Palin: Climate Change Is Not Man-Made
President Bush is what indulgent educators might term a “late bloomer” when it comes to the science of climate change. While he still hasn’t done anything meaningful about it, his rhetoric, at least, has started to sound a little less insane.
In this speech, for example, he notes that ”our country, the United States is the world’s largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases” and even suggests that it is important “we recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions.”
If Dubya is a late bloomer then Palin, sadly, is still trying to sound out the words.
Talking to Newsmax this week, she asserted that ”A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute [climate change] to being man-made.“
Okay Palin, one more try. It is CC…LL…II…MM…AA…TT…EE CHHHH…AAAA…NNG…GG…E.
You can certainly be as condescending as you please, but there are a large number of scientists that agree with her. And let’s get it straight, ‘climate change’ is a cop-out by global warming nuts who have covered their butts to make sure they can’t be wrong no matter what the weather does. Doesn’t it feel great to create a meaningless phrase that insures you’re right no matter what?
@ mccordp: Can you point out some of the scientists who would agree with her that global warming, climate change, or whatever, is not man-made? Certainly, warming takes place at a slower rate naturally, without humans, but no one can doubt the world would be in a much more natural state without us here. People have been debating global warming, climate change and greenhouse gases for decades. Too bad, only now, are we starting to seriously consider greener solutions.
wow.
Just point out that the US is not the leader in Green House gases.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/business/emit.php
Also, and mccordp was heading in this direction, but climate change happens ALL THE TIME. Yes, I believe pollution interacts with the environment and has the ability to change patterns but I find it very arrogant to think that humanity, who has been putting pollution into the air – consistently – for roughly 200 years can destroy 5 billion years of natures work.
Don’t doubt climate change, think mankind has some impact, but we did not cause it.
[...] said this on September 8, 2008 at 12:33 am [...]
One Response to “Palin: Climate Change Is Not Man-Made” « Pizzarebbe’s Weblog said this on September 8, 2008 at 8:45 am |
I read on a blog a few minutes ago that one of Sarah Palin’s good points was that she was smarter than George Bush! I THINK we need to aim alittle higher than that. Is she smarter than GWB? Yes, but so is my goldfish and he still lives in a small bowl! But, then, so did she! When I visualize 4-8 more years of Republican stupidity, I am amazed. ~~Dee
everythingafter
If you’re really interested in a few scientists that agree with Palin, then here are 31,000 of them
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
This climate change debate is like listening the nature vs nurture argument. Hello … it’s both! The force of nature has done a good job of changing the climate in the past, but to deny that mankind has any significant effect on climate is ludicrous. The oil companies alone probably have 31,000 “scientists” on their payroll ready to testify – our president is in their back pocket – so it’s no suprise that the governor of Alaska is on the payroll too. The people who deny man’s effect on climate are too greedy to spend a portion of their record profits on responsible resource management – and the rest are just gullible victims of propaganda.
Signed by 31,000 American scientists? My question is, how many of them are environmental scientists, like climatologists? I want to see what these scientists’ fields of study are.
ithoca Real Estate Broker–nice ad hominem. Now, do you have anything of substance to contribute or are you just going to demonstrate your ignorance?
earthandbeyond–uh, you could actually go research them–or might that be too scary since it might expose Al’s exaggerations, misstatements, and out and out fabrications?
The petition referred to above was co-published by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C. Marshall Institute, which has been funded to the tune of $630 000 by ExxonMobil.
The National Academy of Sciences had this to say about it: “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences… The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”
Of the thousands who have signed it, the vast majority have no background in climate science.
In contrast, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was contributed to by 2500 expert reviewers, 800 contributing authors and 450 lead authors from 130 countries. The Working Group 1 Report included contributions from 600 authors, 620 expert reviewers, and government representatives. By “expert” they mean actual climate scientists, as opposed to anyone with a science degree, the criteria used by the bullshit petition cited above.
As George Monbiot has said: “It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.”
Except you fail to mention some of the experts you cite (i.e., contributed to or reviewed the report) disagree with the report. Unless you’re willing to identify each of those who disagree with the conclusions and counter their individual arguments, you’re misleading by citing the total number. Much of what the report is based on is from models that don’t work and are constantly being “fine tuned.” Global warming or climate change is based on the faith that one of these models, one of these days will be accurate. And while you are quick to mention the ExxonMobile funding of one report, you fail to mention the vested interest in grant money, professorships, and other incentives for those from the other report. You argue one is bought and paid for while trying to imply the other is unbiased. If one is paid and delivered, so is the other.
Except…
When I observe unusual behavior from my house wiring, I seek the advice of a few electricians. I don’t publish a petition to the world asking everyone who thinks my house is fine to sign it. Here is someone who has tried to “actually go research them”.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/
I only found this site because I was looking up names on the petition.
Research on and evidence for anthropogenic climate change started decades ago. I’m sure the scientists made a fortune on the grant money available for this work in the 80s.