by Mark Silva and updated
In the practice of preaching to the choir, Sarah Palin appears to have all but patented the art of saying what a few want to hear -- and it's an all-new tune now.
Palin, who was the Republican Party's nominee for vice president, is suggesting that President Barack Obama "boycott'' an international conference on climate change underway in Copenhagen, because some hacked emails questioning the ethics of some scientists at a university in Great Britain have given the obstinate opposition to the concept of global warming, let alone the science involving man's hand in climate change, all the fuel it needs to declare the case closed, conference over, thank you ma'am.
The president's withdrawal from the conference, with an appearance planned near the summit's finish next week, would come as quite a surprise to a global community that has witnessed the reengagement of the United States in an international dialog about the fate of the planet from which the previous president had all but withdrawn until the end of his second term.
But, for a share of the American electorate which fears the consequences of limitations on the emissions of pollutants that could force the U.S. to find alternative, and in some cases more costly, sources of energy - the fabled "energy tax'' - talk such as Palin's comes straight from the wand of the maestro.
From Palin's new viewpoint, the consensus of world science on the question of global warming represents "the radical environmental movement'' -- though this was not the same tune Palin was whistling when she ran for national office last year: "We've got to reduce emissions,'' she said during the 2008 campaign, and get other nations to "come along.''
From the world's viewpoint, Palin's apparent new opposition to any dialog involving the United States in Copenhagen represents the politics of radical retrenchment.
"With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point,'' Palin writes in an Op-ed essay appearing in Wednesday's Washington Post. "The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
"Climate-gate," Palin writes of the e-mails and other documents obtained from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia by hackers, "exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather,'' the former governor of Alaska writes, "but they would change our economy for the worse.''
"Drill, baby, drill": A hole so deep that no one but the most radicalized base of the Republican Party might possibly take seriously the pivoting of Palin on the question. Now she has a memoir and a book-tour, Going Rogue, apparently taking the title to heart.
"I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics,'' writes Palin, who also has entertained creationism as a reasonable counterpoint to evolutionary theory, at least something worthy of teaching in the schools.
"I am a proponent of teaching both,'' she said during her campaign for governor in 2006. "And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
"Snake oil,'' Palin called the science of climate change in a recent radio interview, suggesting: "The fact is, the Caribou population is increasing.''
Yet Palin was far more generous about the challenge of climate change and what the world should do about it during last year's debate with Vice President Joe Biden, who then asserted flatly that global warming is "man-made.''
This is what Palin said in debate with Biden in October 2008:
" Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.
"I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
"We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.''
And just eight months ago, at an Interior Department hearing, the then-governor of Alaska said this: "We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington, The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us.''
Yet this is no cause for curtailing drilling for new oil, she maintained: "Stopping domestic energy production of preferred fuels does not solve the issues associated with global warming and threatened or endangered species, but it can make them worse....Simply waiting for low-carbon-emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals for reducing [carbon dioxide] that will be required under most credible climate-change models.''
(Sarah Paln's book-signing in Fairfax, Va., over the weekend saw some snow flurries. . Photo by Paul J. Richards / AFP /Getty Images)
"As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions,'' Palin said in the October 2008 vice presidential debate with Biden. "John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts.
"We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.''
Palin has staked a new stance on the issue little more than a year later - no more of that encouraging other nations "to come along with us with the impacts of climate change.''
Now, it's "come along'' for a new ride, preaching to the chorus of "Climate-gate'' protesters who maintain that all the world's science suddently has been reduced to rubble with a pile of hacked emails from England -- regardless of all the other science that has been conducted throughout the world.
"As governor of Alaska,'' Palin writes in the Post Op-ed, "I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled.
"I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
"Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.
"But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes,'' she writes. "We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real..
"President Obama has proposed serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions,'' Palin writes. "Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax proposals, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax plans, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.''
Palin writes: "In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place."
"But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people.
"What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal,'' Palin writes. "This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
"Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.''
Comments
She even looks flaky.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | December 8, 2009 9:10 PM
Again, disappointment. Second photo of Sarah in that hat without the media telling us how much it cost.
We know all about Tiger Woods now. So MSM, can you find some time to report on the biggest scandal of our lifetime? You can do it. Just lay down you liberal bias and be journalists. Tell us how a real scientist would never throw away data. Or maybe one of the researchers had an affair or bought some expensive clothes. You guys love that stuff...
Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | December 8, 2009 10:01 PM
Thank God, there are some elected leaders that do not walk away from their duties or difficult decisions. President Obama is a world leader, there are international problems that must be addressed. Thank God, he will not quit on us and thank God, he will represent our interests, which include a healthy and clean environment !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | December 8, 2009 10:48 PM
Well that settles it.
The fact that an idiot like Palin is a global warming denier is all the proof that I need to know that global warming is real and it's dangerous.
Posted by: Andrew Carson | December 8, 2009 11:05 PM
It's hilarious the way Republicans want us all to believe that global warming is a myth because of a couple of taken out of context hacked e-mails...which just conveniently happened a few weeks before Copenhagen. And remember people, these are the same right wing morons (Palin etc) who still the Earth is flat and Jesus rode a dinosaur.
This is becoming more and more representative of the level of discourse from this pathetic throng of losers. They have already tried to make federal cases out of phony death panels, presidential bowing scandals, child indoctrination via stay-in-school speeches, White House guest lists, and how many pages a bill contains. The ever more lame content of their complaints reveals just how desperate they are to come up with something about which to bitch.
There is an obvious evolution of lameness on the right. In the old days they employed the primitive flag lapel pin gambit. Then they tacked to the War on Christmas. And there is the always popular idiocy of "Who would you rather have a beer with?" But now they have shattered all previous records if idiotic asininity with the ticklish temple tactic.
Next on the Republican scandal agenda: How often does Obama floss? I probably shouldn't give them any ideas.
Every time I think the right wing lunatic fringe can't get any more moronic they come up with something like this. Mustard, arugala, a manufactured lobster scandal?
Posted by: Former Republican | December 8, 2009 11:08 PM
The emails at the heart of SwiftHack were obtained from the Climatic Research Unit of a British university, and the basic conclusions of that university's work have been independently corroborated by three sets of American and Japanese researchers. So these phony Republican "complaints" amount to what they usually do - crap
.
http://enviroknow.com/2009/11/25/climategate-the-swifthack-scandal-what-you-need-to-know/
.
Posted by: B Mobbie | December 8, 2009 11:10 PM
Earth to Silva, Earth to Silva: Those hacked e-mails included the scientists saying how they were fudging the numbers, making up numbers, covering up the recent chilling of the planet, how to quiet dissenters in the scientific community.
When numbers are fudged. When numbers are made up. When contrary evidence is suppressed, then it no longer becomes science, it becomes fiction.
Not only are you a Warmer, a Denier, you are also a Fictioner!
What a joke!!
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | December 9, 2009 12:25 AM
It appears that Palin, like many of us, believed the science was real at the time of the debates. Her change of heart could signify an ability to change her mind when presented with new evidence.
The "hacked" emails you write about are more than that -- the file in question included emails and internal files. They show evidence that CRU may have manipulated data to support their conclusions while suppressing data that didn't. That's not some tempest in a faraway English teapot -- "All the other science that has been conducted throughout the world" is based on CRU's data sets, climate models and statistical software packages.
Posted by: miracleair | December 9, 2009 1:56 AM
Now she wants everyone to stop with "Scare Tactics"?, Really Sarah?
So what would you call the last year of listening to you flap your pie hole about "death panels" ? I mean is it only "Scare Tactics" when the other side does it?
Let's face it, you and your Wingnut constituents don't care about this planet because you believe "god" will save us before we use it all up.
Unlike the rumors of your "death panels" our environment's problems are real and without our help we will all die. Of course trying to kill the rest of us off is nothing new to you, your record on opposition to "health care reform" speaks for itself, but the Washington Post should know better then to print your ludicrous claims and quitter mentality.
Posted by: Lauren | December 9, 2009 4:18 AM
In the annals of right-wing hubris, the "climategate" sham should be given recognition. For years, the deniers have intentionally engaged in a disinformation campaign to mislead and confuse the public about the existence and gravity of climate change. Two lawsuits were filed that included a cause of action for climate change civil conspiracy. The right-wing likes to flip things upside down, so now they cry that scientists have been part of a conspiracy to defraud the public into believing that global warming is real.
WATCH - as leading right wing cave dweller James Inhofe tries to make the case, but ends up getting his butt handed to him by Simon on CNBC:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGRsxP84Kx0
.
Posted by: Free To Watch Whatever I Want | December 9, 2009 4:27 AM
You Betcha! 'Cause we all knew that God would find a way to hack a bunch of e-mails, take them out of context and use them to prove beyond a shadaw of a doubt that global warming is a myth, don't ya know. also. And real Americams know that the earth is only 2000 years old. wink wink. aye.
Posted by: Sarah Moose-Huntress. also. | December 9, 2009 4:29 AM
She looks like she will do (or say) anything to get back into the public eye. Boycotting Copenhagen...what good will that do!
We need Obama to go their with a mandate and support of the American people. Anything less and we are stuck!
http://stevehynd.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/copenhagen-and-the-2-degree-guard-rail-the-wrong-goal-missed/
Posted by: Steve | December 9, 2009 4:44 AM
Sarah Palin wouldn't know junk right wing science funded by Big Oil companies for real science if it hit her in the head with a beer bottle. I mean, she undoubtedly believes in Intelligent Design, which is junk science, and global warming backed by a consensus of greater than 90% of climate scientists is junk science to her?
Republican political leaders, all of whom are bought and paid for by Big Oil, are reflecting the dumbing down of this society. Palin knows nothing and boasts of it, as if it makes her authentic to the so called "real Americans" who make up the Teabagger brigade.
The Wingnutters have compiled their anti global warming "intelligence" much like they did their Iraq/Al-Qaeda WMD intelligence.
If the cretins who make up what's left of the Republican base had any sort of intelligence whatsoever they would be insulted by their leaderships know-nothing popularism and condescension.
What would the Big Oil companies do (the ones who get rich off of being able to pollute and kill people) if they didn't have a bunch of dumbarse Republican rubes doing their dirty work for them?
Posted by: over do it and have a fit | December 9, 2009 5:00 AM
flakey is just a start,this woman has some serious mental issues to say the least.if she represents the republican base you are on the bridge to no where. i will say she is fallowing the the bush path to a tee,she lies,she cant make up her mind on what is right,she is the type of person we are fighting in afghanistan.help control the terrorist population have your republican spade or nuttered since they are pro life
Posted by: royce | December 9, 2009 7:45 AM
Wherever you find the anticlimate change useful idiots, big oil is nearby.
Another example of following the money trail and this one is a no brainer.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 9, 2009 8:44 AM
Ok Johnny Kindergarten, can you explain to me why ALL the world leaders and 99% of the world scientists are making Global Warming up? For what purpose would making this up serve them? Please explain in 7th grade english as I am sure thats the last grade you attended.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | December 9, 2009 9:02 AM
Why should anyone in the world care what this Palin has to say about anything. She means nothing to an overwhelming majority of people (except of course her mindless teabagging followers who drool over themselves because she's from Alaska or something). This lady is absolutely clueless and ignorant and it is becoming more and more apparent. Quitter go back to Alaska and shut up. And take your unpatriotic buffoon husband with ya.
Anyone
Posted by: Doug R. | December 9, 2009 10:02 AM
What's the big deal? Oil companies like ExxonMobil have been paying off scientists for years to produce "studies" that prove there is no global warming using made-up data, and all you right wingnuts never even batted an eye, let alone challenged them for using false data. Yet today you're all bent out of shape over a few emails that have been taken out of context.
'
Furthermore, why aren't any of you wingnuts up in arms over the fact that a CRIME has been committed?
Posted by: BC | December 9, 2009 10:42 AM
message to the useful idiots of the anti-climate change mouthpieces of big oil:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/6768364/Giant-iceberg-heading-for-Australia.html
I suppose this is a made up story, right ???
Posted by: writerofwrongs | December 9, 2009 11:46 AM
"All the other science that has been conducted throughout the world" is based on CRU's data sets, climate models and statistical software packages."
Thats the key right there miracleair! all the scientists were using the data sets and climate models that were manipulated and falsified. "HIDE THE DECINE".
I have read the e-mails and files and Global warming is a scam.
Posted by: Dave | December 9, 2009 11:48 AM
she need to stop making stories up
Posted by: kimc | December 9, 2009 1:45 PM
What else is the quitta from Wasilla going to say?
Posted by: dt☢ | December 9, 2009 1:57 PM
Climate Change has been happening since the Big Bang!
We can no more effect the environment then we can stop the snow from falling or the next hurricane..
It is abominable conceit for humans to think we have any significant impact on the planet.
The e-mails are not just a question of ethics but a question of accuracy! If scientific data can be so manipulated then how can we be sure what is real?
Posted by: PollyP | December 9, 2009 2:03 PM
To the "other" Free to Watch Whatever I Want, HHH, HaHaHa etc.
Do you realize that you liberals, including your president and your radical idiot Speaker Nancy Pelosi don't want people to be: Free to Watch Whatever I Want?
Get back to toeing the party line pal, or you'll have ACORN union thugs at your front door. Besides, your comments show that you've never watched a real news channel, just the gooey baby liberal mush that the MSM spoon feeds you.
Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | December 9, 2009 2:46 PM
Flip... flop... flip, muck around - flip.... flop, splat... flip again - more muck, more flipping and flopping.
Sarah Palin taking a stand on any issue.
Posted by: gray lance | December 9, 2009 3:25 PM
Sarah tweets interpreted for the twits:
"Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.''
Sinse they (world representatives) won't abandon a body of science that stretches decades and involves thousands of reputable men and women in their fields then I, Caribou Barbie, based on some hacked emails, taken out of context, implore the President to pick up his ball and go home. That's the way I handle challenging situations, I just quit and go rogue on your arse It's much easier, and I get paid more--you betcha, wink, wink.
P.S. I'll give you a signed copy of my moose-huntress, roguishness book and stuff for your vote in 2012.
Posted by: dt☢ | December 9, 2009 4:12 PM
MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 314 Americans viewing a news clip on the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Results found that the majority (72%) indicated that the United States should increase its efforts to prevent and prepare for climate change. After viewing the video, support for the statement that there is scientific evidence that the average temperature on the earth has been rising over the past few decades rose from 60% to 68% among viewers.More in depth results can be seen at:
http://www.mediacurves.com/NationalMediaFocus/J7666-SexyHolidayCards/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
Posted by: Ben | December 9, 2009 4:24 PM
Get back to toeing the party line pal, or you'll have ACORN union thugs at your front door.
yep, you betcha. me and the dude are setting the bear traps just in case.
Posted by: Free To Watch Sarah crash n burn | December 9, 2009 4:33 PM
and they wonder why people write about her? she's special. also. from now on every time Palin or Cheney uses the word "radical" insert bunny. their lipstick is fading. she politicized rapid loss of habitat. if given the choice between industry and environment she'd chose industry, it has more to lose. fair esp in short term. if she had the choice between saving a species, or take part in political grand-standing, political grand-standing had more to lose? glad she was on the right side of that one. the bear was listed the world turned black. because that's what it was really all about anyway.
Posted by: polar bear | December 9, 2009 5:21 PM
I keep thinking this woman will show some intelligent thinking but she doesn't.She's a fire-drill gone biserk.
Posted by: irene | December 9, 2009 7:03 PM
What the Hell! Sarah's next book should be titled "going home"! Keep Sarah the hell off of our military bases, she is just another right wing nut polititcian who should not be on our bases campaigning, It is illegal! Remember the republicans never do anything for this country they only do things to this country! whiteagle38
Posted by: Raymond L. Juneau | December 9, 2009 9:03 PM
miracleair writes, "The "hacked" emails you write about are more than that -- the file in question included emails and internal files."
"Hacked"? Did you put it in quotes because you don't believe they were stolen? Because they *were* stolen. By a thief. Perhaps it's just that you consider it admirable to steal when the result benefits you, so it isn't really stealing after all.
And, please, tell us specifically how the emails show fraud. For example, tell us, in context, when an email says something like, "Those numbers are bogus, Charlie!" which numbers are being referred to: all the data? The data in a particular study? Or just a particular data point? And which data, and why are they bogus? And who's Charlie, and what was he working on at that time?
And when she says "bogus", does she mean fraudulent, or in error? Or is she kidding, as they indulge in a private joke between them?
"They show evidence that CRU may have manipulated data to support their conclusions while suppressing data that didn't."
Then you should have no trouble pointing out exactly how and where they do that, and in context - lay out the email exchanges and tell us what exactly they are referring to when they mention "Bill's data set" or "the Nov sat data".
Is global warming real? Apparently. Is it man-made? Probably not entirely, but we're certainly contributing to it, maybe to the point were we make the difference between an environment we can tolerate, and one we cannot.
Would a smart race of people do whatever they could to keep their environment from becoming less hospitable - more hostile - to life? I would say so.
But if you disagree, please explain why. I'd like to know.
Posted by: GalapagosPete | December 9, 2009 11:30 PM
This is the actual linke to the Copenhagen survey: http://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J7672-ClimateChangeCopenhagen/
Posted by: Mark L. | December 10, 2009 6:06 PM
I believe her because she is the only one who can see Russia from her home in Alaska.I guess, she see and forsee things better then any human beign.I wonder what David Latterman would say about this idiotic statement.
Posted by: Saleem | December 11, 2009 10:34 AM