Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Denying Climate Change

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the still-snowing-here dept.

Earth 787

cowtamer writes "The Utah State Assembly has passed a resolution decrying climate change alarmists and urging '...the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated.' Here is the full text of H.J.R 12." The resolution has no force of law. The Guardian article includes juicy tidbits from its original, far more colorful, version.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I love to be the first to say this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167872)

There hasn't been any statistically significant warming since at least 1995.

Re:I love to be the first to say this... (4, Informative)

Davemania (580154) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167908)

I am assuming you're referring to Phil Jones statement and obviously, you did not bother to actually understand the context of what he was trying to say http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=141 [skepticalscience.com]

Re:I love to be the first to say this... (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168012)

That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.

People have trouble comprehending anything that takes longer than 20 years to prove, that's the problem. Innate flaw in our psychological makeup.

Re:I love to be the first to say this... (4, Funny)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168078)

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major state, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must deny climate change! The defense rests.

Re:I love to be the first to say this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168200)

Have you been watching the Vancouver Olympics?

I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167874)

WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;

What do you propose to collect independent data from 1950 to 2010? Time travel? Of course you have to rely on global climate researchers.

I more than understand their concerns with cap and trade but some of these premise statements are a bit off track:

WHEREAS, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion;

So what the state of Utah is saying is that since no one else is taking this seriously, we shouldn't have to? I agree that it will hurt us economically and competitively with other nations but you have to look at what scientific evidence we have before you mire this in those sorts of things.

WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and WHEREAS, global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty:

Funny that absent from their "concerns" of foreign citizens is the statement that "increasing temperatures will increase drought and famine in equatorial developing nations resulting in starvation and displacement." Third world peoples will be the first to feel the effects of climate change while people like me in the United States will hear about this on the news. We have the resources and means to deal with the beginnings of it, they don't. Their governments will have bigger problems than debt and slowed economic development.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of H. [ the ] .H climate data H. [ conspiracy ] .H and global warming science can be substantiated.

A "full and independent investigation" is exactly what the EPA tried to do. Problem is that everyone is on the planet. Good luck finding sentient beings to do an 'independent investigation' of our planet. Anyone else has a stake in this one way or the other because they live here.

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168048)

Funny that absent from their "concerns" of foreign citizens is the statement that "increasing temperatures will increase drought and famine in equatorial developing nations resulting in starvation and displacement."

Funny that you don't know that global warning causes more rain and snow because there's more water vapor from the oceans [slashdot.org] , you're usually among the first to comment on everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) posted on Slashdot.

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (2, Insightful)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168144)

Ok, then. More rain and snow prove global warming. And drought proves global warming. So..... given that any changes in the weather prove global warming, what would disprove global warming?

Heads I win, tails you lose, right?

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168204)

"Ok, then. More rain and snow prove global warming. And drought proves global warming. So..... given that any changes in the weather prove global warming, what would disprove global warming?"

Well said. Thank you!

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (4, Insightful)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168212)

reduction of greenhouse gasses and/or global temperature?

Growing ice-masses instead of shrinking ice masses? Lowering of sea levels?

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (5, Informative)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168364)

Climate change (and I mean that in the broadest sense, be it global warming or the onset of an ice age) is never a simple "everywhere gets a little bit warmer" or "everywhere gets a little bit dryer". Some places change in one way, some in another. The UK had the coldest January in 25 years, but the global average temperature in January was the highest since records began. Some places will have droughts, some places will have more snow, but it's still impossible to predict with any accuracy what will happen in any one place at any one time. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and say "it's impossible to be certain, so lets give up".

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (1, Interesting)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168058)

What do you propose to collect independent data from 1950 to 2010? Time travel? Of course you have to rely on global climate researchers.

It would also have to be a very far sighted researcher to created biased data back in the 50s. There would have to be an incredibly massive conspiracy to skew the data decades before the theories were postulated.

"Hey, let's make our data look like it is getting warmer and see where that takes us."

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168260)

Lenny: "Hey, let's make our data look like it is getting warmer and see where that takes us."

Carl: "Shhhh, it's a secret!"

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (3, Informative)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168302)

It would also have to be a very far sighted researcher to created biased data back in the 50s. There would have to be an incredibly massive conspiracy to skew the data decades before the theories were postulated.

Or, you could change the data retroactively:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (2, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168202)

I actually think that this is a good measure at heart. Rather than jumping in on sensationalism, they are saying that basically "We just want to get justifiable evidence before committing any more resources"...

Nobody (well, nobody of significance) denies that we are having an impact on the climate. What is in question is the amount of impact that we are having. The fact of the matter is that we have very little knowledge about the driving forces of the climate. We have so little, that we cannot predict where the climate would be without our impact. For all we know, we could be in a naturally occurring warming period as it is, and our impact is as little as 0.001 * C per year. Or, we could be in what otherwise would be a cooling period, and our impact is strong enough to swing the net change into the positive. We simply do not have enough understanding of the planet to make such a sharp distinction. We do know from ice records that the planet has gone through these kind of temperature swings before (And oddly enough these kinds of CO2 swings as well), and we do know that it will happen again.

To say that it's our fault (definitively at least) is to ignore the fact that we simply don't know enough to make such a determination... Could it be our fault? Sure. Is there enough evidence to --for all practical purposes-- bankrupt countries trying to "limit the damage"? That question is the hot plate issue. This is why I agree with Utah's policy. Not because it disagrees with AGW, but because its inner meaning can be summarized by "We simply don't know, so before we commit huge amounts of resources, lets try to gain a little more understanding"...

You mentioned that:

Funny that absent from their "concerns" of foreign citizens is the statement that "increasing temperatures will increase drought and famine in equatorial developing nations resulting in starvation and displacement." Third world peoples will be the first to feel the effects of climate change while people like me in the United States will hear about this on the news.

Now, I pose the question. If our impact did not cause it, are we responsible to fix it? Even if our impact did cause it, what portion of what they are experiencing can be attributed to what we did? And what about the impact of the rest of the world (including those very same third world countries that are going to suffer the effects first, as you put it)? I'm not against sending aid to other countries that need it, but to declare the USA as "responsible", and potentially bankrupt a single country for a global problem, is ignorant at best...

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168224)

What do you propose to collect independent data from 1950 to 2010? Time travel? Of course you have to rely on global climate researchers.

The problem with this statement is that your assuming climate researchers will actually be honest and truthful in what they find. They're not. They're pushing an agenda and the facts be damned! That's why Utah is doing this. If the facts prove global warming, then fine. But don't lie about your research.

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168272)

Science will never be settled on AGW, as long as we don't have a nice long public pow-wow about the SUN, electro-magnetics, aerial spraying, and classified operations like H.A.A.R.P and other similar stations. As long as they remain classified, no science can claim it's settled. Everything is speculation. As much as I hate Republicans and Democrats the decision is correct, and I hope it gets some teeth to pull the choke chain on the misguided EPA.

Re:I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out (2, Funny)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168324)

WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;

What do you propose to collect independent data from 1950 to 2010? Time travel? Of course you have to rely on global climate researchers.

I prefer to get my climate change research from elsewhere.

On a related note, I motion to vote on a resolution decrying Utah.

I have a saying.... (-1)

RaigetheFury (1000827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167882)

You just can't cure stupid. Congratulations... you're infected.

Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167886)

I wonder why this particular very republican state legislature wasn't this stringent for the Iraqi invasion ......................

Re:Priorities (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168088)

Have you ever seen a Republican get a boner for war? Unfortunately, I have. And "boner for war" isn't figurative speech, either.

To keep it short, I was discussing the proposed invasion of Iraq with a fellow student during a college course, in early 2003. Being in Texas, it was hot even during our "winter", and we were wearing shorts. I didn't think it'd be a good idea to invade, while he insisted wholeheartedly that we should.

Well, all of this war talk got him really excited. He popped a boner, in class. We could all see it, and one of his fellow Republican friends even pointed it out to him. The rest of us couldn't believe it; this fellow got an erection to the thought of killing innocent civilians!

I've since learned to expect Republicans to act in the most disgusting, stupid and pathetic of ways. This legislation is no different.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168130)

Have you ever seen a Republican get a boner for war? Unfortunately, I have. And "boner for war" isn't figurative speech, either.

To keep it short...

I see what you did there.

Re:Priorities (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168318)

So, your experience with one dumbass college student has painted your opinion of millions of individuals?

Re:Priorities (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168406)

your experience with one dumbass college student has painted your opinion of millions of individuals?

No, it's the opposite.

My experience with millions of dumbass individuals who elected GWB -- twice -- and supported his disastrous policies has painted my opinion of anyone who calls him or herself a "Republican" today.

If I met a college student who claims to be a Republican I would be ready to believe he has a boner when war is discussed.

I love the double standards (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167894)

How many times have we seen this sort of argument as contained in TFA:

It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".

So in other words, they accuse the climate change scientists of of acting in their own financial interests by being alarmists and then also complain about how doing something about the problem will adversely affect the financial interests of the skeptics. It is a massive double standard!

They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants, and yet can you imagine how much definitive proof against man-made climate change would be worth to businesses? Any scientist who was in it for the money could name their price (or at least, their wife could name her price to be a consultant to industry).

The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims. In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either. In all the leaked emails regarding this, where was the shred of evidence that anybody was trying to rort taxpayers money?

Re:I love the double standards (1, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168168)

So in other words, they accuse the climate change scientists of of acting in their own financial interests by being alarmists

Being alarmist gets you book sales. Being alarmist gets you photo ops. And yes, being alarmist gets you a re-up on your grants.

They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants, and yet can you imagine how much definitive proof against man-made climate change would be worth to businesses?

Any business offering such a grant would be massively targeted with protests, ads, etc by the left-wing lunatic fringe. Actively sponsoring such research would instantly, since most of the "scientists" are on government dole, mean that honest scientists who came up with the opposite conclusion would be kept out of publishing due to collusion (actually has happened if you read the CRU emails yourself).

The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims

No, the problem with this debate is that one side constantly insists the debate is already over and engages in propaganda tactics, while the other side that wants to see competent research that actually follows the scientific method, are derided and mocked and attacked.

In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either. In all the leaked emails regarding this, where was the shred of evidence that anybody was trying to rort taxpayers money?

Admittedly this is cherry-picked, but in their own words [sweetness-light.com] . Pretty fucking damning.
"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! " - Direct words of Phil Jones!

As for the money? Phil Jones wasted £13 Million of Brit taxpayers' money. The phrase "gravy train" actually comes from Prof. Ross McKitrick [telegraph.co.uk] , University of Buckingham, who said the following:

"Climate sceptics are always accused of taking money from industry but it is now clear the money is on the other side.

"There is a huge amount of money on the global warming side. Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget but that would disappear if global warming ceased to exist.

"Scientists are enjoying a funding gravy train; there is so much money in climate research. Lots of areas of science are short of money but not climate change."

Re:I love the double standards (2)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168370)

since most of the "scientists" are on government dole

Needs citation. See United States post circa 1970.

No double standard here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168190)

The people in the business of government are there to benefit themselves, not you and me. This is evident by the fact that every year government costs more, not less, and every year govenrment aquires more power, never relinquishing it -- yet it is obvious that for all this continuous expansion, government isn't getting better.

Ultimately, every change government makes is for the benefit of those who control government. But don't fall into the trap of thinking they all play on the same team. Just as in a large corporation, there is malice to be found all the way up the corporate ladder. So there is no double standard at all here -- just normal everyday government, where the snakes fight among themselves for the power and money they've taken (or plan to take) from you and me.

Re:I love the double standards (5, Insightful)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168256)

The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims. In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either.

That's exactly my thought as well; and i would even go a bit further:
1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.
2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.
3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.

Re:I love the double standards (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168342)

This says it all:

In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.

It's obvious that people who are climate-change deniers are paranoid schizophrenics who should be placed in a mental institution for their own protection.

Uh...what? (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167898)

urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs

Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...

People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")

Re:Uh...what? (4, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168028)

That one is obvious, and in the article. The carbon dioxide reduction policies are a economic threat to Utah. They produce the coal for the power plants that the carbon dioxide reduction policies are trying to eliminate.

Nothing much to see here, just a legislature passing a "Don't take our juuurbs!" statement.

Re:Uh...what? (2, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168044)

See, that's the part that confuses me...sure, there are a ton of coal miners and whatnot that rely on those places being up and running...but if that power plant gets shut down and disassembled and/or if a new power plant gets built that utilizes a different type of energy, workers will be needed to do both of those jobs.

Who better than the coal miners? They already work in an extremely hazerdous environment, switching them from miners to construction workers is just a few weeks worth of training away.

Re:Uh...what? (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168172)

Union BS, mostly.

Not that I'm entirely against unions as a concept (and being from where I'm from we're practically brought up being shown what business will do to people without law or organized labor restraining them, heck that's a decent bit of the state history class we all took in middle school). What unions became over time in the US however is an entirely different beast.

Re:Uh...what? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168216)

That I 100% agree with. The true purpose of a union makes complete sense...but, like communism, an idea on paper becomes very different once you mix in realistic (and basic) human nature.

Re:Uh...what? (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168152)

What they fail to see is that the whole climate emission reduction actually IS a "don't take ur juuuuubs" agenda. Especially the way it's pushed globally.

We spent the better part of our industrial revolution years polluting. Our whole wealth is built on waste and pollution. Now we have the wealth to actually enact energy conservation technology (and we also have the patents to keep others from doing the same), so passing a global resolution to reduce pollution and forcing every country to follow suit (which seems to be easy, when you look at the global climate summits and the whole G8/G20 meetings) means that we, and only we, are able to actually produce competitively.

NOT pushing climate agendas and letting everyone produce and pollute as he sees fit results in cheap production in poor countries where people actually don't care that their lakes and seas smell funny and give you a rash if you only touch them, while something like this would certainly cause a few people to get irate over their politicians here and press for "cleaner" laws.

Try pushing for cleaner towns in a country where there's first of all no labour and everyone is really, really happy to have that stinkin', pollutin' mill next door and second, anyone who complains disappears for some odd reason.

Re:Uh...what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168038)

Because emission reduction is a dirty hippie tree-hugging liberal thing.

Politics is not about rational decisions. The important thing isn't who is right, it's who is percieved as right by the voters. Liberals says emission reduction is needed, therefore conservatives are obliged to fight those reductions.

Re:Uh...what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168220)

"Liberals says emission reduction is needed..."

Oh, is that why they all travel around in caravans of Government Motors SUVs, and why Nancy Pelosi uses the Air Force like her private concierge service? That's the problem with Liberals. They say alot of things. What they say and what they do, however, are often two very different things.

Re:Uh...what? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168348)

They say alot of things. What they say and what they do, however, are often two very different things.

Just like conservatives. "We want the government out of our personal life! Unless it's abortion, marijuana, gay marriage..."

Both sides are equally corrupt...the only difference is who benefits from it. To try and claim a high ground on one side while pointing fingers at the other is the epitome of hypocrisy, ESPECIALLY in 2010.

Re:Uh...what? (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168068)

there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere

I deny that as a species we pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.

Good heavens. As it turns out, you were incorrect. There is denying of it. I wonder what else you're wrong about.

Re:Uh...what? (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168102)

Now that you are done being a smartass, would you care to respond to my main point?

People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")

Re:Uh...what? (2, Interesting)

N3tRunner (164483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168098)

Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way, having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality. Whether we're warm (or underwater) or not doesn't make a difference if we're having trouble breathing. Air quality is already an issue for many asthmatics, and it will be moreso in the future.

Re:Uh...what? (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168122)

Exactly. I am of the opinion that while we aren't dooming ourselves, we are still causing harm based on the amount of pollution we create. We aren't going to cause a catastrophic failure of the planet, but we certainly aren't making it a healthy place to live.

Re:Uh...what? (0, Flamebait)

durrr (1316311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168396)

Your post summarizes all that i hate when it comes to enviromental drama.
Suddenly every crackpot shows their professsional opinion by cooking up their "even if A and B we still should C because D" reasons that are factually so wrong that it makes the bible look good.

Lets start with the effects of CO2 on asthma: which are none, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere will remain approximately the same, and co2 isn't known to make astmha worse, which brings us to the next point. The oxygen content of the atmosphere is approximately 21%, the amospheric percentage of CO2 is 0.0387%. Even if we were to increase atmospheric CO2 ten times you'd still be exhaling out air with a further ten times higher co2 content. The current manmade increase of co2 is something along the line of 20-50%. As far as any mammalian respiratory system is concerned there have been no change whatsoever when it comes to co2 in the atmosphere. But apparently you think this is a problem so big that it's worth destroying or severely crippling the global economy to prevent it.

If you worry about asthmatics then i suggest you support reducing "ordinary" pollution, something a lot easier to do as you just need to install particle filters and get the combustion efficiency up, whereas for a co2 reduction you simply can't do the combustion at all.

Utah Finds Chlorofluorocarbons Completely at Fault (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168132)

Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...

According to the resolution itself (I don't agree with this in anyway) they seem to place all the blame of climate change on Chlorofluorocarbons and are convinced that CO2 has historically been naturally present and part of the circle of life and therefore it's not so bad:

WHEREAS, there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than CO2; WHEREAS, outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the year 2000 CFC's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline;

So your proposition in a reduction of CO2 is irrelevant because they find that CFCs are sole contributing factor (seemingly ignoring 'green house gas' family of pollutants).

They didn't claim CO2 is a "GOOD thing" as you put it but they say it's nothing to scale back our economy for. To reiterate, I don't agree with this, I'm just telling you of one of the routes they came to the conclusion that CO2 reduction programs should be abolished.

Re:Utah Finds Chlorofluorocarbons Completely at Fa (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168154)

So your proposition in a reduction of CO2 is irrelevant because they find that CFCs are sole contributing factor (seemingly ignoring 'green house gas' family of pollutants).

They didn't claim CO2 is a "GOOD thing" as you put it but they say it's nothing to scale back our economy for. To reiterate, I don't agree with this, I'm just telling you of one of the routes they came to the conclusion that CO2 reduction programs should be abolished.

Sorry, I should have been less specific...I just meant why give up on scaling back our pollution in general. Thanks for the clarification though!

Re:Uh...what? (3, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168198)

There are a growing number of people who believe that aiming solely for fast large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is not an economically wise decision and it's better to mix less ambitious goals on reducing greenhouse gas emissions with engineering approaches to try and reduce global warming.

That said, reducing CO2 emissions does have some interesting side-effects such as reducing dependency on Oil and Gas.

Consider a world where there is no need to pay trillions of dollars to some far away countries whose only claim to greatness is lots of hydrocarbons and the subsidizing of madrassas in other countries to spread a particularly extremist and violent form of Islam, or spend trillions of dollars on wars to protect them. Not to mention that Oil and Gas keep some pretty nasty dictatorships in power.

In such a world, if China does not follow other countries into a low-carbon economy, they will be the sending trillions to those countries and paying for wars in faraway places ...

Re:Uh...what? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168300)

In such a world, if China does not follow other countries into a low-carbon economy, they will be the sending trillions to those countries and paying for wars in faraway places ...

...which kinda wouldn't matter. Let's step back and really look at that scenario.

OK, so say China starts paying trillions to those middle-eastern nations. What are those middle eastern nations going to do to us? Even with the proper money, they don't have the natural resources to run their own war factories, and would instead rely heavily on buying or trading large amounts of hardware from other countries.

Considering their own countries are not much more than huge deserts with a few cities here and there, it would be nigh impossible to hide that much weaponry.

They could sneak people in and set off nukes on our soil, but how many attacks like that do you think they could successfully carry out before we completely lock our country down and carpet bomb the entire middle east? It would take the full attention of their governments to accomplish setting off a nuke over here, while we could wipe the entire middle east out by punching in a few authorization codes.

If China wants a war with us, they will do it themselves...they are in a better position geographically and economically. I doub tthey would fund someone else to fight the battle in their stead.

Re:Uh...what? (3, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168218)

CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere. Should we continue to strive to reduce all industrial emmissions? Of course we should. Should CO2 be high on the list? Not even close.

Re:Uh...what? (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168270)

Stop reading and trying to get sense of every word politician says. These sentence are not constructed to convey meaning but a feeling. Read it quickly, get your first impression. "Conservatives FTW, pwnd liberal eco-fags lol" This is the message. Do not try to dig deeper.

There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them. Just bark with them or against them, do not try to have articulate discussion.

Re:Uh...what? (1)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168298)

Pojut, I'll thank you to take your rational, sane commentary and leave now. There's no place for your kind of middle-of-the-road-and-still-rational mindset here at /., the place where extremes live. Why hasn't this guy been modded "-1 Flamebait" yet? He's CLEARLY disagreeing with both sides of Global Warming, shouldn't each side be modding the piss outta him? ;-) ;-)

So if man makes 29 gigatons or so of CO2 per year (1, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168312)

and nature pumps out 600+ how much can we affect it by modifying the US production?

So whats the rush to regulate it? Oh, thats right money. Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the "right" people. Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the "right" people. So we will see all these non producers buy and sell green credits inflating their wallets at the expense of the middle class. Wall Street wins again because this is where the real push comes from. Why should people not involved in the production of CO2 get to buy and sell credits for it?

Follow the money or worse, follow the egos. The egos of political appointees who are convinced they are right and would not care if any fact to the contrary existed. People who think that now that they "are in charge" they can fix those stupid people.

Yeah, sorry, the reason not to rush is because the science isn't settled and way too much money and politics are involved to let science have a clear chance. Big business signed onto the global warming/climate change once they figured out how to make large amounts of money on it. GE and similar aren't there because they want to feel good, they want to make a buck. If getting the government to regulate your competitors is what it takes then so be it.

Re:Uh...what? (1)

Ramley (1168049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168382)

Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...

People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")

I tend to agree with these thoughts. Although I am not a climate scientist of any sort, it stands to reason (IMHO) that there is no conclusive evidence of any kind strong enough to sway this argument to either side. There is an amazing amount of arguing for both sides, and a lot of "truths" coming out about who fudged results, etc.

This simply tells me that there is much more study needed, and perhaps better methods of study.

It seems horribly irresponsible to propose massive spending and potential changing of entire economies based on something so seemingly inconclusive.

Utah matters? (1)

N3tRunner (164483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167900)

I'm glad that Utah thinks that anybody cares what they have to say. It's cute.

Re:Utah matters? (3, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167948)

I say we let Texas invade Utah, then let them both secede.

Re:Utah matters? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167970)

Texas doesn't want to put up with all of those Mormons, either.

Mormons and Texans (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168060)

Texas doesn't want to put up with all of those Mormons, either.

Giving up drinking, coffee, having to marry all of your girlfriends .... one wife is hard but more than one wife?!?

And kids?!?! Good God! I have to have kids with all of them!

I tell you, the crazy guy who came up with Mormonism was, well, fucking crazy!

Re:Mormons and Texans (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168184)

You obviously have no clue about "mormonism." Mormons have not practiced polygamy since the 1800s. Get an education man! http://www.mormon.org/ [mormon.org]

Re:Utah matters? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168178)

I'm especially impressed that they think the climate or some other force of nature cares for their laws. I dunno, isn't Utah that state with a sizable population in the religious corner of the map of the human mind? Maybe they think that if God's people pass a law the planet has to adhere?

Candidates for the Canute Award (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167902)

I'm sure that they can deny the existence of global warming. I'm also equally sure that global warming is not worried about their denial. They might as well have tried to legislate about the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. But seriously, what are the consequences of this vote? Well, apart from making the Utah state legislature look silly.

Falling behind a little more each day. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167906)

Each day, the United States falls behind a little bit more.

Cutting-edge research these days happens in Europe and Asia, where religion is put in its place, and education is paramount. Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the "scientific" evidence has been fabricated, as it very well may be, at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies, for instance.

Re:Falling behind a little more each day. (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167976)

America got the Religious Nuts.
Australia got the Criminals.

Sadly they got the better end of the bargain.

Re:Falling behind a little more each day. (2, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168232)

Of course. When was the last time you heard someone described as a religious mastermind?

Re:Falling behind a little more each day. (1)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168338)

America got the Religious Nuts.
Australia got the Criminals.

Sadly they got the better end of the bargain.

Not sure who you mean by "they" but many of the "Criminals" who were sent to Australia were sent for utterly trivial things. For example this site [convictcreations.com] states:

Many of the Convicts were sent to Australia for quite odd crimes. For example, Irish catholics were transported for simply looking suspicious. Likewise, political reformers were transported to trying to form unions, suggesting politicians get paid and promoting the French revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity.

By today's standards, all of the Convicts sent to Australia had only committed trivial crimes.

It's an interesting read.

I just don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167912)

It is not that I don't believe in climate change. I just don't care enough to approve of measures that inconvenience me. I realize this sounds like trolling, but I think a lot of people share my sentiment. The effect of climate change doesn't personally effect me, edicts by the EPA do. I wouldn't be so quick to label everyone who apposes enviromental measures as an anti-science quack. It is more likaly to just be self interest.

Re:I just don't care (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168192)

I think there's an awful lot of people in that middle ground where you are. Like you I don't doubt the science, and I think people who claim "oh, look at all the snow, it's cold, you lie" are being willfully deliberately ignorant (deliberately stupid people are the people I most loathe). So the impact vs. conservation discussion is really where people should be choosing to take a stand (or not.)

So I see it as a bunch of personal decisions. Here are some of mine:

  • Carbon emission capture: it may increase the cost of energy, but by providing jobs to the manufacturers and operators of the carbon sequestration units. I don't have a problem with this.
  • We need big agricultural efforts to continue to feed a rapidly growing world, and they take energy. I'd rather support ZPG efforts than lower carbon efforts, as they would make a far greater difference to the overall quality of life for everyone.
  • It does drive me towards preferring carbonless energy sources, such as more nuclear plants and geothermal sources and less fossil fuels: energy without atmospheric emissions seems a total win.
  • We have potential flooding of coastlines everywhere as sea levels rise. But I live at an elevation of 830 feet, a thousand miles from the nearest coast. No personal impact, and slight bemusement at the thought of the news broadcasting all of Manhattan running from the killer tides like some bad Sci Fi movie.
  • Death of the polar bears -- if it's them or humans, sorry bears.
  • If we burn all the fossil fuels for energy, we won't have them for other uses: plastics, lubrication, etc. Seems a waste of good resources.
  • On the other hand, I'll be dead of old age before we run out of fuel. My kid -- not so old. Potential grandkids -- they'll hate us. So how selfish do I want to be?

This might be interesting (3, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167916)

They should do the same with gravity. Instandly they will have flying cars.

Re:This might be interesting (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168016)

Or could pass a resolution denying that arsenic is poison, and take all a big dosis of it. If they want their Darwin Award, dont make fall the entire world with them.

Huzza for legislation over science! (5, Insightful)

txoof (553270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167930)

While the science around climate change deserves scrutiny and probing, this probing should probably be done by scientists, not legislators. The last time I checked, the scientific method didn't include debate, Robert's Rules of Order or passage by majority. Freeman Dyson makes some interesting points against climate change in this NY Times Article [nytimes.com] . If you agree with him or not, at least he's engaging in scentific skepticism over uninformed legislation.

Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science works, as it takes a majority to pass an obviously useless law. It's too bad that method doesn't work or the Utah State Assembly could go ahead and legislate the Higgs-Boson into existence right there in the chambers. I think this problem is a symptom of our terrible science education in our schools. Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they're redefining physics.

Re:Huzza for legislation over science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168026)

Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science works.......

And Phil Jones does?

Re:Huzza for legislation over science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168072)

That's true. The legislature should have stuck to legal matters. Like maybe passing legislation allowing us to execute environmentalists.

Seriously, what have environmentalists ever done that's constructive? At best, they're parasites living on public handouts, at worst, they're a nuisance to people who are actually doing things that are destructive.

Quickest way to improve the environment - toss all the environmentalists in a land fill, and cover it over quick.

Re:Huzza for legislation over science! (1)

rhaacke (1563489) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168104)

The same things can be said against the people on the other side of the global warming fence. Very few of them are actually climatologists and none that are scientists are legislators. Last I heard Al Gore was a lawyer by training not a scientist. The fact of the matter is that legislation is being used in an attempt to advocate the pro-global warming side of the issue. So those who have a differing opinion can hardly be blamed for using the same tactic.

Re:Huzza for legislation over science! (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168244)

the scientific method didn't include debate, Robert's Rules of Order or passage by majority

A rose by any other name.... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Huzza for legislation over science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168414)

Well, I for one am glad that legislation has finally taken care of this whole warming business, as scientists weren't making much headway, with all that discussing, experimenting, measuring and whatnot. Perhaps now our esteemed legislators can finally start working on simplifying the value of pi (really, who needs more than 3?)

The Mormons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167940)

...are at it again.

1 of 3 (-1, Flamebait)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167946)

The other resolutions they approved were one denying evolution and another reassuring that Earth is flat and the center of the universe.

Hey, son, you're doing it the wrong way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167986)

You should not vote for stopping the US from participating in worldwide environmental policies -- you should work on getting the world to make China accept said policies.

Soon you'll be using Chinese products and breathing Chinese pollution.

I'm a foreigner and I do find the US impressive... in a bad way.

http://one_foggy.tripod.com/sounds/ll_clunkenough.wav

PS: not that we're much better off... *sigh*

Here it comes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167998)

...the storm of posts saying how "stupid" Utah is.

Interesting data from Prague for last 200 years (2, Interesting)

dvh.tosomja (1235032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168008)

Here [www.chmi.cz]

Re:Interesting data from Prague for last 200 years (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168138)

Well it's very pretty, but what about it do you find interesting?

This is what you get.... (4, Insightful)

mubes (115026) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168032)

....for carrying out questionable science.

The effect of the recent IPCC Glacier mis-statements and the University of East Anglia 'mistakes' is to give people who would 'like it to not be so' to have a grain of sand around which to crystallize.

I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not, but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid (or completely disproven)....in the meantime we have to progress on a path of caution -- which effectively means continuing to reduce carbon emissions IN CASE they are causing the problem...putting our collective fingers in our ears and singing la-lala-la isn't going to solve anything.

Jeez, politicians have enough difficulty making sensible decisions already, we're not exactly helping by not giving them accurate information on which to make those decisions, are we???

Another shot fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168066)

in the conservatives' War On Science

Re:Another shot fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168222)

in the conservatives' War On Science

Conservatives? Try pointing out to a liberal the well-documented and annoyingly persistent differences in average IQ's between different races, and see what that gets you. It's like arguing with a creationist that goes to eleven.

Utah is essentially hamrless too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168090)

"Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings"

Yea, ok... I'll just hold my breath then and let it build up in my blood. No need to exhale it since it's harmless. Then after that, I'll just pipe the exaughst from a car into my home. That won't kill me or anything since it is harmless. Also... why did I just waste money on a detector for it for my home? it's harmless. GAWWW I GOT SCREWED. I'm so glad the home state of mormanism sorted that out for me!

In other words (0, Offtopic)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168146)

Climate change is gay.

Love,
Utah.

Re:In other words (0, Offtopic)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168400)

I'd have said "we don't want it, so we wish it away".

Duh.. (1)

link5280 (1141253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168150)

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives" John Stuart Mill That about sums it up... Regardless if climate change is true or not, this is a major fucking waste of time by the Utah legislators. Passing a bill certainly does prove climate change is false, thank "God" we don't need scientists anymore. .

Amendments say it all. (3, Insightful)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168156)

For those of you too occupied to RTFA, the crossed out terms are enlightening: 'conspiracy' (twice), 'flawed', 'tricks', 'gravy train'.

Such emotive language doesn't help their cause when opponents could just as easily frame "denialists" with such terms.

Utah??? Time to rethink my stance (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168208)

Dammit... my tendency to be skeptical of the Chicken Little antics of the Warmers is in direct contradiction with my rule to distrust the actions of religious nut jobs.

What to do?

In other news... (4, Funny)

jplopez (1067608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168226)

Utah Assembly confirms that water is not wet anymore.

Re:In other news... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168384)

If it's in the law it must be that way.

I said it before, I say it again, if only the legistlators of Louisiana had that much foresight and issued a law that forbids hurricanes to come closer than 30 miles to the shore, a lot of pain and misery could have been averted.

Am I the only one that thinks it's amazing how legislators seem to think they can influence realities? A law can by its very nature only affect people and their possessions. No force of nature, no physical law will ever bend to the will of a human being, let alone that of a politician.

Or, in terms the Utah legislators might understand, your laws get trumped by God's. Or, for the more secular people here, nature's.

The global warming hysteria is so nonsensical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168250)

Last time I checked, the effects of global warming are predicted to be positive, not negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Economic_and_social
It seems the only area where the negative consequences will prevail is Africa, not counting small nonsignificant islands. But so what? There are already too much people there.
Also, China and India don't give a shit. What is USA and Europe really doing, is OUTSOURCING emissions; the result is INCREASE in emissions because China's factories are inefficient and polluting.
But yeah, go on with this pseudo-ecological crap. The same nonsense as the anti-nuclear movement...

Like a child with their fingers in their ears. (1)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168254)

That's the mental picture I get every time I see this debate. Fact: There is an observed increase in global average temperature over the last 100 years. Now whether that's due to man's activites or something else can be debated - whether the trend continues can be debated. Personally I think that 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 googlewatt heatlamp in the sky (a.k.a. The Sun) has a lot more to do with climate change than anything we as a species will ever do. But to say there has not been any warming to date is as much (if not more) than a lie than stating that the projections of climatalogists are fact.

Re:Like a child with their fingers in their ears. (1)

oiron (697563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168356)

The heatlamp who's fluctuations are in negative correlation with observed warming?

My counter-resolution (4, Informative)

oiron (697563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168268)

Looking for reason in all the wrong places, apparently...

WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Endangerment Finding" and proposed action to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is based on questionable climate data and would place significant regulatory and financial burdens on all sectors of the nation's economy at a time when the nation's unemployment rate exceeds 10%

And WHEREAS the questionability of the said data has been questioned (and debunked thoroughly) and

WHEREAS, global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years;

WHEREAS using 12 years of data is a flaw in itself, especially given that 1998 was an El-Nino year, and WHEREAS the last decade was the hottest on record in any case and

WHEREAS, the "hockey stick" global warming assertion has been discredited and climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures;

WHEREAS that old-wives' tale was debunked recently and

WHEREAS, there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than CO2;

WHEREAS that was one study that actually used flawed data and didn't even bother to speculate on the physics of how CFCs could affect temperatures in the first place and

WHEREAS, outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the year 2000 CFC's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline;

WHEREAS said decline in temperatures was addressed above and

WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as "Climategate," indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome;

WHEREAS a committee appointed for that purpose found no evidence against one researcher, none of the charges against the other researchers was ever proven, and effort involved in faking such a massive amount of data would make it impossible in any case and

WHEREAS, there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published;

WHEREAS the paper under consideration was published by lowering the standards of a peer reviewed journal so that it would get in and several editors resigned from that journal for that reason and

WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;

WHEREAS this clause only lays down the fact which is unquestioned and was the original purpose of IPCC and

WHEREAS, Earth's climate is constantly changing with recent warming potentially an indication of a return to more normal temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from 1250 to 1860 called the "Little Ice Age";

WHEREAS the rate of change is what matters in the first place, and the existence of a "Little Ice Age" has yet to be proven globally and

WHEREAS, more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants, may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a "scientific consensus" at research institutions and universities;

WHEREAS that one is simply a strawman argument and

WHEREAS, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion;

WHEREAS "everyone else is cheating" is a kindergarten argument and

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that current legislation providing agriculture offsets and carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions would result in tree planting on 59 million acres of crop and pasture land, damaging America's food security and rural communities;

WHEREAS that presents a false dichotomy, and America is not particularly food-insecure in the first place and

WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and WHEREAS, global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty:

WHEREAS these are both a strawman and a false dichotomy in one gift-wrapped package and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED...

NOW THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN that the Legislature of Utah just passed a resolution that shows a poor lack of understanding of the science involved. AND IT IS FURTHER SPECULATED that the Legislature of Utah passed this resolution more on the basis of partisan bias than after a truly fair assessment of the science involved, and without consulting any of the people who actually work in the field of climate science.

Utah: Land of the Stupid (1, Interesting)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168328)

Utah wants to balance their budget by canceling 12th grade in high school: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6213596.shtml [cbsnews.com] Religious morons and their Republican allies want stupid citizens because they are easier to control and make a better docile peasant class.

If they really want a balanced budget they should tax religion. It would serve dual purposes: fix the budget and cut back the parasites sucking on society. The religious have nothing to fear, since god loves them so much he (they know god is a dude with a white beard) will make up any material loss. If they complain they jsut don't have enough faith...

Was this the same august body.... (1)

rclandrum (870572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168376)

...that almost passed the bill setting the value of pi to 3?

Also from the educated state of Utah comes the following:

- It is illegal NOT to drink milk.

- It is a felony to persistently tread on the cracks between paving stones on the sidewalk of a state highway.

- It is against the law to fish from horseback.

- No one may have sex in the back of an ambulance if it is responding to an emergency call. (I would love to know the story that prompted the passing of this law).

Lest we laugh too hard at Utah, you can easily find stupid laws on the books in every state. Makes me wonder exactly how serious they were being when they passed them. I can just imagine a couple of reps tossing around ideas for hilarious new laws. "Hey Bob, I got one - let's outlaw global warming! Problem solved!".

It's religion folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168390)

You can pretty much tell what people believe about climate change by knowing their political affiliation. The number of people who have taken the trouble to look into the basic physics of climate change is very tiny.

The climate blogosphere is mostly a festering cesspool of invective, dis-information, criminal lack of logic and just plain bad science.

In spite of what Al Gore says, the science is far from settled. (I'm willing to swing either way once someone proves or disproves the basic mechanism behind Hansen's positive feedback theory.)

Nation Shocked (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31168402)

Utah legislators are idiots. In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green. Now here's Tom with the weather.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?