And she's in pretty good form on this one:
With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue."Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.
The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.
This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda.{...}
...any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.
'An end run around the American people'...I love that!
You go, Governor.
1 comment:
I hope AGW was turn out to be false. The fanatical belief in this theory on the part of American policy makers has really hamstrung us economically and politically. It has played a large role in preventing us from developing more of our own oil and gas reserves.
If we would develop all of our own oil and gas reserves, build more refineries, utilize coal to oil technologies, secure the borders, place an indefinite moratorium on immigration from Middle Eastern countries, closely monitor the mosques, and secure the borders we would get greater utility for our national security interests than any thing we are currently doing.
Our supply of oil and natural gas is plentiful especially if coal to oil technologies are utilized. We should have enough to last us 500 years or longer. It is much cheaper than nuclear energy or any other "alternative energy" sources being bandied about and the knowledge of how to extract it and to refine it already exists. In other words, costly research and development is not needed to utilize this and we can start immediately.
In addition to this, it would improve our economy immensely. The people working in the oil, gas, and coal industries would be highly compensated union employees and there would need to be alot of them. As such, the politician who proposes this should face good electoral prospects. What's not to like about this?
I suspect many of our politicians are on the take from anti-American interests. I suspect if someone did the research on this the primary pushers of AGW are interests loyal to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other major oil producers. After all these are the greatest benefactors of the AGW hysteria and they are bitter enemies of America. So far America has been the country to suffer the most becuase of this theory.
I can't say if AGW is correct or not but I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of it. What does seem clear is the Draconian solutions offered to fix this "problem" will significantly harm our economy and the American people.
I'm a firm believer in the Scriptural axiom that you will know people and things by their fruit. As a result of AGW, we have reaped some mighty bitter fruit. It has played a large role in our economic down turn and it has significantly undermined our national security interests. As of right now, given the bitter fruit, that has been reaped because of AGW I would be inclined to reject it out of hand.
Given how meekly the oil industry has behaved in the face of some of the most vicious attacks by the main stream media on it and its utter unwillingness to do much in the way of lobbying for the rights to do more drilling in the US, I wonder if many of the top executives of the major US oil companies are actually agents of countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China. I'm not saying they are but it might go a long way toward explaining their behavior. Russia has long sought to infiltrate American business and government interests. Perhaps other enemies of America are operating from the same play book.
Post a Comment