« Back to Home Page

Sign up for the 3p daily dispatch:

House Resolution Passed in Utah: Climate Change a Conspiracy

| Friday February 12th, 2010 | 53 Comments

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server last November caused a stir among global warming skeptics, who said they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

These events, combined with constant back and forth debate, have left people here in America, and around the world, confused about the state of climate change. Is it happening or not? Is man to blame? For every piece of evidence claiming that global warming is true, by showing that Arctic ice hit a 30 year low in 2007, there are opposing reports that claim the ice is at record high levels. Many people on the East Coast, having been choked by recent record snowfalls and unseasonably cold temperatures, are quick to assert that these weather events are evidence that the Earth is not warming after all. Even though this kind of anecdotal evidence is clearly not scientific, many people are using these events to support existing suspicions that climate change is not occurring. Not surprisingly, state politics has found its way to the center of this ongoing debate. In Utah, the House displayed its own distrust about the premise of global warming by passing a resolution claiming it is all a big conspiracy.

Utah’s House of Representatives passed a resolution on Tuesday February 9th, 2010 that implies climate change science is a conspiracy and urged the EPA to stop all carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs. As a resolution, it holds no legal weight, but it sends a clear message. The resolution specifically claims that there is a “well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome.”

The resolution begs the question, who’s conspiring and why? What would motivate scientists to fudge data and, more importantly, what will changing perceptions mean for the future fight to preserve and protect our planet? As judgments are made and lines are drawn, it is important to understand one’s motivations, including those of scientists and legislators in Utah.

With respect to Utah, coal holds a firm grip on the state since close to 90 percent of their electricity comes from coal. Understandably, many in Utah are strongly opposed to cap-and-trade. Utah coal mines produced 26 million tons of coal in 2006, making Utah the 12th biggest coal-producing state in the country. Its coal fired plants emit approximately 41 million tons of CO2, 34,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 68,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide. This results in Utah coal plants producing 66 percent of the state’s total carbon emissions.

Science, like many other fields, can be contentious. Personal biases, though they shouldn’t, do sometimes interfere. Regardless, sound scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere poses considerable risk to humans and their environment.

Hopefully the climate debate will force people to investigate climate change for themselves and draw educated decisions. To accommodate the potential increase in public demand for climate change information, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration plans to form a NOAA Climate Service line office and launch a new website to serve as a single point of entry for NOAA’s extensive climate information, data, products and services. Known as the NOAA Climate Portal, the site addresses the needs of decision makers and policy leaders, scientists and applications-oriented data users, educators, business leaders, and the public.


▼▼▼      53 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Walker/1143859075 Jeff Walker

    Global warming is a joke. They are getting snow so far south now is crazy! ITs a way to make money period. Volcanos of the past like the super volcanos we have here in the states produced FAR more Co2 than we made or make. Look at the co2 levels during the jurrasic, peleozoic and I didnt see Dino driving a SUV. ITs cycle and organisms in the oceans and land expand to take up more Co2 when its there. BAck in the 80's it was said that the earth was heading to another ice age. Guess Gore and the guys couldnt find any money on that so they went warming. First thought is Hell when you think of heat and warming. Worked! Congrats Gore and nutty's! But now the secret is out and he is gone.

    • Joe

      You are the most ignorant person to ever spew such nonsense. No wonder America is falling behind 3rd world countries in science and technology. Have you ever traveled beyond your little bubble? It's pure utter human stupidity to think we do not have a negative impact on this planet.

    • Just as stupid

      I would hesitate to take 9″ snowfall in Dallas, Texas as strong indication against global warming. Read about El Nino and La Nina, and you'll learn they're catalyzed by change in climate in areas far remote from the ocean streams being redirected.

      • Joe

        If you 'actually' were a scientist or had any actual training, you would know why snow is caused. Warmest summers on record, coldest winters. Extremes. Do some research and stop watching Fox news for you science.

    • Sailer

      Well its a great relief to know that climate change is not going to happen. I have been looking at the NASA website and the scientist there keep saying that CO2 levels are dangerously high. Its just as well we have those good ole boys down in Utah to tell us its all rubbish and we can keep burning coal and oil and not worry at all.

  • http://www.commieblaster.com/ CommieBlaster

    FLASH!!

    This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme and his Claims of Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4

    • nickaster

      Thanks CommieBlaster, the title of that video alone gave me the biggest laugh I've had this week. It's all a commie plot!!!

    • http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com/ Nick Palmer

      No it doesn't. it just shows how manipulative the people who made it were with their highly selective editing

  • disgusted by joe public

    It's a sad state of affairs when people can ignore the good science (99%) just because some bad science (1%) got in. What the heck – good science is wasted on you people. Go back and live in the stone age if you don't like it.

    • LOL

      As one of my college professors said: “show me the data!”

      Who are you to determine what is good science and what is bad science? Where is your data to back it up?

    • tinkertinker

      that 1% of bad science is exactly the psudo-research of so called “global warming”. The Globe has gone through cycles of warming and glacial periods, long before any beings had existed. Wonder how those psudo-scientists can explain away those cycles without putting blames on human beings. Those “scientists” are guys who just siphon up the funds from our tax money to sustain their positions for their reveries and for their junkets. They should be out of their current jobs and get re-trained to do some meaningful work. If not, they'll remain to be blood-suckers who are to continue to churn out loads of “global warming” publications.

    • H. Halverson

      One can always tell when research money dries up–a newsmaking “problem” will arise . These are generally non-problems. For example the “acid rain” that did not exist.–it provided a lot of research funds for several years..People do not contribute more than a tiny, tiny bit to the natural demise of the ice age—the rest is a search for research money–all scientists know that to be true—only the hoonest will say so.

      • nickaster

        Amigos – If this were a conspiracy about getting funding for research then wouldn't scientists fuel doubt and not certainty? Wouldn't they say “well I don't know, i think we need to study this more”?

        • UtahPatriot

          Interesting point, Nick. Perhaps. But that's assuming that no more research would follow. It would seem to me that if they said they're not sure and that it may or may not be a problem, they'd get little attention and funding.

          With the threat of global warming 'established', they get the attention and needed funding. Then the research (and research dollars) can go to scientific solutions and/or to continued monitoring to know if attempted solutions (scientific or political) are working.

          I'm not saying this is what's happening — just saying it's possible. Honest skeptics are simply trying to illustrate 'reasonable doubt' that may merit more honest debate.

  • Bruce

    Science???

    Consumer reports test trucks with regular gas and with E85. The truck dropped from 14mpg to 10mpg on E85. The “Scientists” wanted you to burn more gas to travel the same amount of miles which means it they actually made things worse. And it raised the price of food!

    The Science is corrupt!

    http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/08/31/0

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Steven Sullivan

    “For every piece of evidence claiming that global warming is true, by showing that Arctic ice hit a 30 year low in 2007, there are opposing reports that claim the ice is at record high levels'

    That's false. Climate science is not he said she said. There is absolutely not anything near a 1:1 no:yes ratio for the data. The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a global warming trend. You're also confusing land ice and sea ice. And of course a cold snowy winter does not refute global climate warming.

    The way things 'seem' to people who only read the hysterical news media is not the way things are in the scientific literature.

    • http://GreenBusinessVillage.com/ Scott Cooney

      This is the key comment here. I completely agree. News media likes to present controversies, so as a result, 99% of good science is represented by one side, but the news will give equal time (and perceived weight) to the 1% that represents the other side. The IPCC is near unanimous with 4,000 scientists globally confirming that 1) climate change is real and 2) we are causing it. A few Exxon-funded scientists somehow get equal time on the airwaves, and WHAM, the public thinks there's some sort of controversy here.

      There's no controversy. The good thing is that corporations and governments are waking up to the fact that climate change is bad for business and bad for economies. There's significant momentum in a lot of areas to combat it, and stodgy do-nothings can keep their heads in the sand while the rest of us make money by getting ahead of the curve. It's their own opportunity they're wasting, and as unfortunate as it is that they've chosen to be ignorant, we can't worry about the “Joe's” of the world, like our first commenter….they're an ever shrinking minority. Utah is the most conservative state in the country. Everyone knows religious fundamentalists are wack-jobs (just read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer to understand Utah's backwards politics). Other backwards states might follow them, but look at the 08 electoral map and its change from 04….backwards states are disappearing.

      • BackwardUtah

        Scott, are you saying that any state that is a Red State is considered a backward state? So that any thinking that is not your thinking is backward?

        • UtahPatriot

          Scott, Scott, Scott…

          You're not doing your argument much good by making blanket statements in a tone of ridicule. It's one thing to debate the issues, causes and potential solutions, but castigating the citizenry of entire states as ignorant, backward, religious fundamentalists and whack-jobs says more that you're lacking in substance.

          I do have a couple of questions for you though:

          1. Have you been to Utah or studied much about the state? Yes, it's population is predominantly conservative in its political views. Yes, there is a majority of one particular religion that is often misunderstood or disregarded as “fundamentalist whack-jobs”.

          Did you know that Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader and supporter of Cap and Trade and all things environmental is one of those “fundamentalist whack-jobs”?

          What about Philo Farnsworth, inventor of the first fully electronic television as well as a nuclear fusion device? Yep, he was one of those backward “fundamentalist whack-jobs” from Utah.

          Did you know that the University of Utah has one of the top business schools in the nation? That's tough to do when you're “backward”.

          Did you know that Utah is often called the second “silicon valley” because of its technological development? Pretty impressive for some backward folks.

          Did you know that Utah has been rated #1 in the nation three years in a row for financial management? Not bad for some “backward” people. It would be nice to see a 'sophisticated' state like California do that!

          Did you know that technology for capturing wind-generated energy in the form of compressed air will be implemented in Utah, making wind power a more viable large-scale option? Still backward?

          How about the first successful implant of an artificial heart? Yep, backward Utah inventors and surgeons pulled that off. How DO these backward people do it? It's a wonder they can even dress themselves!

          The point is, trying to paint a broad brushstroke of “ignorance” across the citizens of an entire state because their political views differ from yours challenges the credibility of any of your other statements.

          2. If I understand your comment, there are “Exxon-funded scientists” that are not to be trusted because they have questionable motives. Now can you understand how some of us might question government-funded scientists and their motives? Should we trust governments and some corporations (and their scientists) and not others? If so, which ones?

          3. Did all 4,000 IPCC scientists perform independent studies, using their own methods and all come to similar, independent conclusions? Or did a few teams of scientists perform the studies, take the measurements in the field, publish their findings and then win support from the scientific community that trusts them?

          The fact that the IPCC has had to backtrack on things (like glacial melting in the Himalayas), and that original data is missing so it can't be re-examined, and that questionable data and practices have come to light (the whole “climate-gate” event) at the very least casts a shadow of doubt as to the trustworthiness of *some* of the scientists and governmental boards. Is it ignorant to acknowledge these things?

          All of these things aside, do you really think that global warming can be solved through taxes and carbon credits? That governments are trustworthy enough to manage this without corruption? That the proposed solutions will actually work? Have you considered the potential negative consequences of governments having such power? Or the effect on already strained economies?

          Being skeptical of the severity of and proposed political solutions to global warming does not mean that I want everyone to go around polluting. When I see trash on the ground, I pick it up. I recycle, I and carry my groceries home in reusable bags. I drive a compact, fuel-efficient car. I hope to have cost-effective solar technology some day to supplement or replace the power in my home. I want corporations to be responsible in their disposal of toxic materials. I want to breathe clean air. I think that (barring emergence of some altogether new technology) electric cars are the best alternative to fossil fuel vehicles because it separates the source of the power from the use of the power, allowing people to drive zero point-of-use emission vehicles while cleaner technologies are developed to provide the power that charges them.

          Do these things make me backward? Or is it just that I lack your trust in government? Or that I think there are millions more lives that can be saved NOW from hunger and disease than through action that will *hopefully* have some effect in coming decades? If so, maybe backward isn't so bad…

      • UtahPatriot

        I guess John Christy, former lead author for the IPCC should now be lumped in with those “backward” people in Utah:

        http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/world

        Can we all stop with “the science is settled” and “the debate is over” and “head-in-the-sand” comments now please?

      • Mike

        Funny…. Us Backward hicks that don't know anything, sure are happy. But not as happy as we were last year.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/125849/Hawaii-Tops-U

  • Joe Blake

    Hey Steve,

    You state “The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a global warming trend.” Really. I am unaware of ANY FACT used for GLOBAL WARMING that has not been refuted.

    For the record, by REFUTED I mean the data has been shown to be FABRICATED, CHERRY PICKED, GATHERED IN A MANNER NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RANDOM, or OPPOSING DATA HAS BEEN IGNORED>

    • http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com/ Nick Palmer

      Your sources are lying to you, Mr. Blake

  • GlobalWarmingIsAJoke

    The problem with the whole Global Warming debate is that we just simply don't know one way or the other. We don't have enough data. Period. The only things that we know for certain is that weather is affected by solar activity which has increased over the last few years and that we humans as a global population produce only 3% of the combined carbon emissions anually. THREE PERCENT. I seriously doubt that's enough to throw our environment into choas.

    • Joe

      Uh, yeah. Read my ignorant statement above. Applies to you as well. Do you think smoking a pack of cigarettes a day will not adversely affect your health? Or is your ignorance so self-serving that you think us spewing tons of crap into the atmosphere won't affect this earth? This self-serving, self centered generation that is 'debating' this issue has no cause or concern for future generations. It's not rocket science, things we do now affect future generations. Plain and simple. Green power is to ensure future generations aren't left with the wastes and by-products of our greed.

      • LOL

        Joe, you need a fact check buddy. A more correct comparison would be something like inhaling 1 puff of smoke every other day. No, this would no adversely affect your health. The human carbon emissions are so small that they essentially have no impact on the climate. “it's not rocket science”. No it's not, and it's not a coronary heart attack either as you pundits insist it is. When was it that Gore said the trend would become irreversible? Yeah, I haven't been hearing that doomsday clock argument lately, probably because its b/s.

        • Joe

          Which facts are you referring to? Have you ever been to Russia? Seen a street so littered with dust from falloff? Ever actually seen a coal producing plant up close? Betcha a bundle of cash you haven't. In my job I have. This isn't your ignorant arm-chair politics, this is the real world. Get out, turn off the Tv and see the world before you spew your Fox News science facts.

        • LOL

          Well genius, I lived in town with over a dozen lumber mills, a coal fired power plant about 15 miles away and currently work in Environmental Health. So, yeah I deal w/ environmental issues on a day-to-day basis. Sure coal plants are dirty and clean energy would be great, but the amount of CO2 produced by humans is insignificant. Sure, when you've got your mouth over an exhaust pipe, the air seems pretty bad. You need to get out and see the world from a broader perspective and stop moping around the slums.

    • Guy

      Keep in mind that local weather extremes are no indication of an global average. Localized weather extremes of all types are an expected consequnece of a warming trend. Also reducing harmful emissions has its own advantages from a human health perspective. The “Global warming is a scam so lets forget about reducing smog forming emmisions” is the biggest joke. Why every layman suddenly becomes a chemistry/physics/climate expert when confronted by an idea they are told is false stuns me, Do you argue with your doctor when he asks you to take a new medication knowing in all likelyhood that a drug company is giving him incentives to sell? Your paranoia would be better spent here. The data is there, (e.g. here for a simple overview http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB…) the thermometers say it is getting warmer overall globally, this is not to say scienctists should not take care careful consideration of how the data is collected and interpreted. There is simply not enough historical data a (couple centuries of records vs. 4-5 billion years of history) for ANYone, scientists or laymen who listen to talk radio to say definitively whether it is caused by man or what the long term results may be. Bottom line leave science to the scientists, even if a few are misrepresenting the case, there are still plenty of benefits to finding alternative energies that are cleaner and more efficient. If it is shown they lied to get the point across to the public, I feel this would be justified as this case clearly shows it is more about the public consensus to make political changes, the public who unfortunately must rely on the media to get the watered down version of a science they would not understand if given all the raw data, it is up to the scientists to interpret this the best they can, and most do their jobs well. Lastly to say “Really. I am unaware of ANY FACT used for GLOBAL WARMING that has not been refuted.
      by REFUTED I mean the data has been shown to be FABRICATED, CHERRY PICKED, GATHERED IN A MANNER NOT CONSIDERED TO BE RANDOM, or OPPOSING DATA HAS BEEN IGNORED>” without offering any Facts to back this up makes me laugh just a little. The current issue aside, representing only a small portion of our collective knowledge you are choosing to believe what someone (who?) has told you.

  • UtahPatriot

    What motivation could scientists and governments have for fudging scientific data about global warming? Really??? As always, MONEY! Let me count the ways:

    1. Governments stand to gain BILLIONS in taxes with Cap and Trade and similar legislation.

    2. Businesses in the 'green' sector, and those who invest in them (think GE, Al Gore, et cetera) also stand to make billions as artificial demand is imposed for 'green' products. These businesses spend millions and millions of dollars lobbying the government. You really think elected officials will ignore that kind of lobbying when elections are coming up and campaigns need contributions?

    3. Carbon credit trading will allow businesses to profit on their carbon 'excess' while companies with carbon deficits will simply pay more to keep polluting, passing costs on to consumers.

    4. Scientists receive millions in federal grant money to perform their research. If the government wants global warming, it will fund the scientists who will produce it. You really think scientists won't bend their data for millions in research money?

    The skepticism is about the fact that climate changes in cycles — naturally. How do you think we 'warmed' out of ice ages? Coal-fired power plants? Sun cycles and changes in the sub-oceanic conveyor (from changes in saline concentration) are likely to have far more impact on our planet's temperature than man.

    Ultimately, there is no way to prove conclusively that we are not just in another natural cycle. Just for the sake of argument, let's just say that global warming is real at a dangerous level. Here are some questions worth asking:

    1. Do we really have that much faith in government to 'fix' it? Look at all the other places where man has stepped in to try to 'fix' mother nature: Indian mynah birds in the pacific islands, mongooses in Hawaii, super-forest-fires fed by decades of preventing natural fires from taking their course, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

    2. Do we really have faith that governments will eschew corruption with billions of dollars at play?

    3. Do we really have faith that this isn't about 'leveling the global economic playing field' as was posted on a White House web page? Or at the very least, that leveling the economic playing field won't be a negative externality of climate-based legislation? The biggest polluters (China and India) will boom with growth as they are exempted from greenhouse gas restrictions, while growth in developed countries (like the USA) will be hobbled.

    4. Do we really believe that the 'science of the day' is infallible? Remember that blood-letting was the 'science of the day' in George Washington's time. How many people died from such 'settled' science? Too far back in history to be relevant? Okay, remember that global cooling and a coming ice-age was the 'science of the day' in the 1970s, complete with the same levels of catastrophic predictions.

    5. If global warming is a real threat, do we really think that the planet will burn up? If climates change and ice-caps melt, won't we find MORE places with growing seasons suitable for crop production to feed the planet's growing population?

    6. And perhaps most importantly, is it worth spending billions — even trillions — on an attempt to control global temperatures (that may or may not work) for some future date with estimated future calamities, based (at least in part) on corrupted data, when we know that there are MILLIONS of people dying every year from preventable diseases and circumstances? Are our priorities really pure when we want to save people that are in theoretical danger decades from now, only to ignore millions of human beings in real, immediate danger today?

    Now tell me, is this a perspective from an ignorant, holocaust-denying, head-in-the-sand simpleton? Let's put aside theories of future catastrophe and use our resources in unity to solve real life-and-death issues occurring today.

    • Joe

      This whole argument is ridiculous. ” Do we really believe that the 'science of the day' is infallible…blood-letting was the 'science of the day' in George Washington's time” Are you seriously comparing todays scientists to that era?

      • UtahPatriot

        Advanced mathematics was born centuries ago. Do we abandon it because it was so long ago? Are we so arrogant as to think that science can never be wrong? Don't confuse the scientific process with knowledge. We may have more knowledge, better instruments, et cetera, but do you really think our generation of scientists is smarter? That today's scientists can never make mistakes? Simply arrogant.

        Our generation stands on the shoulders of giants, and future generations will stand on ours, but there will also be advancements in science in future generations that will reverse some things we think are 'fact' today.

        Besides, I anticipated that some would shallowly mock the comparison to blood letting, so I provided an example from the 1970s — on the very subject herein discussed!

    • Guy

      “Do we really believe that the 'science of the day' is infallible?” No, but I'd bet you don't argue this with your MD. Science does not always work as anticipated but it does give a net gain of understanding and power over our surroundings.

      • UtahPatriot

        Agreed — a net gain. That's well stated. You're also correct that I don't argue with my MD. However, it doesn't mean they can't misdiagnose or mistreat. There are times I've declined a recommended treatment I was not yet confident in.

        More importantly, stating that there is the *possibility* of fallibility does not mean that I'm arguing that they are all wrong. The fact that doctors carried out blood letting does not mean that all doctors of the day were completely wrong about everything. It just means that something that was commonly practiced and considered medical science happened to be not only completely in error, but often deadly in its consequences.

        I respect those who are genuinely concerned about global warming. Hence my points about priorities. I recommend a look at the Copenhagen Consensus for some well-reasoned points about the good that can be done now versus the estimated good that can be done decades from now.

    • don

      like he said gogogo

  • milniko

    He believes some sceptics are influenced by concerns other than scientific truth, comparing them to now discredited lobbyists who argued smoking did not cause cancer.

    A lot of critics comes from the United States, from vested interests, coal and oil interests in the United States which are very strong and which employ thousands of lobbyists in Washington to try and influence members of Congress that climate change is not happening.

    In the past there were lobbyists who argued smoking did not cause cancer, and many people died, but many survived.

    So it's a major problem in the United States and it does spill over to this country too. And wold will suffer …

  • UtahPatriot

    Spewing “Fox News facts', huh? What if we use the same 'consensus' argument for news channels like scientists use for global warming. Since Fox News absolutely dominates the ratings, shouldn't it be treated as the infallible standard? Shouldn't the debate be closed for everything they report?

    All joking aside, it's sad that so many commenters devolve into name-callers. Why should someone give credence to the argument of someone who lashes out as if with some personal vendetta against another commenter? If we're all so concerned about our planet, why aren't we concerned with civility one to another? I'm beginning to think the debate is 'over' because there are so few capable of actual, honest debate…

    I have more respect for those who post honest supporting arguments (for either side), than for those who declare things with absolute finality and ridicule opposing points of view. The ridiculers are stumbling blocks to understanding and resolution.

    • LOL

      “If you can't beat 'em, call 'em names”

      It's a typical tactic of the left. You don't agree with us, so you must be stupid, ignorant, or racist. Who cares about facts when the theory forwards a positive agenda?

  • Larry Craig

    While we continue to argue what is already settled, the rest of the world moves forward and further ahead of the USA. Hey conservatives: Worry less about debt that your poor kids will have to pay and worry more about your kids having an inhabitable planet to live on first. You people are truly dangerous.

    • Bruce

      “While we continue to argue what is already settled …'

      Actually the foreing media is extremely aggressive now attacking the lies of AGW. Even the Guardian is pointing out the lies.

      The USA media are just Al Gore's poodles.

      If you just read or watch the mainstream media in the USA, you rarely have any idea of whats really going on.

    • UtahPatriot

      Larry,

      Do you genuinely believe the planet will be uninhabitable? Do you genuinely believe governments will be able to honestly and successfully prevent/reverse the effects of global warming through taxes and carbon credits? Will global warming cause *millions* of people to die? Will government taxes and carbon credits save *millions* of people?

      If you genuinely believe these things, then I respectfully disagree. You have a lot more faith in governments than I. It still begs the question: What of the *millions* of people who are already dying, year-after-year from preventable water-born illness and other preventable/treatable conditions? Are their lives worth less now than lives a few decades from now? We KNOW they can be saved now. We DON'T know for sure if efforts to reverse theorized effects of global warming would/could be successful.

      As for the world passing the USA by, China and India are leading the way. Why? In large part because they have cheap energy with few/no restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and other environmental constraints. In almost every instance, growth and development is fueled by cheap energy.

  • Mike

    I think that maybe this is not a stand against climate change, but a stand against the federal government telling states what they can and can't do. You may want to look at two other pieces of legislation going through Utah right now.

    1- They have passed a Bill SB11 that tells the federal government they have no right to control the sell/purchase of firearms and firearm related items manufactured in Utah and sold for use in Utah. http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/sbillint/sb0011.htm

    2- BH67 is a Health System Amendments bill that basically tells the federal government that Utah has the right to not implement federal health care reform, and they don't have the right to force or fine anyone in Utah because of their health care choices. http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillamd/hb0067s

    I personally think that the resolution is to let the EPA and the federal government know that they may have a fight on their hands if they try to mandate Tax and Trade on Utah. I personally would like to see this trend in other states as well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Walker/1143859075 Jeff Walker

    Bash me if you want. But it is now shown that the so called experts were fabricating data to suit the needs. Every week you here another story of how they messed up on the report. Oh wrong wording oh wrong year oh well if you look at it this way.. Look no doubt we add things to the atomosphere. I DID go to school and have a degree in earth science (geology). The core samples that we looked at showed huge changes to the earth WAY before and many times faster than anything going on now. The bottom of the ocean has layers of locked up Co2 in deposits from algae that uses Co2. IF there is more around they multiply. Yellowstone (super volcano) produced more Co2 and green house gasses than we will ever produce in 100 life times. Guess what the planet survives. The crater in yucatan MAJOR debris worse than Co2 covered the earth for years causing a cooling trend (mini ice age) Infact most Ice age minor or major have been directly related to more Co2, methane and other gasses in the air than warming. This is something thats plain BS. Look for yourself. Do NOT trust the media or the government. Its all about money. PLEASE I BEG you do your OWN research. I cannot fathom how you forgot the earth was heading to an ice age just 20 years ago! The axis is rotating an average of 6+” a year as well. They move the little puch that marks true north EVERY year. Look that up! Of course places will get hotter and colder. We wobble and tip as well. el Nino La Nina VERY complicated. They cant predict if its going to rain next week. Think they can tell me whats going to happen in 10 years????????

  • Eric

    Why argue? We all know what's really happening. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it only matters who is left. Say what you want, just make sure you're on board the boat when the cap and trade hits the fan. I agree with everyone in this forum as long as you are preparing for the future intelligently, whether deceptively or not. I think those that are in favor of not believing in climate change are really more concerned with picking and choosing who comes out on top in terms of survival of ensuing economic catastrophe I don't mean to offend, but I wonder if that is an accurate assessment? I'm interested in what you may have to say or how you may feel about that?

  • Eric

    Why argue? We all know what's really happening. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it only matters who is left. Say what you want, just make sure you're on board the boat when the cap and trade hits the fan. I agree with everyone in this forum as long as you are preparing for the future intelligently, whether deceptively or not. I think those that are in favor of not believing in climate change are really more concerned with picking and choosing who comes out on top in terms of survival of ensuing economic catastrophe I don't mean to offend, but I wonder if that is an accurate assessment? I'm interested in what you may have to say or how you may feel about that?

  • Eric

    Why argue? We all know what's really happening. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, it only matters who is left. Say what you want, just make sure you're on board the boat when the cap and trade hits the fan. I agree with everyone in this forum as long as you are preparing for the future intelligently, whether deceptively or not. I think those that are in favor of not believing in climate change are really more concerned with picking and choosing who comes out on top in terms of survival of ensuing economic catastrophe I don't mean to offend, but I wonder if that is an accurate assessment? I'm interested in what you may have to say or how you may feel about that?

  • Eric

    Sorry I didnt' mea to post three times!!

  • http://www.chiropracticmarketingsecret.com/ Chiropractic Marketing
  • rorybergin

    All this discussion makes me sad. You are wasting valuable time on a series of arguments that essentially have already happened somewhere else and the outcome has been decided. You just don't appear to accept that. The Copenhagen Accord was signed by every major govt on the planet, and all were democratically elected, apart from a small minority. There is no argument anymore. The discussion should be on what do do about it and how quickly and cheaply we can get it done. There is no downside for Utah, or anyone else, cleaner air, less pollution, more local energy, fewer imports, more green jobs, warmer homes, lower fuel bills. What about this is bad news for Utah, the USA or anywhere else?

  • Pingback: Utah: el calentamiento global es una conspiración - Ecoperiodico()

  • hydroponic_s

    Many people really enjoy gardening.In this post, i am sure that they will learn new things that they can apply on their garden.

    http://www.hydroponicswholesale.com

  • stevenwessel

    Excellent article! I look forward to an article on 'clean coal' if such a thing exists.

  • Sailer

    Well its a great relief to know that climate change is not going to happen. I have been looking at the NASA website and the scientist there keep saying that CO2 levels are dangerously high. Its just as well we have those good ole boys down in Utah to tell us its all rubbish and we can keep burning coal and oil and not worry at all.

  • http://www.rossaldridge.co.uk accident claims

    Some very insightful point put out on here, keep the conversation comming I am really enjoying the read!!

  • Pingback: Utah Climate change news – Utah Climate | Move to Utah » Blog Archive()

  • Pingback: Utah Climate change news – Utah Climate | Move to Utah » Blog Archive()