Skeptics: Do You Believe in Reproduction or Storks?

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

A chemical engineer friend in Colorado, Ed Rademacher, Jr., who also has Montana ties, was so impressed with Chris Horner's Capital Research Center report on the Center for Climate Strategies that he sent it to several Montana legislators. He asked that the lawmakers "take a little time to investigate all of the pertinent facts before you take action on the recommendations generated as part of the Montana Climate Change Action Plan," which CCS created through the state's climate commission process. He received a response from State Rep. Sue Dickenson, who also served on Montana's Climate Change Advisory Committee, which I have pasted here -- make sure you read the second paragraph:

Mr. Rademacher---I served on the advisory council and I know the Center for Climate Strategies and their personnel very well. They are highly regarded by more than 17 states and regional organizations for their expertise and ability to facilitate climate change discussions. The people I worked with were excellent and were not in any way trying to influence the decisions which the advisory council made. I need to remind you that the 56 (actually 54) recommendations which the council brought forward were decided on by consensus. That includes representatives from PPL, SME, Nance Petroleum, etc. After our recommendations were released, a few of these individuals, pressured by their companies I am sure, voiced reservations. Before that time they were active participants and there were several small last minute working groups which came up with compromises which better reflected the concerns of all. I suggest you look into the funding for the organization/ article which you cite; if they are similar to Beacon Hill, there are funded by oil, gas, and coal. It is difficult to see where their position would be impartial and based on fact alone.

I appreciate hearing from you but will respond with the comment I made at the last EQC meeting---Some people may still believe that the stork delivers babies. I will defend their right to hold whatever belief they feel is correct. But in a discussion or decisions made about human reproduction, the overwhelming science says babies do not come from storks. At some point, one has to discount the stork as a deliverer of babies, even if somewhere in some corner of our state, a few stork feathers are found near the bed of a woman who just delivered a baby. In the same way, the arguments of those who continue to deny climate change and man's impact on it need to be rejected as the overwhelming amount of science and scientific opinion show otherwise. The time is right to move forward. If those of us who fear adverse effects if we do not act immediately to reduce our CO2 emissions are wrong, we all still will be ahead when it comes to energy efficiencies, independence from fossil fuels, a whole new area of job creation, and enhanced sense of community. If we are right, then our planet is also saved in addition to all the above mentioned benefits.

Sincerely, Rep. Sue Dickenson

I nominate Rep. Dickenson as enviro-elitist of the week, as Ted Turner's chief competition.

Meanwhile, while I'm on the subject of Montana, Craig Sprout of Mtpolitics.net has begun a series of posts about CCS and the stork-deniers up there. Looks very promising.