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.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














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