Okay I know that Senators and Congress folks really do not read a sliver of the email they get, but this is pretty outrageous. I went onto Congresswoman Ann Wagner’s site to ask that she not support the Keystone Pipeline project for 
environmental reasons. They force you to choose a subject so I chose Climate Change.
This is the form letter I got back. It is one of the scariest things I have read in a long time. The only place that climate change is being debated is within Republican circles and only then because big money wants to continue to make big money at everyone else’s expense. The percent of scientist that are in agreement on global warming being caused by humans is almost unanimous. Either this woman is an idiot who cannot understand basic science, such an ideologue that she refuses to face hard evidence, or so enamored with her position as a high and mighty Congresswoman that she is going to go along with the party line to remain so. No matter what the reason she scares the living snot right out of my body. The fact that we continue to elect idiots like this does not speak well for our country.
Just as an aside she never once addressed the main subject of my email, the Keystone Pipeline. Now there is responsive public service.
I am including the whole text of her form letter response. Read it with the lights on. It is indeed a horror story of complete and utter stupidity.
—-
| Dear Citizen Rush,Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding climate change. I appreciate your views on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.Like you, I firmly believe in protecting our environment and natural resources for future generations. It is our responsibility to leave this nation in the same or better condition to ensure that future generations can thrive and prosper. The theory of climate change is one of the most hotly debated issues concerning the environment and politics. One issue that needs no debate is that climate is inherently variable and, thus, constantly changing. The field of climate science is in its relative infancy and it appears that some within the public policy world have made dubious assessments of scientific information in order to further their own political agenda.
Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science or driven by the fear of a supposed catastrophe. I believe that we can harness the power of American innovation to adapt and mitigate effects so that our path forward does not threaten the economic stability of the nation. All policies that involve climate change must pass three vital tests; they must work environmentally, they must be economically sound, and they must be practical. Environmental interests groups suggest a number of solutions to stop the increase of greenhouse gas emissions including a “cap-and-trade” system, a carbon tax, and complete Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of carbon emissions. These supposed solutions fail to pass any of the tests that are essential for effective policy. They fail to deliver promised environmental benefits, as evidenced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s concession in a 2010 hearing that the cap-and-trade bill “will not ultimately be able to change the amount of carbon dioxide that is accumulating in the atmosphere.” These proposals fail economically as they would drain trillions of dollars from our economy, decreasing economic growth and costing millions of jobs lost to countries with no environmental regulations. These plans also fail the test of practicality as they incur massive costs without guaranteeing any actual benefits. Additionally, you may be interested to know that the U.S. has actually decreased our annual carbon emissions by 10.7 percent without employing top-down regulations, mandates, or taxes. This achievement puts us more than halfway toward fulfilling our commitment to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020. This development is encouraging, especially when coupled with the fact that there has been no global warming trend in more than 15 years. Again, thank you for contacting me. Having the benefit of your views and the views of all Missourians allows me to better represent the people of the 2nd Congressional District. In that regard, your input is most helpful. For additional information on current legislation and my representation of the 2nd Congressional District, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.wagner.house.gov. Sincerely, Ann Wagner |
who is putting money in her pocket?
LOL, typical warmist statement. You say Congresswoman Wagner’s email response is ” indeed a horror story of complete and utter stupidity.” But, you never say why it is.
Is it because she wants a solution to be practical? Or economically sound? Or that it needs to work environmentally?
Can you make the case that blocking the Keystone pipeline is environmentally sound? Don’t pretend the oil isn’t going to be extracted if we block the pipeline. It will be. China has already offered to buy the oil. Further, as already seen, without the pipeline, we’re just hauling the oil to the US by train. Is it environmentally better to haul it by train or pipeline? History tells us it’s better by pipeline.
Does it make economic sense to haul the oil by train, as opposed to the cheaper and safer way of a pipeline? Is is better that China burns it rather than the US?
Question, will less or more CO2 be emitted if we choose not to build the pipeline? The answer, clearly, is more CO2 will be emitted if we choose not to build the pipeline.
Now, I’m not one of those with an irrational phobia of a molecule, but, if I did share that neurosis, I’d favor the pipeline.
So, now tell us interested people, exactly what part of this email was “complete and utter stupidity”?
There is nothing to be scared about regarding her position. She did not claim to deny Global Warming! The pipeline project will help reduce dependency on fuel that is transported by tankers that pose a more serious threat to the environment. The delay in constructing the pipe line has cost more environmental destruction and many jobs that would have raised the employment rate in the country.
I am actually more scared about people like you writing about things you know nothing about and promoting the latest EcoWhacko agenda that reduces the freedom of all Americans for a fantasy Utopian World.
Your children will be very embarrassed at how much their parents hate science. ALL reputable scientists know that global warming is caused by humans, many of them American.
And yes, I’m a PhD scientist.
To the writer of this blog,
Thank you for posting this. I think it’s important to verbalize the conversation for those that deny climate change. Both sides should be transparent about what data they have to support their opinion and only then we can truly assess all of the data in it’s entirety and decide what data to support and believe.
Dear Mike Davis and “suyts”,
You are embarrassingly naive. LOOK UP SCIENTIFIC DATA. Please stop ignoring that multiple experiments have been done over decades and data has been collected from samples long before that that SHOW THAT OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING AND HAVE EXCEEDED LEVELS WE HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE. THIS DATA IS INDISPUTABLE. If you don’t believe it, research it for yourself, look at the data. Look up global warming on Wikipedia if you have to, look at those references and data points and decide for yourself what all of those experiments mean.
Experimental data tells a story. I have read reports and listened to scientists that have collected this data and seen firsthand the rate of warming. I would recommend a documentary made by a man who was skeptical about climate change and set out to show it wasn’t as bad as the media made it out to be. His findings are interesting and can be found both in interviews and in the movie “Chasing Ice” by James Balog (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1579361/).
This congresswoman’s response IS terrifying for multiple reasons, three of which I will highlight here. First, climate science is NOT in its infancy and saying so is a blatant attempt to downgrade good, quality science. Second, the “theory of climate change” started as a hypothesis, yes. But it has been overwhelmingly supported by SOUND DATA collected by hundreds (if not thousands) of researchers over many years and using many, many different methods. Implying that this data is controversial or is difficult to interpret due to the changing environment IS NOT TRUE. Science accounts for this inherent variability with measuring standard deviations and error and performing statistical tests. Conclusions from these many experiments support the conclusion that EARTH’S TEMPERATURES ARE RISING, EVEN WHEN WE ACCOUNT FOR THE VARIABILITY SEEN IN 1) TAKING THE MEASUREMENTS AND 2) OVER TIME. Finally, this congresswoman does not come out and state that she does not believe that global warming exists. This is terrifying. Either she has not seen the overwhelming amount of data or she has seen this data and does not believe it (personally, I’m not sure which is worse). Why not stand by your opinion, and state your belief about climate change and why you think that? This is one of the major problems with this topic and I, as a scientist, have to take partial blame. I will openly state that I believe global warming is happening and I can give you references and data to support that claim. If Congresswoman Wagner does not believe it, she should outright state that and she should be prepared to show the data that she bases her opinion on. If you, Mike Davis and “suyts” do not believe it, you should also have some pieces of data in mind (and the stronger the source of your data the better, and be wary of data supported/funded by companies that would have a vested interest in denying the existence and progression of global warming).
Oil makes this country money and there would be no reason to attempt to stop that by any citizen of the United States unless it was at the expense of a much higher cost to the environment. This is the case in today’s society and that cost is getting closer and closer to being irreversible. Making money now at the expense of our environment will damage this country’s ability to thrive in the future and we should continue to lead the world by taking steps now to identify a sustainable energy source that does not come at such a high environmental cost.
Sincerely,
Hannah Gordon
I’ll also note I am also a scientist currently working on my PhD.
Thanks for listening and I wish you happy researching in the future.
Sincerely,
Hannah
cute polar bear