In an effort to urge the Environmental Protection Agency to "cease its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated" the Utah House of Representatives has passed a resolution (HRJ012) which basically states the climate change in a conspiracy and efforts to stop it will bankrupt the nation and are precursors to global governance. SolveClimate has a more level-headed, newsy interpretation of events, but here's a more heated dissection of what I can only describe as an absurdist collective outburst:In addition to urging the EPA to do everything in quotes above, it all urges withdrawal of the "endangerment finding", which basically states that CO2 is a form of pollution that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
By All Means, Let's Talk About the EPA Regulating CO2
Which is fine. If the duly elected representatives of the people of Utah think differently that the EPA on this that's fine and good. The discussion of whether or not direct EPA action is the best way to combat climate change is an important one, and personally I'm not decided one way or the other on it.
But I Really Can't Comprehend the Reasoning Here
But it's really the reasoning in the resolution that gets me fired up. It's more like a series of semi-disconnected grievances, fears, and half-to-un-truths than points backing up the conclusion. Here are some of the more egregious passages:
WHEREAS, global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years; WHEREAS, the "hockey stick" global warming assertion has been discredited and climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures;
Really? Didn't NASA just confirm that the past decade was the hottest since records began? That there is no actual downturn in temperatures at all, that the trend is still upwards? Haven't we also recently had reports detailing how solar cycles and El Niño may be masking some of the effects of other greenhouse gases? And that decreased water vapor in the past decade reduced warming?
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;
And this relates to the first point how? It's placed in between a statement on there being a "concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming" and one about the climate constantly changing a recent warming being "potentially an indication of a return to more normal temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from 1250 to 1860 called the "Little Ice Age".
You're kidding me right? How about a 1 in 10,000 chance that recent record average temperatures aren't because of human activity?
WHEREAS, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion.
Actually there was agreement in Copenhagen, and in terms of making emission reductions it was only a little step, but the thing that galls me here is that there is absolutely no recognition that the US has a responsibility to clean up the mess it's created. Though if you're starting from the assumption that there's no problem at with business as usual, it is perhaps expected.
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that current legislation providing agriculture offsets and carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions would result in tree planting on 59 million acres of crop and pasture land, damaging America's food security and rural communities; WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and WHEREAS, global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty:
The connection tried to be made here between global poverty, world hunger, lack of access to clean water and sanitation, and global action on global warming is lost on me. The idea that global governance related to global warming locks people into poverty is utter nonsense. Not to mention that nothing like global governance is on the table. Have the Utah reps even taken a basic course in international law and how international treaties are arranged? What's more, it's more convincingly said that not taking action on climate will create conditions in which more people are living in conditions of poverty.
Is Utah bizarro land? Because when I read this resolution I couldn't help but wondering if I live on the same planet as its authors.
Read the original: Utah Legislature HJR012
Global Climate Change
Debunking the Great Global Warming Conspiracy Conspiracy
1 in 10,000 Chance Human Induced Global Warming Not the Cause of Recent Hot Years
View 300 years of Global Climate Data on One Map