Quantcast
Opinion

Andrew Morriss: No, Congress should not move quickly to pass comprehensive climate change legislation

Comments

Return To Article
  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 1:20 a.m.

    "We need candidates putting forward specific proposals and debating their merits on the campaign trail so voters can make an informed choice about the type of approach they want to see." Thanks for the Civics 101. American politicians are beholden to special economic interests, particularly energy companies. Pols due the bidding of those interests which have purchased them. Hence, no rational debate over climate change is possible. Unless we develop new ways of resolving these controversies we are likely doomed to the full consequences of global warming.

  • Mark l SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 5:45 a.m.

    There is the ability to produce all the energy in our own country if Harry Reid would allow it. Modern nuclear reactors are available and very safe.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    The only thing I can control is how much I use to lower the bills I pay, and Now that I'm in a dark house. The incense in charges by the suppliers, I can't win for loosing.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    Not sure I get this guys argument...

    We should do nothing,
    because there are 20 times as many Chinese than Americans,
    And whatever we do, won't be enough to off set them?

    Lame.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    But holding hearings to discuss extraterrestrial life was a great investment of time, right?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Just plain dumb.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    Look on the bright side - at least he acknowledges that Global Warming is real.

    To claim that we shouldn't lead, and instead wait for others to show some leadership, is just plain dumb. Why would China or India make any effort to reduce their carbon emissions if the US isn't willing to, also?

    Ever heard of the concept of "lead by example?"

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    Those who believe the sky is falling need to ask themselves a simple question: If America went dark and used no power of any kind, no fuels of any kind; if we lived or died depending on the sun for our warmth and light; if we wore coats or died from the elements, would the world's climate change? Would the world be cooler? Would the world be hotter? If America ceased to exist and all the people in America ceased to exist, what would be the net effect on the world's climate?

    The naysayers want us to be punished for being alive. They want horrendous taxes to be levied on those who want to use a light bulb or drive a car; yet, eliminating America from the earth WOULD NOT change the world's climate.

    Foolish people tell us that our Creator is powerless but that they can change the climate. Can they stop volcanoes? Can they stop tornadoes? Can they stop hurricanes? What natural disasters can they stop?

    In effect, they can do nothing except collect taxes. Their solution is to fleece the gullible public. Some people actually believe them.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    Ignorance is bliss I guess....

    but, but...what about the Chinese and the Indians is the only defense some greed-driven people have.

    Let's just try cleaning this place up just in case you naysayer are right. Then we'll have a cleaner earth and more quality to our existence!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    IMO legislating environmentalism is like legislating morality.... It won't work (unless people do it on their own, because they understand the REASON for it, not just because they fear the law).

    We need to work on information, and developing better alternatives before we just go draconian (making laws and punishments for those who don't care ENOUGH about the environment).

    ===

    Second problem is... not everybody agrees on what the punishment should be for not being radical enough on climate change... so you have a REAL hard time getting majority support for the law. The new law just ends up getting lip service (to satisfy your base) but in the end you can't find a law radical enough to actually change the climate, but the same law not be so radical it will get widespread bipartisan support needed to get majority support.

    That's the problem with being radical. You can come up with lots of great ideas, but you can't get enough people to be as radical as you are to get them passed.

    Maybe IF we all just did our best (regardless of climate-law)... that may work (I know... not very radical).

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 8, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    Mike,

    In a world of agency, we can choose to treat our planet any way we want with the accompanying consequences. Consequence is part of our world. To believe God will save us from our poor choices is not a gospel principle (as I have been taught it).

    Historically we have fouled (and later cleaned) rivers and large lakes, even the oceans to a degree. Certainly we can foul or clean our atmosphere.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    Twin Lights,

    We are the cleanest "large" nation on earth. We have cleaned up many of those "man made" problems that you cited. If we shut off all gas, all coal, all wood-burning, all everything that causes "climate change" problems in the United States, the world would not change. If we took 100% of every person's income in America, the world would not be free of contamination. We, in the United States, are not causing world-wide problems. Our contribution to "climate change" is much less than the contribution of even one volcano. How many active volcanoes are there? Are you going to "cap" them? Are you going to spread some kind of "blanket" over Yellowstone National Park to keep the geysers from spewing fumes into the air?

    Telling us that WE are causing global warming is nonsense. Government-paid "scientists" have been proved to have misrepresented "data". Their "facts" are not supported, but they keep telling us that we need to continue to fund their faulty research. Follow the money. It leads to those who tell us that the sky is falling.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    My take, often with my LDS friends, is that Climate Change might be the mechanism to bring on the apocalypse...

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 8, 2013 7:43 p.m.

    Mike,

    Depends on whether we are talking "large" or "advanced". We are definitely not the cleanest of the advanced nations.

    As to what other nations, do? We are still the leader of the free world. We cannot expect the world to move without our leadership.

    The volcanoes and geysers have been with us always. It's our (human) output that is the issue. We cannot go to zero. But we can do better and provide leadership for the world to do so as well.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    I hate to sound cynical, but don't worry about it. Congress isn't about to do anything quickly.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 9, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Follow the money. It leads to those who tell us that the sky is falling.

    6:45 p.m. Dec. 8, 2013

    =======

    Mike --
    The Oil industry is Government subsidized 1,000 times more than government paid "scientists".

    If you want to "follow the money",
    you're looking in the wrong place.

    You remind me of the people in Noah's time...
    Let's just ignore the problem until it starts raining.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 9, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    "Stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 9, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    IF Congress could fix our climate... they would have done it by now (I would hope).

    The problem is, you just can't legislate the climate.

    Now... if you just want people to live the way YOU want them to live... THAT you can legislate. But it's debatable that the US Congress can actually fix the worldwide climate.

    ===

    I don't think what we need is more legislation. What we need is more people doing the best they can to use less resources and emit less pollution (on their own, not because they are FORCED to by the law).

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Dec. 9, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    Mike --

    I re-re-read your posts.

    It appears you are saying "Burn-baby-burn",
    it doesn't matter what we do,
    God is the only one who can change the enviroment.

    Isn't that the same thing as those who say --
    "Eat, Drink, and be Merry -- for tomorrow we die."?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 9, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" yes, and look at what the government funded scientists all say. They had to rename "Global Warming" and now call it "climate change". That way if it is warmer they are right, and if it is cooler they are also right.

    You should read the article "Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating" In the NY Post. The prophecies made by the alarmists don't seem to be coming true. They don't even have an accurate model.

    The problem is that governments want AGW to be true so that they can enact more regulation and taxes on the people. It makes taxing easier because they just say that it is for the environment, and now people don't want to hurt the environment.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 9, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    LDS Tree-Hugger,

    For the LAST time... nobody ever said, "Burn-baby-burn". What they actually said was "drill-baby-drill".

    The left keeps mus-quoting that famous quote and replacing it with your absurd mis-quoted stawman quote. That's intellectually dishonest IMO.

    When you consistently mis-state what the person you are quoting actually said... it takes away from the credibility of the point you are trying to make.

    If you can show me ONE quote on the internet where somebody said "Burn-baby-burn"... I'll take it back.

    ===

    Nobody thinks the more we can burn the better. That's an absurd strawman.

    But some DO think we need to drill more (to become energy independent in the short term).

    Of course we still need to expand alternative energy sources as much as possible at the same time, but we still need to drill INSIDE the US in order to become energy independent from countries that use our $$$ for terrorism... for the short-term. That's all they're saying.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 9, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    @RedshirtMIT
    "They had to rename "Global Warming" and now call it "climate change". That way if it is warmer they are right, and if it is cooler they are also right."

    They are still claiming warming, not cooling. You know why they changed it to climate change? Because global warming suggests the only thing that'll happen is it gets warmer. It doesn't adequately encompass the broad range of effects like sea level rise, shifting atmospheric circulation patterns (like the expansion of the Hadley cell), ocean acidification (the decrease of oceanic pH as a result of increased CO2 uptake by the oceans) and others.

    "The problem is that governments want AGW to be true so that they can enact more regulation and taxes on the people."

    Guess I shouldn't even bother trying to explain science to the paranoid...

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 9, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    Yeah, Redshirt, again you seem to have a very hard time understanding the difference between oped pieces versus news articles. (And yeah, I know you just said it was an article and not a news article.) Whatever you think of Michael Fumento, he has no training in any scientific field (unless you believe poli sci is in the scientific field) and his oped concerning global warming is very badly reasoned and uses arguments easily dismissed by the science (for instance his claims on ice coverage, and a lack of temperature increase worldwide. In fact using these easily refuted clams indicates Fumento lacks a basic understanding of the science behind climate change.)

    If I want uninformed opinion I can just come to this site, no need to go to the New York Post.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 9, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    The author makes a few good points. But by starting the debate now is the only way it will become an election issue - so lets start the talking now so we know where the candidates in 2014 stand.

    As to one of the examples the author uses, the cell phone technology, the author clearly doesn't understand how we got to where we are today. The shift to digital was forced by the federal government as it wanted to reallocate the analog spectrum to other uses. Same with Television. Government forced the issue - the industry responded.

    M Richards.... sometimes you amaze me. I am not sure if you just make stuff up, or if you really do have some really poor sources of information. Are you seriously claiming that Utah's smog\inversion problem is being impacted by volcanos? That LA was able to dramatically reduce its smog levels by putting up a volcano shield?

    Yes, nature produces its own "pollution"... but that doesn't mean because there is a forest fire in Yellowstone we should remove open burn bans in urban areas. Very unusual logic.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 9, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    The NY Post? Really?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 10, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    To "atl134" and "mark" and "Twin Lights" here are other articles that confirm that we are cooling or are going to maintain global temperatures for the next 30 years (they think).

    "Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists" UK Telegraph

    "Global Temperature Standstill May Last 30 Years, Climate Scientist Predicts" from the GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION

    "Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding!" Forbes

    Apparently even the AGW alarmists think that we are not going to se warming for a while.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Dec. 10, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    RedShirt,

    The NY Post (enough said).

    The Telegraph - a paper strongly allied with the British Conservatives.

    Forbes is Forbes - It has had a political agenda since at least the days when Steve ran for President and more likely since inception.

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a group that lobbies against things associated with climate change.

    None of these are science sources. They are all folks driving a political agenda.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    Twin Lights
    Louisville, KY

    None of these are science sources. They are all folks driving a political agenda.

    9:36 a.m. Dec. 10, 2013

    =======

    Thank You Twin Lights.
    RedShirt reminds me alot of the anti-Mormons who go-to and use anti-LDS websites for their "facts" as well.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    @RedshirtMIT
    "GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION"

    Why are you yelling the name of a political action group that named itself to act like an authority on something when really they lobby against action on the thing their name suggests they support action on? (Their naming convention totally worked though for you to react that way).

    If you don't mind... I'd rather stick to the science rather than what think tanks (liberal or conservative) are spouting out. (Plus the standstill predictions are based on the belief we may have entered an extended solar minimum and one of the multi-decadal oscillations is due to switch from a warm to cool bias. I can't help but notice that projecting a negative natural influence is still only resulting in a standstill in the models rather than cooling, probably because anthropogenic climate change still exists).

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    To "Twin Lights" and "atl134" it is sad to see you resorting to the liberal defense of last resort. You cannot refute the articles that I have cited, which are based on scientific studies or interviews with experts, so you have gone to the attack the messenger.

    Go and look at the studies, especially the one from teh Global Warming Policy foundation. They went to the source, and got the information from them directly. Do you refute the sources used in the articles, or are you just grasping at straws in a vain effort not to be proven wrong?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 10, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    Redshirt… the piece you quote was authored by Michael Fumento who is a journalist and attorney based in Colombia. Excuse me, this is what we are to base our policy on…. research by an attorney?

    Hurricanes are not the only bell weather of global climate change, never has been, never will be. Climate change is also not based on a year, two years, 10 years or even 20 average. The event horizon is far further than that.

    I do concur no one has figured out the exact ratios to what the contribution levels are between nature and man. But honestly, it doesn't matter, because we can only control one of those, and are only responsible for one of those. To excuse ourselves of responsibility because nature is doing something is short sighted at best… and immoral at worst.

    If it truly is immoral to leave debt to our kids to live with from government spending…. it should be equally immoral to leave behind a denigrated and polluted planet. Either you really do care what we are leaving behind for future generations… or you don't.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Dec. 10, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    Twin Lights here.

    No. As you know I often do read studies cited on these boards. But I don't have infinite time. If the sources do not appear credible, I have to cut my losses somewhere.

    Surely you do the same?

    The point is that valid studies should be published in recognized and peer reviewed scientific journals. Please don't use the "they won't publish them because there is a conspiracy" defense. Conspiracies of more than just a few people do not hold together. Even the Mafia can't keep everyone quiet (and they have a really tough "retirement" program).

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 6:17 p.m.

    "Go and look at the studies, especially the one from teh Global Warming Policy foundation." Redshirt, that is not a study, it is an article from FOXNews.

    And if you don't mind, I'm not going to take a badly written oped by Larry Bell in Forbes seriously.

    The other article from the Telegraph. Really? Leaked documents that it seems they haven't even seen ("But the leaked documents are said to show")? Misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, the ice sheet? Getting information wrong on shipping lanes ("The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific had remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes. One ship has now managed to pass through. . . " The second sentence had to be added as a correction).

    No, if it's okay with you I think I will dismiss all three of these articles also.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    To "Semi-Strong" so what you are saying is that you attacked an article just because you don't like the source, without having read the article. Sad, and I thought that liberals were willing to accept the truth no matter what the source.

    To "mark" so what you are saying is that eventhough the article quotes an actual climatologist, you can't accept it because it goes against everything you believe in.

    To "UtahBlueDevil" you may not like the author, but is he wrong, and can you prove it. Since you obviously can't prove him wrong, that only leads me to believe that you are just angry that somebody has gone against the AGW orthodoxy that you believe in.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 11, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT

    Go and look at the studies, especially the one from teh Global Warming Policy foundation. They went to the source, and got the information from them directly. Do you refute the sources used in the articles, or are you just grasping at straws in a vain effort not to be proven wrong?

    12:50 p.m. Dec. 10, 2013

    ========

    I took your challenge RedShirt --
    Here's what I found:

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank (code for "lobbyists") ...whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.

    The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions. As a charity, it is not be required to report its sources of funding.

    No bias?
    No political axe to grind?
    No agenda?

    You might as well be watching the God-Makers to learn all about us Mormons.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" in other words, you cannot disprove them.

    Everything you say about them can be said about the IPCC.

    The IPCC is biased, is being used as a political weapon, and is agenda driven. If you trust the IPCC and accept its conclusions as being valid, then you must accept the GWPF.

    If you don't accept the GWPF, but accept the IPCC, then you are a hypocrite.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    @Redshirt
    Am I supposed to refute every single thing any one particular climate scientist (in this case Tsonis) claims when you systematically ignore reams of claims and/or evidence from thousands of others?

    "Sad, and I thought that liberals were willing to accept the truth no matter what the source."

    This is about science, being liberal has nothing to do with it. I would accept the truth no matter what the source but why am I supposed to be assuming this one claim is the truth as opposed to all sorts of other papers/articles/projections about climate science? You emphasize a link about a Wisconsin professor saying he believes the pause in warming will last another 15 years and that's suddenly scientific fact to you. Plus, it's a future projection, I literally can't prove that these are right or wrong with 100% certainty. I may be in the top 1% in the national forecasting contest but I'm not that good.

    And I did address the issue. Continued stalling would likely be due to further anthropogenic climate change being offset out by an extended solar minimum (if that develops) and a cooling phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO).

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Redshirt,

    First, I am not a liberal (unless Ike was a liberal).

    Second, I think Alt134 has your number. Best not to fight.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 4:07 p.m.

    To "atl134" wow, now you are out in left field. The fact is that the NOAA and other agencies have stated that using the current climate models, it is impossible to have 15 years or more without warming. We are now going on 16 years with no warming. If the stall is due to sun spots, then that means that the climate models are wrong because they did not take into account the cycles of sun spots.

    Just like you cannot accurately predict the future, neither can the AGW alarmist scientists. They predicted that hurricanes should be getting worse every year. We have had a quiet year, and even when Sandy hit, it was still a quiet year.

    They also say that the glaciers should all be melting away. Funny thing is that some glaciers are growing, and so are large portions of the ice surrounding the poles.

    It isn't just one scientist that is saying that the warming is paused or reversing. There are others if you were honest enough to look for them.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "it is impossible to have 15 years or more without warming."

    There's only one quote in the entirety of climate science along those lines.

    I'm pretty sure most climate models take into account solar cycles. However, they probably don't do a good job of capturing say... a much below average solar cycle (they probably just assume an average cycle each time for simplicities sake).

    "Just like you cannot accurately predict the future"

    You thought not agreeing with a climate scientist from Wisconsin was an example of us "not accepting the truth no matter the source".

    Hurricanes are not projected to increase in frequency (other than more early and late season storms) and the model projected intensity increases are small enough that you really can't see it year to year, you need a larger dataset.

    Last year had 19 Atlantic storms (hint: we got to the S storm), it wasn't quiet, you just didn't notice the ones that didn't hit the US.

    The vast majority of glaciers are in retreat. Arctic sea ice volume and extent have merely bounced back to being at the negative trendline over the past 30 years (meaning, still way below 1980).

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Dec. 12, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    Redshirt and Atl134,

    Ask the folks in the Philippines about how quiet this year was on the storm front.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 12, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    To "atl134" the solar cycles don't take into account solar cycles. That is why they have failed us here. Everything I have read shows that the climate models assume a constant solar output.

    As for the quote, yes there may be only one place with it, but it comes from the NOAA. It isn't some fringe group that has stated that. Or is the NOAA now a AGW denier group?