.....who has the cojones to step up and speak the truth about the "global warming" hysteria.
"You won't hear many of Mr. Murray's energy-biz colleagues mention him; they tend to avoid his name, much as nephews avoid talk of their crazy uncles. GE's Jeffrey Immelt, Duke Energy's Jim Rogers, Exelon's John Rowe--these polished titans have been basking in an intense media glow, ever since they claimed to have seen the light on global warming and gotten behind a mandatory government program to cut C02 emissions. They'd rather not have any killjoys blowing the whistle on their real motives--which is to make a pile of cash off the taxpayers and consumers who'll fund it.
And yet here's Mr. Murray, killjoy-in-chief at the global warming love-fest. 'Some elitists in our country can't, or won't, tell fact from fiction, can't understand what a draconian climate change program will do [to] the dreams of millions of working Americans and those on fixed incomes,' says the chairman and CEO of Murray Energy, one of the largest private coal concerns in the country."
"The science of global warming is speculative. But there's nothing speculative about the damage a C02 capture program will do to this country. I know the names of many of the thousands of people--American workers, their families--whose lives will be destroyed by what has become a deceitful and hysterical campaign, perpetrated by fear-mongers in our society and by corporate executives intent on their own profits or competitive advantage. I can't stand by and watch."
"'So what you are really doing with a global warming program is getting rid of low-cost energy,"'he says. The consequences? Americans have been fretting about losing jobs to places such as China or India, which already offer cheaper energy. 'You hike the cost of energy here further, and you create a mass exodus of business out of this country.'"
The True Believers never want to talk about the points Murray brings up.
Why is that?
WHEN will common good sense prevail, instead of the agendizing and hysteria that is the case for "scientific consensus" on "anthropogenic global warming"?