Home Energy and Environment Why Can’t Cuccinelli Talk About Global Warming Without Lying?

Why Can’t Cuccinelli Talk About Global Warming Without Lying?

296
5
SHARE

You really have to wonder — if Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s legal case against climate action is really as watertight as he claims, why can’t he talk about it without lying repeatedly?

In an interview with the Roanoke Free Press, Cuccinelli repeats an old Republican lie about the results of an MIT study on the costs of clean energy & climate legislation. Strangely, Cuccinelli repeats the lie even though the MIT professor behind the study asked Republicans to stop lying about his research over a year ago.

How much would a bill like the American Clean Energy & Security Act that passed the House last year cost the average family? According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, about a postage stamp a day — $175 a year. And low-income families would actually save $40 a year thanks to energy rebates. Pretty cheap for a bill that would create 1.7 million new jobs & curb the worst effects of global warming.

Showing that he must get his climate news from Rush Limbaugh, Cuccinelli also cites illegally hacked climate scientist emails as proof the Environmental Protection Agency should throw out decades of scientific research. Does Cuccinelli know the Associated Press had a team of 5 reporters comb through every word of those emails & found “none of the emails” changed the fact that “global warming is man-made and a threat“? Or is he happy to keep ignoring reality & instead live in a science-denying bubble?

  • In order to work his supporters into a frenzy, he bases his arguments on flawed or inaccurate data.

    Moreover, as Joe Romm pointed out on Climate Progress yesterday, if somehow Kookanelli is successful in overturning the EPA findings regarding greenhouse emissions, that would endanger the US auto industry, as the new fuel economy standards finalized last week by the EPA & DoT would be invalidated. That would leave states to determine their own fuel economy standards, placing more of a burden on the already-struggling auto industry to meet differing state standards instead of a national standard.

    I would not be surprised to see this nutcase make a pitch very soon for Virginia’s secession, a la Rick Perry.

  • WestEndVoter

    Miles,

    I do not support Cooch at all in his recent suit contesting gas mileage standards.  However, I would not characterize the “Climategate” e-mails as not relevant to the integrity of climate research. They surely do not constitute “proof” of no AGW — but government agencies worldwide, as well as Penn State University, definitely do find them potentially significant as to the integrity of the research, as they evidence a pattern of quashing and systematic disregard of contrary positions by use of less than ethical means.    

    Also, while I cannot pull the text of the original AP article, the pro-AGW blog you quote does not indicate that the AP combed through documents — the article only refers to how the documents failed to change the view of three scientists that reviewed the e-mails as of December 2010 (shortly after the release of the e-mails).  If you have a link to the AP article, can you post it?

    –Rick

    You stated:

    Does Cuccinelli know the Associated Press had a team of 5 reporters comb through every word of those emails & found “none of the emails” changed the fact that “global warming is man-made and a threat”?

    In context, the linked source states:

    Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science saw “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.’ ”

    The AP’s discussion of the individual e-mails that have stirred controversy is also worth reading.  The AP again took pains to be fair:

    None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat.

    Emphasis added is your quote.