Utah Senator wants to raise greenhouse gas limits, because “dinosaurs did quite well”

pollution

Jerry Anderson (R), who is the Senator of Utah, thinks that we should raise the limits on greenhouse gases, not lower them.

Anderson, who was a science teacher at one point, is trying to fight against the regulations on greenhouse gas. He has stated that plants need more carbon dioxide and “think[s] we could double the carbon dioxide and not have any adverse effects.”

Despite the fact that there is a ridiculous amount of information stating that man induced greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide among them, are one of the causes behind global warming and also of harm being done to the planet, Anderson doesn’t think that Utah needs to keep concentrations under 500 parts per million.

He also used dinosaurs as an example of why we could go over 500 parts per million and be “fine”. Yes, dinosaurs. “Concentrations reached 600 parts per million at the time of the dinosaurs and they did quite well,” Anderson said.

Despite how you may feel about global warming, I think we can all agree that using a comparison of dinosaurs and humans as justification for a law — or removal of a law — is a bit ridiculous. This guy was a science teacher how? Better yet, how did he get elected to office? Oh wait, maybe stupidity is a requirement to make it to Capitol Hill.

[via Ars Technica, image via Uwe Hermann’s flickr]

Share this post

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

13 comments

  1. sl0j0n

    [@etim] [@etim]
    How old are you? Twelve? Because your comment is *not* that of a ‘mature’ person who *reasonably* considers the FACTS before deciding to *attack* another person. Such moral violence is UNACCEPTABLE, especially from someone *claiming*, or even merely implying to be “open-minded”.
    Of course, *if* your ‘argument’ is too weak to stand on its own merits, then I guess you’ll just have to play the moral violence card to attack those who can actually present facts in their narrative.
    BTW, everything on “TV” is not untrue, as your comment infers. Maybe you haven’t heard, there is such a thing as EDUCATIONAL programming, which, BTW, could even be a SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY. You may want to stop wasting your time on the internet and watch some of that, but I doubt it. Also, you may want to stop sharing your biases, preconceptions, and prejudices online, since it has the tendency to reveal your mental flaws via your ‘sarcasm’, since caustic remarks are always the last defense of those who have no factual ammunition. You may have attended college, but that in itself is not proof of intellectual ability, especially since so many college graduates need remedial reading classes. As an adult, I find it sad that so many children go to college, spending forty- to fifty-thousand dollars per year, and receive nothing more than propaganda and indoctrination [& huge student loan debt] from anti-Americans with a political agenda, instead of the so-called ‘education’ which they were promised. Unfortunately, most of these children will never outgrow their ‘brainwashing’, because it occurred before their brains developed to the point of being physically mature. I hope my comment finds you well and healthy, since I have no ill-will towards anyone. May you experience the same moral growth to maturity.

    Have a GREAT day, Neighbor!

  2. Ashraf
    Mr. Boss

    One more thing I forgot to add to my last comment.

    The Earth has a lot of moving parts. The idea behind climate change is to try and stop humans from causing unnatural changes to the climate, with the primary focus on overall warming of the Earth. However, with so many moving parts, a natural change in the Earth could easily “undo” an unnatural change made by humans. For example, it could happen that human made changes cause the Earth to warm by 5 degrees C but natural changes by Earth make the planet cooler by 6 degrees C for a net of -1 degrees C. (This is just an example and not reality.) When looking at the overall data, it looks like no warming happened but in reality an unnatural increase in temperature DID happen. That is what makes this whole issue even murkier.

    This is why you will see a lot of talk revolve around the basics: we know what effect greenhouse gases have on the atmosphere and we know the huge amount of man-induced or man-made greenhouse gases are being pumped into the atmosphere, hence let’s try to reduce them and stop any potential unnatural changes to the environment (aka Kyoto Protocol). Again, no debate about these two points. The debate is are we having such a large effect that we have to put resources into reducing greenhouse gases? And if we are, then how quickly is it happening?

  3. Ashraf
    Mr. Boss

    [@Scott Hedrick] [@weylin] You know you’ve lost a debate when you argue semantics instead of the point at hand. When I said there is no debate, I did not mean literally there is no debate over the issue. I meant there is enough evidence out there that the majority of the scientific community agree: humans are putting unnatural amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and these gases are increasing Earth’s temperature.

    [@J C Graham] You are right; there have been stupid moves by otherwise smart people that have lead to discredit of climate change. Nonetheless, that doesn’t change the facts… which I see you also failed to debate on.

    Also agreed that the climate is regularly changing. No one says it isn’t. The point is, humans are causing unnatural change due to the amount of greenhouse gases we are pumping into the atmosphere. As I said in my previous comment, it isn’t agreed upon in the scientific community how much change we are causing and how quickly but it is agreed upon that it IS happening.

    By the way, the name was “changed” because of people who don’t understand science and used the word “warming” as a sticking point, e.g. why is it actually colder in some places if “global warming” is happening? News flash folks: study up on science, specifically global weather patterns, to learn how a warmer Earth can actually cause some areas to get colder.

    [@sl0j0n] First of all, one man’s disagreement doesn’t throw the whole idea out the window. As I said, most — not all — agree (okay, I should clarify that is what I meant when I said “no real debate” least someone comes and argues with me again). There will always be people that disagree. It is similar to how some people don’t believe in evolution (yes, even some scientists) but by and large most agree on it.

    Secondly, did you bother to read what the guy actually said? I did. No where did he deny that humans are putting unnatural amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and what effect those gases as. As I said, this is pretty much a foregone conclusion in the scientific community. His issue with the so-called climate change agenda is can be summed up as the following:

    1) We don’t know what is the dominate force behind climate change
    2) Climate change prediction models are inaccurate
    3) We could be putting money going towards climate change research and/or protection to better use

    Points 2 and 3 are correct; prediction models are inaccurate (another sticking point for people who don’t accept climate change as real) and we could be getting better “bang for the buck” (so to speak) is we put the money towards other humanitarian needs, such as getting people clean water. Point 1 brings us back to what I said in my first comment: there is disagreement on how quickly greenhouse gases we are putting in the atmosphere are causing change.

    There is a reason the Kyoto Protocol was signed by a large part of the world: to reduce man-made emission of greenhouse gases, which are known to warm the Earth.

    As a parting point, the founder of Greenpeace you are quoting agrees with Bjorn Lomborg of University of Copenhagen: “economic models generally find that moderate global warming is a net global benefit.” Emphasis on word moderate. What exactly is moderate? Again, there is no easy answer to this; even the smallest change in temperate of the Earth can cause large changes — so what is moderate and how do we know when we passed it?

  4. etim

    [@sl0j0n] HaHaHaHaHaHAhahaha!!! Well, if it was on TV , then it MUST be true…especially since it was on FOX NEWS!!!
    I’m constantly amazed that anyone who believes anything from Foxnooz can even pronounce phrases like “open-minded” and “less gullible” without gagging on them!

  5. sl0j0n

    [@Ashraf]
    One of the founders of Greepeace was on TV yesterday. He says categorically that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING. Yes, there *is* “climate change”, but that is a GOOD thing, *not* bad. He is also a GENUINE environmental scientist, unlike many of the ‘weather-people’ making the UNSUBSTANTIATED claims. Which, BTW, are based on COMPUTER MODELS, NOT ‘real-world data’.
    Basically, the only people that “believe” in the new religion of “global warming/climate change” are the credulous, the naive, and the unquestioning. In other words, the ‘sheeple’ among us.
    I hope you take this the way its intended, as a way to help you to be more open-minded, and less gullible. Remember, there will always be those shouting that the sky is falling. Especially as they are in line to profit by their deceit, like Al Gore, or to gain political power and control over their fellowman, like the statists who want to curtail or eliminate *your* freedoms.

    Have a GREAT day, Neighbors!

  6. weylin

    This is the danger of mixing politics with science – or anything else for that matter.
    You get a distorted version of the truth.
    When you say “the debate is over” what you are really saying is my ideas are the only ones that count.
    And comparing global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers is really low..

  7. Bub

    [@Scott Hedrick]

    In that sense of the word, there is plenty of debate. There are plenty of differing predictions as to the exact magnitude of the problem, the effect that oceans will have on it (and it on the oceans), and that sort of thing. Debate in science is a process of refinement, and in the case of climate change, serious scientists are well past the resolved question of whether climate change exists, and happily debating the finer points.

    As with evolution, of course, the deniers like to seize upon any hint of debate as evidence that the entire premise is questionable. Those are the folks who don’t understand the role of debate in science.

  8. Scott Hedrick

    “There also really is no real debate — in the scientific community”

    There’s the real shame, because science works through debate. Science is *never* settled, because data is constantly being gathered and what be believe about science must therefore be constantly reviewed in light of that new evidence. That’s part of the very definition of science. Anyone who says “the science is settled” has just proved that he or she is not a scientist.

    Note that I am not referring specifically to climate change.

  9. J C Graham

    Three reasons why anthropogenic “global warming” is a hoax:

    1. You don’t have to fake data as the East Anglia emails and
    Michael Mann’s hockey stick did

    2. You will gladly debate your infallible position, which Al Gore
    won’t

    3. You don’t need to change the name from Global Warming to
    Global Climate Change unless your use of “warming” is BS (news
    flash: the climate is always changing)

  10. Ashraf
    Mr. Boss

    [@Steve C] There is way too much sound science to deny we are putting an unnatural amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. There also really is no real debate — in the scientific community, ignoring everyone else — what effect these greenhouse gases are having on our environment. However, what is still not agreed upon is how quickly changes will happen to our environment and that is where lot of “global warming deniers” attack global warming due to the “cry wolf” effect — there is a lot of “global warming will ruin us by XXX” claims and when XXX comes and passes, everyone asks what happened.

  11. Steve C

    1. Maybe he prefers to live in a tropical climate with chaotic weather.

    2. A study was done in part of a Brazilian rain forest that showed that we humans are putting more CO2 in the air than trees and other plants can absorb.