backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by DominionSeraph.. on Feb 19 at 8:34 PM


  (Source: EL Civics)
Measure passes broadly passes with 56-17 vote, but lacks legal power

Many politicians across the U.S. have already made their mind up about climate change and refuse to consider recent allegations of academic misconduct among prominent climate researchers, or other plausible explanations for climate change, such as sun cycles.  Across the country, there are many folks that haven't blindly accepted the theory, though.

Utah's heavily Republican state legislature has passed a new resolution which condemns climate change alarmism.  The resolution lacks any legal authority, but vocally criticizes the anthropogenic global warming community for ignoring recent developments.

The legislation, which resoundingly passed by a vote of 56-17, originally referred to global warming theory as a "conspiracy", but that term was stricken from the measure in favor of "climate data".  

A small excerpt from the measure is:

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 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, 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"; 

The bill points out that pending warming legislation will earn its proponents "more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants".  Originally those grants were referred to as the "the climate change 'gravy train'", but that language was removed from the measure.

The bill is critical of the U.S. Environmental Agency and President Barack Obama's calls to regulate greenhouse gases nationally.  Representative Mike Noel says the warming scare is an example of profiteers posing as environmentalists and exploiting the public for their own gain.  He states, "Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."

Arizona is considering similar legislation.

The only potential downside of the measures, is that they could give local environmentalists means to challenge future nuclear plant construction in the states.  President Obama has championed nuclear plant construction, but says that he's doing it to "combat climate change."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Great
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 10:09:08 AM , Rating: 5
So now all these legislators are climate scientists as well?

I'm not saying I believe one way or another. What I do know is that I don't know. This means I know one more thing than these politicians.




RE: Great
By donjuancarlos on 2/17/2010 10:10:15 AM , Rating: 5
I think they are saying the same thing. They are saying that the movement is spurred by sensationalism rather than clear scientific data.

Either way, I don't think this piece of legislation will do anything...


RE: Great
By therealnickdanger on 2/17/2010 12:24:23 PM , Rating: 5
Gotta love non-binding resolutions. I wonder how much more work would actually get done if political offices had no salaries and these folks could only work on legislative issues in the evenings after working a real eight-to-five.


RE: Great
By bhieb on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:54:07 PM , Rating: 5
If it helps to stop cap-and-trade legislation being passed, it'll save us a trillion times what those legislators were paid in salaries.


RE: Great
By TheEinstein on 2/17/2010 3:01:11 PM , Rating: 3
I concur, this could be a step in the CORRECT direction, by making other politicians aware that we are aware, and putting notice on scientists who make a mockery of science. It is the first step to future criminal prosecutions, by making it known a line is being drawn, and I agree with this that it is not useless...


RE: Great
By cmdrdredd on 2/17/2010 3:51:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If it helps to stop cap-and-trade legislation being passed, it'll save us a trillion times what those legislators were paid in salaries.


BINGO! What this does is put in the spotlight the fact that we know they're trying to do government take over, and taxation to the max. This isn't supposed to actually do anything. Those of you saying it's worthless need to get your head out of the sand. This will hinder legislation that agrees with the global warming conspiracy by making those who try to push it aware that there's opposition in public office right now.


RE: Great
By invidious on 2/17/2010 3:35:37 PM , Rating: 4
State governments can not bind the federal government to anything, this is the only way they can publish their viewpoint. If they want to take it further and introduce binding legistlation to federal legistlature, that could then refer to this legistlation.

But there are too many people on the gravy train at the moment to get it to hault suddenly, it is going to have to be a gradual return to sanity. Which will most likely only occur if 2012 fixes things.


RE: Great
By Suntan on 2/17/2010 4:54:50 PM , Rating: 3
As I was reading I was wondering why you got rated down for writing what seemed to be a rather sensible response, then I saw what you did at the end here:

quote:
Which will most likely only occur if 2012 fixes things.


and I realized that you struck a nerve with one of those "change I thought I could believe in" folks...

Just FYI, most people don't like to be reminded that their "solution to a problem that they didn't like at the time" actually backfired and made things worse.

-Suntan


RE: Great
By Camikazi on 2/17/2010 5:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Or they were talking about the end of the world in 2012, which will fix things too since we won't be around to mess up the world :)


RE: Great
By frobizzle on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 3
Giving qualified students who meet all exit requirements a credit to enter college early is not the same thing as "eliminating 12th grade".

But hey, what's a little misrepresentation if it helps boost the global warming cause, right?


RE: Great
By frobizzle on 2/17/2010 3:30:14 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong. He wants to eliminate 12th grade period. For all students, not just the ones that have enough credits to graduate.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/15/nation/la-...


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:30:32 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong. Did you even read your own link?

quote:
...that senior year become optional for students who complete their required credits early. He estimated the move could save up to $60 million, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.


RE: Great
By invidious on 2/17/2010 3:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
Where is the written that exactly 12 grades are required? By your argument we should expand the system to 13 years and everyone would be that much better off. Instead I would reather see us cut out all of the worthless classes trim public schooling to 9-10 grades.

Regardless of the number of grades the public school system should have concise and quantifiable objectives and should aim to fulfil them in as efficient a manner as possible. If it only takes 9 years to teach the children the ciriculum then either shorten the system to 9 grades or increase the ciriculum to 12 grades worth of content.


RE: Great
By stilltrying on 2/17/2010 7:17:44 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePardoxOfExtended...

Here listen to this maybe you will listen to something you have never thought about with regards to school.


RE: Great
By redbone75 on 2/17/2010 4:57:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
They are saying that the movement is spurred by sensationalism rather than clear scientific data.

It wouldn't matter if the scientific data were clear and conclusive. They wouldn't support it if it didn't support their agenda or the agendas of companies that bought and paid for these politicians.


RE: Great
By reader1 on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Great
By invidious on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Great
By Newspapercrane on 2/17/2010 10:34:11 AM , Rating: 1
And in Illinois our legislature have decided that Pluto is still a planet. I assume they are getting some kind of royalty from the use of the name, which is being funneled into our politicians' pockets.


RE: Great
By Fracture on 2/17/2010 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 3
It was so they wouldn't have to reprint / reissue textbooks, thus saving the state millions.

And global warming is irrelevant. The question is whether or not we've reached the Anthropocene age (climate affected by human behavior).


RE: Great
By mandrews on 2/17/2010 10:48:43 AM , Rating: 5
The Utah legislature merely points out the many questions surrounding recent climate research and admonishes less scrupulous climatologists for their misconduct.

If you read the actual resolution I linked:
http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillamd/hjr012.htm

It's not making a scientific statement, rather it's calling for unbiased, independent research to get to the bottom of this problem, rather than the current profiteering-driven field of climate research.

This is quite different that the EPA and legislation proposed by President Obama which DO make a scientific ruling based on a supposed "consensus" (and an expensive ruling, at that, with an estimate cost in trillions of dollars).


RE: Great
By reader1 on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Great
By knutjb on 2/17/2010 11:05:16 AM , Rating: 1
What are you smoking?


RE: Great
By reader1 on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: Great
By mcnabney on 2/17/2010 1:06:21 PM , Rating: 1
Why is he getting rated down? He has a valid point.

Science, even environmental science, is impacted by money. If you want an independent research angle it will ALL have to be paid for by a party that won't influence the results. A large, blind, grant from the government would do that. It is also a socialistic method of funding research. The poorly rated comments are very much on target.


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 1
"He has a valid point."

No he doesn't. Climate research is ALREADY funded almost entirely by government dollars. Has that made it unbiased and uninfluenced? Just the opposite.


RE: Great
By drmo on 2/17/2010 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
"A large, blind, grant from the government would do that."

What is blind about government grants? Grants are often awarded by someone's peers, who may be people you know and are friends with. Then, next year, when your colleague is submitting the grant and you are on the review board, you can fund or deny their project depending if they funded yours, or if you agree with their research or not. Can you imagine what effect that has?

Not that there isn't a role for government grants, but when the system creates a self-perpetuating cycle of quid pro quo, then something is broken. And when those people insist that public funds be drastically increased to fund their research, then it must be examined carefully.


RE: Great
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 5:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is he getting rated down? He has a valid point.


He is the worst troll on the board. Most people just auto-rate him down the moment they see him.

If he doesn't like it he can stop being such a tool all the time.

Don't take my word for it...click on his hyperlinked name and go take a look.


RE: Great
By mandrews on 2/17/2010 11:11:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:

So, according to you, capitalism can't be relied upon when it comes to science; greed invariably leads to corruption. You want to nationalize science and technology.


As amusing as I find your satirical posts, I must state that is most certainly NOT what I was saying.

Capitalism works just fine. Resolutions like this Utah one show that the free market is wising up to this ploy to take their tax dollars for a theory that has very shaky scientific basis.

Contrary to your statement, I would say capitalism and research work together beautifully. The independence of capitalism allows inaccurate research to be eventually discredited, while legitimate research is typically rewarded. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than anything else mankind has come up with.


RE: Great
By alphadog on 2/17/2010 1:06:17 PM , Rating: 1
"The independence of capitalism allows inaccurate research to be eventually discredited"

That's got to be the funniest thing I have read this month so far. Are even slightly aware of how long it takes to find out when Pharma companies rig studies, on the ones we find out about through independent, government-funded basic research?

Good grief. I understand espousing an ideal, but living an extreme is always lunacy.


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:20:53 PM , Rating: 1
"Are even slightly aware of how long it takes to find out when Pharma companies rig studies"

That's an extraordinarily rare occurrence, despite what you may have learned from Hollwood movies.

It's also important to realize that its just as much of a problem in government funded research. Governments have agendas just like corporations (in most EU nations now, for instance, you can't even request climate funding unless you implicitly accept AGW in your premise). And even when they don't, the researchers themselves express their own agendas through their research.

So you're missing his basic point. If all research is funded by a monolithic entity such as government, there is no independence. If its funded by thousands of private organizations, the bias from one study can be revealed by one funded by another.

Still, I think government funding has its place, especially in pure research where the benefits may be decades away. But government funding cannot and should not replace private research.


RE: Great
By sinful on 2/17/2010 3:00:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Governments have agendas just like corporations (in most EU nations now, for instance, you can't even request climate funding unless you implicitly accept AGW in your premise).


Well duh!

If you want an accurate answer to a question, you can't ask someone that's already made up their mind / has excluded possible answers already.

If you want to do a study to see if smoking causes cancer, do you pick the guy that says "NO, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!" or do you pick the guy that says "MAYBE IT DOES, MAYBE IT DOESN'T"?

Seems like if you're interested in the TRUTH you have to pick the person that's open to either conclusion.

quote:
If all research is funded by a monolithic entity such as government, there is no independence. If its funded by thousands of private organizations, the bias from one study can be revealed by one funded by another.

No, because the "thousands of organizations" can be even more biased than the non-independant organization - their bias is profit motive.

People that think the free market can solve every problem perfectly seem to forget that the free market's primary purpose is PROFIT/EFFICIENCY.
It gives you the most economically efficient answer, which may NOT be the best answer.

It's like suggesting that if you put an accounting person in charge of QA, then magically you'll have the best quality product..... No, you'll get an economically efficient answer, which may be an utter piece of junk.

It's amazing how the people most gung-ho about the "free market" have such a poor understanding of it.


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:05:53 PM , Rating: 1
"It gives you the most economically efficient answer, which may NOT be the best answer."

In a world of limited resources, finding the most economicaly efficient answer to climate change IS the best answer. Nowhere is this made more clear than in the UN IPCC's own results, which clearly show that, even if they are correct about AGW, its far more efficient to simply mitigate its minor results, rather than taking the far more damaging and costly alternative of attempting to halt carbon emissions.

"It's like suggesting that if you put an accounting person in charge of QA, then magically you'll have the best quality product..... No, you'll get an economically efficient answer, which may be an utter piece of junk."

Unsurprisingly, you have an incredibly wrongheaded view of the free market. Products that are "pieces of junk" sale ultimately cost a company far more than quality products. Sene the difference in quaility between a Lexus and a Soviet-era Lada automobile? Or the clothing sold in a NY boutique, vs. the jumpsuits worn in North Korea?

The free market makes higher quality products. Because ultimately, quality drives profits.


RE: Great
RE: Great
By drmo on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Great
By SPOOFE on 2/17/2010 6:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
capitalism can't be relied upon when it comes to science; greed invariably leads to corruption.

Greed is not an inherent quality nor exclusively limited to capitalism. Socialists can be quite greedy.


RE: Great
By 800guy on 2/17/2010 11:36:43 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry Michael I must have misread your headline:
"Resolution Denying Climate Change Resoundingly Passes In Utah"

Thanks for correcting it in your reply above:

"It's not making a scientific statement, rather it's calling for unbiased, independent research to get to the bottom of this problem, rather than the current profiteering-driven field of climate research."

I have to admit your headline is shorter if less accurate by your own admission.


RE: Great
By clovell on 2/17/2010 10:44:47 AM , Rating: 1
That was exactly my first thought - the constituents largely oppose any legislation based on climate change. What business does a state legislature really have in poking its nose into this - let the science speak for itself, dammit.

Then, I thought about it, and decided that academia becomes more and more like politics every day (not to bash anybody here, but it's true - I know great professors who can't publish in certain journals because the editor doesn't like them) - they just typically don't make our laws.

Except, in this case, they kinda do, to a degree. The irony here is that with all the fabrication and quashing of dissenting scientists, it's the politicians who are calling these alarmists out.


RE: Great
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Great
By clovell on 2/17/2010 12:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read the rest of my post? Are you new around here?


RE: Great
By DEVGRU on 2/17/2010 10:54:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So now all these legislators are climate scientists as well?


Might as well be. I'm sure they can't be any worse than the "real" climatologists who make up their own data to support their own made-up theory's as fact.

quote:
I'm not saying I believe one way or another. What I do know is that I don't know.


Then, (GASP!) why don't you attempt to learn about the thing you don't know about? An alien concept I know. Its called 'personal growth', look into it. :)


RE: Great
By tdawg on 2/17/2010 2:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then, (GASP!) why don't you attempt to learn about the thing you don't know about? An alien concept I know. Its called 'personal growth', look into it. :)


If you discredit all the research out there, where does one go to learn? I suppose we could each collect our own climate data and compile our own research that, of course, would be subject to observer bias, and even if the research was truly unbiased, it would be discredited immediately by whichever group it disagrees with.


RE: Great
By tdawg on 2/17/2010 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
That should be the royal You.


RE: Great
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:45:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So now all these legislators are climate scientists as well?


But the Liberals in Congress pushing AWG are climate scientists ??? Is that your point ??


RE: Great
By clovell on 2/17/2010 12:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think he means that it's weird to fight politicized junk-science with politics. I think we'd all be much happier if this entire issue had stayed in the realm of science long enough to be reasonably settled before politicians got ahold of it.


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 1
But this issue left 'the realm of science' more than 10 years ago. We already have laws on the books that are affecting our lives because of this nonsense.

High time politicians started to wake up and take action, in my opinion.


RE: Great
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 3:01:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think he means that it's weird to fight politicized junk-science with politics. I think we'd all be much happier if this entire issue had stayed in the realm of science long enough to be reasonably settled before politicians got ahold of it.


umm no, these are our elected officials who saw fit to make laws and rulings that have directly effected our lives. Based on a total criminal fraud backed up with junk science from evil and biased men.

Those same elected officials have a right, no, an OBLIGATION to set things right. It's their JOB.


RE: Great
By Hiawa23 on 2/17/2010 12:16:31 PM , Rating: 1
My belief is simple. I think the world heats @ cools itself on cycles, regardless of what humans do, & unless the planet is going to burn up in the next few years, which I can't stop if that is going to happen, I think I am more concerned with the bad economy, many Americans out of work, Government spending out of control that statred before we ever heard of OBAMA, 2 wars maybe another depending on China & Iran. Seems that many made alot of money over the years with the this global warming thing. Don't get me wrong, I think we ought to do things that's good for our environment & whatnot, things that prolong the availability of our natural resources, but I am sorry, I just don't buy the global warming caused by human theory.


RE: Great
By Qapa on 2/17/2010 12:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't they learn the power of silence? As in, being silent is better than saying dumb s***? :P Specially for legislation..

Sorry, but:
- climate is changing - always;
- we are definitely affecting climate, at least in micro scale - cities that have constant smoke fog over them, acidic rains, oil spills, ...

The question that people are still making is if we are causing GW and the simple answer is: of course! But to what extent?

Solution:
- keep studying the subject;
- apply solutions to fix the problems that we see and which also may fix that problem - go with renewable non-polluting energy sources, start changing cars to electric (allows changing in the energy types used by changing the power plants);

And believe me that the numbers of money spent (for instance) in health due to city pollution is something that people should be taking into consideration - it makes all these "eco" solutions much more attractive.


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
"The question that people are still making is if we are causing GW and the simple answer is: of course!"

God I love simple answers! Don't you? Simple answers are what told the ancient Sumerians they could sail off the edge of the world, and convinced the Greeks that thunder was caused by Zeus in a bad temper.

"And believe me that the numbers of money spent (for instance) in health due to city pollution "

Odd, I've lived in a large city all my life and never been to the hospital because of "pollution". Never met anyone who has, either.

I know there ARE some hypersentitive individuals and those with chronic asthma that can be affected...but in all honesty, you're trying to grossly exaggerate the effects here.

Even worse is the fact that over half of all air pollution comes from a single source: the coal power plants that environmentalists have kept running the past 30 years by blocking all things nuclear.


RE: Great
By alphadog on 2/17/2010 1:08:46 PM , Rating: 5
"Odd, I've lived in a large city all my life and never been to the hospital because of "pollution"."

Anecdotal evidence is so useful.


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Anecdotal evidence is so useful"

As opposed to the firm figures you presented?

Here's a figure for you. In a single three-day period in London, over 4,000 people died from air pollution caused by coal smog. In just three days time. The air was so black, people had to walk in front of cars and buses to direct the drivers.

The year? 1952.

Care to estimate how many have died in the entire COUNTRY in the last 10 years from smog?

Air pollution is a problem we've essentially almost entirely solved. Maximizing it for scare tactics is just plain silly. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.


RE: Great
By SPOOFE on 2/17/2010 6:28:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anecdotal evidence is so useful.

Some decades back, Los Angeles would see dozens of Hazardous Air warnings a year. Nowadays they see a handful, maybe two or three a year, if any. And that's with more stringent air quality guidelines.

Anecdotes? Huh?


RE: Great
By deeznuts on 2/17/2010 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So now all these legislators are climate scientists as well?

I'm not saying I believe one way or another. What I do know is that I don't know. This means I know one more thing than these politicians.


No, but they are lawmakers, so they must make determinations about whether they believe what scientists, say, or don't say. And it is apparent you did not read the actual resolution, or you wouldn't have made the second statement of yours. This is what it says.

quote:
This joint resolution of the Legislature urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated .


So you actually know don't know one more thing than these politicians. And if you were implying the politicians were dumb or foolish, you inadvertently made yourself look more so.

Next time, quit being lazy, click the link, don't rely on the headline here.


RE: Great
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 5:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nice assumptions. I read it. It's stupid.

"until climate data and global warming science are substantiated"

This implies that they have not been substantiated. A politician is not in a position to make this determination. Scientists are.

It's kinda like how you are making a judgement about whether I read the resolution or not. You are not in a position to do so. Attempting such merely results in an opinion and not fact.


RE: Great
By SPOOFE on 2/17/2010 6:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This implies that they have not been substantiated. A politician is not in a position to make this determination. Scientists are.

Yeah, you really are an idiot. You just committed an ad hominem and an appeal to authority fallacy in one passage.

Hint: There's nothing particularly difficult about reading the CRU's attempts to hide data and fudge numbers.


RE: Great
By DominionSeraph on 2/19/2010 7:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You just committed an ad hominem and an appeal to authority fallacy in one passage.


He did neither. Please learn the difference between an assertion and an argument.

Or don't. I mean, it's not like learning that one thing is going to lift you up as one of the great thinkers of this geologic period. Unless you're 99th percentile, adequacy is likely beyond you. So, I suppose your failing doesn't really mean much. Fail here or fail at the college undergraduate level... it really doesn't matter.

God, I should really petition Anand to cease linking to DailyTech. That's the only reason I end up in this cesspool of norms.


RE: Great
By Smilin on 2/19/2010 1:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, you really are an idiot. You just committed an ad hominem and an appeal to authority fallacy in one passage.


LOL that's so cute. You called someone an idiot then followed it with misinterpretations of logic. You'll probably grammar Nazi me with a typo next.

No where in that did I state that GW claims are substantiated so an ad hominem did not occur. Also since I again did not state the claims as substantiated I could not have appealed to scientists as an authority.

You should give up on college and go get a job...pretentious prick.


RE: Great
By DominionSeraph on 2/19/2010 8:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus Christ. Am I the only DailyTech reader who can do basic math?

P only if Q
Not Q.

Why the hell are you idiots throwing around P?


RE: Great
By Jeffk464 on 2/17/2010 3:44:01 PM , Rating: 3
The better question is who do you think put more money into these legislators campaigns, Corporations or global warming scientists. Its not to hard to figure out.


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, the myth of corporate sponsored AGW denialism surfaces again. The reality is that a major portion of the budgets of Greenpeace (and most other environmental groups) is spent on convincing the public to lobby their elected officials for action on global warming. Greenpeace has also instituted so many negative propaganda campaigns against corporations that many firms donate directly to them, rather than face the negative publicity they can drump up.

If you want to follow the money, there's a good start.


RE: Great
By MungaIT on 2/17/2010 10:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the sentiment of your comment. To take that further, I also know that in the parts of the world where climate change alarmists are taken seriously politicians are using their power to make policy that puts the environment before economics. Couldn't reduced pollution be good for all of us even if global warming doesn't exist? Is the reduction of polluting emissions rather than continuing business as usual for economic reasons not prudent, regardless of global warming? This new resolution does not make sense....


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 10:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Couldn't reduced pollution be good for all of us even if global warming doesn't exist?"

The problem with that philosophy is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Focusing on CO2 means we ignore things that ARE pollutants. Every dollar we spend fighting an illusory problem is one dollar less we have to actually do some good with.

Societies with large amounts of energy at their fingertips tend to be very clean. They can afford to be. Radically reducing carbon emissions would ultimately mean a dirtier, less healthy lifestyle for all of us.


RE: Great
By MungaIT on 2/18/2010 1:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
I am still not convinced that anthropogenic global warming isn't real, however in absence of proof focusing on the reduction of CO2 still makes sense.
While CO2 specifically MAY not be a pollutant many of the other substances that are created in processes that generate large quantities of CO2(fossil fuel combustion, iron and steel production ect...) ARE pollutants and also cause stratospheric ozone depletion(and as an Australian I am sick of sunburn, damned ozone hole...). These technologies cause water, soil and air pollution which will continue to reduce the quality of life for people all around the world for thousands of years after we stop producing them. Take the long view, taking steps to reduce the use of these dirty technologies now is better for us in the long run regardless of global warming.

Even if Global Warming doesn't exist CO2 is a great measure of overall pollution emissions.

"Societies with large amounts of energy at their fingertips tend to be very clean. They can afford to be."

I spent some time looking up statistics on greenhouse gas emissions and municipal waste per capita and I hate to tell you but small rich, middle eastern countries(with abundant energy) come out as the worst closely followed by countries like Australia, USA and Luxembourg. All of these are rich countries with plenty of energy that are dirty as hell. I am not proud of my country's waste and doing nothing about it is has no long term benefits, especially when there are so many new clean technologies just waiting to become economical forces to take the place of the old dirty ways.

Radically reducing carbon emissions would ultimately mean a dirtier, less healthy lifestyle for all of us.
How do you qualify this? Just curious.....


RE: Great
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 9:42:30 AM , Rating: 2
"While CO2 specifically MAY not be a pollutant ..."

It's not only not a pollutant, its an essential plant nutrient, and absolutely required for all life on earth. You also exhale a large amount of it each day.

"other substances that are created in processes ARE pollutants and also cause straotospheric ozone depletion..."

Lol, what? Burning coal and oil doesn't generate CFCs. I suggest you find whatever clown told you this little gem, and spank them thoroughly.

"and as an Australian I am sick of sunburn, damned ozone hole..."

News flash for you kid. The amount of additional UVB Austrialia is getting from the 'ozone hole' is too small to even measure...and UVA (which ozone doesn't even absorb) is actually the more damaging component.

In short, if you're getting sunburnt, stay out the sun. Don't blame carbon emissions, idiot.

"All of these are rich countries with plenty of energy that are dirty as hell"

Wrong. Go look at (or even better, live in) a poor nation and see how "clean and healthy" their lifestyle is. Burning cow dung to cook your food and drinking the same untreated river water you excrement in may not generate any carbon emissions, but neither is very good for your health.


I wish..
By just4U on 2/17/2010 10:20:45 AM , Rating: 4
I wish more politicians would come out on the side of the sceptics (globably) when it comes to climate change. Not so much to say that we will do nothing but rather to give a healthy dose of reality to the whole proccess.

We don't know enough about our climate and that's a given so we shouldn't be trying to build policy around unsettled science. We also should never allow one body of the international comunity to be the Judge and Advocate on global warming. It was and is all kinds of stupid as many are begining to realize.




RE: I wish..
By just4U on 2/17/2010 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
Grr how did that "B" get in globably GAH..


RE: I wish..
By reader1 on 2/17/10, Rating: -1
RE: I wish..
By milkyway4me on 2/17/2010 10:50:11 AM , Rating: 5
The money in your bank account and wallet is causing you great harm. You must now transfer it to my bank account and wallet respectively to test this theory. Yes, I'll willingly sacrifice myself if I have to in order to test this theory by taking your money. I'm just that kind of stand up guy, no joke.

*fine print: by the way, any money you send me for this great and noble cause is forfeit forever. If i'm wrong, oh well, I dont care, after all, i'll have your money. This experiment is basic science.


RE: I wish..
By clovell on 2/17/2010 10:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, you want to do a controlled experiment on the entire planet? Do you have any concept of observational studies or sampling theory?


RE: I wish..
By bug77 on 2/17/2010 11:04:32 AM , Rating: 4
Wow, there really is just one idea in your head.

Here comes a piece of your own logic.

Scientists in my neighborhood (trustworthy fellows, we have beer together) agree that you are the cause of global warming. So please go shoot yourself and let's all watch the temperatures decline. And if that doesn't happen, I'll make sure you get a Darwin award.

You know, just measuring the effect, basic science.


RE: I wish..
By just4U on 2/17/2010 11:30:34 AM , Rating: 3
Altering our activities is all fine and good reader1 but the problem with climate initiatives is most of them are not designed to solve those percieved problems and even the least intelligent among us can see that if they look closely.

We would not be changing our habits but rather where our wealth goes.


I don't get it
By DKantUno on 2/17/2010 11:26:05 AM , Rating: 5
Why has the philosophical/scientific debate on climate change become larger than the general importance of the actions required? Measures like cutting down on fossil fuel consumption and investing in alternate energy are REQUIRED regardless of whether or not our fossil-fuel dependence has caused climate change or not! I think most people agree that ecologies NEED to be protected. Pollution - of air, land, water - NEEDs to be cut down anyway, simply to safeguard public health. Forests - to whatever extent required to protect endangered species of animals/flora, and to catch fresh-water from rains - NEED to be protected anyway.

I think because of (what seems like) the ineptitude of the IPCC and over-enthusiasm of climate change proponents (bound to be countered by cynicism) has jeopardized - at least temporarily - other legitimate 'green' causes. There ARE lobbyists and profiteers on both sides of the debate, but there definitely is NO good to be had from continuing to pollute and continuing to be inefficient in our energy consumption - climate change or no climate change. So the statement in this resolution that says something to the effect of "...no action needs to be taken..." is backwards-looking, anyway you read it.




RE: I don't get it
By just4U on 2/17/2010 12:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well put. ALL of us are concerned about the environment around us and are for taking real steps to try and minimalize our actions. So in a sense that (or the wording of this article) sends a mixed message.

I am glad that they are not just falling in line and swallowing everything that activists are feeding them. However, by the same token they have to understand that we need to stay open minded and continue to improve. Perhaps it's just a unspoken given that everyone wants that overall but they don't want what their currently being fed as they are starting to see it for what it really is.

Who here can honestly say they haven't changed their habits? We recycle more, drive less, refit our homes for more efficient energy use, look at products that are less harmful overall.. you name it, We are all doing our part on a personal level because WE DO CARE and NO ONE is really flipping off the environment and saying screw that I am not doing NOTHIN!

In the end though the line that was fed to us the past several years is not being bought anymore is all. Much to the chagrin of alarmists, activists, and the like who appear to serve interest groups with a different agenda.


RE: I don't get it
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Who here can honestly say they haven't changed their habits? We recycle more..."

I disagree that recycling just for the sake of doing it is helpful to the environment. When recycling actually is profitable (such as aluminum), it's a nobrainer...it'll happen on its own, regardless.

But what about recycling other things like paper, things that cost MORE to recycle than it would to just produce more. Does that help? In most cases, no. The 'cost' of a product is a measure of the energy and resources used to produce it. In the case of recycled paper, you expend so much more chemicals and energy on recycling, as compared to raw wood pulp, that you're better off skipping the whole process entirely. And that doesn't even factor in the lower quality of the end product, which can also cost time and energy.

Throw your waste paper in the trash. It'll wind up in a landfill and eventually become trees again...all without a single drop of fuel being burned or chemicals consumed. Ultimately, thats much better for the environment than forced recycling.


RE: I don't get it
By Parhel on 2/17/2010 3:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
things like paper, things that cost MORE to recycle than it would to just produce more


Do you have any links to support that? I'm not sure that recycling paper loses money . . . And, if so, who's paying for it?


RE: I don't get it
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
Five years ago, recycled paper cost more to purchase and was signficantly lower quality than virgin paper. The situation might be better today...but if it is, the point still stands. If a particular material costs more to recycle than to create afresh, the recycling process is ultimately hurting the environment, not helping. Action groups like The Natural Resource Defense Council would of course disagree.

As for who was paying for the costs? They were partially born by communities who forced mandatory recycling programs on their citizens, and also by businesses who paid extra to incorporate a certain percentage of recycled paper into their products, so they could advertise it to boost a "green" image.


RE: I don't get it
By Donkeyshins on 2/17/2010 3:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But what about recycling other things like paper, things that cost MORE to recycle than it would to just produce more. Does that help? In most cases, no. The 'cost' of a product is a measure of the energy and resources used to produce it. In the case of recycled paper, you expend so much more chemicals and energy on recycling, as compared to raw wood pulp, that you're better off skipping the whole process entirely. And that doesn't even factor in the lower quality of the end product, which can also cost time and energy.


The problem is you are externalizing costs (more crap in landfills, more trees being cut down, etc.). If you could quantify the dollar-equivalence of these externalized costs (and paper quality is also an externalized cost) it would be interesting to see how paper recycling fares.


RE: I don't get it
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Externalizing costs" is by and large a phrase invented to grant a pseudo-economic shine to noneconomic arguments. Today, paper is produced from fast-growing farm trees planted especially for the purpose 20 years earlier by paper companies. There is no "cost" for cutting down those trees. And putting that waste paper back into the ground (where it ultimately came from in the first place) does no environmental damage either.

Now in the case of, say, air pollution from coal plants, external costs are a reality. But that's a different story entirely.


RE: I don't get it
By just4U on 2/18/2010 7:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with your comments here. There is much that I don't know and have not done my research on in regards to whats the best way to minimalize our over all effect. But as a sceptic of global warming and the reasons behind why interest groups and government bodies want us on board I just felt that it needed to be stated.

We all care about the environment. Don't matter what side of the issue were on.

As a side note since im not commenting in that thread just rating .. Nice comments from you porkpie in U.S. Air Force's Laser Air Armada Nears Combat Readiness. Thumbs up.


I would prefer a sidestep
By VultureTX on 2/17/2010 10:06:02 AM , Rating: 3
State Legislatures would do better to offer a compromise that benefits their own. How about a bill that says all AGW practices ,rules, or whatever shall be met by using "green" funds to build and expand nuclear reactors in their state.

So take that Green money of Change and build those nukes!




RE: I would prefer a sidestep
By Suntan on 2/17/2010 11:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
State Legislatures would do better to offer a compromise that benefits their own.


Yes, because there is truly no place in modern society for people to stand up for what they actually believe in. Instead they should just whore-out their beliefs for a couple of federal bucks…

-Suntan


RE: I would prefer a sidestep
By Donkeyshins on 2/17/2010 3:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
As opposed to working for pork and hookers?


RE: I would prefer a sidestep
By MadMan007 on 2/17/2010 3:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately 'belief' has nothing to do with science. Well, unless you 'believe' in Intelligent Design.


RE: I would prefer a sidestep
By Suntan on 2/17/2010 5:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
Belief is the act of taking the knowns and forming an opinion about them.

In this case the “knowns” are that the legislators in the State of Utah “believe” that the pro-AWG turds are blowing smoke up everyone’s asses, so they have called them on it.

I respect them more for doing this than I would if they just “played along so they too could suck from the Federal-AGW-Money-Redistribution tit.”

In any case, my original comments were in reference to the government officals doing what they thought was right. Namely, proclaiming that they thought AGW was a farce, even though Obama and Pelosi would likely give them more money if they just rolled over and quietly nodded their heads in agreement.

-Suntan


WAIT...
By ksherman on 2/17/2010 10:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
You can deny something like this with a resolution? lulz




RE: WAIT...
By VenomSymbiote on 2/17/2010 11:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Kind of reminds me of that story where some state tried to vote to legally limit pi to "3".


RE: WAIT...
By drmo on 2/17/2010 12:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think it was 3.2.


RE: WAIT...
By Jaybus on 2/17/2010 5:01:45 PM , Rating: 4
No way. One can draw a circle, measure its circumference and diameter, and determine experimentally that 3 is close. Or, it can be shown that 3 is close by mathematical proof. Both of these methods are repeatable and can be agreed upon by billions. Not so for global warming, and certain not for man-made global warming. Repeatability of the experiments is shaky, at best, due to fraudulent science. There is much disagreement and several different camps. So 3 is a much, much better approximation of the real Pi than any of the climate models are of the real climate.


What they must be thinking...
By corduroygt on 2/17/2010 10:18:12 AM , Rating: 4
Hey, we already live in the desert, and it ain't all that bad!

On a more serious note, this legislation is pointless. If the Federal government gives them money to build solar panels, they'll take it and say it helps Global Warming, because in the end, money talks.




RE: What they must be thinking...
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 3
"they'll take it and say it helps Global Warming, because in the end, money talks. "

Which is how AGW got started in the first place. If you're a researcher with no clear evidence, do you gravitate towards the alternative that quintuples your research budget, or the one that maintains the status quo?


RE: What they must be thinking...
By Jaybus on 2/17/2010 5:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
If a government gives a subsidy for playing tennis, more people will start playing tennis. If they pay a high enough subsidy, everyone who can will play tennis. Will that make tennis the favorite sport? If a government places a tax on tennis, some will stop playing to avoid the tax. If they place a high enough tax on tennis, hardly anyone will play. Could we then conclude that nobody likes tennis?

This sort of government intervention, either for or against, distorts the truth. Clearly, for AGW it has caused a distortion of the truth in the form of unscrupulous scientists seeking the grant money. If the respective governments were not willing to fund AGW research so aggressively, I don't think the scientists would have acted in this manner. They have been herded toward "proving" AGW is our worst problem by politicians with an agenda.

Apparently, the politicians from Utah have been cut out of the lucrative loop, so they are fighting back. They would likely resend this resolution if Congress poured more money into their state to do AGW "research".


Legislation that legislates nothing.
By foolsgambit11 on 2/17/2010 4:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
I hate these kinds of bills. Regardless of content. The purpose of a legislature is to make law - that is the Latin derivation, after all. Asking the EPA not to enact CO2 policies isn't law. I guess it makes sense, since the people have a right to petition for a redress of grievances, and a state legislature represents the will of the people. But I've always seen these bills as a waste of time, which is therefore a waste of people's tax dollars. Democrats and Republicans, both State and National, are constantly doing these kinds of things, though.

Rather comically, the bill states 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 climate data and global warming science can be substantiated." This would have been a great place to state specific criteria to be met and/or a specific body to evaluate climate data. But in suggesting something specific, they would have inadvertently revealed that this, (A) has already been done, (B) is currently being done, and (C) will be done in the future. Welcome to the scientific method, Utah. A and C have been/will be handled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. B is handled by the IPCC as well as the rest of the scientific community (and even non-scientific community, at least as far as fraud is concerned). As it stands, the resolution is senseless and toothless. Before they removed 'conspiracy' from the wording, at least it gave a suggestion of what should be looked into, possibly suggesting the standing up of a committee to investigate ethical misconduct within the climate science community, and whether it was widespread enough to impact the global consensus on climate science.




RE: Legislation that legislates nothing.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
" A and C have been/will be handled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

That's the panel that's been found to be pulling their claims from environmental presentations and student term papers, rather than actual scientific research, right?


RE: Legislation that legislates nothing.
By foolsgambit11 on 2/17/2010 10:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
All of these errors, while egregious (and which, as far as I know, don't include the use of a student's term paper), don't actually strike at the heart of the IPCC's findings - that the world is warming, and human activity accounts for a substantial portion of that warming.

Admittedly, for instance, the report shouldn't have used a WWF paper for a source. But it could have rewritten that section, using the sources cited in the WWF paper which were substantiated and peer-reviewed. Of course, good science would demand that they also see if the WWF had cherry-picked their data, and try to find conflicting papers to weigh against those cited. But it all seems to me like most of these controversies boil down to deadline pressures and honest mistakes than a vast left-wing conspiracy.

How about a simple compromise. We'll just pass environmental regulations, with effective dates in, say, 2012. That will give us plenty of time to review the accusations of conspiracy and decide if it's substantiated. And if it is, we can cancel the implementation of the regulations. That way, if it turns out that the science is still valid, we won't have lost any time to what some might call stalling tactics.


By porkpie on 2/18/2010 9:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
"All of these errors, while egregious (and which, as far as I know, don't include the use of a student's term paper"

They do:
quote:
IPCC Snow Melt Claim Based On Student Paper...
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ipccs-snow-melt-claim-b...

"don't actually strike at the heart of the IPCC's findings -that the world is warming, and human activity accounts for a substantial portion of that warming"

But the scandals involving East Anglia, Dr. Mann, and GISS do. They prove that the data demonstrating this warming has not only been compromised by urbanization effects, but intentionally tampered with. Worst of all, the data used to generate the famous "hocky stick graph" showing 'unprecedented' 20th century temperature rise, is now admitted to be "lost" and can not be independently verified.

"the sources cited in the WWF paper which were substantiated and peer-reviewed..."

Huh? They wree NOT peer-reviewed. The WWF lifted them from one PHONE interview with ONE scientist...a scientist who now admits the claim was just 'idle speculation':

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...


for our next resolution
By aguilpa1 on 2/17/2010 2:54:13 PM , Rating: 3
We declare the earth is flat

and

The sun goes around the earth

All in favor raise your hands! or we'll burn you at the stake!




RE: for our next resolution
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a meeting of the IPCC. They and their supporters have long called for anyone skeptical of their AGW religion to be put on trial for the "crime":

http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/23/scientific-n...


RE: for our next resolution
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 5:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
See, this is where you get stupid. That article doesn't mention the IPCC at all, it's only a few bloggersgoing over the top.


Courage!
By pwndcake on 2/17/2010 11:54:07 AM , Rating: 1
"Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."

Then 11% of our population are now heroes.




RE: Courage!
By itzmec on 2/17/2010 5:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
more than that.


RE: Courage!
By pwndcake on 2/17/2010 5:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
I was estimating that a few percent are actually out there trying to change their situation. Commies. Real men do nothing.


Just had to chuckle...
By acase on 2/17/2010 1:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with these people, but I just found it a little funny that they are able to pinpoint all of the "conspiracy" and lack of evidence in AGW, however they live their lives according some dude name Joseph Smith who allegedly was given some special golden plates a couple hundred years ago(assuming a majority of these people are mormon, which may or not be correct).




RE: Just had to chuckle...
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 10:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
A nice way to both misrepresent their position, as well as attack their religion. I'm not a Mormon, but I find their religion no more or less ridiculous than Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Mother-Earth worshipping environmentalism, or any other religion.


Bias
By teriba on 2/17/2010 1:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
It is really quite tough to read your articles because of the masses of partisan crap contained within them. You throw your personal opinion into every single sentence.

Other states that believe in human-caused global warming all came to that belief blindly? Seriously? You honestly think that Utah spent years researching this and everybody else are the ones not doing any work?

You seem more like an ultra-right blogger than a journalist. I honestly don't know why DailyTech allows you to post.




RE: Bias
By sigilscience on 2/17/2010 1:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You honestly think that Utah spent years researching this and everybody else are the ones not doing any work?
From the evidence of this resolution- yes.


Brought to you by...
By quadraphonic on 2/17/2010 9:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
...Mormons & Republicans. Certainly not a group of people I'd go to for an objective, rational point of view.




RE: Brought to you by...
By stilltrying on 2/17/2010 10:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
I agree fully but would like to add catholics and democrats


weak
By Chernobyl68 on 2/17/2010 12:49:24 PM , Rating: 1
Coastal states have far more to lose than inland, mountanous states like Utah and Arizona. Losing the Greenland ice sheet would result in a large rise in ocean level.




RE: weak
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 2:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
How many times are you going to kep repeating the same nonsense? The IPCC is predicting a grand total of 12 inches of sea level rise from AGW over the next 100 years. In most coastal areas, that's the equivalent of taking three steps backwards from the current waterline.


good
By Chiisuchianu on 2/17/2010 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
Finally a state with some sense. Hopefully others jump on board before we block economic growth and waste time and money on technology that will soon be obsolete just to pander to this man made climate change panic which is completely unfounded based on the data.




RE: good
By Griswold on 2/18/2010 3:48:11 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, you are one dumb and clueless asshole. And they probably let you vote too... sad sad.


phew....
By judasmachine on 2/17/2010 11:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
Glad that's all solved...




Doomsday Cults
By Earthmonger on 2/17/2010 11:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
This bill addresses people, not the phenomenon of climate change.

Climate Change alarmists are just the newest doomsday cult. Nothing new here. Wonder if it'll be upgraded to a religion anytime soon.

Myself, I like to think that Earth doesn't give a rat's ass whether people are here or not; we affect only animals and ourselves. Earth is going to go through this cycle regardless of our presence. We ought to be making preparions for environmental changes, not funneling money into scams over human pollution and greenhouse gasses. Humans aren't going to stop this, nor are we responsible for it. It's pretty damned pompous to think we *could* change it.

Roll with the changes, or die (possibly). No need for completely pointless powertrips or liberal self-victimization.




By Heinrich on 2/17/2010 12:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
pinko commies




first of all
By spepper on 2/17/2010 1:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
first of all, the state of Utah isn't denying anything-- they are simply enacting measures to protect their state, undertandably so, from further federal draconian intrusive blockage to true economic progress-- the federal government is out of control, going down the global warming rabbit hole, and coming back up from it, to announce to the rest of us that it must save us from ourselves, and require everyone to pay it tribute in the form of carbon taxes as a result, when there's NO DAMNED PROOF to that effect......




those other alarmists are bad!
By MadMan007 on 2/17/2010 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Stop the environmental alarmists! They're taking away from our terrorism alarmism!!




Enough with the hyperbole.
By marsbound2024 on 2/17/2010 3:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
I mean seriously? "Resolution Blasting Warming Alarmism Resoundingly Passes in Utah"

Lots of loaded words from what could easily be seen as a non-objective point of view. What was wrong with the original title?




Good job Utah!
By bissimo on 2/17/2010 10:08:47 AM , Rating: 1
This is quite possibly the best thing they could have done to set their own ill-conceived agenda back.




next up
By puckalicious on 2/17/2010 11:28:59 AM , Rating: 1
A bill that says the earth is flat. And that women are subservient. And that children are to be seen, not heard. And everything I say is the truth because God told me. Now lick my boots.

Say hi to the American Taliban known as Conservatism.




Welcome to Dumb***@istan
By Griswold on 2/18/2010 3:46:42 AM , Rating: 1
The best recent joke by those nutjobs dismissing any possibility of man made climate change is the current record breaking cold weather along the east cost of Dumbfuckistan - if theres global warming, then why are the temperatures so low? DUH!




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki