Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists'

The Utah legislature has passed a bill saying that Utah will no long pay heed to Global Warming nonsense

It also called on the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency to order an immediate halt in its moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions "until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated".

Wade...LOL...you were reading my mind. I was visiting the news site, and that was one of the first things that caught my eye.
As well as "Rome's heaviest snowfall in 25 years..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100212/wl_nm/us_italy_snow_1

Your link didn't work. I think this is it :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists

Thanks Eric, I fixed the link.

I don't recycle.

Good for you Dean. That shows real independent thinking for a liberal.



Oh, I shouldn't have said that, sorry. :grin01:

wade said:

Good for you Dean. That shows real independent thinking for a liberal.



Oh, I shouldn't have said that, sorry. :grin01:

Click to expand...

I'm a very lazy liberal. I like to pay my own way, but beyond that...

On a more serious note...

I really don't understand why "climate change" is such a hot-button issue. Admittedly, I'm hardly qualified to evaluate the science, and I have even less business evaluating the socio-economic implications. Based on that, I should probably just shut up. But I still don't understand why curbing potentially dangerous behavior is a bad thing? I understand that regulation and restriction can limit economic growth, but can't it also provide new opportunities? Does it hurt to err on the side of caution, especially if thinking long-term?

It's a Pascal's Wager thing, only more logical. Do nothing, and maybe there are no consequences, or maybe you do irreparable damage. Do something, and there are still no consequences, or maybe you avoid irreparable damage.