Maria Ruud and Global Warming Hysteria
Monday, 15 February 2010 15:33 Last Updated on Monday, 15 February 2010 17:19
Maria Ruud- Representative of 42A- was the CHIEF AUTHOR of the "Global Warming Mitagation Act" of 2007, which was incorporated into a larger Omnibus spending bill and was signed into law by Governor Pawlenty. (As I've blogged before, many Republicans are guilty for jumping on the man-made global warming bandwagon also.)
Ruud's bill called to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in Minnesota under a CAP AND TRADE system. According to Ruud then, "we have some very sound science now." Really.? I didn't know Ruud was a scientist. How many scientists are in the legislature? In Congress?
Catastrophic man-made global warming was, is, and always has been a THEORY. Scientific THEORIES should not be used as a basis for legislation. This is just basic common sense.
The national-scene liberals are spinning hard against the new evidence which reveals that catastrophic man-made global warming IS NOT BASED IN SOUND SCIENCE. Here's the latest on ClimateGate from the London Daily Mail:
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
The new spin from the left is:
1. "Well. I guess we should have the best scientists debate"-- oh NOW we should have a debate? Cap and Trade has passed the U.S. House of Representatives
2. "Well, there appears to be some issues with some emails, but that doesn't negate the fact that Global Warming is real" umm, those issues, those emails were from the University of East Anglia, one of the most prominent contributors to the IPCC reports of 2007 which got us to where we are today with Global Warming hysteria.
Yet, three years ago, the landscape was different. There was supposed "consensus." Consensus among politcally appointed scientists who sat on the United Nations Climate Change panel. That, and a highly popular movie by Al Gore. (One of the centerpieces of "An Inconvenient Truth" was the famous "hockey stick chart" mentioned in the above article.)
But the theory of Global Warming never was about saving the planet. It's about far-left environmentalists trying to control every thing we do and trying to tamp down on the progress of 1st world nations so that everyone else could play catch up. (Never mind the fact that wealth, "big oil" and "big agriculture" feed more people than windmills and organic farming ever will.... )
Liberals like Ruud proclaim they want "zero" greenhouse gas emissions and clean energy, but they recently VOTED AGAINST removing the ban on building new nuclear energy facilities in Minnesota.
Nuclear energy is clean energy and currently produces 24% of the electricity in Minnesota, even one of the founders of Greenpeace supports it! Why, then, does Ruud vote against it? Because the lefty-environmental/anti-progress groups like Sierra Club and Clean Water Action oppose it and that's where she gets her support. (Because she's one of them.) They want us riding bikes to work and putting solar panels on Minnesota rooftops. They better hope the earth is warming with those strategies!
On a side note: Is it any wonder Republicans lost that seat by only 200 votes less than six years ago when Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, and NARAL- the same groups who pay people to canvass neighborhoods- all support her? I am completely jealous as a conservative-- we have NOTHING like this. What would happen if Pro-Life, 2nd Amendment Rights and anti-Tax groups went door-to-door in 42A?
As long as her power is derived from these special interest groups, then my bet is: Yes, she will proudly promote her authorship of one of the most liberal pieces of legislation to pass through St. Paul in recent memory.
