Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Politics Science

Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Denying Climate Change 787

Posted by kdawson
from the still-snowing-here dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Denying Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:18AM (#31167874) Journal

    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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Gadget_Guy (627405) *

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Cryophallion (1129715)

        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]

        • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:36AM (#31169850)
          Ah a couple of articles from The Register, also known as the IT World's official climate denier news site.

          The Register has zero credibility when it comes to climate science because it has spent the last few years creating countless articles, many of which are full of not just inaccuracies, but sometimes outright lies. I'm sure they have the odd good point in there, but it's impossible to tell the agenda based propaganda from the valid arguments, which is actually quite ironic when that's their argument against professional climate research.

          Really, you might as well have just linked to the pope's official blog in a discussion about whether god exists as evidence that he does. If The Register is the best source you can find, then you simply do not have a real source. I'm not exactly pro-AGW theory- I'm somewhat undecided, becoming more skeptical, but any counter evidence has to be a bit more solid than something coming from The Register or the likes of Climate Audit which those articles use as their sources.
      • I'd say you need to go back to right around 1990 to find the correct data... as is insinuated by graphs like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/AverageTvsNumberofStations.jpg [wikimedia.org].

        Incidentallty since around that time global warming really became a political issue and a lot of money was thrown at the problem. It's not that hard to imagine that some people will cherry-pick or fudge some data to get a better grant after that...
        My rule with dubious science is: 'Follow the money', if anyone has a
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CheshireCatCO (185193)

          And Gov. Perry and the Utah government stand to gain, so they're also taking BS? So, basically, everyone is wrong?

          By definition, the only people who can research a question thoroughly enough to process the data have to be paid for their efforts, so your dismissal of scientists for getting paid seems a bit silly, doesn't it? In reality, scientists might temporarily get more grants if they found something major, but someone else would shoot them down (there's a huge career to made out of it if you can dispr

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ircmaxell (1117387)
      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 predi
      • by paiute (550198) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @10:15AM (#31168514)

        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"...

        "Justifiable evidence" here being defined as any which supports their preexisting ideological conclusions.

        • by Elektroschock (659467) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @10:30AM (#31168710)

          From a German perspective it sounds a bit weird, I mean, can there be any good argument against greater energy efficiency? Even if there was no climate change, why waste energy?

          • by BZ (40346) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:10PM (#31170436)

            > can there be any good argument against greater energy efficiency?

            Quite possibly, yes, locally.

            For example, my water heater (not that old, not that new) is about 85% efficient. It's expected to have a useful life of another 10 years or so. I could get that up to 90% or so by getting a brand-new high-efficiency one. My net energy savings would be on the order of $50 a year at most, which works out to $500 over those ten years. A new water heater costs more than $500.

            So the right thing to do in this case is to keep using the old heater for those 10 years. Note that this also avoids the energy use of _producing_ an extra water heater, so it's less of a loss to others than it would appear at first glance. It's clearly a win for me personally.

            Now obviously this calculation depends on the price of energy, the price of water heaters, and the efficiency gains to be had. The last of these starts hitting diminishing returns quickly once what you have is anything resembling non-crappy; for example it's hard to reduce your energy usage by 2x if you're already 60% efficient.... Much easier to do if you're 10% efficient, of course.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by halber_mensch (851834)

        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...

        It doesn't matter if the earth's climate is changing because of man or not. If no nations want to act to keep the earth habitable, the money they keep in their economies will mean jack shit when we're extinct. Choosing money over survival is what I call ignorant at best.

      • by Asic Eng (193332) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @12:18PM (#31170564)
        We are not going to get any more scientific consensus than what we already have.

        Here is the list of scientific organizations (national academies of sciences etc) which agree with the theory of global warming: list [wikipedia.org] (Global warming in the sense of: predominantly caused by humans and transforming the environmental conditions on Earth.)

        On the other hand, here is the list of scientific organizations which disagree list [wikipedia.org]

        Yeah, the latter list is empty. There are a just five organizations which don't make a clear statement [wikipedia.org] supporting all aspects of global warming, but don't oppose it either. There will never be more scientific agreement on any issue. That doesn't prove it's correct - just because it's the overwhelming consensus opinion of the scientific community doesn't mean it's necessarily right, but it's as clear an indication of the scientific opinion as it can possibly be.

        If you can't make a decision based on that, you'll not make a decision based on more research.

    • by CheshireCatCO (185193) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @10:09AM (#31168424) Homepage

      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.

      More to the point, it's not actually true (the IPCC is made up of climate researchers who are asked to participate based on their research on, yes, climate). And who does Utah want researching climate issues, if not climate researchers? Shoe salesmen?

    • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:26AM (#31169652)

      "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."

      You know, I'm not even sure this is true. Even if climate change isn't a real problem then there's still the issue of non-infinite supplies of fossil fuels, and the reliance on dangerous regimes from Venezuela to Russia, to Iran for them.

      So regardless of climate change, we're going to need to look at renewables and green technology anyway, and as such I suspect that the market for environmentally friendly, or green technology will actually be quite massive, such that it has the potential to do for that area that embraces it and leads the world on it in the 21st century what IT did for silicon valley did in the 20th century.

      Green technology is not going to be a small market, it's going to be a global market, with increasing prominence however you cut it, so on the contrary, those who embrace it, may have short term expendature, but long term it could put their economy up there as one of the richest in the world. There is going to be a lot of money however you cut it.

      The choice really comes down to whether you avoid short term research costs, and just follow the rest of the world remaining a non-factor, or whether you invest, and lead the world as California has done for much of the past few decades.

    • by MaerD (954222) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:54AM (#31170158)

      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.

      Utah is just saying they want us to go back to the moon, and possibly to mars to build a colony to do an independent investigation. I fully support Utah's support of our manned space program, even if they are doing it in a strange manner.

  • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:20AM (#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?

    • by polar red (215081) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:55AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ArcherB (796902)

      They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants,

      I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"? And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.

      It is a massive double standard!

      I couldn't have said it better!

    • by catchblue22 (1004569) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:10AM (#31169360) Homepage

      I posted the following comment recently, but I think it is germane to this discussion at hand:

      I am noticing in many of the posts here a distinct lack of intellectual rigor. A friend of mine is an engineering professor, and he notices this amongst his students too. Specifically, many of his students have an attitude where they feel they can question any scientific theory. Fine you might say. After all, isn't it good to be skeptical? Well yes, perhaps. But when he asks these students specifically why they doubt a particular theory, they can't make a logical argument to support their position. They just say it doesn't intuitively seem right. It is almost as if they don't really comprehend the reasons for their opinions. And this is amongst elite engineering students.

      If I could venture my own opinion on this, I think that relativistic values (and I don't mean Einstein) have seeped into much of our educational system, and by extension to society at large. This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth, where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value. In such a world, taken to its extreme, there are no facts, only opinions. Everything is relative.

      On the left, we see university professors pontificating from institutions founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry that these Greek principles are merely just another cultural view in their relativistic universe. And from the right, we see religious leaders cavalierly rejecting the search for Truth through rational inquiry and observation, preferring to create their own "Truth" as revealed in the bible. What both of these extremes are forgetting is that this country was founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry, that in the founders' minds, the Greeks were a primary inspiration. Separation of Church and State; Science; Universities where Truth is the primary virtue; the ideals of Justice; a three class society, in which the Middle Class (the Polis) forms the backbone of society; Democracy. These were ALL Greek values and ideals. And has been these Greek ideals that have made our country great.

      If you don't believe this, I suggest you read some Greek literature. Plato. Aristotle. Aristophanes. Sophocles. In Greek literature you will find commentary on many of the most important issues our society faces. The Greeks even wrote about cultural relativism. I believe we are sorely in need of a rediscovery of Greek wisdom.

      And here is my main point. I believe that many in our society are abandoning the Greek values that have made our civilization great. Values such as searching for Truth for Truth's sake through rational inquiry and logic. Skills such as rigorous logic applied in rational debate. In our modern technological society it often seems that Truth should only be pursued for material gain, for profit and not simply because it is noble to pursue the truth. Thus it is easy for business executives to ignore inconvenient facts if those facts might interfere with profit margins. And it is easy for religious followers to adopt truths that make them feel more comfortable with their chosen worldview. After all, if all Truth is relative, then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.

  • Uh...what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:21AM (#31167898) Homepage

    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tbannist (230135) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:33AM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Pojut (1027544)

        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.

        • 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.

          • by Pojut (1027544)

            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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417)

        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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rogerborg (306625)

      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by N3tRunner (164483) *

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544)

        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.

    • 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 the

      • by Pojut (1027544)

        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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Aceticon (140883) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:50AM (#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 ...

      • by Pojut (1027544)

        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

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

      by dreamchaser (49529) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:51AM (#31168218) Homepage Journal

      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? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @10:10AM (#31168442) Homepage

        and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere

        Oh, you mean that age where giant reptiles ruled the planet and humans were nowhere to be found? Use some common sense, you git. By your logic, an ice age wouldn't matter because hey! it's happend in the past.

        That being said, I agree CO2 shouldn't necessarily top the list, but it still needs attention. We are at a point where (in my opinion) global warming isn't man-made, but it will eventually become man-accelerated...which is something we can easily prevent, at least at this point.

    • Re:Uh...what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:56AM (#31168270) Journal
      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.
    • by navygeek (1044768)
      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? ;-) ;-)
  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • by houghi (78078) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:22AM (#31167916)

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

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      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.
  • by txoof (553270) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:24AM (#31167930) Homepage

    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.

  • by mubes (115026) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:33AM (#31168032) Homepage

    ....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???

  • by ChunderDownunder (709234) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:45AM (#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.

  • 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?

  • by jplopez (1067608) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:52AM (#31168226)
    Utah Assembly confirms that water is not wet anymore.
  • by oiron (697563) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @09:56AM (#31168268) Homepage
    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 C

  • by PHPNerd (1039992) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:20AM (#31169526) Homepage
    As a Texan, I have been alarmed at the recent increase of the rate of retardedness coming out of my state. Let me be the first to say: I'm glad that this ridiculous news wasn't out of Texas this time. Thank God.
  • by hAckz0r (989977) on Wednesday February 17, 2010 @11:44AM (#31169982)
    The Utah State Assembly knows best, after all, if politicians are not the defacto-experts in the subject of 'hot air' then who is? Just because all the 'laymen scientist' on this particular topic have reams of collected data that directly contradicts the 'new policy' doesn't make their theory any more correct.</sarcasm>

    Leave it to the politicians to 'prove a negative' simply by virtue of not understanding the subject matter completely. Which begs the question, should we then have a 'licensing system' to 'steer the Government', similar to driving a car? One that requires the comprehension of things like the laws of physics? Oh wait, never mind, the Government would be responsible for administering that program too...

There's got to be more to life than compile-and-go.

Working...