On Sarah Palin’s Washington Post anti-Copenhagen op-ed
Image via Wikipedia
On Wednesday, The Washington Post ran an op-ed by the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. In it, Palin fully embraces the “climate-gate” conspiracy, which posits that because a couple of climate scientists were overzealous to prove their critics wrong there is no such thing as global warming caused by human behavior. To hear Palin tell it, climate cycles are natural, and natural is good (thank you, Jesus). Palin also hitches her wagon to the rampant, internet-fueled craze of placing her own skepticism above the wisdom of anyone who might be termed an “expert.”
But Palin’s rant against those who know more than the average Joe-the-Plumber hits a major snag when she states:
I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics.
Oddly, this would seem to indicate that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, which is hardly the case. And if Palin is really so concerned with “sound science” why doesn’t she fully embrace the theory of evolution, one of the most robust scientific achievements of our time? Second, her formulation insists that we can address the consequences of climate change (which she doubts in the first place) outside the political arena. How, exactly? Let the free market come to its senses all on its own?
The Post has every right to print Palin’s very political diatribe. And that seems to be entirely in keeping with their coverage of climate change of late. But this latest column smacks of yet another round of Palin’s do as I say, not as I do routine. She may not be an expert on climate change, and she may have prematurely bowed out of politics, but, boy, she sure is good at telling the experts and the politicians how they really should be behaving.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I rather like the great physicist Richard Feynman’s ideal of a scientist: someone who examines the evidence in a disinterested fashion. This was clearly not the approach of the CRU climatologists, who already “knew” the correct results of their investigations and encouraged poor “Harry” the programmer (my favorite candidate for the whistleblower) to force the data to fit by adding “VERY artificial adjustments.” They clearly knew their research was such crap that it would not withstand scrutiny and they destroyed the original data. This is not the behavior of disinterested seekers of truth, but of activists. CRU is one of the three primary sources of data from which the holy “consensus” has devolved, and the other two were controlled by people with the same agenda. Why on earth should we believe any of these clowns?
ahh. you are also, quite probably, a big fan of throwing ababies out with their bath water.
the preponderance of evidence and the overwhelming number of experts come down on the side of human caused global warming. a few bad actors (acting to minimize the influence of the reports generated by cynical and inaccurate pseudo scientist) should not change the findings of the scientific community… especially when compared to the incredible prejudice and bad faith shown by the opponents of the concept (generally well funded by the oil industry).
i am constantly fascinated when i see the GOP align itself against scientists and for myths, fantasies and outright falsehoods. it is a sure way toward irrelevance.
In response to another comment. See in context »PLEASE don’t cite Richard Feynman as part of an anti-science diatribe, or to justify your own ignorance of the realities of climate science. It’s just dirty, somehow.
In response to another comment. See in context »sarah brings to the political debate all of the thought and wisdom of a meddling mother of the captain of the pep squad.
Why do I keep reading the Washington Post? My first question was “Who wrote this for her?” because I doubt she even knows what a peer-reviewed journal is.
I find it curious (frightening actually) that a paper of the Post’s (supposed) caliber is willing to publish such an obviously flawed op-ed on such an important issue, one that could determine the fate of our planet. What next, an op-ed by Joe the Plumber arguing that the holocaust was a hoax?
She has the attention of the country right now. Love her or hate her everyone is invested in her and has thoughts, feelings and opinions about her. That’s why the Post published an “op-ed” by her. To sell papers, gain attention, and get web hits. They know she is controversial and controversy gets attention.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] agoEPA chief pledges Congress to take lead on cap and tradeJeff McMahonScorched Earth 10 hours agoPalin lectures the experts on climate changeDavid KnowlesParadigms Lost10 hours agoToo many babies watching too much TVEilene ZimmermanSelling [...]
Yes, Palin’s convenient truth seeking is a thorn int he side who would like some rational discussion on the subject. I do have to quibble with this:
“she may have prematurely bowed out of politics”
Palin’s bucking for 2012, no doubt.
I thought it a bit ridiculous when the Post held a contest to find its next columnist, but the results of that actually yielded some great material. But when the op-ed page editors pull stunts like this, clearly favoring traffic and controversy over thoughtful (or even factual) analysis, it’s truly sad. To make the pages of the Post, you either need to be exceptionally, almost impossibly good like Ezra Klein, or just exceptionally famous.
I think that Sarah’s attackers protest too much. While I disagree with her, she represents a sizeable minority of the American public, and deserves to have her voice heard. She also deserves to have her weak ideas blasted with the blow torch of reason, but so do we all.
When she says she supports science, she means she supports the science that agrees with her. Most people who don’t have a strong methodological training have the same approach, the wish-based version of reality. That includes left and right – when the left is attacking vaccination or GMO crops, they are guilty of the same denial of truth as Sarah.
I respectfully disagree. If she had written a minority opinion based on solid facts, her voice deserved to be heard. This op-ed was garbage. It was based on faulty logic that even a high school kid would recognize (even me!).
There are plenty of partisan publications that publish this kind of tripe. Unfortunately the Post has given Sarah and her looniness (she wrote that “…policy should be based on sound science, not politics” then turned right around and did the opposite!) much desired (but undeserved) respectability.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello misterb,
Who “on the left is attacking vaccination or GMO crops”?
In response to another comment. See in context »I agreed with you until your last sentence. There’s plenty of reasons for people to be skeptical re GMO crops and vaccinations – and a lot of those skeptics fall on either side of the political spectrum.
Just like the climate change issue, we simply haven’t been able to determine all the various connecting threads that allow for unexpected consequences when employing vaccines and planting GMO crops. And when those issues do crop up, in most cases it’s not the manufacturers who suffer the consequences.
In response to another comment. See in context »I would like to add that evolution does have some holes in but so do all theories. I know just by saying “Well this isn’t always true” you excite the right into saying “So it isn’t true!!”.
I totally agree otherwise and am afraid that people in the public eye have taken it upon themselves to “educate” the masses. If political office is set before those to make decisions that are best for the community one would hope that they would make them knowing all the facts and not basing ANYTHING off of faith.
I just wish more people would think critically and not just believe what thier leaders tell them, or what works best for just them. We the people, not me the privlidged.
Palin can draw a bigger audience than all 15,000 kooks gathered in Copenhagen combined…..
It is impossible to meausure the world’s temperature
So can Madonna, but that doesn’t speak to Sarah’s intelligence or that of her audience.
And, yes Andy, you CAN measure the temperature of the world.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/cli_define.html
In response to another comment. See in context »My experience with a bulk water export project from Canada to the USA confirms the conspiratorial view of Sarah Palin.
Present Canadian government policy prohibiting bulk export of freshwater from Canada to the USA was initially developed as part of a fraudulent conspiracy by insiders who secretly persuaded the British Columbia government to give them a bulk water export monopoly.
To create the monopoly, the conspirators used the environmental movement and engineered the ridiculous notion that freshwater was a non- renewable resource and that Canada would run out of water if it shipped some to the USA.
In fact, fresh water is an renewable resource that falls from the sky in a liquid (rain) or solid state (snow).
The conspirators had their franchise in place and persuaded the British Columiba government to violate the Free Trade Agreement, the GATT and the NAFTA and block all competition.
It was a very artful crime; the details of which are now emerging in an obscure unreported lawsuit in Canada where eight judges linked to the case have suddenly dropped dead or suddenly developed terminal illnesses.
Visit http://www.waterwarcrimes.com
and
http://www.sunbeltwater.com
Or, follow up on twitter
twitter.com/waterwarcrimes
wrestricting ect. .