Boycott Copenhagen

[CHIMO]

With the publication of damaging emails 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 emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicised 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 emails 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 politicised 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 US Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen

Well, what can one say?

[Gregorian]

1. I have little doubt the policies will affect economies in a way conservatives don't like.

After all, economy stems directly from environment. But the alternative is a crashing wreck. We all just continue on as if nothing is happening, and end up under water.

They have a choice between being responsible or having their children suffer. That's how I see it.


The dilemma is that we have to use the environment for the economy's sake. You want steel? You mine. You want plastic. You drill. You want MacDonald's burgers? You plow down trees for more grazing lands. Extreme examples, but that's how it works. We can still eat, still stay warm, still have our stuff, and keep from having the ecological disaster increase in speed exponentially. We can at least slow down the rate of acceleration. It's pretty pathetic that we are only attempting to slow down the car before it hits the curb.

[Viking12]

2. what can one say?

"Sarah Palin is a dipshit" would be a good place to start.

[lapfog_1]

3. Actually, the emails read in context, reveal nothing of the sort.

And the evidence isn't just one data set from one university. And the data sets are all online, you can go register and get a copy yourself.

Nothing was deliberately destroyed.

[kestrel91316]

4. Taken IN CONTEXT, the emails don't show anything the least bit

nefarious, lol. I wish I had the link to that excellent video short that showed how, in context, those comments are just part of the normal give-and-take discussion of data by scientists.

On might also say: denial is a river in Egypt. Or some other nonsequitur.

Can I interest you in a rabbit with a pancake on its head?

[n2doc]

5. One can say -you're on ignore

Go spew Denialist crap elsewhere, preferably were there are no thinking people to interrupt your fantasy.

[Viking12]

6. Not just denialist crap. Denialist crap from Sarah Palin.