Palin denies climate change realities on first day as McCain's running mate

Fri, 2008-08-29 11:06Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Palin denies climate change realities on first day as McCain's running mate

What are the ramifications of a US Vice President that is willing to shrug off the scientific realities of global warming? Guess we'll find out if John McCain takes the White House. In an interview with Newsmax today, McCain's vice-presidential running mate Sarah Palin stated that:
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

I guess Palin spends her time reviewing climate science as reported on Newsmax and other media outlets (read: Fox News) bent on ignoring and confusing the warnings from top scientists at the nation's most prestigious scientific academies, like NASA and the National Academy of Science.

As the National Academy of Science rightly points out, the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is an age-old scientific finding dating back as far as the 1800's:

“The theoretical realization that human activities could have a global discernible effect on the atmosphere came during the 19th century, and the first conclusive measurements of atmospheric change were made during the last half of the 20th century.”
And the link between the massive upswing in heat-trapping greenhouse gas, human activity and major disruption to the earth's climate system in the 20th century is also a scientific reality. According to the National Academy of Science:
“The first greenhouse gas demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration was carbon dioxide, formed as a major end product in the extraction of energy from the burning of the fossil fuels–coal, oil, and natural gas–as well as in the burning of biomass.”

Palin's apparent ignorance on the contemporary science of climate change speaks to a much bigger issue about US science policy in general.

If Palin is willing to ignore such robust science concluding catastrophic effects on our climate systems due to our ever-growing over-consumption of fossil fuels like coal and oil, what other scientific realities will a McCain administration be willing to ignore at the behest of its second-in-command?

UPDATE: Here's one other scientific reality it looks like Palin will ignore, courtesy of Brandon Keim at Wired Science.

UPDATE #2: Greenpeace just sent out a comprehensive look at Palin's history on environmental issues (attached to the bottom of this post).

Hat tip to the Daily Green.

This entry was cross-posted on Huffington Post. 

AttachmentSize
Palin Enviro Backgrounder.pdf157.56 KB

Comments

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?” - Geologist Dr. David Gee About Dr. David Gee

http://tiny.cc/UwMDi 

(note: please convert massive url’s using a tiny url in the DeSmog comment section: http://www.tiny.cc/)  

Remember how Steven Goddard backed off his earlier claim that the Arctic ice isn’t retreating and all is well? Well, we at the International Journal of Inactivism have uncovered the True Story behind Goddard’s retraction:

tinyurl.com/5f22f7

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- frankbi.wordpress.com

Oh, great, you’re giving away the Great Conspiracy, just when we’ve got it nicely rolling. Where’s the cigarette smoking man when we need him?

Ah yes… the whereabouts of the obligatory man smoking a cigarette (or maybe a cigar). I think that’ll need more research and peer review by, well, someone.

Meanwhile, ever noticed how “Oreskes” and “Revkin” sound like Russian names? (I can hear it now: Bwahahahahaha…)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- frankbi.wordpress.com

==”For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”==

How stupid to people have to be to fall for that argument.

He’s cherry picking 1998 and 2008.
Even though those two had really strong positive and negative ENSO’s those year.

greyfalcon.net/rsstemps.png
greyfalcon.net/elnino
greyfalcon.net/lanina
greyfalcon.net/enso

_______

Once again, it seems like the only argument that the skeptics have is swinging back between.

“The Climate comes down to one variable, and if CO2 doesn’t by itself explain EVERYTHING, then it can’t explain ANYTHING.”

Versus

“The climate comes down to unlimited variables, and therefore it’s impossible to know anything! So we should just hope for the best and assume that it’s not a problem.”

_________

The funny part is when you have Skeptic Pundits making BOTH arguments are the same time.

Good catch there, David.

Also, models can’t predict climate accurately, and models can predict climate accurately but they’ve obviously been rigged to do so.

We need more research, and anyone who tries to do more research is just greedy for funding.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- frankbi.wordpress.com

and yet the only real solution to the CO2 problem (if it’s a problem) are generally put forward by skeptics - yep I’m talking about massive nuclear power programs.

I have no idea what most alarmists want to do about the problem. Seems like mostly nothing - except talk … and buy bigger boats.

Yeah! Why do alarmists hate nuclear power? It must be because they are in cahoots with the Phantom Soviet Empire! They want to weaken the military power of our great nation, so that they can hand it in a silver platter to the Bolshevists, the Arabs, and the New World Order!

My dream is to have a big super luxurious private yacht like Al Gore! Yeah - deep down in my heart, I want to live like an alarmist.

You didn’t see this comment.

That is so true. The world is actually starting to go through a few decades of cooling. People are so ridiculous to believe that they have that much affect on the planet.

She also think creationism should be taught alongside evolution.

The war on science continues…

Edited: I added the comment before I saw the Wired link.

Local Alaskan tv report nails Palin lying about firing scandal. What was McCain thinking? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UojMnCgqVA

Sarah Palin may have “got” what NWS Tom Ainsworth said about global warming in 2006:

Tom Ainsworth, a panelist and the Meteorologist in Charge of the Juneau Weather Forecast Office said:

“It’s not necessarily a bad thing,” Ainsworth said, adding that the planet continuously goes through climate-change cycles. “It’s a natural thing. But if we can use our information of these cycles to improve our lifestyle, then I think we should.” …

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/080906/loc_20060809027.shtml

NWS has a staff of 5,000 meterologists and hydrologists in 124 offices throughout the US.

NOAA NWS directors and managers have failed the public on their mission to educate, warn, and protect citizens of the US, and the environment for the future.

NWS has a staff of 5,000 meterologists and hydrologists in 124 offices throughout the US” … implying that Tom Ainsworth speaks for all of them. That’s quite a leap, isn’t it?

Here’s another NWS Meterologist in Charge who voiced his skepticism to the media and public:

“Bottom line is we’re not really sure what is causing global warming or if it is even going on,” … “It could be a combination of human causes and natural causes.”

Mike Stewart is the meteorologist in charge of the Duluth National Weather Service office.

May 15, 2006
northlandsnewscenter.com
Duluth, MN

and there’s more (I was NWS employee from 1976-2006).

That’s two. And of course they’re both weathermen, which is tantamount to asking a taxi driver how to build a car.

Many at NWS have misled the public on climate change, list
below for 2005-2006:

Jack Kelly, NOAA Dep. Dir. 2005, NWS Dir. 1998-2003

David L.Johnson, NWS Dir.

John Jones, NWS Deputy Dir.

Dennis McCarthy, NOAA NWS Services

Gary Foltz, NWS Central Region Acting Dirr, KC MO

Michael Looney, NWS Central Region Dep. Dir.

Daniel Luna, NCRFC Hydrologist in Charge, Chanhassen MN –

First the Katrina anniversary, then Gustav comes in as Katrina the sequel and now a global warming denier who is also a denier of evolution. Does McCain deliberately want to loose?

So if she denies global warming and evolution does she deny the law of gravity?

So you are making a totally unscientific connection between global warming and storms? typical alarmist fakery

I see no such implication. Typical denier hysterics.

A politicial that has the back bone to speak the truth in the face of the establishment AGW morons.

This lady is obviously well read and intellegent. She will make a first rate VP.

She may have read these in fact:

Hysteria over global warming has gripped the affluent countries of the world.

http://www.cgfi.org/2008/08/27/global-warming-every-1500-years-what-it-means-for-engineering-by-dennis-t-avery/

and

Thirty Years of a Failed Democrat Energy Policy http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2008/08/thirty-years-of-failed-democrat-energy.html

“This lady is obviously well read and intellegent.”

I’m sure she is. She might even be able to spell long words and stuff.

I think its a great choice. As hysteria over AWG climate change tanks in all respects, Obama morphed into everymans political chippy and chose an old sage as a running mate to add credence to a lightweight candidacy, Mcain camp chose a bright attractive tough woman with a reform history who thinks AWG is bunk. The political trajectory looks right…Iraq is cool, fuel costs are high at the hands of liberals. It will be an interesting race.

“As hysteria over AWG climate change tanks in all respects …”

Eliminating your hyperbole by substituting “concern” for “hysteria”, what proof do you have that this is “tanking”? All I see are repeated assertions of that claim in the denier blogs. In the real world, concern continues to mount.

Ray, since when do we take what geologists say about climatological matters at face value? see #3 and #40 (including the NewScientist link) at Understandit.org

Alax, at the very core of climate change is history, who better to have insight into earths past than geologists?

Spelling blunder…sorry Alex.

Until now, if I were a Yank, I would have been unable to to vote for president. Obama is a “nothing” and McCain has swallowed the AGW glop. Now, with a tough sceptic to balance the ticket, McCain is at least semi-palatable.

Streetcar and Rick C : Are you claiming that Palin is a creationist or merely sufficiently liberal to be willing to give the ID crowd a piece of the podium? Creationist doesn’t seem compatible with the rest of her personna. Links? (Other than the Wired hatchet job.)

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/10/27/intelligent_design_and_the_ala/ has a few other samples linked:

Her father was a public school science teacher.

“My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution,” she said. “He would show us fossils and say, ‘How old do you think these are?’ ”

Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, “I believe we have a creator.”

She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

“I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be,” she said.

Seems creationist, no? At the very least, she obviously believes creationism has the same scientific merit that evolution does and that there’s a scientific controversy on it to teach about – both objectively false.

But that doesn’t stop Gary from noticing she rejects AGW and concluding she’s well-read. Odd, that.

Ray: Earth’s climate past? Although some geologists may have something to contribute, I would think a paleoclimatologist would be more involved in studying ancient climate and factors affecting it.

I like to think of her as James Inhofe with breasts. http://www.theocracywatch.org/inhofe.jpg

So predictable.
So irrelevant.
But when that’s all you’ve got, Guess you gotta g with it.

AGW is tanking in all respects?
Can you show me one major science organization and/or association that has changed it’s official position on the subject from that of the consensus? I can find a few that have restated to agree, but none to the opposite.
Your Friday morning libertarian coffee klatsch doesn’t count.

The Geologists that met recently in Oslo.

Oh Sorry, they agree with the Overwhelming concensus.
The more than 35000 that agree that AGW is a crock I mean.

…not 35,000. You are off by an order of magnitude. Also I know of no polling done at the Oslo convention. There were some hostile-to-IPCC presentations and Q&A, and a ‘debate’ or two at the end. But there was no polling.

If there were, it would not be scientific, as Geologists are likely to be biased in favor of oil, coal, and other mineral exploration interests. The presentations and Q&A were apparently weighted against the IPCC…but this is not quite the same thing as a Consensus™ among the geologists present.

my source:
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1722
section 10 and 11 deals with the climate debate.

31000 on the Orogon petition.
5100 in Alberta
4000 in Coenhagen
400 on the Inhof list
500 at the YC climate convention.

etc
etc
etc

And No I pay no attention to the silly attempts to discredit the orogon petition. It is just so much AGW BS and pretty much everyone knows it.

Liar. There are not 5100 climate scientists in Alberta, as I pointed out before when you came up with that dishonest number.

…that there are 31,000 climate scientists in all of North America, much less Oregon.

Nowhere in my post did I use the term “Climate Scientist”.
Since I don’t (And neither does the IPCC) consider AGW the sole domain of climate scientists, I listed scientists that disagree.

AGW is far too broad of a subject for any one discipline to claim full understanding of.

Geologists for example have a much better view of the big picture than people who only study CO2 try desperately to show how it controls everything.

And as for lying, I believe you guys have that covered all too well with your dishonest attempts to discredit the Oregon petition with obvious and completely debunked claims of inaccuracy.

I realize how much you hate it, but the truth is emerging and you can’t stop it.

Signs of sanity emerging:

MICHAELS: Record low for climate science
Ever since Soviet and Western climate scientists published the first international compendium on global warming, back in 1985, we have known that scaring people to death is very good for the environmentalist business. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/31/record-low-for-climate-science/

Lest we forget!
The most prominent AGW lie circulated regularly by alarmists.

“The IPCC’s Over Whelming consensus of 2500 of the world’s leading climate scientists.”

In Fact there were some 2500 scientists.
Approximately 600 of them were climate scientists.
Of those, Less than 60 were on the team that produced the infamous chapter 9 statement claiming 90% certainty that “half” of the warming in the 20th century was “Mostly” due to man made CO2.

Many of the rest were not in agreement with that political statement but had no infleuence to change it.

Lies, Damn Lies and Political statements!

Nice article by David Evans questioning the impact of carbon on global warming (if there is still such a thing) and also dealing with motives of the alarmists.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=756766

Heh, fun.
It’s David Evans.

He’s an Electrical Engineer telling the world he knows best on matters of climate science. (Oh, and that he’s secretly a Rocket Scientist)

Where he finds that obvious lies are the the only way to make his argument.

“So when Evans wrote:
The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
He meant that we had found the signature, but Evans didn’t think it should count.”

scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/david_evans_and_that_missing_s.php
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/more_lazy_and_gullible_reporti.php

And of course the usual BS arguments such as:
“Evans: The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001”

When clearly thats just cherry picking 1998’s strong ENSO.
greyfalcon.net/rsstemps.png
greyfalcon.net/elnino
greyfalcon.net/enso
greyfalcon.net/lanina

This guy is just pathetic
there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

On the contrary, there’s no scientific institutions in the entire world that say that carbon emissions aren’t a significant cause of recent global warming.
greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake

_

Lastly, he makes the usual argument that since carbon doesn’t cause ALL climatic events throughout the history of the earth. Then it can’t possibly be causing ANY thing.

When clearly we’re dealing with multiple climatic variables.
greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
greyfalcon.net/forcing5.png
greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png

and the primary variable over 10,000+ year time sclaes is changes in the earth’s orbit.
greyfalcon.net/milankovitch

He doesn’t even possibly consider the factor that we’ve thrown the natural order of things completely out of whack.

_

This guy is worse than Tim Ball, or James Inhofe.

He doesn’t even try to put up anything more than pathetic strawman arguments.

misleading headline up there - She doesn’t deny the reality of climate change. She is merely unconvinced about mankind’s role in climate change.

The reality is that climate change is happening and the answer to the ‘Why’ is our carbon emissions - but Palin and NWS Dan Luna have been misleading the public about the ‘Why’.

NWS Dan Luna, Meteorologist in Charge at the National Weather Service office in the Twin Cities told the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

“It would be hard-pressed for anyone to argue that we’re not seeing evidence of warming. ‘Why?’ is another question, …

“This entry was cross-posted on Huffington Post.”

No! What? Really?!!!

Nothing to see here. Move along.

It’s the Phantom Soviet Empire working in cahoots with the Bavarian Climatati. Bwahahahahaha! ( tinyurl.com/5f22f7 )

I really thought this had to be a joke - I can’t believe you actually admit to such utter stupidity in public!?!

I can’t believe anyone with an IQ above 15 could really fall for all this denial stuff.

Just hang on kids, you are totally right!:

The Earth IS Flat!
And the Earth revolves around the Sun.
And smoking is good for you.
And Bush is a great intellect
And God hates gays

Plenty of intelligent and highly educated people honestly reject the concept of man made global warming. Calling them dumb doesn’t make your case as well as you think it does.

Pages

[x]

Problems caused by climate change are likely already dangerous and global warming may be irreversible, according to a draft science report by a United Nations committee.

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) report, leaked earlier this week to a number of major media organizations, said continued greenhouse gas emissions caused primarily by burning oil, coal and natural gas will probably increase the likelihood of  “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

The New York Times...

read more