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

RE: Great
By reader1 on 2/17/2010 11:22:18 AM , Rating: -1
He's saying capitalism creates unreliable science and technology. He's saying more government regulation, such as this resolution, will keep scientists honest.

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
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 on his hyperlinked name and go take a look.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki