subscribe
view counter

Donate to SolveClimate News

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government

International

Academic, Non-Governmental

Utah House Passes Resolution Implying Climate Change Conspiracy

State's Scientists Get a Hostile Reception

By SolveClimate Staff

Feb 10, 2010

Utah’s House of Representatives passed a resolution on Tuesday that implies climate change science is a conspiracy and urges the EPA to stop all carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs.

As a resolution, it holds no legal weight, but it sends a message from — and about — Utah’s lawmakers.

Among other things, claims there is "a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome."

A last-minute amendment removed the words “conspiracy,” “gravy train” and “tricks," but the statements remaining are still inflammatory, echoing the claims of conservative groups such as the , (SPPI), and Utah’s .

A group of Brigham Young University scientists were so disturbed by the wording of the resolution, HJR 12, that they to the legislature last week highlighting several inaccuracies and urging the legislature to reconsider.

“Even if all the political solutions proposed so far are flawed, this does not justify politicians in attacking the science that indicates there is almost certainly a serious problem," the scientists told lawmakers.

The Utah capitol has become a hostile venue for scientists when it comes to climate change, though.

Robert Davies, an associate physics professor from Utah State University, discovered the danger last fall when, answering a reporter’s question about climate science, he said former NASA scientist Roy Spencer’s conclusions from computer modeling on clouds had been discredited in the scientific community and his analysis deemed "fringe." Republican Rep. Mike Noel, who had invited Spencer to testify to the legislature, responded by of Utah State University, a state-funded school, to complain about Davies.

Eighteen BYU scientists to the legislature then, expressing their concern about the treatment of science and scientists by lawmakers during that hearing.

"We feel it is irresponsible for some of our legislators to attempt to manipulate the scientific evidence in order to support a political agenda," they wrote.

More recently, Noel tried to twist the words of a University of Utah bioengineering professor who was the only person to publicly speak out against HJR 12 at last week’s committee hearing. The professor, Joseph Andrade, said he worried that the legislature was encouraging fossil fuel use and slowing efforts to diversify the state's portfolio with clean energy sources. That led to this :


Rep. Noel: "Are you stating on record that CO2 is a pollutant? Are you saying that CO2, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant, are you saying that?”

Professor Andrade: "I'm saying that carbon dioxide has a unique molecular structure which absorbs infrared radiation, and that that is in part responsible for the effects that you're concerned with, Representative Gibson is concerned with, and Representative ...."

Noel: "I want to get this on the record, ok? Are you saying that we have to rid the planet of carbon dioxide?"

Andrade: "Of course not!"

Noel: "It's not a pollutant then, it's not going to kill you. It's not going to kill plants. Is that correct? I also have a degree too, professor. So I want to get this straight. Is it a pollutant?"

Federal agencies are

Federal agencies are incapable of commercializing anything. The only ones that are even remotely designed to earn money are those that regulate the financial institutions, and we all know that the American banking system has failed us miserably. Until someone in Washington who has power and authority to stop this steady stream of funding to nowhere, listening as the algae researchers continue to claim that they are 3-5 years away from completing their research, it’s too expensive and they need more time and money, they will receive grant money from the DOE, NREL, DOD and DARPA. Nothing will ever get commercialized at the university level. Until there is an industry, there is no value to the results of the research. Until development of this industry is taken out of the hands of the research community, and put into the hands of the business, not corporate, community, this industry will never support reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

I'm the same way, I do my

I'm the same way, I do my best to remain neutral. It's hard, if you communicate with the person the other person dislikes, then you fall out of favor with them! I simple can't dislike a person, just because someone else does, I just can't.

The coal that we burn took 65

The coal that we burn took 65 million years to accumulate (be sequestered) in the earth. That process removes carbon from the short term carbon cycle, (which involves living things, the atmosphere, topsoil, water etc) and in so doing, it helps keep the short term carbon cycle in a balance that has supported life as we knowit for millions of years. We are now reversing that process and pumping that 65 million years of accumulated carbon back into the atmosphere and back into the short term carbon cycle in a few hundred years, or a geological nanosecond.
No creature on earth has ever done that before. It is completely unprecendented.
It is NOT a natural cycle.

Climate change has making

Climate change has making immense impact on humanity life. Globle warming change many thing which we can not think ten year ago. The Cold sea of Russia has going warm, flood, storm become news of every day. Mathew Geography Dept.
  Holtin University

Look at the CO river!

So, if climate change is not real, then why is the Colorado River at the lowest levels in centuries?

There was a sense of deja vu

There was a sense of deja vu in the biofuels sector this week when U.S. Energy Secretary Chu announced nearly $80 million in funding for research and development of algae-based fuels.

Colorado River

Maybe this will give you a clue:

In 1990 6.7 million acre-feet of water were siphoned off for the 7 states in the upper and lower Colorado River basins. That is expected to increase to 7.5 million acre feet this year.

Centuries ago their were no dams.

Thanks for sharing such a

Thanks for sharing such a nice information with us.

The Science Behind "global warming" is false.

This paper () by German scientists describe global warming theories and why they are impossible. Physics - real science - explains the impossibility of global warming junk science.

good grief

Anything can be a poison or dangerous.

Custard powder can cause explosions. So the fact that CO2 can cause warming, is hardly surprising.

It's good to see the scientist (Prof Andrade) explaining basic molecular science to the politician (Noel), most politicians need basic science lessons. I think the politician may have had a brain failure if the scientist started talking about bond vibrations. Or maybe that was why Noel lost the plot?

I mis-spoke in my last

I mis-spoke in my last comment.

"No one says CO2 is a pollutant or that it isn't a benficial compound. Indeed, it is perhaps the most important compound in our world."

What I should have said, is that carbon is perhaps the most imortant element in our world.

Who's Using Inflammatory Language?

To accuse The and other non-alarmist groups of using inflammatory language is seriously calling the kettle black.

Top alarmist James Hansen laces his speeches . Grist magazine writer David Roberts called for Robert Davies, an "associate physics professor at Utah State University," as you note, deems as "fringe" the work of Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville and former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

The science on the climate change issue is far from settled, and the Utah legislature was wise to protest EPA intervention that will destroy jobs, cut incomes, and do nothing to address the natural and moderate climate change that's taking place.

Re: Global Warming Debunked!

After I did some examination on how Monckton cherry-picks his statistics, I wouldn't trust _anything_ he says - on global warming or otherwise.

Call for algae research grant investigations

The US Government has spent over $2.5 billion dollars on algae research in the last 35 years and all we have to show for it are shelves full of useless patents. Algae have been researched at universities and in laboratories in the US for over 50 years, financed in significant part by government funds. One of the largest problems is that the research has been done in laboratories and at universities, using federal funds, and there is fear at that level that commercialization will ‘ruin it for them’. What it will ruin is the steady stream of ‘free’ money flowing from the DOE, NREL, the DOD, DARPA and other Washington-based agencies to University Row. It was most disconcerting to hear from more than one agency that the funds it awards are, by Congressional mandate, restricted to research. If we could invest one years’ worth of awards into commercialization instead of research, we could easily move this industry into commercialization. The research would be needed to improve technologies, but Microsoft and the American Petroleum Industry, among others, can confirm that this is a necessary component of any industry growth.

According to my sources. another large problem is, in order to be a grant award recipient, the algae technologies must be investigated and approved by NREL, and that NREL is not particularly supportive of the private initiative. NREL is the same government agency that ran out of money and stopped the otherwise successful Aquatic Species Program after 18 years of federal funding. After the Consortium grant announcement, sources at various government agencies, including NREL itself, shared the fact that grants would only be awarded to proposed groups that included government agencies in their consortia. The truth of that statement lies in the fact that one of the groups that recently received an award is led by NREL and the other by the David Danforth Plant Science Center, and includes two national laboratories (one of which is also a participant in the NREL award) and 11 universities. According to its website, “Scientists at the Danforth Center receive more than half of their funding from federal agencies via competitive grant programs, with the rest of the funding coming from private companies and foundations. In addition to the USDA and the NSF, other federal granting agencies that fund research at the Center include the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency…”. In the last 2 years, it has received grants from the Department of Transportation and the National Sciences Foundation relating to biofuels, in addition to housing one of the DOE’s Energy Frontier Research Centers.

Federal agencies are incapable of commercializing anything. The only ones that are even remotely designed to earn money are those that regulate the financial institutions, and we all know that the American banking system has failed us miserably. Until someone in Washington who has power and authority to stop this steady stream of funding to nowhere, listening as the algae researchers continue to claim that they are 3-5 years away from completing their research, it’s too expensive and they need more time and money, they will receive grant money from the DOE, NREL, DOD and DARPA. Nothing will ever get commercialized at the university level. Until there is an industry, there is no value to the results of the research. Until development of this industry is taken out of the hands of the research community, and put into the hands of the business, not corporate, community, this industry will never support reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

The question you need to be asking is " Does the US really want to get off of foreign oil or do we want to continue to fund the algae researchers at the universities." The problem is we can grow, harvest and extract algae today with all "off-the-shelf" proven technology. We no not need genetic modification at all when there are existing algae strains currently on the market with 30-60% oil content. Algae production requires far less land and water than any other terrestrial crop (see page 194 of the DOE’s National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap), which has the farmers in an uproar right now. The ethanol credits went away, allegedly shutting down an industry – can it really be that without the tax credit, years of time, effort and expense will be for naught, leaving us with unedible genetically modified corn fields? The DOE is still awarding grants for algae pond research when it was established years ago that all algae ponds get contaminated and will never produce enough algae to get us off of foreign oil. Stop wasting monies on research. We need algae production!

whsmith You are completely

whsmith

You are completely confused and befuddled. Scientists think CO2 remains in the atmostphere 100 years or more. Where are you coming up with 400,000 years? Maybe that's someone's hypothesis, but it is light years away from being any kind of scientific theory or consensus. Even if what you say was true, that will not help humans much in the meantime. The ice melt and other effects that we are seeing now, with only a 1.4 degreeF rise in temps, is just a precurser of what will follow, if we continue with business as usual, in which case that number could triple in this century to a 6 degrees F increase. The increase in the arctic is already about 5 F.

What you are saying is idiotic, to say the least. No one says CO2 is a pollutant or that it isn't a benficial compound. Indeed, it is perhaps the most important compound in our world. So what? That does not change the fact that it is a greenhouse gas, and that what humans are doing is unprecedented in the history of the planet.

Say what? you say

Yes I'm serious. Do you know what carbon sequestration is? As in clean coal technolgy? Pumping CO2 into the earth? Mother nature has been sequestering CO2 for a long time. The coal that we burn took 65 million years to accumulate (be sequestered) in the earth. That process removes carbon from the short term carbon cycle, (which involves living things, the atmosphere, topsoil, water etc) and in so doing, it helps keep the short term carbon cycle in a balance that has supported life as we know it for millions of years. We are now reversing that process and pumping that 65 million years of accumulated carbon back into the atmosphere and back into the short term carbon cycle in a few hundred years, or a geological nanosecond.
No creature on earth has ever done that before. It is completely unprecendented.
It is NOT a natural cycle.

climate science and the Utah legislature.

The Utah legislature has resolved that the EPA should cease its attempts to label CO2 a pollutant and to reduce CO2 production. This was done against the advice of a number of BYU scientists!
But, the BYU scientists surely agree with the case made by the global warming proponents such as Caldeira, et al. who have proposed that a large fraction of anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere out to even 400,000 years, potentially forestalling the Milankovic cycles. This scenario results in millions, even billions, more people being supported on the warm Earth, rather than dying or never being born as the frigid climate conditions of glaciations envelope humanity.
So, paradoxically, global warming proponents justify the Utah legislature's resolution.
Burning coal then has a benefit due to its enhanced carbon footprint, and just as certainly, SO2 can be removed to reduce atmospheric pollution. CO2 itself is a beneficial gas, not a pollutant, as the EPA wishes to designate it so it can be taxed to fill the coffers of the government and the pockets of those positioned to benefit from the EPA imposed rules.

Global Warming Debunked!

FLASH!!

This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: . com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options