Thursday, February 11, 2010

Utah House Passes Resolution Implying Climate Change Conspiracy

State's Scientists Get a Hostile Reception
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, the resolution 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 Heartland Institute, Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), and Utah’s Sutherland Institute.
A group of Brigham Young University scientists were so disturbed by the wording of the resolution, HJR 12, that they wrote to the legislature last week highlighting several inaccuracies and urging the legislature to reconsider. Read more.

2 comments:

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

    Top alarmist James Hansen laces his speeches with Holocaust-style references. Grist magazine writer David Roberts called for Nuremberg-style trials. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They can dish it out but they can't take it. The Warmist argument is vulgar and of very little substance.

    ReplyDelete