GLOBAL CLIMATE SCEINTISTS ARE "WARMING" THE BOOKS

Most of the media is either still ignoring "Climate-Gate" or immediately went into "damage control" mode but the blogosphere is absolutely abuzz.

Please spare me the "status quo" "throwing in with the oil companies" speeches. Of course I believe we should all be good stewards of our precious planet and strive to perfect cleaner sources of energy. There is however, no logical reason to do so at the expense of our economy. Real "Green" solutions will come from private sector innovation rather than government intervention (restriction and taxation). Example: At a time when Chrysler is all but gone and GM has been brought to its knees, why does Obama insist on ramping up CAFE standards? Obama is in Copenhagen right now with plans to offer a binding promise to reduce US greenhouse emissions by 83% without so much as running the idea by our Congress. Is anybody naive enough to think China or Russia will make any such concessions? Help me out here, these economically devastating decisions are based on what again?

Our children are being taught that global warming is fact, not scientific theory and certainly not political agenda. Conversely, The British High Court after finding numerous errors recently ruled that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" could only be shown in schools with a preface identifying it as a political film and NOT a scientific documentary. Al Gore has turned this global warming scare into a global multi-million dollar business, won an Academy Award and received a Nobel Prize based on what again?

Climate change activists say the debate is over but "Climate-Gate" is real and it's big. Phil Jones has already resigned and Michael Mann is under investigation. Will their respective universities willingly give back all those millions in climate change research grant money? Not likely. Even NASA scientists who receive much of their funding for climate research may be culpable. Yet when asked by CNN’s Ed Henry about the matter, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the question as silly. Debate over? No, I believe the debate and the controversy are just beginning.

My point is simply that our leaders should not be making policy decisions, laws, cap and tax bills or global treaties that will surely negatively affect our standard of living and even our very sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . based on what again?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/eveningnews/main5908487.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FX-JhDJR44