[Swiftwater Gazette] I Sued The Federal Government!

[Brad Haslett]

Yeah, she did!  She also took on Big Oil (read "Sarah Takes On Big
Oil" - written by industry insiders) and kicked some ass.  They moved.

The last thing we need is one cult replaced by another cult.  Palin
isn't a miracle worker and doesn't pretend to be, on the contrary, she
believes you are primarily responsible for your own family.

This little woman obviously doesn't know her place.

Brad

-----------------

(from the WaPo)

Copenhagen's political science

By Sarah Palin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research
center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face
a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called
climate change experts allows the American public to finally
understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known,
exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle
whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change
conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen
won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the
worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately
destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global
temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them
from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents
show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some
scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of
temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that
more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed
in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on
sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand
against politicized science when I sued the federal government over
its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite
the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got
clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but
I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered
list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the
Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both
Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities
for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good
environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and
benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny
the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the
impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as
governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to
create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to
recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion,
thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's
communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any
potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far
outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike
the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which
actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama's
proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions.
Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax
plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as
Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most
Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition
continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental
Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions
themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning
climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices
skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile,
Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely
other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail
scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to
"restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home
from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not
be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped
the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes
of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the
American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen
is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is
a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided
legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when
the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans
should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference.
The president should boycott Copenhagen.

The writer was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and
governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009.