees like a truly "conservative" principle, if you ask me. "Guts" does not equal brains.

  • jr
    June 16, 2009 6:50 a.m.

    Typical Utahns think their govern has all the knowledge to make the decisions for them. Look outside of your small world and research and get your own opinion instead of one mans based on his political agenda

  • Go figure
    June 16, 2009 6:38 a.m.

    I was about to turn on my furnace this morning (16June2009,Tue), but my 4th grader urged me not to as it will help with global warming if I didn't.

    Seems those youngsters are getting a mighty fine education.

  • Things have always changed
    June 16, 2009 6:36 a.m.

    I was watching a science show on the tv and the take away for me was that through out all of history, the worlds climate has always changed, from cold to hot, from hot to cold.

    As a matter of fact, in the times of the dinasaurs, CO2 was in much greater concentration in the atmosphere than it is today, it was hotter then too.

    People panicing reminds me of the chicken in the barn yard, telling all the other anamials that the sky is falling.

    Truth be told, in times past, its been hotter than now, its been colder than now, there has been more carbon dioxide than now, and at other times there has been less carbon dioxide than now. And guess what? Life has thrived through it all.

  • Have you noticed?
    June 16, 2009 6:33 a.m.

    They don't call it global warming anymore. It's called climate change.

  • What Scientists used to say
    June 16, 2009 6:30 a.m.

    re shecky | 11:12 p.m. June 15, 2009
    It takes a man of real courage with little or no scientific background to disagree with about 99% of actual scientists who do this every day for a living.

    If 99% of scientists disagree with

    .... ACTUAL REALITY ....

    who are you going to go with? This has been the coolest summer I can ever remember.

    When I was in elementary school in the 1960's we were told

    1) that scientists had determined we were headed for another ice age.

    2) that the world had a 20 year supply of oil left.

    Seems to me the 99% of scientists out there have a thing or two yet to learn.

    That is the take of this "uneducated" so called hick.

  • Robert McLean
    June 16, 2009 6:29 a.m.

    "Climate Change" is a Gold Rush for scientists who wish to live off the public dime. There is no evidence that the emission of "Greenhouse Gases" could cause the climate to become warmer. In fact the opposite is true.

    In 1880 Krakatoa exploded in Indonesia and emitted more CO2 than man has produced in all of his existance to that time and for hundreds of years to come. The Result? The following year there was a very cloudy,cold summer CAUSED BY THE DENSE CLOUD COVER! So the reality is that climate change by man is utter stupidity and will be used to curtail our freedom, increase umemployment, increase government size, and help the Obama destruction team further cripple America. Please help stop these idiots. What they think and do can't stop Global Warming, but it can ruin the future of you and your family!

  • Instereo
    June 16, 2009 6:26 a.m.

    Global Warming, Evolution, and Abortion are all topics where it's easy to turn off the brain, start up the ideology and quit thinking.

  • Nice summer, where is the heat?
    June 16, 2009 6:24 a.m.

    If we get much more "global warming", we may have to use our furnaces all summer long. In all my life I don't remember a summer as cool as this.

  • How Embarrassing!
    June 16, 2009 5:55 a.m.

    Herbert, were you channelling Energy Solutions, Buttars and Ruzicka while you embarrassed the state of Utah in front of real governors?

    The sign of things to come, is the obvious dumbing-down of Utah after four years of a Renaissance.

  • Bottom line... IPP3, California
    June 16, 2009 5:41 a.m.

    Utah is a major exporter of power to California. Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that required the state to no longer purchase coal-fired power from Utah. The IPP3 plant in Delta was postponed indefinitely because southern California refused to buy into the project, and instead, purchased wind power development near Milford, Utah. All the wind developed there (two phases of about 400 MW) is going to southern California, though there are three more phases of the project that are still not committed yet -- perhaps Utah might buy some of its own wind in the future.

    The bottom line is that there are economic and political forces well beyond Herbert's control that drive Utah's energy market -- from cap and trade to export markets that won't buy Utah's coal-fired electricity. The practical reality is that cleaner energy addresses climate change, keeps Utah exporting for economic development (wind will bring millions of California dollars in development to the town of Milford and Beaver County), cleans Utah's air (think the smog in National parks to the Wasatch Front), and prevents mercury and other pollutants in our fisheries and waterways (good for hunting/fishing).

  • Hurray for Huntsman
    June 16, 2009 5:37 a.m.

    The best thing Huntsman did was to agree to go to China, so we could have a governor who is not auditioning for national office. Herbert will not become another governor moonbeam, like Huntsman was trying to do. It's time for someone to stand up to the pet political projects of Al Gore.

  • An Observer
    June 16, 2009 5:18 a.m.

    Congratulations, Gary Herbert! Huntsman's departure cannot come soon enough. Looking forward to the new direction for the state under your direction.

  • Math vs. Science
    June 16, 2009 5:18 a.m.

    Math is not always science (and science is not always empirical). A lot of math these days, especially when it comes to the environment and the economy, is based on mathematical models. Such models give the illusion of objective science to any idea the model builder wants to encode in mathematical language. There are so many untested assumptions underlying mathematical "models" as to render most of them useless.

  • M Bardon
    June 16, 2009 5:17 a.m.

    NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT but refreshing to hear a man like our future Governor with conviction and courage speak up against the crowd who blindly follow junk science.

  • @ Michael 10:37
    June 16, 2009 5:13 a.m.

    What you might not know is that there are pictures from the 1950's of even smaller glaciers, yet no catastrophic flooding. Go figure.

  • Cats
    June 16, 2009 5:09 a.m.

    Consensus is NOT scientific fact. Also, there are literally tens of thousands of scientists who are NOT convinced by the man-made global warming theory. Also, those who assume it is just "science" do not understand how political correctness and personal self-interested agendas can affect even "science."

    When it comes to "true" science the debate should NEVER be over. Only those who are afraid to debate say the debate is over. When the models that predict global-warming disaster are applied to historic fact, they don't accurately predict what has actually happened. They have clearly been proved to be invalid.

    We should NEVER be so quick to accept "science" when there are personal and political agendas involved.

  • Read the newspaper
    June 16, 2009 4:20 a.m.

    Nearly every newspaper in America believes that climate change is man-made. Who are we to disagree with the experts?

  • Science Teacher
    June 16, 2009 2:23 a.m.

    Just do a little research and you will soon find MANY that disagree with the politically-charged GW debate. Some stories include loss of funding, chair positions, tenure, blackballing if you even DARE to speak out against GW.

    GW is a farce. I just can't wait till UT science core catches up so I can stop teaching kids two versions of environmental science: the GW/Al Gore/liberal/politicized/govt. controls your life version and the truth.

  • Brandon
    June 16, 2009 1:24 a.m.

    I would have to say that Obama is the best thing that has happened to Utah in quite a while. Finally a governor who can look at something with common sense and who reflects Utah's values. I am thrilled Prince John will be establishing his kingdom in a socialist society where he'll feel quite at home.

  • duh
    June 16, 2009 1:08 a.m.

    Any Utah citizen who does not believe in global climate change obviously has not been in Utah in the month of June. We have almost gotten more rain then we are expected to get for the entire summer in less then a month. Maybe this is not directly caused by global warming but still seems a little odd to me, maybe next year it wont rain at all

  • Dave
    June 16, 2009 12:36 a.m.

    If global warming has been occuring for the past several years,the sea levels should be rising already. New York City should already be under water as the "scientists" predicted. Is this happening?

  • Utah is a Backwater
    June 16, 2009 12:20 a.m.

    The entire WORLD is in agreement on climate change, even GWB acknowledged its existence. Now we have an ignorant political hack making Utah look like a redneck backwater of ignorance.

    Just what we deserve; Utah is the center of the universe when it comes to conspiracy nuts, misinformation, Ponzi schemes, and right-wing fear mongers.

    Gov. Herbert, you need to back up your statements with facts before you open your ignorant yap.

  • John
    June 16, 2009 12:10 a.m.

    What a bleeding nitwit.
    "Help me understand the science." ???

    God save us from these ignorant morons.

    Every scientific academy and society in every developed nation is in agreement. The evidence is mountainous. The models work forwards and backwards. The best and brightest minds are all saying the same thing. When, WHEN will idiots like this stop with this "I'm not convinced" game?
    We don't have time to coddle these fools.

  • Les Hudelson
    June 15, 2009 11:14 p.m.

    Perhaps it finally time to have a educational tune-up for the readers and speakers who throw out opinions without the slightest notion of the meaning of the words that they use.

    But I am sure that the same people who discount science will argue that their interpretation of the words are also acurate, as they seem to not care about history, arithmatic, or any medium of acurate communication of thought, much less the integration of facts, thought, and wisodom.
    For 40 years now we have a radical right wing, ignoring all of the efforts of the educational and scientific feilds to make it possible for the USA to have aided in the winning of WWII, that allowed us to then go forward, as an educated country, leading in all aspects of society.

    Today we cannot even field a competitve Math team internationally.

    Sciece is not an omnipotent entity like some people want to believe in. It is science, it is in therory, if you have educated your society to be open minded, constanly checking it's own self. We then need not waste time in arguing, we merely look at truth. It is what it is, no denieing it.

  • shecky
    June 15, 2009 11:12 p.m.

    It takes a man of real courage with little or no scientific background to disagree with about 99% of actual scientists who do this every day for a living.

  • Tab L. Uno
    June 15, 2009 10:50 p.m.

    Hopefully the next Governor of Utah will just allow the federal government and the scientists to protect our global environment as there are larger climatic and economic issues at stake. The huge consensus of world scientific opinion has determined the urgent need to begin addressing climate change by whatever means necessary to our next generation's survival. How long did it take people to accept the earth was not the center of the universe and actually circled the sun, that the world was round not flat, that evolution from apes was a scientific fact, and that now humans contribute to global warming. When the small minority of people willing to risk our future survival based on conspiracy theories, it becomes the very narrow undemocratic and rigid, narrow road that autocratic, dictatorships have also taken.

  • Go Gary Go!
    June 15, 2009 10:47 p.m.

    What a gutsy move on Herbert's part! This is awesome. Herbert is going to be awesome. He has a way of speaking his mind but at the same time bringing all sides to the table for good healthy discussion. I am really excited to see what he does as our governor.

  • Hester
    June 15, 2009 10:44 p.m.

    The debate IS over among the "politically correct" elite who think their opinion is the only one that matters. The debate is NOT over at the grassroots level, nor even among the scientific community. There are many excellent scientists who have no pre-determined political agenda, but who remain sceptical of the climate change findings that have been reported thus far.

  • Michael
    June 15, 2009 10:37 p.m.

    I am not a scientist - I am a pragmatist. I believe in what I can see, touch and feel. Go to Google and search images of "shrinking glaciers". That is something that can be seen and measured. Melted ice means more water in the oceans. More water in the oceans means higher sea levels. Higher sea levels means massive destruction and flooding. Go and learn, explore, decide for yourselves and quit letting politicians tell you what is "truth" and "fact".

  • Jess
    June 15, 2009 9:00 p.m.

    Here's some science that is not politically inspired: In geological time, the amount of CO2 in our presently is almost at an all-time low. Millions of years ago when the earth had the greatest amount of plant cover it also had the most CO2 in the atmosphere. Why, because plants grow better in a CO2 enriched environment. The more CO2, the more food production for our hungry planet. We will also have much more oxygen since a product of photosynthesis is oxygen. We'll all be healthier with more CO2. If you still remain unconvinced that CO2 is the enemy and you actually believe the global warming hypothesis and think we should sequester CO2, then grow more trees. Tons and tons of carbon is locked up in trees on our planet. CO2 is not the enemy, it is vitally important for the survival of life on our planet. It's a good thing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

  • @ Anon 8:31
    June 15, 2009 8:38 p.m.

    No the worst that could happen is trillions of dollars of wasted resources that could have been used to cure cancer or AIDS, provide healthcare for the uninsured, end hunger in our lifetime, etc.

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2009 8:31 p.m.

    Getting pretty sick of the left vs. right rhetoric. How is this a political issue? Can we stop listening to spin from the left and right and just use our own minds for a while? Yes, there is enough science to support climate change, and yes, there is enough science to suggest some serious consequences--so, duh, we stop looking for a conspiracies and do something about it. If the vast majority of scientists in the world are wrong, what's the worst that could happen? Cleaner air & water?

  • Cambridge
    June 15, 2009 8:19 p.m.

    When someone declares the debate over, you can be assured they are speaking dogma, not science.

  • Finally!!!
    June 15, 2009 7:06 p.m.

    A governor who thinks like the vast majority of his constituents!!!

    I hope these meetings were not taxpayer funded.

    I'd feel a lot better about western states governors assembling to discuss bigfoot and UFOs because at least congress isn't trying to pass crippling legislation (cap n' trade) to stop those myths.

  • Eugene
    June 15, 2009 7:01 p.m.

    Hooey is rigtht! It's just another way the left can push their agenda on the regular folks! Fight back on this nonsense, America! Chicago has had the coldest June on record! It snows in places this year that have not ever received snow begore. The intermountain west has seen one of its coldest and wettest springs on record.

    Besides a true trend in warming must be considered over thousands of years, not just a decade or two. Need I say more!

  • Mc
    June 15, 2009 6:56 p.m.

    It's good to see that Herbert has an open mind, willing to analyze and evaluate the science rather than jumping on the political climate change bandwagon.

  • Shocking...
    June 15, 2009 6:45 p.m.

    An ultra conservative shills for mining, film at 11.

  • Ralph Hansen Ph. D.
    June 15, 2009 6:43 p.m.

    Hooray for Herbert! He understand science doesn't operate by consensus - only politics does. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory based on highly speculative climate models. They're nothing more than mega-million dollar computer games.

    Just what is it that possesses so many gullible people to believe these models that predict that a modest increase in the concentrations of a trace gas in our atmosphere (CO2) can overwhelm the sun, the oceans and the clouds that create weather on our planet? And why is it most of those who believe have a "D" behind their name? How convenient that regulating CO2 would give liberals control over energy policy and the lives of every American.

    Nature constantly seeks equilibrium - that's why we have weather - and human carbon dioxide emissions are nothing but a blip on nature's radar. The Lt. Gov. is not only right to question the "consensus," he's right that humans have a minimal impact on our climate.

  • No big surprise!
    June 15, 2009 6:40 p.m.

    Why did Huntsman have to leave and stick us with a man who is more interested in looking for the few scientists to confirm his own point of view, rather than look at what the vast majority of scientists are saying. This is the typical know-it-all Republican politician whose credentials far outweighs the real experts in the field whether it be scientists, health care workers, or school teachers. If they are not careful, they might even start challenging God's knowledge.

  • utahenergyideas
    June 15, 2009 6:34 p.m.

    Gary Herbert is a great man and will be a great governor.

    We may not agree with each other re: CO2 cap/trade, taxes, or our effects on climate.

    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.

    We do need more renewable energy. 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.

    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.

    Do we have existing dams that we could add hydro power to, without putting more land underwater, hurting our rivers and/or wildlife?

    It has been pointed out that renewable energy will help the state's economy in places that coal, or gas won't. Renewable energy being added to the mix will increase the life of the Utah coal economy.

    Having goals to rely on renewable energy and energy savings to make up the increased demand on power is good.

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2009 6:33 p.m.

    At least he doesn't fall for the belief that the debate is over. There are too many well informed, well educated men with conscience who believe that the debate is NOT over. Climate change is all about money, just follow Al Gore's trail. Congratulations Governor Herbert for your common sense, courage,and insight not to just follow the heard on this nonsense. What a nice change and a real breath of fresh air

  • Research Scientist
    June 15, 2009 6:32 p.m.

    Finally, a politician that is interested in looking at peer reviewed scientific studies and facts instead of pseudo science contrived to benefit political agendas.

    The debate over "climate change" is indeed NOT over.

  • Yay for Governor Herbert!
    June 15, 2009 6:18 p.m.

    This is the dumbest debate since Darwinism. Global Warming is nothing more than a political scare tactic. NASA has already studied the problem and they've concluded that the Sun warms the Earth NOT people. That's just common sense! I remember learning that in grade school about 30 years ago. Al Gore is a moron and so are all the people who believe his quackery.

  • arc
    June 15, 2009 6:12 p.m.

    The earth gets cooler and warmer. IF you figure that WE are causing most of it, you have to take into account things most people don't.

    0. The solar wind is at a 50 years low, which could cause global cooling.
    1. The rain forests are critical. Burning and clearing rain forests are a bigger deal re: greenhouse gases than cars. Remember the Harrison Ford ad with the tape on his chest being ripped off?
    2. You have to take into account that Methane Gas, (not burned) released in to the air is much worse than burning it. Methane gas is worse than CO2 re: "greenhouse" gases.
    3. You have to take into account that methane released into the atmosphere often comes from several non-man sources: Wetlands, cows belching, termites, permafrost, etc.

    Most of us are willing to agree with cleaner air, water and land, that said, I am not worried about the CO2. I am worried about the cow belching and termites. :)

  • Is this a joke?
    June 15, 2009 6:10 p.m.

    So science is now something politicians vote on?

  • Good for Herbert
    June 15, 2009 6:06 p.m.

    Obviously the Montana Governor has never been to Europe for him to state the debate is over with in that region of the world.

    Climate Change as outlined by the UN and Al Gore has many 'top CLIMATE Scientists' disagreeing. Their names were put on that findings without their consent. They know that through the studying of climate records that we are actually much cooler than we have been just in recent human history.

    We are coming out of a period known as "The Little Ice Age". Of course it seems hot to some. But during the times of Christ for several hundred years, it was significantly hotter than it is now.

    Climate is directly tied to the sun, not Co2, in fact Co2 cools the earth. There is a reason why you can only see a couple of man made objects from space, because despite what our arrogant nature tells us, Human's have far less impact that we would like to think.

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2009 5:59 p.m.

    And he is going to be the next Governor? Heaven help us all!!