Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Palin Breaks Out Flip-Flops for Summer Season, Views On Climate

For the past few weeks, the question on a lot of peoples' minds has been 'Why did Sarah Palin resign from her position as Governor of Alaska?" The smart money seemed to be on "to start planning for a 2012 Presidential bid," but Mrs. Palin's recent Washington Post op-ed titled: 'The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End' made the long shot "to jump into the Cap and Trade discussion by repeating the same tired, worn out, discredited talking points opponents of climate change legislation have been using for the last 3 months" the big winner.

Check out a brief excerpt:
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
Media Matters does an excellent job going point by point refuting the article, but Think Progress sums it up very well:
Palin then went through the litany of typical right-wing talking points on cap-and-trade, calling it “cap-and-tax” four times, and saying it would eliminate jobs, “kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.” (It's not and it won’t.) However, Palin didn’t offer any solutions to addressing climate change — perhaps because as Steve Benen pointed out, Palin never mentioned the words “global warming,” “climate change,” “carbon,” or “emissions” in her article.
Beyond the fact that the op-ed was full of misinformation, it's a clear sign that Mrs. Palin seems to be flip flopping from the McCain-Palin ticket stance during the 2008 presidential election. Check out the video below of Mrs. Palin during a 2008 Vice Presidential debate, saying "I do, I do" when asked if she supports capping carbon (also via Think Progress):

Not only did Mrs. Palin say she was for capping carbon, but during the 2008 election, both McCain and Palin campaigned for climate change legislation, even calling for a "a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner" on their campaign's website. In case you missed it, Mrs. Palin's change of heart comes only a little after fellow 2008 Republican presidential ticket member John McCain (AZ) made a similar political move. McCain, like Palin, recently back tracked on his support for a cap and trade system, now calling such a plan "terrible."

If Mrs. Palin is "for capping carbon," ran on a ticket that supported "a cap-and-trade system," yet now is "deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan," what exactly is your plan to deliver "the necessary environmental impact," Governor Palin?

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Luetkemeyer Refers to Nobel Winners as "Junk" Scientists; We Hope He'd Recycle the Prize

When one describes a Nobel Prize winner's work, they often choose words such a brilliant, genius, groundbreaking, and meticulous, to name a few. Not Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO), he prefers the term "junk science"

Last week Mr. Luetkemeyer introduced legislation in the House, coming from his own press release:
"that would save taxpayers $12.5 million this year and millions more in the future by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is fraught with waste and is engaged in dubious science."
As Think Progress reports:
Far from “junk science,” the IPCC is generally regarded as the world’s top authority on issues of global warming and climate change. The U.S. National Resource Council has praised the IPCC, calling its conclusions “accurate.” The Royal Meteorological Society referred to the IPCC as “the world’s best climate scientists.” In fact, the Nobel Committee seems to think so too, awarding the panel in 2007 with the Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.”
It's also interesting to note that, in an effort to maintain consensus, some feel the IPCC often UNDERestimates climate change's impact (though of course making clear that the effects will be disastrous).

If Mr. Luetkemeyer is so interested in combating "dubious science," he need only look to the various studies opponents of clean energy legislation have been throwing around in recent months. Better yet, he should read his own press release, where he cites the very same debunked findings that have been refuted time, and time, and time, and again.

Moral of the story: Mr. Luetkmeyer is a tough guy to impress. A Nobel Prize just won't suffice, you need to win at least 3 major awards. Sorry Al Gore, even your rare Nobel Prize-Academy Award double whammy probably won't cut it...