[thackney]

She acknowledges warming, but not as “man-made” warming. She’s calling their bluff. If it’s warming, then we need to develop more natural gas which has a low carbon footprint.

If she doesn't believe it is man-made, why would she believe switching to a low carbon fuel would make a difference?

If she promotes human changing activities to help the problems, then it is claiming human activities as at least part of the problem.

[ClearCase_guy]

If she promotes human changing activities to help the problems, then it is claiming human activities as at least part of the problem.

That's exactly how I see it. Makes me sad.

[SolidWood]

She has repeatedly said that she is skeptical and does neither rule out nor settle on man being a factor. In her testimony to Salazar she says that IF the opinion of those who claim man is a factor is true, they TOO should have a reason to support petro-energy, instead of waiting for “green energy”.

She is advocating oil and gas and points out that the arguments of the opponents are a non-sequitur.

[avacado]

" If she doesn't believe it is man-made, why would she believe switching to a low carbon fuel would make a difference?"

That's a good question. My personal belief -- for what it's worth -- is that she doesn't believe in man-made global warming but she has to navigate the politics of it to get the gas pipeline built so she plays on their fears of man-made global warming and promotes natural gas as having a low carbon footprint. In doing so, there are some inconsistencies.

[dfwgator]

If she doesn’t believe it is man-made, why would she believe switching to a low carbon fuel would make a difference?

^^^^^^^

This.