good to have you with us tonight, folks. thanks for watching. can you believe obama is outdrilling bush? didn t get a mention at cpac. they want to keep on drilling. keep on drilling. we ain t drilling enough. this guy united statwas the big rand paul. he thinks we can do more. we ll try to explain why the kentucky senator rand paul s backwards energy policy makes him actually a big loser. you see, paul easily won this year s cpac straw poll with 31% of the vote. canadian senator ted cruz, who resides texas, a distant second with 11%, then ben carson, chris christie. paul is trying to stay at the top by basically scaring america into more oil production. we re actually not doing enough. on sunday, paul said the united states should drill everywhere to address the growing crisis in the ukraine. i would do something differently than the president, i would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our exported oil and gas and i would begin drilling in every possible
and i m sorry i didn t mean to say it was not about safety. it s not about u.s. energy security and u.s. energy independence when so much of the product coming through this pipeline would be for export. it would be refined here in the united states instead of being refined in china. i think that that, too, is something that needs to be looked at. michael bruin, where is this tar sand oil going to come through if not the pipeline? it won t be out of the grounds. the tar sands is more toxic and more corrosive and carbon intensive, and landlocked. the only way out is if more pipelines are built. the pipeline to the u.s. has been delayed for five years. two proposed pipelines to the west coast of canada are being
i m for wind energy, but we have a responsibility to adapt to the oil that s coming out of our ground whether you like it or not. shale oil will be in the keystone pipeline and it will alleviate the pressure that s on the rail system in this country. it s not a fair debate to any liberal. it s not a fair debate to any environmentalist in this country if you allow all this oil to go on rails across this country and not be concerned about safety. joining me now is michael bruin and susan of the natural resources defense council. i appreciate you both of you being here tonight. i want your side of the story on this. susan, why is your organization against this pipeline? why is it bad for america? you know, ed, you spoke about the safety issue. that s really critical. the bottom line here is oil by rail or pipeline, neither one is
0 good to have you with us tonight, folks. thanks for watching. chris christie and bridge kelly are playing some serious defense over the bridgegate scandal. she s his former deputy chief of staff who wrote in a message, time for some traffic problems in ft. lee. it snowballed from there. new jersey democrats have issued subpoenas for kelly to turn over her documents and her electronic devices. one goal is to find out if governor christie was involved with the lane closures. on monday, her lawyer said she will not comply with the subpoena saying unfettered access to her information could reveal highly confidential communications not related to the bridge scandal. christie is just fine with kelly pleading the fifth. these people all have lawyers not involved with the lane closures. the most important issue is did i know anything about the plan to close these lanes, did i authorize it, did i know about it, did i approve it, did i have any knowledge of it beforehand? the answer is sti
hurricanes, the u.s. has gone almost eight years now, over augment years without a major category 3 or larger hurricane hitting, the longest period since before 1900. so on every measure of extreme weather it ain t there. global weirding is nothing more than a pseudoscience expression. and in the 1970s, the global cooling scare as popularized in the media and many scientists, they blamed extreme weather in fact specifically newsweek the 1974 tornado outbreaks on global cooling. they had their own 1970s version of global weirding. mark we get your point. you don t think it s real. scientific journals don t think it s real. michael, obviously you think he s wrong, don t you? i do. all of what mark said would be very compelling if it were true. this is something that has been settled. the science is settled right now. the top climate scientists in world, thousands of them, are now as confident that climate