I don't know why you say goodbye I say Hello ... Hello Hello!
Posted on 04/14/2009 8:33:13 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
(AP) — ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin acknowledged Tuesday that global warming was harming her state but said stepped-up natural-gas production could mitigate its effects.
Speaking at a hearing before Interior Secretary Ken Salazar -- the third of several he is holding to consider renewed oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf -- Palin said that relatively clean-burning natural gas could supplant dirtier fuels and slow the discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
"We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington," she said. "The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us."
(Excerpt) Read more at silive.com ...
Ironically, Sarah Palin’s belief in global warming makes her slightly less hot.
“we can’t control it....only deal with it...”
True.
I don’t believe in the Al gore global warming and this is not what gov. Palin is saying.
there are people on this thread who wern’t for Gov. Palin to begin with.
FR is overloaded with malcontents
She is flatly wrong.
Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming.
Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.
That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.
Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.
She is wrong... sorry, I love Sarah, but this is b.s.
When this government tries to tax people for exhaling CO2, many folks will become Napolitano's radicals.
Be careful. The MSM plays such games frequently.
What she is missing is the entire history of warming and cooling, everyone is comparing to a short historical period and that is not right. She needs to sit down with some experts and get a grip on this subject matter and not allow herself to be bullied into believing what is not real in order to compete with the Pawlenty’s, Crist’s, etc... she should gain the knowledge to blow them out of the water.
Oyvey.
Sen. Inhofe R-Ok. for one.
I agree. She is trying to sell the gas pipeline and the fuel that will flow through it.
Oh God dear no....Palin what are you doing? Global warming is a Marxist scam!!!
Gov. Sanford who has a lot of L Ron Paul support is your
global Warmer
Yes, Even Sanford
by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
October 07, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
You’ve got to wonder if there’s any room for climate sanity left in governance and politics if a man recognized as one of the most conservative governors in America has bought into global warming alarmism. That’s what has happened with Gov.
Mark Sanford in South Carolina, who last year created the Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee to gin up some plans (extracted from the ideas of the Center for Climate Strategies) to cut down on carbon emissions in the state. You might think that Sanford did so as a political nod to the environmentalists in his state, but his executive order (PDF) that created CECAC reflected a passionate tone:
For the last twenty years of my life, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising ocean levels at our farm in Beaufort County. In some cases, it’s been watching pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marsh;
in other cases it’s meant finding roots in areas that would never grow a tree, given the current salt water levels. While I understand very clearly the debate on whether or not these events come as a result of man’s activity — or just the effects of nature taking its course - I’ve had other personal experiences that strongly suggest to me that man is having an impact on the environment.
The last time I was in Beijing on a trade trip, we happened to be there on a bad smog day. When I went outside I could see no more than a quarter of a mile and my eyes watered.
Man is quite clearly having an impact in that part of the world, and while it’s been my longtime belief as a conservative that I should exercise as many rights and freedoms as possible, those rights and freedoms end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.
Fast-forward to a couple of weeks ago when CECAC released its final report, which included 51 policy recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases in South Carolina. Here’s what Sanford had to say:
“Some of these recommendations will make a whole lot of sense for South Carolina and others won’t. But we believe this report is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate - and it is our sincere hope that many of these findings will be implemented in South Carolina.”
The governor’s press release added that with the CECAC process he hoped South Carolina “could begin to act on those issues on its own, before being saddled with costly future mandates from Washington, D.C.” — as if any state could avoid that burden.
As for CCS/CECAC’s assertions about its final recommendations, they claim to have done an economic analysis of 33 of its 51 proposals and found that if implemented they would cost approximately $1.6 billion by the year 2020. This is a big change from the kinds of economic claims CCS used to make with commissions in other states, when they would boast that their ideas would produce net gains in state economies (billions of dollars) and net increases in jobs (hundreds of thousands).
They don’t do that so much any more. As for the other 18 recommendations they don’t quantify, well, I guess they don’t want to make it appear the state will be that bad off because of carbon mitigation measures.
Still, it appears that even those numbers in the Palmetto State are short in their estimations, and thank God for the South Carolina Policy Council and the Beacon Hill Institute for bringing some reality to the discussion. The upshot:
Economic analysis of the Climate, Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee (CECAC) report would cost taxpayers billions of dollars while offering a negligible environmental benefit, according to the Policy Council study performed by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute. The Center for Climate Strategies, authors of the CECAC report, propose tax increases and heavier regulations on businesses.
Findings from the study:
-CECAC recommendations would cost South Carolina taxpayers $11.9 billion between 2008 and 2020.
-In 2009 the recommendations would cost the state 13,542 jobs.
-In 2009 private investment would drop by $204 million
-In 2009 the average South Carolina family would incur a direct cost of $1,836.
-Projected global emissions for 2025 would be reduced just 0.012 percent.
And Gov. Sanford thinks this “is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate?”
Very true. Oil is Palin's main strength...and therefore the main threat to libs.
The MSM is waiting to pounce on ANYTHING to split her from conservatives on this issue. I see a lot of stuff ascribed to her in the article, but little in the area of direct quotes.
There’s a McCain joke in here somewhere.
Problem is, it can never be funny.
There are some who are waaaaaay to eager to post negative articles about Palin.
There are four types of people posting the flood of anti-Palin stories found lately here on FR
1) Jerry Springer fans. Its the culture of the people today. They love scandal even if its about one of their own, which is why the stupid reality TV programs have a huge audience, and why these scandal post generate 200 to 300 replies or more. Eating our own for a little entertainment.
2) Non-Voters. Could be someone who supported another Republican candidate that is jealous of the attention paid to Palin who shoved their candidate off the radar screen. They stayed home election day or wrote their candidate in.
3) Trolls, trying to destroy Palin’s and the Republicans chances in 2012.
4) Baiters – those who get off on posting topics that cause Freepers to go head to head in verbal battles. Topics often include Christian denominations, Mormons, evolution, Ron Paul or other third party candidate, Palin and even the Civil War. . These baiters could also be 1, 2, or 3.
My question to the Freepers who said to themselves, “I just gotta post this on FR”, Which one are you? 1, 2, 3or 4? Think about it.
Too bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.