Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Denying Climate Change

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.

Comments

I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out

[eldavojohn]

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

[cmdr_tofu]

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

[CheshireCatCO]

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?

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

[paiute]

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.

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

[Elektroschock]

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?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

So, let me get this straight.

If scientists correct for bad monitoring stations, either by throwing the data point out or applying a compensation function for the urban heat island effect, you global warming deniers raise a shitstorm about how the scientists are just making data up.

If scientists present the full, unaltered dataset, you global warming deniers throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that all the data is bad because there are some bad data points.

It appears to me that the real problem is every time researchers try to present evidence for an answer to your question, you move the goal posts.

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

[Xest]

"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.

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

[mdwh2]

So why are we trying to implement policies to combat that change?

Well maybe because we've grown to be dependent on the way the climate is today, and a lot of people may end up dying?

Should we try to change the climate so that we can return N. America back to its natural, under ice state? Should we try to return the Earth to it's glorious molten past? Should we try our best to strip the atmosphere of all oxygen so to usher in the return of Methanite bacteria?

No, because none of those are beneficial to humanity today.

We should predict where the climate is heading and spend our resources to adapt to the change instead of trying to stop it!

Who says we shouldn't? Both these methods are worth pursuing. What isn't good is sticking our heads in the sand, and saying "Climate change isn't happening, no one needs do anything!"

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

[Remus Shepherd]

The biggest failure yet discovered was the claim by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers would all melt away by 2035.

Yes, I think it is very, very important to note that the biggest failure found in the IPCC paper was a single wrong number on page 493 of Volume 2.

Skeptics are taking minor errors and trying to blow them up to ridiculous proportion. That error about the Himalayan glaciers is trivial. There is a 45 page section on glacial melting in Volume 1 that is entirely correct and well-sourced, and nobody's paying attention to it. They'd rather focus on a single flawed number.

No report of that size is going to be perfect; there are going to be minor typos and flaws. So far only two legitimate errors have been found. (The other involves bad data on the Netherlands, which was provided by...wait for it...the government of the Netherlands.)

Maybe we can all agree that the IPCC report is 99.999% correct. Then we can get something done.

I love the double standards

[Gadget_Guy]

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

[polar red]

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

[jcupitt65]

It seems daft to me to claim that the whole thing is a hoax to get funding. All science is funded somehow, and yet this insult is only thrown at the people working on climate.

In my experience (I'm a working scientist, though not in climate), science is very, very competitive. Just brutal, in fact. It's full of mildly Aspergers people who delight in other's discomfort and are convinced (almost) all other researchers are idiots. If you have a clever idea that cuts your rival's work off at the knees, by God, you're going to publish, and you're going to rub their face in it as you do.

I find it impossible to believe that good anti-AWG ideas really have been suppressed for 50 years or however long it is.

Re:I love the double standards

[CheshireCatCO]

As a fellow scientist, I'd like to second these remarks. (Well, perhaps you're being a bit too harsh on the social skills of most scientists.) We're competitive as hell. Grants are awarded not just based on previous results, but reputation. And we all know that if we lie, we'll get caught. Someone will eventually look at the data and realize we fudged something. When that happens (and it's usually pretty soon, especially for such a hot issue as AGW), you're reputation will be in tatters and, if you lied, you'll lose your job. You won't get grant money and you'll have to find a new career.

Meanwhile, the various industries that are fighting the environmental movement have their own researchers who would leap on any clear problems in the climate studies. So saying that this is a conspiracy is like believing the Moon landings were a hoax, in spite of the fact the the Soviets even signed off on them.

Re:I love the double standards

[catchblue22]

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.

Re:I love the double standards

[catchblue22]

I would lay the blame for that squarely on the 24 hour media machines, and the news industry in general, as ownership diversity shrinks.

No doubt this is part of the problem. But consider what might have caused the systemic decay of our media system. It used to be that those who graduated from university were schooled in Greek and/or Roman literature and philosophy. Through this, ideally they gained a sense of ethics and a clear view of the principles that make western democracies thrive. Such education would give students an understanding of history, of logic and region, of life. In many ways, these educated citizens were important leaders in society.

Over the last three decades, classical education has largely disappeared from universities. Universities have shifted emphasis to the social sciences, to economics, to technology. Education has increasingly had to give utilitarian justification for its existence. The social sciences, which seem to look at society from the outside perspective of alien observers, have spread views of cultural relativism. Fields such as economics are largely valueless attempts to maximize "economic activity" (the assumption that increased economic activity will improve human well being is implicit, but I believe this connection is dubious).

As a result of this, I would argue that the educated elite in our society have lost a sense of the roots of western civilization. Our elites are increasingly technocratic, tweaking knobs and dials with little appreciation of the big picture of our civilization (I am referring to the elites on both the "left" and the "right"). Our elites seem to fall under the spell of faddish and simplistic ideologies. On the right, the dominant ideology is centred around the idea that selfishness on the part of all units of society will maximize economic activity. The Greeks would have said that selfishness is a negative quality, that when people act selfishly, it encourages the worst aspects of human nature. So much for that wisdom today.

These oblivious elites have allowed or encouraged the development of media monopolies. They don't seem to understand the ultimate consequences of their policies. They don't seem to understand that free and open discussion is the lifeblood of our society, socially, politically, AND economically.

Uh...what?

[Pojut]

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?

[tbannist]

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?

[Yvanhoe]

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.

Huzza for legislation over science!

[txoof]

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. 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.

This is what you get....

[mubes]

....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???

Re:So if man makes 29 gigatons or so of CO2 per ye

[orzetto]

So if man makes 29 gigatons or so of CO2 per year, and nature pumps out 600+ how much can we affect it by modifying the US production?

Assuming for a moment you did not take those numbers out of your posterior, nature before the industrial revolution was at equilibrium, meaning it pumped out 600 and pumped back in 600 (e.g. plant growth). Then, human activities with 29 Gtons would tip that balance and accumulate CO2 in the atmosphere, which cannot be absorbed by nature (whose capacity is 600, not 629).

Ultimately, it is because an inordinate amount of carbon was extracted from the earth as coal and oil, way faster that the geological scale that would have occurred in nature.