Palin is an ignorant global warming denier
[Update: 10.05.08] – this post makes the point far better than I:
Sarah Palin puts polar bears on thin ice
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/5/1902/72063/35/616261
Governor Palin’s response to the debate question on global warming revealed two things that should disqualify her from any high political office.
First, she basically said that understanding the cause of a problem is irrelevant to fixing the problem.
Second, she denied that current global warming is caused by man made emissions.
These Palin statements were not minor gaffes, off the cuff remarks, or “gotcha journalism”. Instead, they were the result of extensive debate preparation. As such, they are far worse than the Katie Couric interviews.
They reflect a deeply ignorant and non-rational mind – which is shocking and should cause real “conservatives” to challenge McCain’s judgement in selecting her.(or they could reflect the fact that she knows exactly what’s going on and is merely lying for political effect).
Here’s the text and link: (boldface is mine)
IFILL: Governor, I’m happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let’s talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?
PALIN: Yes. 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?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/
Politics aside, global warming still is a theory. No one has, or really can, prove it conclusively. There are many things about this planet that we still do not know. Did you know that the earth’s magnetic field is weakening? Scientists are wondering if that is a precursor to a geomagnetic reversal, or possibly even a pole shift. If there is any variation in our protection from solar radiation, or any variation in the axis of the earth’s tilt, even a minute change could have large repercussions for our climate. I think we focus on CO2 because it appears to be something potentially in our control.
Over the next 8 years, China plans to build 800,000 megawatts of new coal generation with no environmental safeguards. We could take all of our coal plants out of production and it wouldn’t produce any net decrease in CO2. In other words, it is probably academic whether or not CO2 is the cause. Whatever has been put in motion doesn’t look like it is going to stop.
I don’t think it really helps to demand orthodoxy when it comes to scientific thought (I know Galileo didn’t think so either.) While CO2 levels seem like the likely suspect, I am not convinced they are the whole story when it comes to global warming. Sarah Palin admitted that the climate is changing, but even if she did attribute it to CO2, that wouldn’t mean it was the correct answer, despite popular belief.
givemeliberty
You may ask for liberty, but, as Garett Hardin noted in his clasic essay “The Tragedy of the Commons”
“Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all”
Hardin, arguing for “mutual coercion mutully agreed upon”, later quoted Hegel who said “Freedom is the recognition necessity.”
Is this all “politics” and orthodoxy” to you?
China is a major problem, but that does not argue for inaction on our part. If nothing else, the problem is cumulative and rate dependent, so anything we do adds to the problem, right?
Think if we led the wy with policy and technology to the same degree we have recklessly pursued economic growth and trade policy (example: what is the US deficit, debt, and trade imbalance with China?)
Palin is ignorant of all of the above and was merely (and crudely) carrying the water of the energy industry – that should trouble us all.
givmeliberty – on more point on the science issue:
You seem to not understand what a theory is.
Evolution is a theory. Gravity, Newtonian physics, relativity, and particle physics are theories. They all have been validated by data, observation and replicable experiment, and accepted as consensus in the scientific community. That’s the way science works.
Calling something a “theory” in no way diminishes it..
In contrast, Flat earth and intelligent design are NOT consensus theories.
Big difference, eh?
givmeliberty – on more point on the science issue:
You seem to not understand what a theory is.
Evolution is a theory. Gravity, Newtonian physics, relativity, and particle physics are theories. They all have been validated by data, observation and replicable experiment, and accepted as consensus in the scientific community. That’s the way science works.
Calling something a “theory” in no way diminishes it..
In contrast, Flat earth and intelligent design are NOT consensus theories.
Big difference, eh?
Nohesitation-
You are making my points for me. It is exactly my point that freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. We could voluntarily go back to living as cavemen here, and it may make absolutely no difference. You assume that ” the problem is cumulative and rate dependent, so anything we do adds to the problem, right?” I do not assume that, just as I do not assume that CO2 is necessarily the total explanation of climate change.
I think that I do understand what a theory is. Centuries ago, people theorized that rats could spring from piles of rags. They could have experimented with lots of piles of dirty rags, gotten rats every time, and concluded that they had proven their theory. You are trying to tell me that a “consensus theory” is the same thing as proof. It is not. A theory is a model that fits the facts as we know them, but there are breakthroughs all the time, some of which turn conventional wisdom on its head.
I seriously question whether we have the economic resources to live without fossil fuels. I personally foresee great hardship in this country with what has happened to our economy, and I do not know how we can afford all the things we profess to want under the circumstances. I confess that I feel the most profound sense of pessimism about our world. I was an envi sci major in college, and I just don’t see this going in a good direction. We have despoiled our planet, and there are too many of us who expect a certain degree of comfort to make the sacrifices that would be necessary. I do not know if we could turn it around even if we wanted to.
One last thing – I am not a fundamentalist but I do believe in God. I think God happened to make evolution part of the plan here. I have also come to the conclusion that when a difficult question divides people, usually both sides are correct, and the trick is to see the other side.
Have a nice day. Really.
Is the earth warming up? ABSOLUTELY.
Is it man made? The Jury is Still Out on that one.
If every man made power source could be turned on at once, it represents less than 1% of the power the sun sends to earth at any given time. The sun varies it’s output within a year, and the sunspots work on an 11 year cycle, no sunspots, like lately, less power to the earth and we cool down.
Should we conserve resources? Yes
Should we recycle? Yes
Should we not pollute? YES
Do we need all sources of energy in the USA as well as offshore drilling to break our dependence on foreign oil? I would say Yes. bring it all on, including nuclear energy.
Environmentalism does not belong to any one group.
It’s all our responsibility.