A Stupid Conclusion from a Correlation

Patty Henetz of the Salt Lake Tribune draws a whopping conclusion in this story.
The first two sentences are a non sequitur.
1. "Utah is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than the rest of the nation." 2. "The state is warming faster than the global average."
The rest of the article is one non sequitur after another.
It is clear her intention is to imply a causal relationship, but there is no evidence that even hints that Utah's emissions lead to higher temperatures in Utah (or anyplace else for that matter).
How dumb is that? Does she think than some sort of emission bubble permanently hangs over Utah and the wind never sweeps it away? The Huntsman commission didn't even draw such a conclusion (although it appears that Huntsman has bought into man-made global warming lock, stock, and barrel).

Not to beat a dead horse, but a correlation between two data sets does not mean there is a causal relationship.