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

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:
IPCC Snow Melt Claim Based On Student 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"

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':

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

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