Palin On Whether Global Warming Is Man-Made: ‘Kinda Doesn’t Matter’
Palin On Whether Global Warming Is Man-Made: ‘Kinda Doesn’t Matter’
In an interview with CBS’s Katie Couric yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin continued her refusal to endorse the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. Palin claimed there is some human contribution to climate change, but she also added the common right-wing claim that global warming is a result of “cyclical” weather patterns:
COURIC: Is it manmade in your view?
PALIN: You know, there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, with these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical and over our history we have seen changes there.
“Kinda doesn’t matter at this point…what caused it,” Palin added. Watch it:
Palin’s position is a slight change from her previous full-fledged denial of man-made global warming. In a recently released interview with Newsmax, Palin said, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.” She added, “I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.” In Dec. 2007, Palin reportedly said, “I’m not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.”
It does, however, “matter” whether Palin acknowledges the full contribution of humans to climate change. Palin is a “champion” for climate-unfriendly policies such as increased use of oil and coal, which will exacerbate the contributions of humans to the warming planet.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
96 Responses to “Palin On Whether Global Warming Is Man-Made: ‘Kinda Doesn’t Matter’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Most of those cycles she is talking about (Milankovitch and it's components) are on scales much longer than 6000 years(how old she thinks the earth is). AND, those cycles predict that we would be in an ice age right now.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:48 amSatyam Says:
comment
October 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
______
I would, but the sheer, unbridled stupidity of this GOP VP pick has left me speechless.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:48 amShe's right, it really doesn't make any difference as to cause. However, mankind has the ability to lessen it's contribution to the problem and to effect solutions to the problem.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:50 amrocknerd Says:
Most of those cycles she is talking about (Milankovitch and it’s components) are on scales much longer than 6000 years(how old she thinks the earth is). AND, those cycles predict that we would be in an ice age right now.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
_______
Ahh, so she DOES believe in science, but only when it's convenient.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:51 amWith that mentality (or lack of), you could say that, the environment "kinda doesn't matter."
Sarah Palin: "Go ahead and cut down the rainforest. The world shouldn't worry about trees. We have like, you know, plenty of trees in Alaska. We plenty of atmosphere in Alaska, so don't worry about that either."
October 1st, 2008 at 9:51 amKinda like her failed candidacy;
Kinda doesn't matter.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:52 amAlso - how long was this interview with Katie Couric? They seem to keep leaking it out in little segments, and each one is more hilarious than the next. It's the gift that keeps on giving!
October 1st, 2008 at 9:53 amhow long has she had those glasses?
is it another part of her makeover?
'cause she has been SO made over...
just curious... recent pics show different glasses.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:53 amSHE DOESN'T MATTER EITHER!
October 1st, 2008 at 9:54 amI am beginning to fear that she is not too bright. Anyone else think that?
October 1st, 2008 at 9:55 amGL2814 Says:
With that mentality (or lack of), you could say that, the environment “kinda doesn’t matter.”
October 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
______
If you believe we're in End Times, as Palin does, neither does the economy or foreign policy or any other aspect of the job for which she's applying.
This is something people really need to think about before their Diebold vote gets flipped for McCain/Palin.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:55 amSatyam Says:
comment
October 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
whoa... so soon?
sorry i missed that... or am i?
October 1st, 2008 at 9:56 amwait. huh?
October 1st, 2008 at 9:57 amThis is what really totally freaks me out about all these Repubs. McCain says lets not worry about how the Iraq war got started. In other words, it doesn't matter that Bush-McCain lied to get us in, but now that we are in we just have to stay in. They dont appreciate that admitting the root cause is part of the solution. Same with Economy. And now via Palin on Global warming.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:59 amVice President Cheney thought "it mattered" enough to muzzle scientists at the EPA, re-write official studies with the White House spin, and interject doubt about the science behind the issue.
If Sarah thinks it "doesn't matter" and she'll be hands off and let the EPA scientists do their work.... then what's bad with that?
October 1st, 2008 at 10:01 amfeeler, don't confuse the repuglycans with the facts. They wouldn't know a fact if it took a large chunk of their backsides.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:03 amFolks, I'll be right back. I need to get a priest to mumble some jumble and protect me from Palin's witchcraft...
October 1st, 2008 at 10:04 amMethinks TP's clock is messed up. Some of my later comments are coming out before my more recent ones.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:06 amHuh>?
Useful insight here:
To paraphrase her running mate, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather...
Moreover, does anyone wager that Palin even comprehends the idea of "cause and effect"? Her public utterances to date don't support the conclusion that she does.
God help us all.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:06 amPutin/Palin certainly has the 18% whacko crowd in her bag of voters. By the way does anyone know why we employ scientists to establish the way things work...I mean "it kinda doesn't matter", God is gonna squish us like a colony of red ants anyway.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:07 amPalin is just echoing the official GOP line. It "kinda doesn't matter" who or what caused climate changes, just like it "kinda doesn't matter" how we got involved in Iraq, or what caused our current financial meltdown, or what has caused the cost of health care to skyrocket in this country, or how we have gotten almost $10 trillion in debt. Their mantra is "what's done is done" (unless, of course, they can find a way to blame something on the Democrats).
Add to that the "Rapture is just around the corner" mindset and you have a group of people who shouldn't be permitted to run a lemonade stand, let alone a country.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:09 amPalin Is Ready? Please.
McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, that is simply not true.
By Fareed Zakaria
30/09/08 "NEWSWEEK" -- - Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, "to spend more time with her family"? Having stayed in purdah for weeks, she finally agreed to a third interview. CBS's Katie Couric questioned her in her trademark sympathetic style. It didn't help. When asked how living in the state closest to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience, Palin responded thus:
"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state."
There is, of course, the sheer absurdity of the premise. Two weeks ago I flew to Tokyo, crossing over the North Pole. Does that make me an expert on Santa Claus? (Thanks, Jon Stewart.) But even beyond that, read the rest of her response. "It is from Alaska that we send out those …" What does this mean? This is not an isolated example. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. ("We mustn't blink.") But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, gibberish.
Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector. It was designed to see if Palin understood that the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that's why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street's most toxic liabilities. Here's the entire exchange:
COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
This is nonsense—a vapid emptying out of every catchphrase about economics that came into her head. Some commentators, like CNN's Campbell Brown, have argued that it's sexist to keep Sarah Palin under wraps, as if she were a delicate flower who might wilt under the bright lights of the modern media. But the more Palin talks, the more we see that it may not be sexism but common sense that's causing the McCain campaign to treat her like a time bomb.
Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges.
Domestically, the bailout and reform of the financial industry will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Health-care costs, unless curtailed, will bankrupt the federal government. Social Security, immigration, collapsing infrastructure and education are all going to get much worse if they are not handled soon.
And the American government is stretched to the limit. Between the Bush tax cuts, homeland-security needs, Iraq, Afghanistan and the bailout, the budget is looking bleak. Plus, within a few years, the retirement of the baby boomers begins with its massive and rising costs (in the trillions).
Obviously these are very serious challenges and constraints. In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am'caused' as in past.
'Caused' as in we're not still doing it.
'Caused' in that one event made it happen.
What, was there The Big Cow Fart Explosion of 1937 that set this in motion?
That some guy in a lab coat somehow released all that CO2 into the environment after pressing a big red button marked DON'T PRESS THIS BUTTON?
We ARE CAUSING global warming. Right now. And we are continuing to do so at an increasing rate.
I'll give Sarah credit: she's not the stupidest Republican on this issue. She's not as dumb as James Inhofe.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:15 amThose who refuse to acknowledge and learn from the past are destined to repeat it, unless of course they screw it up SO bad that there is no future at all. I fear that is where this crowd wants to take us.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:16 amKinda like her failed canned answers.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:18 amKinda doesn't matter.
Lets take this one silly phrase at a time:
"…there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, with these impacts."
Activities contributed? Doesn't she mean attibuted? And is it not the reverse? That is to say, the issues and impacts might be attibuted to the activities?
"I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical and over our history we have seen changes there."
Blame activities on changes? Uh, not so much. How about, once again, the reverse: the outcome (the effect) is a result of the activities (the cause?) Governor Palin has discovered a new relationship: the effect and cause relationship. An inverted cause and effect state. She is breathtakingly misinformed, ignorant and unable to convey a well formed thought. All at the same time.
Besides, who cares about history? As the decider in chief once said about history, and I paraphrase, "…history? We'll all be dead."
And, this is certainly not the first time she has formulated—then spit out—such an insipid set of remarks. She inspires less than zero confidence in the manner in which she speaks, and the ideas which she offers. From a trained broadcaster with a degree in sports journalism? Please…
And, "…doesn’t matter at this point …what caused it."
Sure, because after all, understanding cause and effect has nothing at all to do with finding a solution to the issue. Can I say this 'on national TV?' How damned STUPID is this woman anyway? Seriously!
October 1st, 2008 at 10:18 amIs it just me?
Every time I hear that voice, I long for the sound of fingernails scraping on a blackboard.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:18 amShe doesn't really have a clue when she claims once again to have special knowledge of global warming because of Alaska's location. Yes it is harder to deny the reality of global warming when your glaciers are melting. Governors of agricultural states have a major issue as well given the gradual migration of ecosystems in reaction to climate change. I would also have major concerns if I governed a coastal state or a sunbelt state with growing population and existing water issues. That covers just about everyone. Kind of wonder how she thinks she can deal with the issue if she doesn't know or care about the cause.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am#23
If that's the case does that mean in 1934 Shirley Temple being a "fresh face" would have qualified to be president in
October 1st, 2008 at 10:21 am1934?
Y'know... now that you mention it...
October 1st, 2008 at 10:21 amPalin reportedly said, “I’m not an Al Gore
She got one thing right.
Al Gore would never have invaded Iraq and we would not be in the middle of a financial meltdown right now if he had been elected.
I'm tired of the "it's spilt milk-lets move on" attitude from the right. They caused these problems, they need to be held responsible for them.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:22 am#31
No. It never dawned on me.
(sarcasm off now)
October 1st, 2008 at 10:23 amShe's like the American Idol of VP choices.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am@ 28:
Oh, no - it's not just you. I have repeatedly complained about her whiny, nasally voice. I am hoping that it is the 'secret weapon' which drives people screaming from the room to prevent the imminent explosion of their head.
When I hear her speak—which is, by the way, always a traumatic event—I find myself harkening back to the moment in Mars Attacks! where the alien's heads begin to explode…
October 1st, 2008 at 10:25 amactually, this made me even more nervous:
Calling into Hugh Hewitt (listen HERE), Palin said that the media is "just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying, 'You know what? It's time that normal Joe Sixpack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency,' and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they're out of sorts, and they're ticked off about it."
jeez... why do people even THINK they want a joe sixpack
October 1st, 2008 at 10:25 amin their government?
By nature of man's existence on the planet, we effect the temperature and climate. Every element of the Earth has an effect.
The question is how much of an effect.
If the effect is significant enough to cause substantial changes that are detrimental to the quality of life (or survival) for humans and more generally the entire planet, those effects should be mitigated as best we can.
If we are unsure about how significant human impact is, we should err on the side of caution, and attempt to limit the impact as best we can.
But, the limits to personal liberty and amount of government empowerment should have some relation to how confident we are that man's contributions are significant.
That seems to be the argument. How significant is the problem. And from that determination, how much power do we give the government to fix it.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:27 amAh, no, actually, kinda does matter. If man is partially responsible, along with the weather - and weather is made by God, then man should likely do something to correct whatever it is it is doing to exacerbate the effects of God's weather plan for humans.
After all, the main victims of global warming will soon be humans. As a pro-lifer (human life at any cost), she should be against any cost benefit analysis related to saving human life - life should always win. Therefore, curb bad human practices and you can do your part for God. After all, only God can change the weather - humans can change the other part - their part.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:31 amI'm pretty sure that Palin is one of those "young earth" types of Christianists which kind of contradicts her "world’s weather patterns are cyclical" meme because each of those cycles goes for thousand's of years. This would be a very interesting line of questioning to explore, don't you think?
October 1st, 2008 at 10:32 amLOL, I was going to say something, but Michael Lafferty beat me to it and probably did a better job then I would have.
You know, this isn’t just a matter of someone mixing up half-remembered talking points, or saying stupid things just to avoid telling the truth, ala Bush/Gonzalez.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:34 amThis person is just freaking stupid.
backup Says:
As usual, you're full of it. It has been well established that we are contributing to it. Most forward thinking nations have made moves to address it together......we are the holdouts along with China.....aren't we proud?
Thanks to bush
October 1st, 2008 at 10:34 amYou what's scariest of all: if McTurd wins and this brainless twit becomes prez.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:37 ambackup Says:
But, the limits to personal liberty and amount of government empowerment should have some relation to how confident we are that man’s contributions are significant.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
______
What do limits to personal liberty and government empowerment have to do with the scientific consensus? Climate scientists are sure with 95% confidence that human activity is the primary driver of the increase in greenhouse gases, which in turn is causing worldwide temperature shifts.
Nobody (except conservative science deniers) is talking about limiting personal liberty. Nobody (except conservative science deniers) is talking about new world order government. Nobody (except conservative science deniers) is talking about downgrading our technology back to the Stone Age.
We are, however, talking about government, the private sector, and individuals doing the things they need to do to reduce CO2 emissions. For government, that'll be a combination of industry regulation, tax incentives, and subsidies. For the private sector, that'll be technology development and energy efficiency. For individuals, that'll be conservation measures.
We don't have to lose personal liberties - we just need to make better choices.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:42 amWhat ever happened to those folks that used to drop by ever climate thread to explain that no such condition existed and it is all just a leftist hoax. I miss them...
October 1st, 2008 at 10:46 amBackup,
Your personal freedom to mess up this planet ends where my personal freedom right to live on it begins.
Deal with it.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:47 amZooey Says:
Is it just me?
Every time I hear that voice, I long for the sound of fingernails scraping on a blackboard.
not just you...
what's interesting, is the repugs who would always complain about hillary's voice, they just loves this idjit...
October 1st, 2008 at 10:49 amUgh, take out the word "right" in #45. Lordy...
October 1st, 2008 at 10:49 amI think Al Gore has done a great job of creating environmental awareness. I support the efforts to make it a 'greener' planet. The world is heading in a better direction.
But more money and more power in the hands of government is not always the best thing. Appropriate levels of empowerment should be the goal.
If you consider Noam Chomsky's idea of 'manufactured consent' in a democracy, you could make the argument that Bush used (or overstated) the fear of terrorism and urgency as a necessary illusion to manufacture consent for the war in Iraq. The fear and urgency was used to increase the power of the government.
The environment may be a different issue. And I have suggested that the response should be in relation to the significance of the problem. But, I think that many that resist the climate change arguments, are concerned that the issue could be overstated to promote government empowerment that is out of relation to the significance of the problem.
For example. There is information that human activity impacts the climate. Maybe there is information that inconclusive or contradicts the premise. The concern is that (not unlike the criticisms of the rush into the Iraq war) that leaders will cherry pick information (intel) and exaggerate the threat (climate catastrophe) to create the necessary illusion to manufacture consent to support inordinate government empowerment. If people are scared enough, they will surrender liberty and power to governments to address the issue without much debate or deliberation.
I think that government empowerment is reasonable, if it is in relation to the significance of the problem.
Again, that's the issue. How significant is the problem. I'm not sure we really know how big a problem it is, but it signals the need for more (not less) debate, and information while we formulate an appropriate response.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:00 amJust think where the country would be today if Palin had been Bush's pick for VP?
October 1st, 2008 at 11:04 amPALIN: "Kinda doesnt matter what caused it. The point is its real and we need to do something about it."
It doesnt matter? What the hell is wrong with her?
October 1st, 2008 at 11:05 amFlailin is the Gov of one of the states that will continue to have the most impact from climate change and in her words "it kinda doesn't matter".
If I was one of her constituents, whether she won in November or not, I would work very very hard to get her recalled and thrown out as CEO of my state.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:06 amLike a good Republican, Palin takes pride in her ignorance.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:09 amBush has proven that to be true. Democrats however do much different things with that same money and America does benifit.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:10 ambackup says:
If people are scared enough, they will surrender liberty and power to governments to address the issue without much debate or deliberation.
You mean like YOUR regime did to this country with all the loss of freedom and destruction of the Constitution under the excuse of "national security"?
How's that working out for you, b/u?
October 1st, 2008 at 11:10 amKlem Kiddilehopper Says
October 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
Just think where the country would be today if Palin had been Bush’s pick for VP?
____________________________________________________________
Hmmm...that's a tough one. Conventional wisdom has it that most of the evil generated by the Bush administration has been partly or totally due to the machinations of Cheney. If Bush didn't have Cheney's hand up his a$$, he would collapse like an off-duty puppet.
Now, if we had somebody clueless in the veep spot instead of somebody competently evil, we would have two people at the top just wandering aimlessly. Things would probably be just as f*(ked up.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:10 amWhat do you expect from someone who believes man and dinasaur walked together 5000 years ago???
Someone should ask her where oil and gas come from...
October 1st, 2008 at 11:20 ambackup Says:
If you consider Noam Chomsky’s idea of ‘manufactured consent’ in a democracy, you could make the argument that Bush used (or overstated) the fear of terrorism and urgency as a necessary illusion to manufacture consent for the war in Iraq. The fear and urgency was used to increase the power of the government.
The environment may be a different issue.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
The environment is indeed a different issue. There is one key difference between climate science and anti-terror intelligence: transparency.
The science behind the worldwide consensus on climate change is available openly to the public. The consensus documents and the published studies that contributed to them have all been subjected to rigorous peer-review, and are open to comment and criticism - that's how the climate models and projections have been refined over the past few decades. The policy isn't driving the science (except when BushCo tried to muzzle James Hansen and the EPA). The fear and urgency is coming from studies that you and I can read for ourselves.
With the pre-Iraq intelligence, the administration held all the cards. There was no consensus, there was no peer review (well, unless you count the CIA completely trashing all the unreliable evidence the Bush Administration used to justify the invasion). The decision to go to war came first, and the intelligence was fixed around the policy. The Administration held all the information and lied about it, in order to create a false sense of fear and urgency.
A little skepticism is reasonable, and I agree that we should always make note of who profits and who is lobbying for any policy, be it war, taxes, diplomacy, or environment. But we shouldn't be so blinded by skepticism that we let it paralyze us into inaction.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am"I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate..."
Am I the only one who thinks she got her thoughts backwards? She meant "I'm not going to blame climate change on man's activities".
Which Repub said it was an insult to Dan Quayle to compare her to Quayle? Dick Morris?
So if someone tried to explain to her how we have records of CO2 and the Earth's temperature for the past 400,000----she couldn't listen because believe's it is only 6,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs. Keith Olbermann (no relation) stole my "She thinks The Flintsones was a documentary" joke.
Zooey, I can't take her voice much longer, either. Don't know what I'd do if the Republican machines said the Republicans won again!
October 1st, 2008 at 11:23 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
Now, if we had somebody clueless in the veep spot instead of somebody competently evil, we would have two people at the top just wandering aimlessly. Things would probably be just as f*(ked up.
_________
Could be worse, mhm... a couple of clueless whack jobs like Botch & "the lovely Sarah" could have easily decided, in a moment of Christian zeal, that the right thing to do was "bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb Iran"... 'cause it was God's will!!!
October 1st, 2008 at 11:25 amBackup, you act like alternative energy is evil. Most people would think it a good thing.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:26 amPolls: Obama leads in critical trio of states
By LIZ SIDOTI (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
October 01, 2008 6:52 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - Recently trailing or tied, Democrat Barack Obama now leads Republican John McCain in a trio of the most critical, vote-rich states five weeks before the election, according to presidential poll results released Wednesday.
The Democrat's support jumped to 50 percent or above in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania in Quinnipiac University surveys taken during the weekend...
The new surveys show Obama leading McCain in Florida 51 percent to 43 percent, in Ohio 50 percent to 42 percent and in Pennsylvania 54 percent to 39 percent.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:30 amGee... ya think?
I never looked at it that way before. Thanks, B-cup!
October 1st, 2008 at 11:30 amIf you believe that there is no jeopardy in loss of liberty, consider this investigation by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7436263.stm
It's only one example. But, many complain about today's U.S. economic environment. Jobs are going to India and money is going to China. Carbon credit trading has been promoted to deal with climate change. Millions of dollars are being transfered from developed world (U.S.) companies, to developing world (Indian and Chinese) companies.
More U.S. money is going to China and India. Won't it make it more difficult for U.S. companies to be profitable (contribute to GDP, provide jobs, etc) if they have to transfer their capital to developing world under the premise of climate change?
If the governments make wise decisions, I'm in agreement. But a blank check, without deliberate debate (and scrutiny), could have serious economic consequences without much impact on climate change.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:31 amsquidbilly Says:
Someone should ask her where oil and gas come from…
Squid, Squid,
We all know the answer to that question: .......... G O D !!!!
October 1st, 2008 at 11:33 amceltic cynic Says:
She’s right, it really doesn’t make any difference as to cause. However, mankind has the ability to lessen it’s contribution to the problem and to effect solutions to the problem.
===============================================================
The cause does matter, which is why its one of the most heated debates in politics right now. For someone who may be running the country someday, I would hope to think they care about the cause so they can carry out proper legislation.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:34 amIt doesn't matter ?
Yet, at the heart of her church's beliefs is the fact that if one is causing wrong, it definitely matters and they are expected to change their wrong actions.
Or from a simple engineering viewpoint, if one is adding a force to a system which is detrimental, one can decrease or stop that force.
In other words, is Palin saying we can't change ? If so, sounds rather cynical.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:35 amThere is capital and jobs in alternative energy. And a new grid is needed.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:35 amralph the wonder llama Says:
I never looked at it that way before. Thanks, B-cup!
Mr. Llama, I thought it was obvious. And I hope that's not short for "Buttercup"!
October 1st, 2008 at 11:40 amDid someone here say they believed "there is no jeopardy in loss of liberty"?
I think maybe you're confusing us with your Redstate pals, B-cup.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:42 ambackup Says:
If the governments make wise decisions, I’m in agreement. But a blank check, without deliberate debate (and scrutiny), could have serious economic consequences without much impact on climate change.
What's your point? Is it that maybe kinda sorta we don't know that human activity is the primary influence on current climate change? Or that government can't be relied upon to make the right decisions about how to deal with human activity? Because the point of this thread is A. B is just one of your trips down "what-if" land that drift off-topic.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am(pssst, Keith... I was being sarcastic. Don't tell B-cup.)
October 1st, 2008 at 11:43 amKeith. I think alternative energy is a great thing. Like most people here, I'd like to see an end to the dependence on oil and more reliance on cleaner alternatives. (Although, I probably support nuclear energy more than most here).
I support most of the initiatives of the 'greens'. I think we can do a lot to improve the environment and leave the world a better cleaner place for our neighbors and our kids.
The only resistance I have is, the issue being used for purposes that have little to do with making the world greener.
For example. 5 or 6 years ago, Republicans and Democrats alike promoted ethanol as a means for energy independence and a means to combat global warming.
I believe, ethanol had little to do with either. I believe the promotion of ethanol was pork for the farm lobby.
In retrospect, many are now backing away from ethanol as a practical solution to our energy needs. And many sight the ethanol promotion as raising food prices.
If we all submit to the idea that climate change is predominately caused by man, and that there will be apocalyptic consequences unless we significantly increase government empowerment (without deliberation and debate), the concern is, government will be given a blank check to pursue it's priorities, regardless of their effectiveness or there benefit in relation to the sacrifice.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:49 ambackup Says:
More U.S. money is going to China and India. Won’t it make it more difficult for U.S. companies to be profitable (contribute to GDP, provide jobs, etc) if they have to transfer their capital to developing world under the premise of climate change?
October 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
_______
That's a regulation problem, not a climate change problem.
Companies, whether they're in New York or New Delhi, will always do whatever they can to game the system and maximize their own profits. Whether it be tax loopholes, lax labor lawa, lax environmental protections, or carbon credits. I think most progressives are in agreement that the concept behind carbon trading is a good transitional measure, but there are some inherent flaws in the system when (a) developing countries are allowed different emissions standards than developed countries, and (b) there is not a sufficient regulatory environment to ensure that projects being funded by offsets are being implemented correctly.
And again, carbon offsets and cap-and-trade are just a stopgap measure - ultimately, every country is going to need to reduce emissions if we want to preserve our species.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:52 ambackup Says:
carbon credit trading is just one idea. At least they are trying something.....if it doesn't work the way we want then we change it......you know, something logical.
How does what we are doing now stack up against it?
You seem to think doing nothing is better than moving forward and adjusting until we get somthing to work.
Why would we need to oursource our jobs if we could manufacture items here without damaging the ecosystem. Oh yeah, we want slave labor too don't we.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:55 amgummitch. Progressives have been declaring the debate over for quite some time. I suggest that most agree that the world is getting warmer. And that man plays some role. That's not what I believe the debate is.
I said it before, the issue is how significant.
And I think there's a disconnect. If someone is opposed to climate change, progressives may think that opposition is a denial that the planet is getting warmer or that man has any role.
I believe those that oppose the idea of climate change, oppose the idea because of their concern that the issue will be used for an inordinate empowerment of government that often proves to be poor stewards of capital and often the engineers of even more painful unintended consequences.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:57 ambackup Says:
For example. 5 or 6 years ago, Republicans and Democrats alike promoted ethanol as a means for energy independence and a means to combat global warming.
I believe, ethanol had little to do with either. I believe the promotion of ethanol was pork for the farm lobby.
In retrospect, many are now backing away from ethanol as a practical solution to our energy needs. And many sight the ethanol promotion as raising food prices.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:49 am
______
You're right - corn ethanol was a gift to the corn lobby, and a bandwagon many people on both sides of the aisle jumped on. The problem is not so much with the use of ethanol, but with our entire conventional agricultural system, which is dependant on government subsidies, fossil fuels, and dumping of surplus food on developing countries.
The global food crisis is happening not because corn ethanol is reducing the supply of corn - there's no shortage of corn, or other staples. It's because market speculation over the increase in demand is causing traders to bid up the price of corn, while at the same time we and Europe have been pressuring developing countries to stop growing corn themselves and accept our cheap imports. Countries whose economies used to be based on agriculture, and who were once able to feed themselves, are now dependent on our expensive corn dumping.
Any attempt to blame environmentalists for this problem is just grandstanding.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pmFred, you make a good point. But, let me use the bailout as an example.
Most people understand there's a problem, but there seem to be a lot of disagreement as to the solution.
Maybe you don't feel this way, but many have made the case the instead of going off half cock; acting prematurely to satisfy the need for action; we should proceed deliberately.
We should not let the urgency that's been created, cause us to make inappropriate decisions.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pmbackup Says:
We should not let the urgency that’s been created, cause us to make inappropriate decisions.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Duh.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pmbackup Says:
I believe those that oppose the idea of climate change, oppose the idea because of their concern that the issue will be used for an inordinate empowerment of government that often proves to be poor stewards of capital and often the engineers of even more painful unintended consequences.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
______
And I believe those that oppose the idea of climate change oppose the idea of the oil industry no longer raking in record profits. Which is exactly why the Petroleum Institute has been working so hard over the past decade to inject "reasonable doubt" into the consensus of climate scientists and artificially keep the debate going.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pmAnd how many times do these same people have to be proven to be wrong for you to get that they have a different agenda than that altogether?
How much more engineering of a failed economy and war do you need to see to know that these people do not know how to solve any societal problem......they are in fact, the problem.
You're not making any sense this morning captain. You act like the right has honerable intentions....please.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pmWho the hell are you talking to? The republicans are the ones who cry "crisis" and use it to proceed to do illogical and non-productive things.
When dems have been faced with crisis that was genuine they have acted sensibly.....do I need to cite examples or will you concede the obvious point?
October 1st, 2008 at 12:13 pmBackedup farts:
Again, that’s the issue. How significant is the problem
The ACTUAL issue here is this, Backedup: What about Palin's "answer" makes you think she has any depth of knowledge concerning the environment and climate change? Does the role of humankind "kinda" not matter in assessing the severity of the problem?
What's your reaction to Palin's statement - the actual topic of the thread. Do you agree that an evaluation of causal effect DOES matter, or is something like that an insignificant detail to you like it appears to be to Palin?
October 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pmFred says:
You’re not making any sense this morning captain. You act like the right has honerable intentions….please.
This is totally backedup's only SCHTICK. I also loves how he completely whiffs on connecting the actual topic of the post - Palin's view on global warming - and starts his side debate on how we should act deliberately here. Thanks for the words of wisdom backedup - you're truly a class clow...er...act.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pmTweedster. Palin's comments over the last 2-3 weeks have caused me to question her fitness to be the President in the event McCain is incapacitated, This is another less than savvy example.
I'm still keeping an open mind, but if I had to vote today, I'd vote Biden/Obama in part because of Palin's comments, her fundamentalist religious views, and most importantly Obama's near flawless execution in this campaign in comparison to McCain's less impressive efforts. I straddle the fence on ideological grounds.
But, up to now, Obama has proven to be the better choice for me.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pmtoasterhead. I've had a chance to go back and read your comments. This comment is very reasonable and I agree with it.
The only additional comment I would make is this:
If progressives really want skeptics on board (to live greener, support greener legislation, etc), it might be more productive to overcome the prevalent concerns about big government.
I could be wrong, but I don't really think deniers doubt the planet is getting warmer or that man plays a role. I think the denial is resistance to their concerns about loss of liberty and too much government control. Whether those concerns are rational or not.
Beating deniers over the head by insisting on the science (you're not doing that, but it does happen) may make sense to proponents, but I think it's unproductive. A more productive avenue to get the skeptics onboard is to assure them that the role of government would be limited, scrutiny will be ongoing, the power would remain with the people, and the side benefits of addressing climate change would be a cleaner environment, even in the remote circumstance that the threat from climate change was overestimated.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pmAnd if you don't care what caused global warming, then "doing something about it" is going to work...how?
October 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm.
Kinda doesn't matter that we influence the cause of global warming...
... Well, at least that's what Sarah meant.
I mean, if we don't care to know what's causing it, how the he|| is Sarah supposed to affect any change...
... Oh my bad, with prayer?
.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pmPalin: "I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate...."
I don't know about you, but when it's 100 °F outside, I do take off my sweater. Granted, that's not my only activity, but that is indeed a direct consequence....
Cheers,
October 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pmWell, Hilary's voice always had content, that's what scares them. Uppity women!
October 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pmbackup Says:
Keith, I think alternative energy is a great thing. Like most people here, I’d like to see an end to the dependence on oil and more reliance on cleaner alternatives. (Although, I probably support nuclear energy more than most here).
Do you think liberal rule for the past 28 years has prevented new nuclear plants? Or is it because nuclear is the most expensive source of electricity and it produces waste that stays extremely hazardous for over 4 billion years? What exactly is the cost of storing the waste for four billion years? Round up or down to the nearest quadrillion dollars.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pmWhen she said Alaska is the state most affected by global warming - I just thought- she doesn't read newspapers since she never heard of New Orleans, Texas, Florida, Missisippi Katrina, IKE, etc.... clueless
October 1st, 2008 at 9:37 pmCor Blimey, California's 1500 wildfires recently can be attributed to global warming.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:34 pmWhat arrogance or should I say audacity!!!! to think that global climate cycles are all man made, as Couric implies, or which is touted by Al Gore...the NOBEL PRIZE winner. It requires a moron to believe that the spec of your existance is going to help or hinder the greater laws of the universe.
Sarah Palin is RIGHT to think that man's effect on the planet is only a small factor in the larger understanding of global climate. God controls the world's temperature, not man. God controls the climate, not man. God controls the earth's "eco-system," not man. God controls our environment, not man.
Man is a sinful, selfish, wasteful creature...do you really think that God did not factor in the 20th century?
October 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pmYes! She is right! If you really think that Global Warming is endorsed by scientists try research. Or you can continue thinking that Al Gore invented the internet and only tells the truth!
October 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pmWhen I read these comments I can't believe some people are so blind, do you really think that wildfires are caused by global warming? Do you really believe there were no weather catastrophe's before Al Gore invented Global Warming, just like he invented the internet? Try researching! If a million people believe a wrong hypothesis does it make it right? Mainstream Media is 90% liberal fully endorsing Obama without examining anything about him and afraid to use his middle name. Nazi Germany believed in their Messiah - Hitler without fully understanding his agenda.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
October 21st, 2008 at 10:45 pmThis rebirth of Calamity Jane is making America a laughing stock in the world. A country proclaiming to be the greatest and to lead the world having such a poor political specimen running for such high office. Watching this farce play out is like being in some sort of sick dream. After enduring 8 years of George the Chimp, the lies, the ineptitude and no brainers that have led to a major world financial crisis. Are the American people that dumb as to want an old man (no disrespect intended to old age, just being realistic)and a nutter who believes the world is 8000 years old and fiddles her expenses. The world might lighten up a little if Sarah were consigned to being featured as the subject of a newspaper comic strip after failing in this bid for glory, after all, Peanuts and Snoopy are recognized and loved around the world and so could Lobotomy Lil, but not as VP. Perish the thought.
wonderwoman2 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I read these comments I can’t believe some people are so blind, do you really think that wildfires are caused by global warming? Do you really believe there were no weather catastrophe’s before Al Gore invented Global Warming, just like he invented the internet? Try researching! If a million people believe a wrong hypothesis does it make it right? Mainstream Media is 90% liberal fully endorsing Obama without examining anything about him and afraid to use his middle name. Nazi Germany believed in their Messiah - Hitler without fully understanding his agenda.
I'm guessing you watch Fox News right?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm