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

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
"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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