E-mail letters, July 22, 2010
CLEAR Act will help
protect Colorado lands
In response to the drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Congress is preparing to pass the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act, H.R. 3534, known as the CLEAR Act. Unfortunately the onshore-drilling part of the act is currently in danger of being left out of the act. If kept in, it will be to the benefit of Colorado’s natural environment.
Among the benefits of CLEAR are: Mandatory best management practices (safe drilling); elimination of categorical wxclusions (loopholes that allow drilling companies to ignore environmental regulations, which has been a problem with BLM’s regulation of drilling on the Roan Plateau); several important protections for taxpayers so that we don’t have to help pay for cleaning up spills and other accidents; protection of critical wildlife habitat; disclosure of chemicals used in drilling (so water users will know what to test for).
Full and permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is also part of the act. Money for this fund comes from offshore drilling, and has been of benefit to Colorado’s public lands, but Congress has not always maintained the fund.
Passage of CLEAR, and especially restoration of the onshore provisions, will help Colorado protect its environment. As of this writing, Congressman John Salazar has not endorsed CLEAR. The legislation is said to be on a fast track, so if you care about this, please let him and our other members of Congress know about it soon.
Global warmists want us
to bet all on limited data
All the global warming scientists have going for them is melting ice and a rising temperature trend. As those who have invested in the stock market have found out the hard way, all trends change up and down and there’s no way to predict what they it will do tomorrow, a year from now, or 10 years from now.
Race horses are also picked by past performance records and, as we all know, no matter how many scientific charts are made, and how much effort is put into figuring out all 24 measurable variables, the odds-on favorite still only wins 1/3 of the time.
What it all comes down to is global warming scientists expect us to bet our lifestyle on only TWO conventional measurable variables (melting ice and a rising temperature trend). All the other data is theoretical.
No thanks. If I bet on anything, it’ll be the Yankees. If I lose, it’s only 10 bucks.
Richard L Stover
Money paid to McInnis
may be more serious issue
Much has been written recently about the plagiarism by Scott McInnis. But besides the cowardly nature of such conduct, the real issue here, and one I do not see much furor over, is the payment for the plagiarized articles.
He received $300,000 for some articles on water? Come on folks, this smells suspiciously like a
thinly veiled attempt to circumvent campaign contribution laws. Let’s follow that money and see where it leads.
Blaming someone else
in not ‘full responsibility’
I’m an Independent. I vote for the person not the party! What I see with Scott McInnis is this: When you mess up in your campaign come clean and take FULL responsibility!
What speaks volumes in this situation is not what he said but what he did. He says he’s taking full responsibility but he brings up the gentleman who did the research and blames him in the same breath. This shows me McInnis wouldn’t take full responsibility, only to put someone else at fault.
The man took $300,000 for something he didn’t take the time to even check well enough to find the mistake before he sent it in. This is not a man of integrity. This is a man who will say anything
to save his job.
I’m tired of politicians who talk out of the side of their mouths just to be elected. I want true and moral people in office, not ones who will put someone else out to dry to serve their own gain. That is not honorable for any reason!