rssPalin to Obama: Shun Science’s ‘Politicized Agenda,’ Boycott Copenhagen
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 10:17 am
- 21 Comments
One of the perks of political rock star-dom is that you get to write pretty much whatever you want and the nation’s leading newspapers will publish it. Take Sarah Palin: Judging from The Washington Post’s op-ed page, she’s now one of the country’s top experts on climate change. In July, The Post devoted valuable ink and inches to her musings on Congress’ “cap and tax” plan. This time around, she tosses a treatise on Copenhagen our way.
Marc Ambinder’s already done us the favor of a point-by-point takedown of her column — which comes to the forceful conclusion, “The president should boycott Copenhagen” — so I’ll limit my commentary to two quick additional thoughts.
First, the column uses the words “agenda” and “politicized” three times each (not to mention variants thereof) in describing the work of the world’s foremost environmental scientists. And the question that always enters my mind is, what exactly is their agenda? What could well-educated and respected scientists hope to gain from a massive conspiracy that, in Palin’s opinion, will unleash untold economic harm on the populace while providing no benefits in return? Do they hope for prestige? (If so, Palin would likely answer, it hasn’t worked, since they’ve brought their entire field to what she calls a “tipping point” — in a bad way.) Or perhaps jobs for their friends in the Chinese alternative energy industry? (A potentially more rational argument, except that I’ve never heard anyone draw these ties.) Seriously, I’m scratching my head.
And second, my favorite two lines of the column:
[W]e can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.
So it’s possible that anthropogenic climate change is real, but even so, the economic costs of doing something to stop it are much greater than the potential benefits. Even if these benefits include saving hundreds of millions of coast-dwelling people from the ravages of rising sea levels and protecting world civilization as we know it? Can those really be “far outweighed” by lower energy costs, even if we accept Republicans’ wildly inflated (and refuted) estimate that a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions could set every American family back by $3,100 a year?
If you give her credit for nothing else, you can’t say Sarah Palin doesn’t have the power to spark a lively debate.
Follow Aaron Wiener on Twitter
21 Comments
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 11:41 am
SO instead you would believe Al Gores BS..Where is his degree? I see all the e-mails showing these scientists cooking the debate means nothing. Just brush that aside and pay no atention the debate is over cause Al (Politician) Gore says so.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 11:51 am
I am surprised this leftist writer does not realize he is being duped by a purely political movement. GW was concocted to get people on the right convinced to vote for liberals to save the earth. Sadly it worked, ONCE. Now those on the right realize the fraud. Watch the next election.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Well, if there's any subject Palin is competent about, it's “politicized” “agendas.” And garnering attention. Also…
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Can we read about REAL news please? This woman is a quitter, wanted out of her governorship so badly she couldn't even finish out her term. Now she's telling the President how to run the country. She should be hiding her face in shame. Idiot.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 11:56 am
you are nuts get out of your box
watch this
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/745.html
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 11:58 am
No, read the article again.
“First, the column uses the words “agenda” and “politicized” three times each (not to mention variants thereof) in describing the work of the world’s foremost environmental scientists. And the question that always enters my mind is, what exactly is their agenda?”
It's laughable that politicians think that thousands scientific organizations all over the world have been fooled by the data. Next Palin will be telling us the Moon landing is a conspiracy also.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Palin is an expert on climate, of course. For years she's was the governor of a state that has a climate, she can look out her window and SEE the climate. Hence she's an expert on climate.
Anybody else anticipating “Palin/Cheney '12″?
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Well, She-Rah being the Moose Queen DOES give her the right to tell the POTUS what to do and when to do it, I suppose. Maybe its merely an artifact of residing in Alaska, where 60 degrees F is considered a heat wave, but has She-Rah been paying any attention to the whole permafrost issue? I sincerely doubt it – that would mean she got her news from somewhere other than FOXED NEWS. And lets not forget – those shrinking ice caps? Those dwindling glaciers? That mass of ice known as Greenland? Can you say “water displacement?”
No, She-Rah and her tiny minions have only one thing going for them – their shrill and relentless ranting. Not unlike the sound of all those Alaskan mosquito's breeding around that “not melting” permafrost.
Notumbus Bumbus at the endoftheworldetc.blogspot.com
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Well duh, anyone can do that.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=…
You believe a journalist over the scientific community? lmao
When you go to the doctor do you depend on a journalist for answers or science? Go ahead now and Google around for some random scientist who denies Global Warming and post a quote from him/her.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
American voters also can somehow survive the cognitive dissonance of rejecting evolution while rushing to get their H1N1 shots, which would be utterly unnecesssary but for the fact that viruses and other living things — gasp — evolve. So I agree, it is entirely possible that in 2012 the voters will believe the lies of Republicans and oil companies (as if there is a difference between the two), and resume the path of ignoring science.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
The stupidity flows from her mouth like vomit. She is truly an idiot, pandering to the idiots in America.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
I am an Atheist so, I believe in evolution. The earth my be warming however
the cures are worse that the disease. I am convinced their is no consensus
among scientists on the cause or the cure. There is strong evidence the sun
is the major factor and it of course, tends to cycle. This pseudo consensus
was invented by a relative few leftists. In order for real consensus to
occur you will need open discourse and agreement by all parties both
scientific and political that clearly has not happened. No matter what is
agreed to now, it will not be carried out. GW is simply a political ploy
5-6 years from now it will be a non-issue.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 4:25 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/J…
Thanks,
Ben
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
I watched it. Wasted 10 minutes of my day. All that the video proves is that there are some scientists (the video neglects to mention that it is a very small minority of scientists) who believe that there are alternative explanations for why global warming is happening. He gives a lot of screen time to Al Gore (an easy target, since he's not a scientist and he clearly has a political agenda), but no screen time to any of the thousands of scientists who have strong evidence that global warming is largely manmade. There are also scientists who believe in creationism, and who believe AIDS isn't caused by HIV. Yes, there are some exaggerated claims being made, and, yes, scare tactics are being used (nothing new for the media or the government), but that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the need for action to combat climate change. The only semi-legitimate argument I've heard against green policy is that it will cost a lot of money. Worst-case scenario, we find out that the scientific super-minority was right, and we have a more healthy environment and industry based on renewable energy. Doesn't sound so bad to me. We've wasted money on much more inane projects (see War on Terror).
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
The stupidity flows from her mouth like vomit. She is truly an idiot, pandering to the idiots in America.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
I am an Atheist so, I believe in evolution. The earth my be warming however
the cures are worse that the disease. I am convinced their is no consensus
among scientists on the cause or the cure. There is strong evidence the sun
is the major factor and it of course, tends to cycle. This pseudo consensus
was invented by a relative few leftists. In order for real consensus to
occur you will need open discourse and agreement by all parties both
scientific and political that clearly has not happened. No matter what is
agreed to now, it will not be carried out. GW is simply a political ploy
5-6 years from now it will be a non-issue.
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 9:25 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/J…
Thanks,
Ben
Comment posted December 9, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
I watched it. Wasted 10 minutes of my day. All that the video proves is that there are some scientists (the video neglects to mention that it is a very small minority of scientists) who believe that there are alternative explanations for why global warming is happening. He gives a lot of screen time to Al Gore (an easy target, since he's not a scientist and he clearly has a political agenda), but no screen time to any of the thousands of scientists who have strong evidence that global warming is largely manmade. There are also scientists who believe in creationism, and who believe AIDS isn't caused by HIV. Yes, there are some exaggerated claims being made, and, yes, scare tactics are being used (nothing new for the media or the government), but that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the need for action to combat climate change. The only semi-legitimate argument I've heard against green policy is that it will cost a lot of money. Worst-case scenario, we find out that the scientific super-minority was right, and we have a more healthy environment and industry based on renewable energy. Doesn't sound so bad to me. We've wasted money on much more inane projects (see War on Terror).
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
