Re global warming | Arkansas Blog

Re global warming

by

10 comments

Rob Fisher, Little Rock's tireless environmental champion, shares a response to David Sanders' overheated conspiracy theory regards work in Arkansas and other states on global warming. In short: It's warmed over right-wing talking point stuff, with the usual share of inaccuracies.

To quote the note (update, a response from David follows):

David Sanders has succeeded in reprinting a cookie-cutter hit piece we’ve seen before in other places under Paul Chesser’s byline. Alas. Chesser is well-known as the misinformation guru of state climate policy whose entire mission in life is to attack earnest efforts on both sides of the aisle to grapple with energy and climate realities. It’s a socio-pathic obsession and shame on Sanders for carrying his dirty water. He and Sanders knows that in cyberspace, you repeat lies over and over and you can make them have the appearance of truth.

Two examples of many here. The AP erroneously reported that CCS receives funding from the ACLU, and issued an immediate correction. But here Sanders repeats the claim in order to buttress his false case with a lie. He needs to because the truth does not lend itself to his writerly crime.

He also cites “peer-reviewed studies of CCS’s similar recommendations in North Carolina and South Carolina ,” but they don’t really exist. He’s referring to biased reports written by the Beacon Hill Institute, paid for the by the John Locke Foundation and which claim to be “peer-reviewed.” But they are not and have been thoroughly repudiated in North Carolina and Florida and everywhere else they trotted out the template critique which has no merit.

This is the coward’s way. They are too chicken to directly attack the governors, both Republican and Democratic, who have ordered these planning processes; and too chicken to participate directly in public processes. They’d rather deal in innuendo — smear, attack, lie, cheat — anything! — as long as they can make a mess of anything to do with wise stewardship of the earth, responsible government and alert and aware citizenship.

David Sanders responds:

Mr. Fisher will want to read my Sunday column in which I record a global warming commissioner's objections to the commission's processes, work and final report, as well as the role CCS played.

 

As for the peer-reviewed studies, the studies do exist.  They are long, and, of course, they were attacked...no surprise there. That said, he may be correct about  incorrectly characterizing them as being "peer-reviewed," but t he bottom line:  The costs attached to the CCS policy recommendations in NC and SC were underestimated, which was the point I made.   Even in the Arkansas ’ report, the $3.7 billion price tag is incomplete because nearly half of the policy recommendations lack a cost estimate.

    http://www.arclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O94F20342.PDF

(see pages 8-13 of the executive summary)

 

As for the claim about the ACLU (a small point) being disproved.  Consider the following AP story from 
Kansas (the Topeka Capital-Journal), which points out the ACLU helped pay for Kansas ' CCS study. There is nothing on the Topeka Capital-Journal's Web site correcting the assertion made in the original story.

 

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/062308/sta_293915811.shtml

 

Curiously enough, the AP story also mentions
Arkansas officials who worked with CCS and who described the center as staying within its bounds as an advisor, but the story never includes quotes from any Arkansas officials. 

From the ArkTimes store

Comments (10)

Showing 1-10 of 10

Add a comment
 

Add a comment

Clicky