S?bado, 09 de julio de 2011

No; no es que estuviera por los EE.UU. Hoy, con las llamadas nuevas tecnolog?as de la informaci?n y la comunicaci?n podemos hacernos eco tanto de los disturbio en Egipto o Libia, como lo que opinan los alemanes sobre el pepino espa?ol. De esta forma cay? en mis manos un art?culo publicado en el Washington Post y escrito por la republicana Sarah Palin d?as antes de la fracasada cumbre sobre el clima de Copenhague. No quiero mencionar nada m?s sobre esta dama, as? que ah? va su escrito y mi contestaci?n. Para los que tengan problemas con el espikingli, que busquen en Google "Traductor Google", copien el texto y lo pegan. Le dan en opciones "del ingl?s al espa?ol" y voil? (es decir, ?he aqu?!) obtiene el texto m?s o menos traducido.

"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?Indiaoffered 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."

Mi respuesta no se hizo esperar:

"I find it unfortunate the manipulativearguments presented by Mrs Palin for president Obama to boycott the summit in Copenhagen. But above allseems very suspicious that the called 'climategate' has come to light justweeks before the summit. It is conceivable that there are certain interests(especially economic) for the destruction of the environment take its course.

And we should be ashamed to accept that this lady intended.
Personally I think it may have been manipulated scientific data on globalwarming, but mainly to indicate that this warming is not happening. Yeah, thatcame to light too, but it was few years ago, and people use to forget.
I am very concerned with environmental destruction and the world that we'llleave to our children. And if man is not solely responsible for this situation,it's who can do something to change it. It's time for the different countriesof the world to agree, finally, important actions to halt this declinedrastically. Maybe they should do so without harming the economy. But possiblyit?s more important that the economy starts to think differently."

12/10/20094:16:28 AM


Pod?is ver este comentario, que s? me publicaron en el siguiente enlace del Washington Post:?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402_Comments.html#?Es la p?gina 12 a las 4:16 de la ma?ana el d?a 10 de diciembre de 2009.


Publicado por plmendoza @ 15:33  | Enviado a los medios
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar