Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palin Continues to Question Human Role in Global Warming

By Juliet Eilperin
In an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric Tuesday night, GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin continued to question humans' contribution to global warming.

Palin's repeated suggestion that humans may not be responsible for recent climate change ranks as one of her clearest policy differences with GOP presidential nominee John McCain, and contradicts the view of most scientists. While she emphasized her shared commitment to addressing global warming impacts in her interview with Couric, Palin emphasized the cyclical nature of the world's climate rather than the role greenhouse gas emissions play in driving climate change.

"What's your position on global warming?" Couric asked. "Do you believe it's man-made or not?"

"Well, we're the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska," the governor replied. "So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I've done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And..."

Couric pressed the point. "Is it man-made, though in your view?"

But Palin framed her reply in terms of global warming's impacts, rather than its root causes. "You know there are -- there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts," she said. "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 history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it."

By Web Politics Editor  |  October 1, 2008; 8:49 AM ET
Categories:  Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Veterans Group Hits Obama on Afghanistan and Iraq
Next: A Sarcastic and Combative McCain Greets Iowa Editors

Comments

I'm sorry but that Palin is ignorant is revealed in her last sentence and rationale:

"But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it."

We can't do anything about it, unless we know what is causing it, and WE KNOW that it is green house gasses, or at least that they are a MAJOR contributor, and WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING about reducing them. In other words, the main debate is over.

If it were cyclical only, for goodness sake, there just isn't much we could do.

Conversion to electric vehicles is imperative, along with building a new industry in solar, wind, and probably nuclear.

Even if we drill every square mile of the U.S. for oil, the refining of petrol products, and the use of them, is incredibly polluting, as the population grows, and the earth gets more polluted and warmer. We have to lead in clean energies, to make new jobs here, and also help lead India, China etc. away from oil.

Posted by: MrGrug | October 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Essex1 - Good post. Thank you.

The following is for feastorafamine.

feastorafamine wrote- "There is NO conspiracy, there is no collective effort by the ENTIRE scientific community to pull the wool over our eyes. Data, empirical data, is TRUTH."

"If you are debating that global warming has not been man made or worsened by man then you are simply an ideological IDIOT. PERIOD.
IDIOT get it?"

OK. You are right. Man caused the earth to heat up. I bend to the your logic of mass appeal. I sure thought the sun heated the earth. But I guess I was wrong all along. James Hansen had been telling me for all those years that soot in the atmosphere settling on the ice in the arctic caused decreased albeto effect and melting. Now it is carbon dioxide. I see.

Now if I can get my hands on a Hybrid vehicle I'll save the world. Maybe I should buy that new green labeled toilet paper. I'll bet someone in China would be willing to sequester my lifetime of carbon dioxide emissions for a really cheap price. I'll register on the Climate Registry and pay for my carbon sins. I'll have to find an ISO/ANSI Certified carbon dioxide reporter to confirm my emissions, then follow-up with a separate ISO/ANSI Certified carbon dioxide Verifier. Once I complete paying these guys their fee and continueing to pay every year to stay in compliance with California Air regulations I'll have to research the new EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act promulgated from the recent Supreme Court Ruling concerning the EPA's resposibility to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Whew!!! I am on a role. I'll pay and pay until I feel better. When do you think we will get a return on this investment in carbon dioxide reductions? When can I see results? Oh, I have to have faith that the results will be forthcoming in the future. Faith, and Just wait and see. The temperature will start trending down soon. I am sure it will.

Maybe, just maybe we can reduce the skin and atmosphere temperature of this planet with plenty of prayer to the alter of Gore and the UN.

Do the math fool it is impossible no matter what we do. We can have no impact on temperature. Mass of atmosphere plus near surface crust. Do the math to show amount of energy needed to shift this cycle. 0.0384% carbon dioxide in atmosphere

Now "air quality" is another subject, and a reason we can all rally around. By the way the US has the best air quality of any industrialized nation because of the clean air act. If you want to reduce soot from burning of coal and bunker type oils I am in.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Thank-you Sarah Palin-- your no-nonsense style of common sense is refreshing. You make it almost bearable to hold my nose and vote republican this year.

Posted by: Essex1 | October 1, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

-----------------------
AMEN!
Ignorance is refreshing!
This may account for why i read your posting with such glee.

You call yourself a scientist? What organization do you work for? Have you been a part of any studies related to global climate change? So in your EDUCATED opinion you have the "true reality" whic is in extreme conflict with a near total consensus in the scientific community that man is having a negative impace global climate? So nearly every scientific body on the planet is wrong and you are right?
Do you understand the reason this article was written in the first place was to point out Palin's foolish and ignorant viewpoint? You DO realise this is what makes this news-worthy right? Do you see the irony in your defense and agreement with her position? I do and boy is it hysterical

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 1, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

As a scientist and engineer (with more years than I care to count) I have examined the science and politics of global warming and have come to the conclusion that the 1) earth is currently in a warming cycle, 2) that the contribution by humans is insignificant, and 3) I believe it is being exploited by globalists to ultimately extend control over mankind worldwide. Global warming proponents include mainly the naive, the self-centered opportunists, or the fanatics of the Church of Gaia. Sarah Palin's response was essentially correct. NO ONE expects that anything humans do can will stop the earth from warming up (or cooling down), just as it has done since long before we were here. If all human life vanished from the earth tomorrow there would be no discernable impact on the climate. If you live at sea level you should have a Plan B in the works that includes more elevation. If you live on a farm in western South Dakota, you better be prepared for droughts, tornados, floods, and blizzards. This has always been true. Global warming as an issue has but one purpose-- to serve as the next great tax base to impose on all of mankind. Thank-you Sarah Palin-- your no-nonsense style of common sense is refreshing. You make it almost bearable to hold my nose and vote republican this year.

Posted by: Essex1 | October 1, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Teaching Constitutional Law and graduating from Harvard with honors trumps being mayor of a town ONE THIRD the size of the Xcel Energy Center (site of the RNC) and governor of a state with the population of a midwest suburb.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

ONCE AND FOR ALL...........
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, NO REMAINING SCIENTIFIC BODY OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING IS KNOWN TO REJECT THE BASIC FINDINGS OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

There is NO conspiracy, there is no collective effort by the ENTIRE scientific community to pull the wool over our eyes. Data, empirical data, is TRUTH.

If you are debating that global warming has not been man made or worsened by man then you are simply an ideological IDIOT. PERIOD.
IDIOT get it?
Is it any wonder that thse who refute landslides of data are GOP nitwits? This isnt a political issue but somehow they made it one. Yet another hitch the GOP has tied its wagon to that further iscolates their policies from reality.

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 1, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer:
"It is well known that the less a person knows, the more they THINK they know."

Given the posts by "AgnosticEngineer" that I've read so far, by his logic then he must really know even less than most folks on here :o).

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh and re-reading your post, I just realized you did answer that by sticking with geology. Thank you.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

wunderwood

If you need convincing evolution is real and Jurassic Park was a great movie.

Recently paleontologists have extracted DNA from soft tissue bone marrow of preserved fossils that have been sitting in museum collections for years.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

wunderwood -

The moving of the frost line 200 miles south in Florida was mentioned because whenever there is an event or series of events that fits the preconceived AGW paramenters it is thrust out as proof of AGW. media, IPCC, "The Regional Impacts of Climate Change", "Climate Change 2007 - A Synthesis Report", USCCSP "Our Changing Planet" all use warming examples and ignore cooling areas. Read any of these. They are ridiculous. They read like Relevations and are as ridiculous.

This is called "Cherry Picking" and is nonsense for sole purpose of creating fear of observable changes that prove global warming emergency to "common folk". "Common Folk" see through this and say they whole ball of wax is nothing but garbage.

"Just the facts Mame." Its shows the desperation and need to connect fear with slightly elevated temperatures. There is an aparent need to push the extreme view of weather to get the public to bite.

The truth is always the best path without "Cherry Picking" stories.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

OK, I owe you an apology for the emotional content I added to some of this. You have given contradictory statements and applied a liberal dose (you should pardon the expression) of cynical icing. That got me going, but I shouldn't blame you for being honest about it, even if it is a cynical form of honesty.

However, you implied that global warming is NOT real, just a fraud by the IPCC, when you talked about frost in Florida, then several messages later revealed that you know it is real. You tell us that scientists are lying to us in order to further themselves financially and then tell us that you intend to do the same thing.

KNOW THIS: I hated the Reagan/Bush era of runaway deficits, cynical attitudes about govermnent programs, and lowered moral standards (first divorced prez family values?), but I didn't "sell out" and join the party. If *you* believe you are right about this issue and you consider yourself a scientist, I strongly suggest that you should stand your ground and not lie to others. You accuse Sarah Palin of lying about this in order to win an election. I find that belief objectionable. I think she honestly believes what she is saying but that she is just wrong. You should continue advocacy against anthropogenic global warming, if that is what you believe to be the truth. Just drop the silly comments about frostlines in Florida since they contribute only confusion.

Oh and you never told me which other scientific fields are doing this same cynical manipulation of data. Are dinosaurs real? I am worried that I got fooled by Jurassic Park! What radio astronomy or chemistry?

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

wunderwood - Intersting diversionary technique. I have not seen that one. As a geologist I am only discussing this field that I work in everyday. A demeaning politically motivated charade is not the point of my comments. Just passing on what I know.

I work in Florida as a consultant and was invited to talk to oil companies in Texas concerning the possibility of sinkholes in Florida during the run up to electric deregulation here in Florida. When I was in the Enron building during that trip it was public knowledge that they were trading in Cap and Trade Schemes all around the world and planning others. Posters on the walls when you got out of the elevators showed details of their plans for carbon dioxide Cap and Trade schemes including pumping carbon dioxide back down old well fields to recover more natural gas from gas fields. Sequestration.

The scheme was outlined as a plan to get paid by world energy users to pull carbon dioxide from the air and pressurize their old wellfields. Win win scenario for them.

I have watched as the hysteria has grown to this conversation we are having today. It is mind boggling to me that we as a society are so easy to control and rip off.

I repeat that $120 Billion dollars a year of new revenue is estimated by congressional budget office when this Cap and Trade scheme is kicked off next year. This will be paid in our energy bills and everything we buy as lifetime energy use is calculated and everything is given a carbon footprint.

I predict that not long in the future even our children will be given a carbon footprint and parents will have to pay a tax with each newborn child based on their expected carbon production over their lifetime.

Again I say, "Water is next." You may not care where you pay for your perceived sins, but I do.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh and btw, CommonSense123, you aren't off the hook on the more important question. Aside from explaining why you bothered us with the frost in Florida nonsense, since you are claiming you knew global warming was real all along, you need to tell us which other branches of science are just lining their own pockets as you so gleefully intend to do.

This picture you paint for us doesn't pass the smell test. You casually single out this field, because it fits your politics. But in order to be credible, you need to explain why we shouldn't just throw ALL SCIENCE out the window if the world scientific community peer-reviewed journals can be so easily compromised.

Is evolution real? Peer-reviewed journals say so. Did dinosaurs walk the earth millions of years ago or is this just a fraud by cynical pocket lining scientists? Is this international scheme to get research dollars (or yen or euros) just about global warming? What about other fields of scientific research? Why should we trust any of them?

So, please explain the need for your "frost in Florida" comment since you know global warming is real. And please explain why this type of "scientific hoax" is limited to just global warming. Or IS it???

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for noticing me. However, why did you trot out the BS about frost in Florida if you believe global warming is REAL?

You are starting to sound like a bit of a troll here. WHY MENTION FROST IN FLORIDA?

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

wunderwood, ndependent4tw, AgnosticEngineer

Global warming yes. Caused by man no.

However, as I said before the argument has already been won in the court of public opinion. Your guys won. It took twenty years, but your side has won. Over 75% of people surveyed by Pew Charitable Trust believe their is man made global warming. I know I am in a minority, but I also know I am right. I, like Sarah Palin, also know when to say "If you can not beat them join them."

I'll also make quite a bit of money while I am joining. There is no stopping this economy from emerging now except maybe a global bank meltdown. Reducing carbon dioxide won't seem very important if we have 15% unemployment.


Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Damn, CommonNonsense123, would you please read the "Posted By" line? You are continuously replying to my posts here.

AGAIN I ASK: How many other fields of science do you suggest we hang alongside climatologists and geologists that are sucking at the trough with bad science just to get research grants?

You have accused scientific organizations across 30 countries, including the US, of conspiring to create this false hysteria over MEASURABLE data such as melting icecaps, etc.

AGAIN I ASK: What other branches of science are doing this? Are you singling out just this body of science? Are palentoligists creating fake dinosaur bones too? How deep is the rabbit hole?

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer - "CommonSense123, it is one thing to deny AGW (human caused global warming for those just joining us), but it is an entirely different issue to deny global warming entirely."

Katie, there you go again. Good try though.

AGW not true. Global warming is true based only on world wide borehole ground temperature increase averages of much less than atmospheric being repeated like gospel by you and others.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Commonsense,

You are not a scientist. Well I take that back, you could be a scientologist, that is close I guess.

There is no way that you took chemistry, physics, or biology without understanding the basic cycle of life and earth.

I think physics is the best science because its findings make every other science posible.

Would you argue that burning fossil fuels does nothing to the enviroment, not even a little bit? I guess you have to beleive that if yoiu do not beleive in global warming.

Do me a favor, go in your garage, and run your car with the door down. Tell if the air gets hot, or harder to breath.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"And just like the forty prisoners released from life in prison based new scientific DNA evidence I stand by my quote that "I and man did not cause global warming" Just like they professed their innocence in an cold dark jail cell for 20 years plus."

You can spin it however you want. Man did not create global warming, energy creating factories did. But wait, they are created and operated by man, so you are still wrong.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Ahem! If you are going to insult my lack of scientific background, at least get my handle right. It's wunderwood, not AgnosticEngineer.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer - In case you are not aware of the definition of Anthropogenic the definition is as follows:

Anthropogenic - effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

CommonSense123, it is one thing to deny AGW (human caused global warming for those just joining us), but it is an entirely different issue to deny global warming entirely.

Your earlier comments about frost in Florida, and such, were in support of the position that global warming is false. You claim that scientists are consipiring to get more grants instead of finding honest work.

I am just trying to determine how much of a chump you take us for. I thought that the only fringe positions left were for whether dumping unbelievable amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (increasing exponentially) was causing it or whether it was just "sunspots" or whatever the science-de-jour explanation was.

If you think that there is an international conspiracy to foist the lie of global warming on us regular joes, please let me know if I can trust cancer researchers, astronomers, chemical engineers, palentoligist, and all the other liberal intellectual elites out there. I am getting truly frightened!!!

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"You use the same argument all global warming deniers use including me;) It is a natural cycle. It is CommonSense."

Common sense is that everything has a cause and effect.

The global average temperature is directly related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Burning fossil fuels release more CO2 into the air that had previously been stored beneath the earth's crust.

More CO2 equals more temperature. How is this not commone sense to you?

Example. A fish tank is cloudy depending on how much particles are floating around. If you stir up the bottom of the fish tank, and release more particles of fish crap, does the fish tank get more or less cloudy?

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer - "CommonSense123 are you actually saying that GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE? Even Dubya came around on that one and the WMD in Iraq. How far out there are you?"

OK Katie. We are not on the air right now. I don't think you or your family caused global warming. It is a natural cycle with many overlapping cycles and effects including carbon dioxide and cow farts. Your rhetorical circle of questions is not enduring and I am sure you are not as cute as Katie.

As you well know, but are surely showing you lack of engineering education, this is not an argument of the presence or absence of a trend of increasing global temperature it is an argument of cause.

And just like the forty prisoners released from life in prison based new scientific DNA evidence I stand by my quote that "I and man did not cause global warming" Just like they professed their innocence in an cold dark jail cell for 20 years plus.

"Man is innocent!"

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer- "How can you say there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming in one comment, and then turn around and use it to attack some one else's comment?"

I did not say it, IPCC and all other scientist that agree with them say it. You said you agree with IPCC theory of anthropogenic global warming. The IPCC has only been pushing these two theories for 20 years. 1)Anthropogenic Global Warming, 2)Anthropogenic Caused Fresh Water Shortages

You are now a anthropogenic global warming denier based on your previous comment "The problem of fresh water is a natural one."

Read all of the IPCC publications. They all say the same thing.

You use the same argument all global warming deniers use including me;) It is a natural cycle. It is CommonSense.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

CommonSense123 are you actually saying that GLOBAL WARMING IS FALSE? Even Dubya came around on that one and the WMD in Iraq. How far out there are you?

More importantly, are you actually suggesting that other branches of science routinely scheme the way you accuse the world community of scientists warning us of global warming? Or is this an isolated cabal of money hungry researchers that has fooled all the peer-reviewed journals?

Just curious how deeply I need to go when suspecting all those intellectuals and scientists...

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"Your words not mine. IPCC disagrees with you. IPCC says anthropogenic global warming is causing fresh water shortages. They have been saying this for 20 years now."

How can you say there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming in one comment, and then turn around and use it to attack some one else's comment?

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer - "The problem of fresh water is a natural one."

Your words not mine. IPCC disagrees with you. IPCC says anthropogenic global warming is causing fresh water shortages. They have been saying this for 20 years now.

Your argument that "The problem of fresh water is a natural one." should also apply to global warming.

You are now a denier of anthropogenic caused global water shortages.

Katie Couric would have a field day with you.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer - We will be paying Cap and Trade dollars on our water and sending dollars overseas. Not sending water overseas.

Just like paying Cap and Trade dollars on our energy to offset Carbon Dioxide emissions. We won't be sending our emissions overseas. We will be sending dollars so they can sequester carbon dioxide for us.

Transfer of wealth not water.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

sorry for the off topic post about McCain and his fake support for regulating the mortgage industry. wrong forum. :(

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.[citation needed]

"The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

"Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

You claim that scientests are fudging data in order ot line their pockets. I find it more believable that people denying global warming have the financial interests. Research scientist do not collaborate and invent data to get grants. If you believe they do, then accuse them of this in every other scientific field from astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc. An argument that JUST scentists sounding the warning on global warming are suspect, is absurd.

You may, of course, dispute internet sources such as Wikipedia. Fire away.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"On a final note I repeat that water supply is next. IPCC has been beating this drum for twenty years as well. We will be taxed using another Cap and Trade "scheme" so that others in the world can have fresh water supplies at our expense."


You just busted yourself. You are NOT a scientist. The problem of fresh water is a natural one. Not enough rainfall mixed with growing rates of consumption equals widespread droughts. I suppose you are going to claim that Georgia was suffering a drought due to the shipment of water to other countries.

The issue is that if water is not locally available, it is prohibitively expensive. When the well runs dry, you have but days to find a new one. We need to reduce our consumption FOR OUR OWN SAKE. We are not planning to start shipping massive amounts of water overseas. We can't even handle relocating large amounts of water in our own country.

Do a little more research before playing scientist...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

ANOTHER McCain campaign LIE.

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

McCain claims to have cosponsored legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the Democrat minority "blocked" him.

John McCain sponsored this bill TEN MONTHS after it died in committee and more a year and a half after it was first submitted. He did NOTHING to revive the bill and is using this as an excuse for his efforts at regulation. This man has no shame.

Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and sarch for the bill S.190 for the 109th congress. There are 3 cosponsors. Two of them were real and one was fake.

COSPONSORS(3)
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"guess_who,

Very good point. Stupid people are easily to lead. Smart people make waves."


They always go after the intellectuals first. They are the ones that have both the ability to recognize what's going on and the capacity to formulate a response...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Wonderwood - Unlike most, I am a geologist that worked for years in a lab running deep ocean, shallow remote lake (sediment & mollusk) and ice core samples for isotope analysis. I have collected the samples, run the samples in the lab, and reviewed all the literature I can get my hands on. I am one of the peer review scientist often referenced in these type of blogs. I have seen the science and can tell you without any doubt that the anthropogenic global warming scare is a hoax. The science is just not precise enough to come to the conclusions that are currently being adopted as fact.

Cherry picking science is happening for political purposes to drive a "scheme" of Cap and Trade and Kyoto type "on paper" reductions. It is a forgone conclusion that IPCC has cornered the market on this Global Warming Hysteria. IPCC has beat this steady drum for 20 years straight staying on message and on task. They have won the day and the argument of public opinion. The debate of public opinion is over and won.

If you had been involved over the last 20 years and seen all the papers, presentations and publications you would have come to the same conclusion. Scientist do not work on polls and public opinion, but every politically motivated presentation out of Texas (geologic sequestration from oil companies), France and IPCC has always included a Pew Research poll on public opinion for the last 20 years. Those who have towed the line have gotten the research dollars and recognition. IPCC's, NCDC's, and Al Gores recent award is testimony and the icing on the cake

Having said that, I have come to the conclusion in my life to go with the flow and plan my career to make as much money as I can on this scheme. Others are doing the same. Sarah Palin is just the most recent convert to go with the flow. It is obvious in her comments.

My recommendation to all is to go to the Chicago Climate Exchange website and find a way in your life and career to latch onto this gravy train. The financial road ahead is sure to be a rough one, but there will be ample money flowing out of tax payers pockets and into this incredible baseless scheme.

On a final note I repeat that water supply is next. IPCC has been beating this drum for twenty years as well. We will be taxed using another Cap and Trade "scheme" so that others in the world can have fresh water supplies at our expense.

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and conserving water are laudable goals but use unscrupulous means to an end.

Why are IPCC, Pew, and others doing this? The answer is a simple one. To transfer wealth to the poor. Plain and simple guilt and forced charity. The church of the state.

$120 Billion a year will be collected in the US starting in 2010 and in full gear by 2012.

Money collected from these schemes will be transfered to third world countries in order to sequester our carbon dioxide emissions and pay for water projects.

Why again? So they can have more advanced societies and buy stuff.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"AgnosticEngineer, we didn't have a huge problem with Ronald Reagan divorcing Jane Wyman."


My point is that Republicans are the worst kind of hypocrites. They rail on and on about life, family, and country, yet seem to have a casual disregard for ALL of the above judging by the actions they take. They only say these things to manipulate people... and they are very good at it apparently...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"and for you real libbers the one who cry about a police state and your rights at free speach in mo they have the obama police if you speak aganst obama and they dont like what you say you get a trip to the slammer dint the same thing happen before the in 30s in germany the banks went bust inflation went up man rose up yelling of change and hope and anyone who spoke against him was arrested everone"

Let me translate for people that speak english:

"For you real liberals, the ones who complain about too much government control of your constitutional rights of speech, Obama will incarcerate you for speaking out against him. This is like Nazi Germany, where Hitler was given power because of the need to change the economy. Hitler arrested everyone that spoke out against him."

Sure, America is like Nazi Germany. I think you forgot the whole "constitution" thing that America has and Germany does not. Also, Germany did not have the balance of power system that America has. The president can not do anything without the permission of one of the other branches.

You should not be allowed to vote. I think there is a rule against "special" people voting.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

and for you real libbers the one who cry about a police state and your rights at free speach in mo they have the obama police if you speak aganst obama and they dont like what you say you get a trip to the slammer dint the same thing happen before the in 30s in germany the banks went bust inflation went up man rose up yelling of change and hope and anyone who spoke against him was arrested everone

Posted by: getsix1 | October 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

guess_who,

Very good point. Stupid people are easily to lead. Smart people make waves.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

i guess living in a cabin out in the sticks there are a lot of paperboys and newsstand at every tree. and why would she want to read libral crap for or spend money on paper exept maybe to lay it down in case the puppy needs to take a dump on it

Posted by: getsix1 | October 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Beside the McCain-Palin campaign, who else believed that a solid education (like Harvard law) are despicable signs of arrogance, elitism, "disconnected'ness", and therefore not something to encourage:
1. Stalinist soviet Union, killing all potential leaders of Poland upon invading this country with the Nazis: Katyn massacre
2. Mao's People Republic of China during its "cultural revolution" sending everybody with a diploma to the rice fields, and killing some in the process while driving the country to starvation in the subsequent years as it simply lacked leadership in all domains
3. Communist Red Khmer Cambodia, that killed millions of its citizens: those with a university degree.
Nice company! Granted, these folks were not content with attemtping to purge the libraries from undesirable books, along with the librarians...they succeeded in their attempts, and eventually proceeded in wiping out the library goers. One step at a time I guess?

Posted by: guess_who | October 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer, we didn't have a huge problem with Ronald Reagan divorcing Jane Wyman.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Another interesting set of polling numbers is the favorable/unfavorable ratings of the candidates. Here are the numbers from the latest Quinnipiac poll for a few key states.


McCain FL 52/39 PA 45/44 OH 49/40
Obama FL 58/33 PA 61/28 OH 54/32
Palin FL 36/39 PA 34/37 OH 35/35
Biden FL 47/27 PA 49/23 OH 38/27


Palin's numbers are not good news for the Republican ticket considering that after her convention speech she had a national fav/unfav rating of 60/12. I would expect a slight uptick in her favorable numbers after the debate — unless she makes a complete fool of herself which is improbable but not impossible — but it would take a miracle for her to rehabilitate herself to the point where she will begin to have any traction outside the extreme social conservative base of the Republican party. In other words she is a drag on the ticket, and I think will remain so.

Posted by: truthtopower40 | October 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"My apologies (in advance) to anyone who thought that last comment was too "Sarcastic and Combative"."

No offense taken. It is just surprising how much Republicans are willing to overlook.

Like McCain cheating on then ditching his handicapped wife for a younger, hotter (non-handicapped) rich girl.

Good thing he picked an evangelical for a running mate. Praise the Lord, he is SAVED!!!

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

ONCE AND FOR ALL...........

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, NO REMAINING SCIENTIFIC BODY OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING IS KNOWN TO REJECT THE BASIC FINDINGS OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

This is a FACT people. The fact that Sarah Palin doenst get this is yet another example of ideology over substance.


Posted by: feastorafamine | October 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

FlyDiesel, at least we can toss them a bone: the levels of CFCs are indeed at their highest levels in all history (although they are decresing in the northern hemisphere).

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 1, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Bush's economic advisor, Phil Graham, wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks take risks with all of our future.
Now Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy, and McCain will make him the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time bush met with his economic advisors, in March, he didn't realize that anything was wrong, or didn't care. Phil Graham now has the guts to say we are in a recession, after he helped create the worst economy since the Great Depression.

As bad as Bush has done McCain would be incredibly worse because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a surplus like Bush did but a tanking economy and a 11,000,000,000,000 deficit, most of which Bush created. It will take decades to pay it back.

The Government Accountability Office (GOA) study on corporate tax liability found 2/3 of US controlled and foreign-controlled domestic corporations reported on tax liability between 1998 and 2005. Nearly 50% of these corporations had gross receipts of $50 million, or $250 million in assets. Americans are taxed when they earn their money and they are taxed again when they spend their hard-earned money. Yet, corporations making millions live lavishly in a government tax
free zone. How does a corporation bring in $50 million in receipts, yet owe no tax? How does a corporation afford $250
million in assets, yet owe no tax? Loopholes in the tax codes designed to eliminate tax liability for corporations. Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.

McCain doesn't understand the economy. That’s not just my opinion, it's his words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it, he does not understand exactly what is broken. Remember, it's not just McCain that would take office -- it's all of the Bush/McCain advisors and party leaders that have been in power during the last 8 years that would continue to run the show behind the curtains.

When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time. So why are the polls even close? The chairman of McCain's campaign recently said that people don't vote on issues. They vote on a personality composite. He is trying to sell you personality instead of substance. He believes people will vote against there own self interests.

Lets teach him them we are smarter then that.

Posted by: d_rock | October 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Bush's economic advisor, Phil Graham, wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks take risks with all of our future.
Now Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy, and McCain will make him the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time bush met with his economic advisors, in March, he didn't realize that anything was wrong, or didn't care. Phil Graham now has the guts to say we are in a recession, after he helped create the worst economy since the Great Depression.

As bad as Bush has done McCain would be incredibly worse because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a surplus like Bush did but a tanking economy and a 11,000,000,000,000 deficit, most of which Bush created. It will take decades to pay it back.

The Government Accountability Office (GOA) study on corporate tax liability found 2/3 of US controlled and foreign-controlled domestic corporations reported on tax liability between 1998 and 2005. Nearly 50% of these corporations had gross receipts of $50 million, or $250 million in assets. Americans are taxed when they earn their money and they are taxed again when they spend their hard-earned money. Yet, corporations making millions live lavishly in a government tax
free zone. How does a corporation bring in $50 million in receipts, yet owe no tax? How does a corporation afford $250
million in assets, yet owe no tax? Loopholes in the tax codes designed to eliminate tax liability for corporations. Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.

McCain doesn't understand the economy. That’s not just my opinion, it's his words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it, he does not understand exactly what is broken. Remember, it's not just McCain that would take office -- it's all of the Bush/McCain advisors and party leaders that have been in power during the last 8 years that would continue to run the show behind the curtains.

When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time. So why are the polls even close? The chairman of McCain's campaign recently said that people don't vote on issues. They vote on a personality composite. He is trying to sell you personality instead of substance. He believes people will vote against there own self interests.

Lets teach him them we are smarter then that.

Posted by: d_rock | October 1, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

bcamp55,

So what is the point of your post?

I think you said that Al Gore made up global warming, pushed 99.9% of the scientists in this world to beleive him, and made a movie, just for money?

There are easier ways to make a buck. But that is pretty interesting that you think Gore has the power to persuade thousands of brilliant scientists.

Or you could just be one of those idiots that refuses to beleive something becuase you do not understand it. If that is the case, go take some science classes.

"When I stick my toe in the water sea level rises too. The increase attributable to man is so inconsequential that there is serious doubt the difference in warming between now and if man never existed will be measurable."

Did you do any research for your comment? Did you realize that it takes thousands of years for the climate to change as much as it has in the last 100 years with humans helping? Maybe if you know something about science you would know you are wrong.


Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Bush's economic advisor, Phil Graham, wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks take risks with all of our future.
Now Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy, and McCain will make him the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time bush met with his economic advisors, in March, he didn't realize that anything was wrong, or didn't care. Phil Graham now has the guts to say we are in a recession, after he helped create the worst economy since the Great Depression.

As bad as Bush has done McCain would be incredibly worse because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a surplus like Bush did but a tanking economy and a 11,000,000,000,000 deficit, most of which Bush created. It will take decades to pay it back.

The Government Accountability Office (GOA) study on corporate tax liability found 2/3 of US controlled and foreign-controlled domestic corporations reported on tax liability between 1998 and 2005. Nearly 50% of these corporations had gross receipts of $50 million, or $250 million in assets. Americans are taxed when they earn their money and they are taxed again when they spend their hard-earned money. Yet, corporations making millions live lavishly in a government tax
free zone. How does a corporation bring in $50 million in receipts, yet owe no tax? How does a corporation afford $250
million in assets, yet owe no tax? Loopholes in the tax codes designed to eliminate tax liability for corporations. Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.

McCain doesn't understand the economy. That’s not just my opinion, it's his words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it, he does not understand exactly what is broken. Remember, it's not just McCain that would take office -- it's all of the Bush/McCain advisors and party leaders that have been in power during the last 8 years that would continue to run the show behind the curtains.

When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time. So why are the polls even close? The chairman of McCain's campaign recently said that people don't vote on issues. They vote on a personality composite. He is trying to sell you personality instead of substance. He believes people will vote against there own self interests.

Lets teach him them we are smarter then that.

Posted by: d_rock | October 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

My apologies (in advance) to anyone who thought that last comment was too "Sarcastic and Combative".

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The levels of C02 in our atmosphere are higher than anytime in History. This can be verified by analyzing core ice samples. Fact from various parts of the globe. Fact.

Posted by: Phatkat791

Actually, you are probably wrong. During the last greenhouse period, which likely resulted from hyper-vulcanism following a snowball earth glacial period, there was approximately 4 times as much carbon in the atmosphere as today. This resulted in melting the poles, which stopped the oxygenating currents flowing from the equatorial regions to the polls which depend on convection. This in turn resulting in poisonous sulfidic conditions just below the surface.

This was an ideal greenhouse for algal growth, most of which sank in the seas and was largely prevented from natural decay by the poisonous conditions. That is why there is as much petroleum in the world as there is, and why it (hopefully) won't regenerate in the future. If such conditions return, most of humanity will probably die.

This ancient algae was covered with silt, sank until pressure and heat did their work, the resulting lighter semi-liquid was squeezed up through porous layers of heavier rock, encountered an impervious layer to become an oil field, or continued to rise to the surface to be eaten by bacteria or became a tourist attraction in La Brea, CA. This is known as the biogenetic theory of petroleum, and is pretty much universally accepted. The abiogenetic theory holds that petroleum is the result of natural processes deep in the Earth, unrelated to animal or plant life. This belief is very much in the minority. The most famous example of these kind of water conditions is Green Lake in upstate New York.

Fact? No, but I suppose you could call it a working hypothesis that is nearly universal. Facts are hard to come by when actual scientists are looking at complex systems. It just takes a little jolt of reality to blow a theory out of the water. When people claim to have the answers at hand, I tend to think of the Y2K alarmists who made a living claiming gloom and doom. They had nearly unanimous agreement, too, but they were proven wrong in a single moment following the turning of the millennia.

No scientist worth his test tubes would claim so many 'facts' as you do, especially those so universally rejected as your claim that atmospheric carbon is at it's highest level ever. Your 'facts' sound like religious observances to me, leading me to doubt that you have any actual scientific background.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | October 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer, I didn't know that Rev. Wright was actually diagnosed as clinically insane too (talk about Obama really throwing someone under the bus).

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Independent4tw
When I stick my toe in the water sea level rises too. The increase attributable to man is so inconsequential that there is serious doubt the difference in warming between now and if man never existed will be measurable.

The difference between me and Gore is I don't have a million dollars to make.
This will interest you though. Did you hear he is writing another book to take advantage of you lemmings as the next cooling phase worsens (which some people say started in 1998 but I hate to bore you with mere facts)? It’s called “Global Cooling – The Destruction of Earth as We Know It”. I also heard he just purchased a parka manufacturer as well. Might want to get yourself measured so you can show your support for this great thinker – ha, ha, ha, ha,!!!

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 1, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

This bimbo lady doesn't do serious reading. Couric wasn't even asking her whether Palin was familiar with literary materials(god forbids!). Palin was asked whether she reads newspapers like you and I do on a daily basis. But even that proved to be a stretch for Palin, a woman who obviously does not value anything involving intellectual thought process. Somehow, a lot of us, including myself, are not that suprised to learn this, because it was kind of apparent when Sarah Palin first came to our attention. You just had to look at her. What we didn't know then was the extent of this woman's sheer ignorance.

Posted by: thisworld | October 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Agnostic Engineer:
Excellent post!

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The computer models of climate change i've seen tend to indicated that during the warming phase there will be increase pendulums swings between ever hotter summers and colder winters until some trip point is reached and we all have to swim across the rio grande into mexico to survive.

There is no doubt in my mind that mankind is playing a part in the scenario as we are the beings that are rocking the status quo.

Trees are natures method of locking up carbon, the suck in CO2 and release O2 that we breath and we are cutting them down in large quantities. Just look at some of the films made in the 40's and 50's and see how much nicer it was with a smaller population on this earth.

The problem appears to be how much is natural and how much is man made. With all due respects to our politicians none of them that I know of seem capable of doing simple things like balancing the budget so you would think they would listen to the scientific community.

The worst are those who are devoutly religious because anything that contradicts the bible must be wrong. The catholic church in Europe used to burn people as heretics because they said the earth was round and the church had it that it was flat.

The problem with Palin is not that she religious its just that she doesn't have the experience and the background to deal with difficult issues. Neither does McCain and neither does GWB and neither does most of congress.

Posted by: akpat | October 1, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"I've seen a lot of nonsensical stuff on this thread. First, science is based on in large part on faith and any really (religiously) charismatic person will tell you the "proof" for something can be found through a "study" of the Bible."


Wrong. The strength of science is that it is TESTABLE and DISPROVABLE. Science does not claim ABSOLUTE TRUTH, just our best understanding. FAITH is only required if you DON'T WISH TO TEST IT FOR YOURSELF. Science promotes questioning assumptions and thoroughly investigating things.

Your FAITH that your computer will respond to your commands doesn't mean that it works by FAITH. Computers would never have existed without the army of knowledgeable engineers and scientists that discovered and experimented with electricity. Just because YOU don't know WHY things work, that doesn't mean that THEY don't.


"Both science and religion base their validity on observations of events that appear to confirm a given belief. A "theory" is a belief. The two are very similar in nature, both are based on someone's interpretation of pieces of information be it from the Bible or otherwise."


Wrong. Religion has no predefined rules for proof or disproof. Indeed two people can see the same results and make wildly different claims, neither having any way to refute the other.

Second, Christianity is based on ONE book. This book was written 2,000 years ago, when the general consensus was that we were at the center of the universe, the world was flat, and diseases were caused by "evil spirits". Furthermore, the vast majority of people were illiterate. Only the wealthy had access to scholastic pursuits.

It is well known that the less a person knows, the more they THINK they know. They don't have the framework to draw any accurate comparisons/conclusions. The world is greatly SIMPLIFIED for them...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama now leads McCain 50%-43% overall, up from 46%-41% before the parties' national conventions a month ago. Obama's support is not just broader, but sturdier too; 23% of McCain supporters say they might change their mind, while only 15% of Obama's say they could be persuaded to switch.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"Both science and religion base their validity on observations of events that appear to confirm a given belief. A "theory" is a belief. The two are very similar in nature, both are based on someone's interpretation of pieces of information be it from the Bible or otherwise. "

Theories have scientific test to back them up. The bible has 2000 years of "whisper down the alley." I would think that the people that belive the bible word for word also believe the epic "beowulf" in which dragons and trolls exist. Both are stories past down from generation to generation by man, not by science.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

She was trying to answer the question when Katie Couric interrupted her. Whether global warming is man-made, she did say it was anthropogenic, at least to some extent: "... there are man's activities that [] contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now" but "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate."

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 1, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"AgnosticEngineer, we keep hearing that same threat every four years, and yet you are still here."


I wouldn't leave to avoid Republican rule. I would leave to avoid living in an oppressive theocracy. Have you heard some of Palin's church's sermons???

I'll take a disgruntled black pastor over "witch hunters" that speak in tongues any day. One is misdirecting anger, the other is clinically insane...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the error in my previous post. I had Obama both ahead and tied in Virginia. I think he is ahead but when I looked at a couple more polls it is probably safer to say he is tied. So I hedged my bet in the midle of my post but didn't remove VA from Obama's column. However the momentum in VA as in all the other swing states is in Obama's favor.

Posted by: truthtopower40 | October 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Bcamp55,

"So to the point of the liberal geniuses discounting Palin - Exactly how many Hummers did Detroit sell 500,000,000 years ago? How much coal was buring in those awful factories 300,000 years ago?"

You are the moron my friend. It is proven that CO2 builds up, causing global warmth, then the ice ages come and absorb the CO2 into the ice. When the CO2 is frozen in ice, it can not keep light rays from bouncing off the earth and escaping out into the atmosphere.

So the earth has a natural way to balance the CO2 that is in the air. The issue that Gore brought up in his movie was that the earth has more CO2 in the air then EVER before.

So, next time the ice age comes, IT WILL BE WORSE THEN EVER BEFORE.

Do you know anything about physics? E=MC^2

That means, basicly, that energy is neither created or destroyed. In other worlds, EVERY CAUSE HAS AN EFFECT. If we keep taking CO2 from the earth, and releasing into the air, THERE WILL BE AN EFFECT. Einstien understood this, maybe you think he is a "snake oil salesmen" as well.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Palin didn't answer the question, as usual.

I've seen a lot of nonsensical stuff on this thread. First, science is based on in large part on faith and any really (religiously) charismatic person will tell you the "proof" for something can be found through a "study" of the Bible. Both science and religion base their validity on observations of events that appear to confirm a given belief. A "theory" is a belief. The two are very similar in nature, both are based on someone's interpretation of pieces of information be it from the Bible or otherwise.

Secondly, the "bais" in the media is a function of humans being human and our propensity to assimilate to the behaviors of others around us both consciously and unconsciously. Apparently, there's a growing tide in the mainstreem media that's against Palin and she's given it plenty of reason to doubt her. In all seriousness, had Palin not done a 180 on the "Troopergate" thing and McCain not treated her like prized cow a lot of this nonsense and skepticism wouldn't be happenning. You'll notice that no one's questioning Obama's vetting of Biden because there's clear documentation of the structure and rigor of the process. The same doesn't exist for Palin. Her whole candidacy has been based on game of hide and keep from seeking. Open kimonos answer a lot of questions before they get asked.

What I find interesting is no one's questioning the "2000" acre number Palin keeps quoting in reference to drilling in ANWR. I did some digging on this. How is it possible to state something as specific as only 2000 acres will be affected "if" oil is found in ANWR when you're talking about exploring an area 1.5 million acres in size? That doesn't make any sense when oil exploration is far from an exact science. Can anyone point me at the source of this number? The source I found, ANWR.org, doesn't attribute a reference. They just state a number.

Last thing, the McCain campaign got tomorrow night's debate structure changed because of their concern over Palin's relative inexperience at debating. Palin's done 24 debates. Inexperienced? Again, she's being paraded around like some prized heifer to be gawked at but never touched. This is simply ridiculous! The very notion that conversatives are slavishly defending this woman and the McCain's behavior is truly dumbfounding.

Posted by: ehperkins1971 | October 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P."

That's 1,986,000 years. We're talking about changes felt in the last 100. Do the math. That is a difference in scaling of nearly 20,000x...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

wunderwood:

"Is it possible that Obama is only 5 points ahead in national polls?"

--------------

Actually a 5 point lead at this stage of the game is pretty significant. There has so far been only one (as far as I know) serious attempt to quantify the effect of race on the election. This indicated that Obama would be about 6 points further ahead if race were not an issue in the minds of some voters. If you look at other numbers in this election period that seems to make sense.

More to the point, Obama/Biden is now leading McCain/Palin in almost all (all?) the swing states. He leads in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico and is tied if not ahead in Ohio, Florida and Virginia. There would need to be a very big shift in the next four weeks for McCain to rescue his drowning campaign.

I do not doubt that Palin will exceed expectations in her debate with Biden. All she has to do is memorize the answers to a dozen or so obvious questions and have a couple of plausible ways of avoiding any others. I don't think her "success" will radically alter perceptions of her however, nor will it change the race significantly.

Posted by: truthtopower40 | October 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

AgnosticEngineer, we keep hearing that same threat every four years, and yet you are still here.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

THE TRUTH ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

The earth will be fine.
The humans will all die.
Something new will evolve to take over.

The earth, and the life on it, will not go away till the sun implodes billions of years from now. The life on earth will change though. At some point, the climate that we live in will change, and we will either evolve or die.

Global warming is not kill the earth, it is killing the humans on earth. Sure, we can put on sun screen, but we can't make plants grow in the desert. So when plants become few, then vegitarians become few, then predators(humans) become few until the cycle restarts.

Side note: What are we going to do in the next 40-50 years when all the oil on the planet is gone? How will we bring food to major cities? We won't. The poplation of humans on this earth will settle around 500,000 million total. That means that 75-90% of humans on this earth will die. Fact.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"I won't claim to know much about science, but I know quite a bit about math and statistics. So how do these scientists confidently conclude man is the sole/biggest cause of global warming, using changes to our environment over a time-sample that represents about 0.00000000000000000001% of the time they say the earth has been here?"


Natural occurrences take a long time to happen. There is no doubt that NATURAL climate change happens. The questions are whether or not and how much of a role man is playing in our current trends. It is difficult to accurately model something as complex as climate change. HOWEVER, we are most definitely raising atmospheric CO2 levels. Is this causing a rise in global temperatures?

Many people choose to ignore the evidence that seems obvious to others (The long sought after Northwest Passage recently opened up!!!). Unfortunately, the survival of our species may be at risk.

Sadly, many people believe our sole purpose for existence is to wait for Jesus to come back. They couldn't possibly care less about global catastrophes. That would just expedite things...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I suppose it's pointless to try to provide facts which state that for at least the last billion years years the climate has constantly swung back and forth between hot and cool stages.

They call them "ice ages" for a reason, i.e. there must be periods of lesser ice; ya think?

Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. They have found that during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today.

In the last BILLION years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.

The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today.

So to the point of the liberal geniuses discounting Palin - Exactly how many Hummers did Detroit sell 500,000,000 years ago? How much coal was buring in those awful factories 300,000 years ago?

The only thing that has changes is that Al "Snake oil" Gore has yet again exploited the inate ignorance of the liberals masses to make millions from his carbon foot print scheme.

YOU WANT TO PUT PALIN DOWN FOR NOT LISTENING TO "SCIENCE" WHICH ALL OF YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT TO READ AND UNDERSTAND YOURSELF

Morons, every single one of you.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 1, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Phatkat791, greenhouse gases are not "only" caused by man. As others have already pointed out, the earth has warmed and cooled all by itself, without the help of man, too.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 -

Your question is not a scientific one, its a question of blame. The underlying assumption is that if human activity is not to blame for global warming, then human actions can't fix it. This is not logical and is patently wrong.

Every credible scientist believes that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever its source, will reduce warming, regardless of the cause. Every credible scientist accepts that a significant rise in sea levels and dramatic changes in weather and agricultural patterns will continue without CO2 reductions. Even if the problem were "natural" origin, the planet is controlled by man and the solution is man-made. Because of geologic time scales, we can't wait for the next "earth climate cycle" to fix the problem, even if it will eventually occur. Again, it does not follow from "man made CO2 did not cause global warming" that "man can't positively effect climate change". I will back off this claim when and if scientists conclude that we have reached the tipping point and that it is too late to do anything. The consenusus is that we still have a chance.

From your perspective as a statistician, you can understand that the problems is one of superposition. Man made changes are superposed on natural climate cycles, which makes the data hard to interpret. But sorting out the contributive sources to warming is irrelevant to addressing the problem. The answer to this is just a religious and philosophical resolution which can't help us fix the climate.

Posted by: aurum79 | October 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"I won't claim to know much about science, but I know quite a bit about math and statistics. So how do these scientists confidently conclude man is the sole/biggest cause of global warming, using changes to our environment over a time-sample that represents about 0.00000000000000000001% of the time they say the earth has been here?"

The answer is that you are wrong to conclude that the scientists can only examine the temperatures for the last 100 years.

The truth is there are places in the world that have cliff sides that show the timeline of the earth going back millions of years. This happens because layers of sediment hold bacteria and dead plant material. These layers increase with time like the layers in a tree trunk. If something like and earthquake comes along and cracks the mountain, the layers can be seen.

Scientist can date each layer back to a specific time, and can also estimate the temperatures during that time because of the amounts of certain plants that can only live in certain temperatures.

What they have found is that the earth goes through many cycles of high and low temmperatures. These temperatures are in direct relation to the amount of CO2 in the air untill recently. There has NEVER been as much CO2 in the air as there is today, not in millions of years.

So that is how scientists can prove that we are harming the earth. I've seen this on discovery, national geographic, and the science channel. You should watch more intellengent tv.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

topic changer! Obama is only marginally ahead...because he's not the bless'd change that he so preaches...and repreaches. he, like anyone else, is being coached. but personally, i think he should not be elected on the old basis that, though seemingly intelligent, he has very little leadership skills, speaks in circles, so far is supporting the bailout(rescue, whatever), annoys anyone who can sense his holier-than-thou demeanor, and is still the dark horse...pun intended. he speaks like a professor that needs a punch in the face. ah, i think back to the recent debate...i totally expected him to annihalate McCain but merely only survived with a few extra points at the end of the round.

Posted by: Jevons | October 1, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 you are in finance and asking honestly about questions that can't be answered on a political blog.

I strongly suggest using internet research. You will find wildlying opposing viewpoints, no doubt, but sources that are peer-reviewed like Wikipedia.org are generally quite reliable and provide footnotes to support their claims.

Do not be swayed by either extreme, but seek the evidence based on peer-reviewed journals. There is nothing wrong with listening to others that have studied this. Naysayers should be listened to as well. Copernicus was a naysayer, after all, but he predates this method.

Science is about asking intelligent questions and looking for evidence to support beliefs.

Again, check sources such as Wikipedia and then follow their links.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

wunderwood (or anyone):

This is an honest question from one who knows little if anything about science (I'm in finance).

What I typically struggle with in the "global-warming" debate is this:
1) 'consensus science' says global warming is man-made, and the evidence we are commonly pointed to are shrinking ice-caps, frost lines, rising ocean-levels, etc. Of course all comparisons I have seen are showing the changes over a period of decades, 100 years at most.
2) 'consensus science' says the earth is billions of years old.

I won't claim to know much about science, but I know quite a bit about math and statistics. So how do these scientists confidently conclude man is the sole/biggest cause of global warming, using changes to our environment over a time-sample that represents about 0.00000000000000000001% of the time they say the earth has been here?

I frequently wonder how the earth's average temperature changed between A.D. 900 and A.D. 1200.....or 1000 B.C. and 500 B.C. Could there have maybe been similar fluctuations in ocean levels, ice caps, etc, that just naturally occur but which man had little ability to measure until recent times?

I'm not being sarcastic....I would welcome an answer if there is one.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 8:56 AM
"Isn't questioning the whole point of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD?"

Like questioning if the Earth "really" does revolve around the Sun?

If you don't understand the concept of Greenhouse gasses at this point, that's quite sad.

Let me make it easy for you.

Greenhouse gasses (i.e Carbon, Methane) trap heat in our Earth's atmosphere. Fact.

Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gasses. Fact.

The levels of C02 in our atmosphere are higher than anytime in History. This can be verified by analyzing core ice samples. Fact from various parts of the globe. Fact.

Get it?

BTW, I'm sure she is well aware of man's impact of Global Warming, but Alaska is VERY rich in oil and at the same time it's ecosystem is suffering the most from the effects of climate change. She won't admit it, cause admitting that would force her to address the root cause of the issue. Burning fossil fuels, which is more than just a big part of Alaska's economy.

Posted by: Phatkat791 | October 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Can't wait until Sarah is President."

I'll be leaving the country to avoid the subsequent "witch hunts"...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

ANOTHER McCain campaign LIE.

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

McCain claims to have cosponsored legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the Democrat minority "blocked" him.

John McCain sponsored this bill TEN MONTHS after it died in committee and more a year and a half after it was first submitted. He did NOTHING to revive the bill and is using this as an excuse for his efforts at regulation. This man has no shame.

Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and sarch for the bill S.190 for the 109th congress. There are 3 cosponsors. Two of them were real and one was fake.

COSPONSORS(3)
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

wunderwood,
I believe that the oh-so-narrow lead by Obama has a very simple explanation:

Our country is very 50:50, republican:democrat. Not much is going to make a Democrat vote Republican and vice-versa. Even if the canidate is crap, they think, "well, at least s/he holds my views and opinions."

So, while racism might have a small effect (personally, I think Obama's getting a lot larger boost by being black, then he is losing votes for it), it's simply people's ingrown politics that are swaying their choices.

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't bother me that Sarah "Science" Palin is a religious wacko, since environmental policy will instead be driven by rational thought and scientific consensus in a McCain-Palin administration. McCain will hand of the global warming issue to his "Pal" as he plans the plunder of additional countries and the transfer of the remaining wealth of the middle class to the wealthy shreds the last tatters of the American Dream for the poor. Then, S-Pal will farm the hard work out to global-warming denying industry schill "scientists" who build anti-evolution museums and promote creationism in our school curricula as we lag farther and farther behind the world in math and science. Faith based policy is perfect for neo-neo-cons, because you don't have to be right, just certain.

God help us if these dangerous people are elected.

Posted by: aurum79 | October 1, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

RichardBrodie quipped: lucy2006 raves on and on about "peer-accepted", which is just a high falutin' way of saying "herd mentality."

No, Richard, herd mentality is the appeal behind Gov Palin. She's just like US!@!!@!!!11!!

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Is it possible that Obama is only 5 points ahead in national polls? Is it possible that America takes this choice so frivolously? I refuse to believe this is racism. But what can explain it? McCain is lying almost all the time and Palin is clueless about fundamental issues and has never SEEN Russia from Alaska because she's never visited that damned island where you can! Not that it matters. It is a hunk of rocky coast line, hardly downtown Moscow.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Global warming is an issue that is beyond the current understanding of mankind; this is something that will become apparent very soon as other World events will occur in nature that are inexplicable! As indeed these HAVE been occurring such as the freezing in China last year and also the earthquakes and volcano activities! As this increases, you must prepare yourself for the end of civilization as you know it! This is NOT THE END of the world, this is not a religious prophecy, such events are indeed part of prophecies of old, YET this occurrence of change is far deeper than the current understanding of your scientists. Give yourselves to the change and prepare for a reduction of technology, and an upswing of old-fashioned values, such as clean water, growing your own food, real community based on reliability and friendship. This event will be forthcoming!

Posted by: heartprivacy | October 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

She is actually correct in her statement. Although unpopoluar with envirnmentalist there is NO CLEAR evidence that man has cuased Global Warming. However, millions and millions of dollars of funding are available to study it and academics love funding.

The world does go through climate change and there is little we can do to stop it. I think we all agree, as does she, that we need to protect our natural resources and protect the earth. As a country we are not doing all we can and more needs to be done. But, if you really look at it we are doing so much more than we did 30 years ago and 30 years from now we will be doing so much better than we do today.

The biggest probelmwe face is other 3rd world and developing countries who do not share this view or don't care. Biden had it right in saying that China builds tons of coal plants every year and don't care. Those are the attitudes we need to change.

I will say that she could answer the question in a more PC way, but she is a strong woman who speaks her mind regardless of what the radical environmentalists are going to say.

At least she takes a position.

Posted by: tbastian | October 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Palin merely plays the neutral role as, when you consider the recorded history of man as well as earth's weather patterns, it's trivial when overlayed with the earth's aged timeline. sure some places receive smog due to other areas via currents flowing across continents...but the fact that mankind has THE impact on all things remains. question is what to do about it, when to do it and the effect it has over all aspects of our existence. will less of this contribute to more of that or vice versa? why else do the best of the best supercomputer conglomerates dedicate number crunching algorithms to predict weather patterns? we're not certain. our scopes are far too narrow to make a sound decision. should we play the part of safety and curb our habits, our lifestyles, to suit the environment or curb our environment to suit mankind? Palin, using the word cyclical, is dead on...

Posted by: Jevons | October 1, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"You know what the root cause of global warming is? THE SUN. Although I'd have to concede that if there is any human factor that makes the planet a little warmer it is the volume the hot air emitted by Al Gore and his mindless disciples!"

Yes, indeed. Without the sun we would be a frozen wasteland. BUT the sun's solar cycle is 11 years long. It's effects are AMPLIFIED by the presence of greenhouse gasses. Don't believe me? Look at Venus. It is hotter than Mercury, despite being twice as far from the sun (1/4 the incident solar energy).

The various ice ages have occurred not because of a lack of solar energy, but due to the make-up and consistency of our atmosphere during the period. Heavier cloud cover and less convection in the oceans causes the global temperatures to plummet. What causes these? Low salinity in the world's oceans. What causes that? Melting of the ice caps. Dramatic natural disasters (meteors/vulcanism) also contribute by putting massive volumes of particles in the air, blocking solar radiation.

Our climate has had many dramatic swings in the history of our planet. Fortunately, most of these effects are self correcting... eventually. Without such self correction our planet would not have stayed habitable long enough for us to evolve (intelligently or not). But who wants a few thousand years of harsh survival and mass extinctions? Global warming is likely only the beginning of our long term problems...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Play to music. You say tomato I say tomato.

Can't wait until Sarah is President.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

celestial2:
"My only surprise at her comment is that she did not proclaim that Global Warming is a well-deserved punishment from God for homosexual behavior and abortion."

I thought Democrats were the fair and open-minded bunch, while Republicans were the hateful, mean-spirited ones?

So "celestial2", what is the cause of your stupidity? You obviously are only interesting in bashing Sarah Palin, in spite of the fact what you posted doesn't line up with anything she has said. It only fits with your pre-conceived bias of religious conservatives, and you apparantly have no interest in facts....only bigotry.

If all you have to offer are more posts filled with stupid claims that reflect the emptiness of your intellectual capacity, maybe you should just be content to read the other posts on the board, and leave the pro-Obama posting to other Democrats who actually have meaningful ideas to contribute.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Take your "questions" to the scientific community not a political blog. They are united in a way that is very rare and thus very scary.

"The frost line in Florida is still 200 miles further south today than it was in 1975. Thousands of acres of citrus groves have been frozen and wiped out since then. ...Only cherry picked warming scenarios."

Here's another cherry-picked fact. The global scientific community says that humans are making a significant contribution to global warming.

You are not ONLY flying in the face of that, but you are incredibally denying global warming exists based on cherry picked examples.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it."

This shows how deeply ignorant Sarah Palin is of basic science. The cause and fixability of global warming are connected.
If the cause is natural, i.e. increased solar radiation, then we can't do anything about it. Conversely, we can "fix it" only if it is due to increased emission of greenhouse gas by us.

Posted by: mnjam | October 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

ANOTHER McCain campaign LIE.

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

McCain claims to have cosponsored legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the Democrat minority "blocked" him.

John McCain sponsored this bill TEN MONTHS after it died in committee and more a year and a half after it was first submitted. He did NOTHING to revive the bill and is using this as an excuse for his efforts at regulation. This man has no shame.

Check out http://thomas.loc.gov and sarch for the bill S.190 for the 109th congress. There are 3 cosponsors. Two of them were real and one was fake.

COSPONSORS(3)
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006

http://4thoffense.com/mc.html

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Palin is the only one of these four campaigning politicians who has the balls to be herself, and to, OH THE HORROR, be a Republican. She's already rejected the liberal Holy Grail, abortion, so why shouldn't she reject the liberal ambrosia, global warming?

Posted by: omega_man | October 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

For all of you taking the time out of your lives to work on campaigns, good luck. You have my respect regardless of party affiliation.

I'll see you on the field.

P.S. The frost line in Florida is still 200 miles further south today than it was in 1975. Thousands of acres of citrus groves have been frozen and wiped out since then. There are hundreds more observations around the world like this, but none are used in the "Scientific" News Media driven IPCC scientist consensus documentation. Only cherry picked warming scenarios. Can you say "Pew" something stinks.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The scientific method isn't about random questions. The scientific method is about proposing a hypothesis based on evidence observed over time and testing it in a careful way. Faith is not based on science and science is not based on faith.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

My only surprise at her comment is that she did not proclaim that Global Warming is a well-deserved punishment from God for homosexual behavior and abortion. Any other response from her is brilliant in comparison!

Posted by: celestial2 | October 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Isn't that interesting.....the mainstream Post, who continues to protest their 'balanced' and 'non-partisan' coverage of this election, has two more anti-Palin articles on their main political page this morning, and yet another Bush-bashing piece.

Yet, our 'non-partisan' friends at the Washington Post have ZERO articles on the new stories of:
- Nancy Pelosi's PAC giving gobs of money to her husbands firm over the past decade.
- the conflict of interest that tomorrow nights VP debate moderator has, in that she (Gwen) is writing a pro-Obama book due for release in January.

Good job, Washington Post. That should lay to rest claims of press bias....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

RichardBrodie,
Peer-reviewing is a necessary part of the publishing of research. A panel of scientists are asked to review a scientist's work to make sure s/he has followed the proper scientific method, has not jumped to conclusions, and that the data/results adequately support the conclusion. This isn't "herd-mentality"; it is a check-and-balance system so that every Johnny on the block can't publish his "scientific findings".

I'm not quite sure what your rant about evolution and human races was... but I bet I can refute what you were trying to say, if it was only more clear. :)

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

And what part of "The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it" do you not understand?

I am dismayed at the misrepresentation of what Sarah Palin actually said in this interview, not only about this issue, but also about foreign policy which continues to be made by journalists. When Sarah Palin said that she would both not second-guess Israel's right to defend herself and that the US would be involved with the Middle East, she was echoing every past President I can think of (except for the current one for the first several years of his Presidency), yet Couric tried to ridicule her position as contradictory and the public seems to have bought it. I do not necessarily agree with Palin on every issue, but I know the politics of personal destruction when I see it, and I thought Obama was supposed to be inspiring his supporters not to do it. Nothing has changed.

Posted by: dmoran1 | October 1, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

To Gettyleigh:
Here's a sample of scientists opposing conventional views on climate change:

Timothy F. Ball, retired geography prof -
In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[18]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit.

Vincent R. Gray, chemist for coal industry -
Founder of New Zealand Climate Science Foundation: The organisation has encountered some criticism, with suggestions that their aim to increase the level of media coverage to allow equal press for climate-change dissent actually creates an illusion of greater dissent than truly exists.[6] They have also been criticised by Greenpeace for accepting funding from ExxonMobil.[7]
^ Cindy Baxter (6. March 2008). "Kiwis paid by Exxon-funded groups to attend climate sceptic conference.

It would be wise to consider sources before wasting time studying their opinions.

Posted by: soitgoes455 | October 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

lucy2006 raves on and on about "peer-accepted", which is just a high falutin' way of saying "herd mentality."

It's a way of making sure scientists don't try to deviate too much from the accepted conventional "wisdom" - and an example of conventional wisdom is the very notion that "peer review" is a good thing.

This is why so many areas of modern science are stagnant, especially those having to do with human beings. It is why "mainstream" climatolgists are afraid to challenge "global warming" which is a political theory, not a scientific one. It also explains why evolutionary theory continues to maintain the absurd position that homo sapiens is somehow the only species on the planet exempt from the rule that it's different varieties (races) will exhibit fundamental, genetically determined differences in behavior and intelligence.

Scientific "correctness" thus becomes an extension of "poltical correctness." Peer review is not a favorable climate for producing Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's.

Posted by: RichardBrodie | October 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

gettyleigh,
Did you even read that article? The title-- "Majority of Scientists Don't Support Man-Made Warming Theory" is incredibly mis-leading.

For those of you who read the title, and went no further, here are the numbers for you:

7% of papers gave explicit endorsement of man-made global warming
45% of papers gave an implicit endorsment of mand-made global warming
48% of papers were "neutral", ie, they gave no indication whether they supported or rejected the theory.

Only 6% of papers flat out rejected man-made global warming.

You all be the judge. Personally, I think the numbers are pretty damaging to the statement that the "majority of scientists don't support man-made global warming."

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

PS...as a "Global Warming" footnote;

100% of the world leaders agree in principle to some aspects of the Kyoto Treaty, which acknowledges the problems relating to man-made environmental degradation. Yes, even the US...ie. Bush and Cheney. However, because of US interests in the oil industry, our leaders will not sign the current form of the document.

My point...Palin better get her head out of the polluted clouds and smell the sulpher...the leaders of her own conservative party agree that we have a problem. HELLOOOOOOOOOO!

For what it's worth...I would be more confident voting for Tina Fey, instead of Palin.

By the way...on another note...$700 billion bailout of Wall Street, agreed to by most republicans? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NON-STOP REPUBLICAN MANTRA ABOUT SMALLER GOVERNMENT, AND TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS?

I guess spending our tax money bailing out rich bankers who make millions of dollars a year screwing up our economy, is OK.

Posted by: zenplace | October 1, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Palin's remarks on this topic are as unsurprising as they are depressing. Leave aside the fact that denying the major role being played by human activity in altering our climate is flying in the face of virtually all serious scientific opinion. (Why, incidentally, are scientists engaged as some of you seem to believe in a massive conspiracy to delude us???) Leave aside the fact that even "Big Oil" and the last great climate change denier George Bush all now agree with the scientific evidence.

What is really disturbing here is what her response says about Palin's fitness to govern. "But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it." WRONG!!!! We need to have a pretty clear idea what lies at the root of any problem BEFORE we start to "do something about it." If we don't we will not have much luck solving the problem but we can sure spend a lot of time and money flailing around with all the wrong responses.

It's that kind of thinking that got us into the mess we are in in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fortunately there is hope. The country is increasingly showing that it has seen through the McCain/Palin charade. The newly released Quinnipiac poll puts Obama ahead by 8 points in Ohio and Florida and 15 points in Pennsylvania. The trend is becoming pretty clear.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1218

Posted by: truthtopower40 | October 1, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Global Warming a very important issue to the world today. I think not only Sarah Palin, but everyone should be taking this concern seriously. However, if you're the vice presidential candidate of the United States, these are issues you should be thinking and studying about daily. I think that Sarah Palin lacks not only the experience, but the ability to serve as the vice president of the United States.

I learned a lot about her on www.dailysource.org/palin
very helpful and organized website

Posted by: thepurpleocean | October 1, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The "Scientific Method" isn't simply the act of randomly questioning things, as suggested by a previous post.

The scientific method is testing hypothesis based on observable evidence, not wild conjecture without facts.

Posted by: wunderwood | October 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Palin actually had a three part interview . . . its the same deal that ABC and Fox done . . . they set it up that way for the ratings . . . being that (MS)NBC's Bob and Neil policy is so blatently left leaning there is little chance that she'll grant them an interview.

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

All this nasty namecalling and sniping is so childish! Grow up, kids!

Palin is obviously a smart and effective governor, and she'll probably do quite well as VP. She's apparently been quite consistent in keeping her religious beliefs out of her governing decisions, so why not recognize that, and be OK with it?

Well-spoken and smart as Obama also is, he has shown no similar success or leadership. And his far-left history is troubling at best. Because he certainly brings his radical lefty ideology to work with him! His voting record shows it. His socialist economic ideas are all old, and failures, and they will not be healthy for America or the world.

It's useless to "believe in" man-made global warming - no one is close to having enough information to understand or decide that question. But it's simple to understand that it's always best for us to live lightly on the earth, and to try our best to keep the earth healthy and well-cared for.

And I'm sure that's what Palin was trying to say.

We can all do our best to act as good stewards of the environment without irrationally forcing ourselves into a rigid, self-righteous belief system about "global warming".

Forty years ago the big scare was "global cooling". The fear-mongers were wrong then, too. All we can do is try to tread lightly and clean up our own messes, and accept climate change as part of nature.

I'm glad Sarah Palin has been effective in getting the pipeline going up there in Alaska. Until all these complainers get the new nuclear plants pumping out enough juice, and until they get my electric car and solar house ready, we NEED that oil and gas so we can go to work and our kids can eat. And that's way more important than signing up for a new pagan eco-religion.

Katie Couric doesn't know whether our actions affect climate change - and neither does anybody else. So why waste time playing gotcha games, when we could get serious about going ahead, and doing what's already within reach about cleaning up our mess?

Peace, love and hard work, people!

Posted by: ffarkle | October 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

It is getting easier to enjoy the foolishness of Palin as a vice presidential choice. She professes a belief system that is at odds with science and professes a belief in science as well. Her life is a basket of contradictions but the one thread that ties it all together. She is a liar more often than not. She is loyal. And she has no guiding principles in her life. She will make her self over to be something else. I will be surprised if I am not surprised by the presentation she makes in the debate.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the “consensus view,” that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/majority-of-scientists-dont-support-man-made-warming-theory/

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Just how many Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric can we expect? It seems like everywhere I turn, she's talking with Couric!

Posted by: chrisduckworth | October 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

bzzpd,
Do you even know how science works?

I mean, in science, a hypothesis is not even given the benefit of doubt before it has been tested, retested, and then tested again. And then reviewed by an impartial panel of scientists. And then retested again.

Compare that with many religious beliefs. Most are simply obtained through some Holy Book. Where is the objectivity in that?

I really am not judging the religious. I am just pointing out that the scientific method and the religious method can not even begin to be compared.

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

A US group that has challenged global warming theories said on Monday that 31,000 scientists have signed its petition urging Congress to not impose mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions . . .

http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/05/19/9125103/31000-scientists-said-to-oppose-warming-theory.html

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

No one is truly pressing Palin on her beliefs and public positions when it comes to public issues like this.

The question on whether Global Climate Change is a man-made problem is central question into the workings of Palin's mind.

If in Palin's mind, Global Climate Change is not man-made (but in fact God-made), then how can man interfere with God. When Palin talked about the cyclical nature of the world, Couric should have asked her how long does she think this cyclical nature existed (in years)?

Then she would have saw Palin talk about the earth being 10,000 years old! That would have been classic!

Posted by: AJ2008 | October 1, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Gosh Lynn 14
Look into your Environmental lobby church's eye's and tell them they are full of horsemanure for a change.

Her religion doesn't have a thing to do with being lied to.... by scientists who have nothing better to do... than spout lies to the general public.

Don't try to con everyone into believing your hoax because the other guy might be religious.

Your environmental religion is no different than what you accuse Palin of. If you weren't so busy hugging your science professors book.....you would know he was lying to you.

Posted by: bzzpd | October 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

zenplace:

Thankfully, Gov. Palin is running for VP and not you or your son.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 9:59 AM
---------

JakeD...I sincerely, and completely agree with you.

On those numerous occasions when my son and I display our complete and utter stupidity, at least we can do so privately, without experiencing the humiliation of having thousands of others wallow in our embarrasing, and rediculous outbursts, as they attempt to provide undeserved rationalization for our idiocy.

Posted by: zenplace | October 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

For those wishing to bring up Rev. Wright and the choice clips that get constantly replayed, I suggest you look into Gov. Palin's preacher at the Assembly of God.

Religion does funny things to different people. Most draw inspiration from it, but others just go off the deep end.

Obama has spoken out against Rev. Wright's hateful words, but also acknowledged the pockets of persistent racism and black resentment in America. He has also acknowledged the discontent of white Americans that see affirmative action giving preferential treatment to others, when THEY could very well use a hand.

OMG. A politician willing to address the ugly side of things that no one wants admit to. Crucify him!!! God forbid we ever achieve equality instead of making compromises that don't satisfy ANYONE. Don't like welfare? Try supporting public job training courses, like those stupid "community organizers"...

Posted by: AgnosticEngineer | October 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

You could lay all of the science, pro and con in front of Governor Palin and she still wouldn't have a clue.

She's taking a political position on a scientific issue because of what she believes, not because of what she knows.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | October 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Of course what she says isn't rational!! Climate cycles are longer than what the Bible says is the age of the Earth. Humans hunted dinosaurs (an Alaskan hunter's wet dream). She would counsel women to choose life but wants to make the other 'choice' illegal. What newspapers do you read? The Awakening?

Good grief, can you imagine this person as the Leader of the Free World with her finger on the button exercising God's will???

Posted by: thebobbob | October 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Isn't questioning the whole point of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 8:56 AM |

It is amazing how you distort information.

You ask a question, you test a hypothesis and you get an answer. No one is testing anything in this case. She is incapable of testing anything because in her mind the earth is 6000 years old, even though there is plenty of information to the contrary.

If you want to get rid of me, just stop your distortions. I am tired of getting on your case but I can not stand operating under false information. Oh well once a distorter always a distorter.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

huvajan,
The commment about acid rain had nothing to do with global warming. The poster was making the point that those who deny human activities have anything to do with global warming are the same as those who deny that acid rain is caused by human-made chemicals expelled into the air.

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Palin doesn't want to annoy the idiotic environmental worshippers, who have conned everyone with their lies.

There were glaciers where the world trade center stood. they just confirmed it.
If glaciers were covering New York City.....how in the Jehosaphat do you environmental clowns, blame that on global warming too?

There were T-Rex and all other kinds dinosaurs roaming the brooks range of Alaska. They have their footprints as well as bones form several dinosaur species.
The whole area was subtropical. This climate preceded the ice age. If anything.....the Ice Age pushed out the earths natural species... and replaced them with the polar bear and seal.

I suppose man created the ice age too?
How can the human species buy into so much crap being spouted by the environmental lobby......which runs the Democratic Party?

They sleep together.

If you are a democrat.....roll over and push them out of bed. Do us all a favor and drag your wife or husband back into the bed where they belong.

Posted by: bzzpd | October 1, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

To the Gore kool aid drinkers: Read a book.
such as;
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud
Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

Posted by: prhornbeak | October 1, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Now, on to Global Warming:

An embarrassing majority of scientists overwhelmingly agree that a) global warming exists and b) humans are having a major impact upon it.

The so-called debate about human involvement in global warming is largely a product of every-day people not understanding the science and suddenly becoming experts in a field in which they've never even taken a class.

The cyclic nature that Sarah Palin mentions is true. And global warning proponents do not deny that fact. What is happening is that humans are speeding up the rate that global warming is happening. Instead of a meandering pace towards a "hot-age" we are putting the pedal to the metal, and hurtling ourselves towards it.

Now there are those of you who object with "But this summer was so cold!" or "But we are supposed to have the coolest decade this century" or even "Dang! It snowed this winter!"

Please, get your heads out of your puny human blip of existence. Warming and cooling cycles occur over THOUSANDS of years. And yes, it will still snow for a very long time, even with our excelerated ascent into global warming.

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

huvajan says: "What is the human role in acid rain?"

So tell us just how acid rain contributes to global warming.

You know what the root cause of global warming is? THE SUN. Although I'd have to concede that if there is any human factor that makes the planet a little warmer it is the volume the hot air emitted by Al Gore and his mindless disciples!

Posted by: RichardBrodie | October 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I find it amusing that people don't look a little deeper into her beliefs about global warming and her beliefs about God. Tina Faye had it the closest on SNL when she said global warming was due to "God huggin' us closer." The heretical Christian movement that Palin is a part of (Five Fold Ministries) believes that in the end times there will be unusual events such as weather patterns changing - sort of like Biblical plagues - and it is just a sign of the times. I'm serious. Just look a little deeper into her religious beliefs and you will find all sorts of weird things such as believing in evil spirits as was demonstrated on the video of the pastor praying against witchcraft over her.

She also belives that Alaska will be a place of refuge during the end-times. And her involvement in the AIP points to that type of worldview...if Alaska secedes it is not a part of the US and can create its own end-times "panic room" to ride out the pre-Rapture storms. Global warming is just part of the signs of the end-times. God's doing it to warn the Sarah Palins of the world to "get on the ark" so to speak.


Mainstrean Christians (of which I am one) need to wake up. Palin is from a whacked-out movement that does not represent you! Quit holding her up as the poster child of evangelical Christianity because she is not.

Posted by: lynn14 | October 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

1) If Gov. Palin believes that man is not responsible for global warming, then why does she belief that man can do anything about it?

And/or:

2) If Gov. Palin believes that, according to her religion, that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, what cyclical patterns is she talking about? Not the last Ice Age, which ended 10,000 years ago. Not the climate changes (both warming and cooling) that occurred hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.

You can't compare what is happening now with cyclical weather patterns from the last several centuries. While we are experiencing an overall warming trend, we still see a fluctuation from year-to-year weather patterns. Sometimes we have cooler summers, sometimes hotter. Sometimes warmer winters, sometimes colder. And as others have said in their comments, the overall climate is becoming warmer (with most indications pointing the finger at our carbon emissions), which will inevitably lead to an ice age. And they may happen in our lifetime.

Posted by: jcswayzee | October 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

15 point lead in PA? whose poll is that? the one you put on your yahoo 360 page?

Sarah doesn't have to do anything to fix global warming anyhow . . . From his vantage point high up on Mount Olypus, Moses . . . err . . . I mean Obama said he was going to calm the waters and heal the earth.

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 10:21 AM

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/obama_surges_in.html

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

WATER is next.

I'll bet anyone reading this post money that we will be reading about a new bill passed in congress next year to address Global Warming. There is no stopping it now, just like there is no stopping this bailout vote today. It will happen.

The new legislation will tax power producers for their carbon dioxide emissions (that will be auctioned off as Cap and Trade with speculators running up costs) and they will pass the bill to you and me to the tune of, guess what, $700 Billion dollars a year. This money will go into a "lock box" for new energy research, but pressing problems with the budget will require some "borrowing" of this money for other budgetary items.

It will sound remarkably similar to the Social Security system and we will all sit around and do nothing while they tax the crap out of our income and steal our wealth away one dollar at a time.

That $700 Billion dollars a year will be controlled by a group structured remarkably similar to the Federal Reserve.

I saw the plan laid out in the halls of Enron in 1992. It was a done deal then and all the rhetoric and scientific evidence (real and not) has been formulated around this task.

WATER is next. When you see this next WATER tax rolled out remember you saw it here first. This is no joke or speculation it is coming.

What are you going to do about it?

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. Palin is an anachronism. She is not a leader for the 21st century and the challenges we face.

Global warming is one of those most serious of challenges. Contrary to some of the posts here made by people who talk fiction and not science, the scientific concensus by peer-accepted scientists is that global warming is happening AND that man's activities are the major cause of this. One of the causes in a list of causes is the use of fossil fuels in the way we are using them today.
Comparing this scientific concensus with scientists of old who made racists conclusions about people of African descent, don't understand science. First, we are in the 21st century and scientists practice and incredible vetting process regarding funding of their work, publication, and challenge by their peers.
This is an entirely different process going on now versus those that were making racists statements about blacks a hundred years ago.

There are "peer-accepted" scientists in our greater halls of learning. The community understands this. There are publication journals that are "peer-respected". This is the community that has come to concensus. Yes, they'll optimize and make changes to the understanding- that is the process. But the bigger truths are there and we need to act.

The disagreement is really determining all of the human factors that are contributing to this as to a lesser degree natural factors, understanding their timing and outcome effects and proposing different workable solutions in small and global communities.

Al Gore was tremendous for dedicating his life to get people to pay attention, educate themselves, and to act. He won a Nobel prize. To belittle him just shows ignorance and you should feel shame. You may not like his personality, but hey, he made change and it is getting the US to act. To save our earth as we know it, is important.

Posted by: lucy2008 | October 1, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Palin is a joke.

She won't even admit when she doesn't know an answer. That's a juvenile's problem. She'll never be ready.

McCain could've picked any of a dozen better qualified Republican women. I'm embarrassed by Palin. Mccain has about 3 weeks left to switch horses before we watch the democrats take the white house.

Posted by: Republicandor | October 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The word "theory" in science denotes an entirely different concept than that in common usage.

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena" -US National Academy of Science

Notable scientific theories include Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theory of Gravity.

How many of you are questioning gravity, for heaven's sake?

Anyway, that just covers the definition of theory, which seemed to be wanting in this conversation.

Notable scientific theories include:

Posted by: Bipp | October 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

My fundamental problem with Governor Palin's comment is her insistence that it "doesn't matter...what caused it; we need to do something about it". But this side of praying to God or killing the witch who cast the spell that is causing it (neither of which should be the government's responsibility), how do you fix a problem if you don't know what is causing it?

Posted by: RationalAnswers | October 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Burning fossil fuels doesn't cause global warming just like premarital sex doesn't cause pregnancy, right Sarah?

Posted by: independentvoter6 | October 1, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

There are quite a few ignorant and inflammatory posts here about Senator Obama. Most intelligent people look for information that is from reputable sources and validated sources. Your talk is just lies and made up mythology. Why you want to get worked up to such an emotional level over that stuff is hard to fathom. Using this blog to say such racist hogwash makes you sound silly and hateful.

Please realize that the majority of voting Americans are voting for Senator Obama. This is something that you will have to come to terms with. To bark such hatefullness isn't helpful in our democracy. Are you going to hate half of the population of the United States?

Posted by: lucy2008 | October 1, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

It interesting to note that when the stock market dumped almost 800 points oil also dropped $20 a barrel.

It would be better for the average American for the stock market to dump 2400 points and oil to go to $60 a barrel then maybe we could all pay our mortgages and we could do this without the taxpayer paying anything.

Of course the pension and hedge funds would dump but my wifes grandmother lost 80k in the WMU fiasco and they didn't bail it out but if the prices all fall maybe its worth it.

Posted by: akpat | October 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

For your information thousands of scientist disagree with the global warming religion....many believe its a way to tax and control us than anything else.......truth is we have zero chance of changing the planet one way or the other The head of my earth science department informed all his students of the coming hysteri that politicians would use long before ignorant MSM would speak about is as a cause worth fighting for.

The following link has many articles.....read something rather than watch the C student TV bias Media

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=24

We need Palin to help reform our failing government....we may not be able to control the planet but with her and Mc Cain fighting for us as they have done in the past we have a chance for real change.

Posted by: victorstennis | October 1, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

15 point lead in PA? whose poll is that? the one you put on your yahoo 360 page?

Sarah doesn't have to do anything to fix global warming anyhow . . . From his vantage point high up on Mount Olypus, Moses . . . err . . . I mean Obama said he was going to calm the waters and heal the earth.

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Here is the problem with Palins' thinking. If she doesn't agree with the notion that humans are causing the problem, then what exactly is going to be done to fix it? How can you fix something if you don't know what is causing it? Any shade-tree mechanic can follow that logic. But this belief against humans role in climate change is just more of the same Republican nonsense that is intent on keeping rich friends rich. We shouldn't even consider voting for folks who lack the ability to think critically. Not for a minute.

Posted by: stormfieldpress | October 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Sarah wants to do something about global warming. Funny, the only thing we can do is reduce usage of fossil fuels. That means no drilling for oil offshore, and more renewable energy.

What is Sarah going to do to stop global warming? Fire McCain?

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

To the comment that not knowing what caused global warming is a stupid statement because if you don't know how it was caused how can you fix it (paraphrased)
I bet you don't have a clue just as most people how we got into this economic crisis yet the Senate today is going to ram a 700 billion dollar package down the american taxpayers throats even after the house defeated it and NONE of them are willing to talk about how most lawmakers o including both presidents Bush and yes Bill Clinton all were apart of it and most profited from it putting it to the working fools of America Why don'y you guys do a bit of research andThe Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[citation needed] Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act signed by President Bill Clinton.[1][2]

The ‘big Democrat’ Biden votes in favor of the corporate greed of Banks, and McCain didn’t even bother to show up for the vote.

Posted by: openurmind | October 1, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"A theory is no more like a fact than
a photograph is like a person."

Edgar Watson Howe

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

So, Sarah wants to "do" something about Global Warming?

Geez Louise, people. We cannot DO anything about Global Warming unless we know what the cause is!

Can't you see that?

Just saying that it exists isn't good enough. Comments like that from Sarah are ridiculous, and just prove how clueless she is about the world around her. What exactly does she propose do DO about Global Warming?

This woman never questions ANYTHING. She has no critical thinking skills whatsoever. She laughs in the face of science.

By the way, Obama has a 15-point lead in Pennsylvania. Sarah is really helping the Dem's this year! I think it's going to be a landslide for Obama. Thanks Sarah!

Posted by: mavisdarling | October 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

The climate change of earth can be compared to the change of tides in the ocean. During the morning, the tides recede, the beach becomes long, and the watter becomes shallow. During the afternoon, the tide comes back, shrinks the beach, and is much deeper in relation to the morning.

The climate of earth is similar in that it becomes colder for a period of time, followed by an era of warmth.

The difference between the natural climate warmth, and this man made warmth, is kinda like a sunami. Picture the earth warming as the ocean receding. Now imagine forcing the ocean to recede much farthur then normal because of pollution and such. Just like in a sunami, the water will come back at high tide farther in proportion to how much it receded. In other words, the water oversteps its normal high tide mark, and washes over houses.

The climate will do the same. Sure, we will see this time of climate warmth increase warmer then anytime in history, and when the climate shifts, IT WILL BE THE COLDEST IN HISTORY. Expect ice-age type snowstorms across the world. Expect thousands of square miles once inhabited to become frozen wastelands. Expect the population to struggle to survive, while all crammed into a small warmer area around the equator.

Posted by: Independent4tw | October 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I mean take away political reasons...what she said is true.
Earth goes hot and cold since we have a
earth rotation axis that movies....so we have period of hot and ice ages ...
I mean that might be small over hundred of years...so may be it contribute to 5% of the climat change and human contribute to 95% ....
But then still Palin's statement is true..
So who cares who got the blame...
How do you fix climat change Ms.Katie Couric ? I bet she don't care...she just want to bring down any one she interviews...
Anyway..Katie Couric has no rating....she is going to be gone soon...she has to do something to keep her million dollar job.

Posted by: andyoo | October 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

You dont have to be smart to be a politician. Most smart people dont want to engage in alpha class behavior but with the present debates and failure of the economic sytem it must be quite obvious that the present elected representatives come from the wrong part of the gene pool.

From a mathematics standpoint economics is pretty simple and most of people in this country realize if you keep borrowing money sooner or later it comes back to bite you. Unfortunately Washington politicians cant get this or are too busy taking bribes in the form of campaign contributions to care.

If the cant get to grips with simple stuff how do we expect them to deal with difficult issues like global warming when not all scientific minds are in tune.

From a personal standpoint I lived in Maine for a while, a beautiful state that has its rivers posted to warn people about eating fish because of mercury poisoning from rainfall from the industrial great lake states.

In England (UK) just outside of Nottingham is Europe's largest coal fire power station that emits tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere where it lands in Sweden as acid rain and is decimating the forests there.

Over here one of the biggest sources of water pollution in our groundwater that many towns use for drinking is cause by urination from confined animal feeding operations CAFO's where tons of un treated sewage is dumped into the ground.

Just try and get the local, state, or federal politicians to do anything about this let alone global warming.

Lets face it most politicians are just not up to the job so its nice to see that Barak can at least read and write.

Posted by: akpat | October 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

several responses here.

the scientific process works because theories and findings are published and peer reviewed, critiqued and taylored. I love it when non scientists try to find non arguments against what they don't want to believe. It is quite rational, even without the science, to expect that human activity adds new elements into the equation/balance of climate, water quality, and a host of other environmental issues. And only foolhardiness and an ability for denial of reality to believe that man's presence and the way we live and reproduce would not have such an impact. Read Thomas Friedmans "Hot, Flat and Crowded."
Next;
Some of what Barak Obama's preacher got in trouble for preaching, actually has substance in it. I know I'll get lambasted for saying this, but I'll suggest reading "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson, which argues the same point, that alot of what is happening in the world today in regard to terrorism, is in direct response to american policy in other countries throughout the world. THings we've financed, or politically influenced, that most americans are blind to, so long as they get to continue to live their "american lifestyle". Perhaps Reverand Wright might need a lesson in tact or discussing a point with less divisiveness, but the points he makes are valid. There is still racism and sexism in this country that is subversive, and is more difficult to address because of this. Kinda like the difference between physical and emotional abuse. The physical is easier to deal with because no one questions it.

We as a country need to be having these difficult discussions without the emotional blackmail of over reaction. And that includes extreme religious ideology that halts rational scientific progress in addressing issues. From both Christian extremeists and islamic extremeists.

Posted by: waterfairee | October 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace
Here's the video youtube keeps shutting down, so keep it going!

Posted by: RUBY2 | October 1, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, CommonSense123.

Did anyone else see the joint interview this morning with Bush41 and Geraldine Ferraro? They both thought that Gov. Palin was a good pick.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Palin believes in witchcraft, and the efficacy of abstinence only education (despite it obviously not working for her daughter (unless she wasn't practicing what she preached.)), she believes that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience (Putin might rear his head), she believes that banning books is ok, and its ok to fire people for retribution, but she does not believe in man made global warming.

Posted by: stevenmpalmer | October 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Once again, the Post snipes with an inaccurate headline that implies something other than what was said. And, once again, it turns out that Palin is more accurate than critics.

We are 'between ice ages', according to 'most scientists', as the Post is fond of attributing sources. Most climate models that lead to the Post's liberal religious convictions about climate change do so while considering insolation to be a steady-state phenomenon. They also fail to mention that atmospheric planets and moons we are able to measure are also warming at a rate matching that of Earth.

Even if the above were not true, the point made by Palin- that we should do something about warming, regardless of the cause- is clearly much more reasonable than the Post's fanatical reliance on liberal ideology in lieu of actual science, not to mention the flat-out lie in this headline.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | October 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

there were no auto emissions back then; and the only period in time mentioned below that used fossil fuels was during the 1850's, at the start of the industrial revolution. even at that time, they claim there was a cooling period.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum. Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree on either the start or end dates of this period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.[1]

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

For the people on this post who are supporting Mrs. Palin's "questioning" of the science behind the proof and cause of global warming, this is just self-serving Bush Republican double-speak. Mrs. Palin isn't a scientist, furthermore, her explanations are so inconguous that it makes me think that she doesn't even understand basic scientific principles.

Over 99.9% of scientists of repute ("peer-recognized" scientists)agree that we are experiencing the effects of global warming. We are way past the question of does it exist. Most countries around the world recognize this and are acting as you know. The Bush/Cheney administration have been anti-science and pro-oil on this topic. Another Bush/Cheney tragedy. Peer-recognized scientists agree that man's activities especially the burning of fossil fuels is one of the main drivers of this. Yes, global cooling and warming are part of cycles, but this isn't one of those natural cycles.

Mrs. Palin supports her view because that's what she wants to do. Either she personally believes this which makes her willfully ignorant which is a poor trait of a public official, or she says this for political reasons for her oil-addicted right-wing base. No matter what, this is cynical. To address global warming effects, you must understand what is causing it. This woman is unfortunately, a mix of views that are not healthy to address our 21st century. She is an anachronism.

Posted by: lucy2008 | October 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Given that it has been proven that the Earth has gone through heating and cooling periods that have significantly reshaped the face of the planet before man existed, I believe it's reasonable to question whether or not we are responsible for this period in time.

There is a hell of a lot of money being made on "going green". Going Green's poster child Gore has a carbon footprint larger than any of ours and has made a fortune since he suddenly got concerned about the Earth. There are millions of $'s floating all over the place for grants to study it and our possible involvement. Going green has become just another industry, not a cause.

If scientists are still completely devided on the issue, I don't see Palin questioning it as a problem or news.

I do think we need to take better care of our natural resources and living beings, but I'm certainly not convinced that the current warming trend is not a natural occurrence.

Posted by: rsix35 | October 1, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

zenplace:

Thankfully, Gov. Palin is running for VP and not you or your son.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Global Warming peer pressure. IPCC, New York Times, Washington Post. The argument in Science today is what is causing global warming. Read the literature produced in Science and Nature magazines. Peer reviewed and full of contradiction. It seems the inquisition is in full gallop this year. All who doubt shall be burned at the stake of public opinion.

We do not need to ruin each others reputations to get to the same goal of alternative energy sources. Cap and Trade and Enron style money grabbing will not solve this energy crisis.

The argument has been made and proven that SOx and NOx reductions that reduced "Acid Rain" have caused Global Warming as well. Enron made two billion dollars a day pushing that scheme in their hay days. This is true man made (Anthropogenic) Global Warming and wealth concentration.

Energy independence is a national security issue that all citizens and world scientists can rally behind. Quit demeaning character with faulty arguments and move to solve our energy independence together without resorting to sixteenth century inquisitions.

The Chicago Climate Exchange is waiting with baited breath to soak up the wealth of our nation through energy taxes. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric.

Posted by: CommonSense123 | October 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Guess what? Just because "most" scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans doesn't mean that it's true. "Most" scientists once believed that Africans and their descendants literally had smaller brains than Europeans and were therefore incapable of learning at the same level as Europeans...and that was in the last 60 years.

Palin is right...climate patterns are cyclical and there is plenty that we have no control of, regardless of how many Washington liberals sell their SUVs and start taking the bus (oh wait, that doesn't happen anyway, does it). Yes, humans probably contribute to it somewhat, but are all you critics willing to change your lifestyles to stop global warming if humans are proven to be the primary culprit?

Posted by: aztec133 | October 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

@AlexP1 What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Posted by: washpost33 | October 1, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

After watching her bumble and BS her way through the CBS interview, I wonder if Katie Couric just wanted to punch the sh*t out of her for being arrogant about being ignorant. It still amazes me about how being clueless is a plus when you're trying to get Republican votes.

Don't get me wrong. There are several lovable idiots -- Anna Nicole Smith, Lindsey Lohan, Hulk Hogan, George Bush, etc. And, while I may find them funny, I don't want them in charge at the White House.

Posted by: asd2 | October 1, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

there are a lot more scientists at wikipedia that disagree with the al gore panic. Wiki search:

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

"robthewsoncamb", it's hillarious.
"JakeD", what the hell are you talking about, WAKE UPPPPPP BUDDY.........

Posted by: SayWhat9 | October 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The time is now!
To remind Americans that Barack Hussein Obama is just another politician that will do or say whatever it takes to fulfill his political ambitions. Barack is calculated and methodical about hiding his true convictions and intentions, and uses deception to get elected.

The time is now!
To remind Americans that Barack Hussein Obama had a 20 year association with his religious leader and priest Jeremiah Wright, who became Barack's idol and role model. Jeremiah married Barack and Michelle and baptized both their daughters. AND, we all remember the hideous videos of Jeremiah Wright’s congregation which included the Obamas, damning America with bombastic joy, after the Muslim’s criminal attack on America on 9/11.

The time is now!
To remind Americans that Barack's religious leader Jeremiah Wright used his tax-exempt church to exercise a radical political agenda, and he refers to Israel, as well as America, as a "racist" State. Theologically Barack's religious leader Jeremiah Wright believes that the true 'Chosen People' are the blacks; He believes that black values are superior to middle-class American values, and that blacks should isolate themselves from the wider American society.
 Indeed Barack's religious leader Jeremiah Wright is a black supremacist.

The time is now!
To remind Americans that Barack Hussein Obama wants to be president to implement Jeremiah Wright’s dream of a black supremacist society in America.

The time is now!
For Americans of all political parties to come together to preserve the future of the country we love by voting for John McCain for President of the United States of America.

Country First!
Americans for John McCain/Sarah Palin

Posted by: Manolete | October 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

considering all the "work" she has done for power and oil companies, this doesn't surprise me. Only a fool thinks we are not the ones responsible for global warming. This is the final straw with me, I'm voting for Barack OBama.

Posted by: aeongabe | October 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm glad she is willing to put aside petty differences of opinions and go right to what options can be done to address climate change.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 8:56 AM
---------------

JakeD...With all due respect, if you study the opinions of the vast majority of scientific experts and politicians, either Democrat or Republican, you'll find that, ultimately, after their bickering, they all wish to "put aside petty differences of opinions and go right to what options can be done to address climate change."

The difference between these other concerned, albeit opinionated, and often partisan Americans, and Palin, is that at least the others are willing to respond to the question "Do you believe it's man-made or not?" with an answer that is straight forward and direct, and not, as Palin's was, evasive, vague, and dripping with tones of arrogance, ignorance, indifference, and naivete.

As much as I despise the man, at least Dick Cheney has a clue about the issue and is willing to admit that man has overstepped the bounds of what nature can easily, rapidly, and effectively correct.

My son is a Junior in high school and can provide a better response than Palin. "Hey dad...have you old-people really screwed-up, or what? Thanks a lot!"

Posted by: zenplace | October 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10]

Source: Wikipedia

Posted by: gettyleigh | October 1, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Palin could have been heard recently;... " Oh gee, anyone that thinks there is global warming, needs to step outside in Alaska in December. Now, I call that's cold. It's REALLY cold, right over dere in Russia too! How can people say it's getting warmer?". Perhaps she should repeat this with Galveston as a backdrop. I'm sure her high school is proud of her!

Posted by: humanbeng | October 1, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Remember, as Pastaferians everywhere know, correlation doesn't equal causation.

Posted by: freelisa_2000 | October 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Tuesday, September 30, 2008
McCain and Couric Spar on Gotcha Journalism

COURIC: Over the weekend, Gov. Palin, you said the U.S. should absolutely launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to, quote, "stop the terrorists from coming any further in." Now, that's almost the exact position that Barack Obama has taken and that you, Sen. McCain, have criticized as something you do not say out loud. So, Gov. Palin, are you two on the same page on this?

MCCAIN: Now, just a minute, Katie. I have to step in here. That's another example of the media's "Gotcha journalism"...

COURIC: But, it was a question from a citizen. How is a citizen asking a candidate a question an example of what you call "Gotcha Journalism?"

MCCAIN: Because it was hard, Katie.

We don't want Gov. Palin to be asked questions, unless she is prepared for them. When she is prepared, as she will be before the debate, she sounds intelligent, knowledgeable and feisty. But when she has not been prepared, she sounds lost and incoherent.

We can't have people asking her questions when she has not had time to be prepared with an answer.

COURIC: But, Sen. McCain, I have to say, you are 72-years old. Actuarial preditions show that if you were to be elected, Gov. Palin would have a 1 in 5 chance of actually becoming President. These are perilous times--unprecedented crises in financial markets, tensions across a wide range of critical foreign policy arenas. Shouldn't we have a Vice President, and a potential President, who actually understands these issues, beyond the preparation necessary for a debate?

Here is her response to a question on the economy, a critical issue, you would agree, Sen. McCain:

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.


COURIC: That answer, Sen. McCain, as noted by Fareed Zakaria, is incoherent.

MCCAIN: Yes. (nodding his head).

COURIC: Well, isn't it actually important that a potential President actually comprehend issues? That is, beyond debate preparation?

MCCAIN: No, Katie. That's what I mean by "gotcha journalism". It's obvious from these prior interviews that Palin has little to no comprehension of fiscal policy and economics. For heaven's sake, she received a "D" in macroeconomics in college! And, as I've I said in the past, I have little understanding of economic issues myself.

No, what's important, Katie, is that she sound like she understands the issues. In the debate. If she is sufficiently prepared, she can give an illusion of understanding the issues--even if she is only giving answers with the prepared and practiced spontaneity and content necessary to give that illusion force.

Given that the bar is set at the lowest standard imaginable, Katie, if she accompanies that performance with sufficient charm, we believe that media will follow, into focusing on the change from that low standard, and on those superficial entertainment values--you know, Katie, (McCain smiles through tight lips and squinting eyes and moves his hands up and down)--"She certainly appears to be more confident tonight; she appears more poised, coherent, humorous"--rather than her readiness to be President from an objective standard. After all, using the more important standard of Presdidential capability, she has already demonstrated that she is unprepared to be President.

So, Katie, we want them to focus on that difference, on her debate preparation, rather than on her actual well-demonstrated Presidential unreadiness. And that's what I mean by "gotcha journalism."

KATIE: But if I understand you correctly, Sen. McCain, you actually believe that it's not important that she understand the issues actually facing the nation...

MCCAIN: Right.

COURIC: On which many people's very jobs, health and life will rely at this critical time...

MCCAIN: Yes.

COURIC: And that all that really matters creating a standard so low that she actually is rewarded for her widely seen and repeatedly demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding. That we would be using what is essentially a remedial standard for Presidential capability--rather than one of actual capability.

Sen. McCain, you seem to be actually suggesting that we should decide that she is ready for the Presidency, simply because, after preparation, she has improved. Even though just days earlier, time after time, she was unable to give coherent answers on these subjects.

No one can gain Presidential-level understanding in days. And in the office of the Presidency, with its intense crises and unforseeable events, she will not be prepared for each unpredictable day, as she was for the debate.

Yet you expect media to focus on these values, rather than actual readiness to be President. That's what you mean by "gotcha journalism"?

MCCAIN: Exactly. And they will. Once again, Katie, I would say to the media: Once again--we "gotcha" to lower the bar. We "gotcha" to set expectations far below those actually required for a President. We "gotcha" to focus on characteristic unrelated to Presidential capability, and to ignore her statements made on these issues made days earlier--as if as if a few days of debate preparation can erase that glaring and dangerous actual lack of knowledge and preparedness. We "gotcha" (smiles).

COURIC: How can you expect the media to fall for that?

MCCAIN: It worked for Bush.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | October 1, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

'tis better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

Posted by: tradervic1313 | October 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Spoken like the oil-woman she proudly is! Never let science get in the way of clear conscience and good profit.

Posted by: quatzecoutl | October 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

If the change is an uncontrollable natural cycle, then obviously Sarah Palin's plan for dealing with could only be to take advantage of the loss of sea-ice to more easily rip mineral wealth out of the earth. Oh, and perhaps retraining native Americans to be gofers for major corporations. Somebody should ask her if she sees global warming as an opportunity and a good thing for mining interests.

Posted by: WillyHSmith | October 1, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Tuesday, September 30, 2008
McCain and Couric Spar on Gotcha Journalism

COURIC: Over the weekend, Gov. Palin, you said the U.S. should absolutely launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to, quote, "stop the terrorists from coming any further in." Now, that's almost the exact position that Barack Obama has taken and that you, Sen. McCain, have criticized as something you do not say out loud. So, Gov. Palin, are you two on the same page on this?

MCCAIN: Now, just a minute, Katie. I have to step in here. That's another example of the media's "Gotcha journalism"...

COURIC: But, it was a question from a citizen. How is a citizen asking a candidate a question an example of what you call "Gotcha Journalism?"

MCCAIN: Because it was hard, Katie.

We don't want Gov. Palin to be asked questions, unless she is prepared for them. When she is prepared, as she will be before the debate, she sounds intelligent, knowledgeable and feisty. But when she has not been prepared, she sounds lost and incoherent.

We can't have people asking her questions when she has not had time to be prepared with an answer.

COURIC: But, Sen. McCain, I have to say, you are 72-years old. Actuarial preditions show that if you were to be elected, Gov. Palin would have a 1 in 5 chance of actually becoming President. These are perilous times--unprecedented crises in financial markets, tensions across a wide range of critical foreign policy arenas. Shouldn't we have a Vice President, and a potential President, who actually understands these issues, beyond the preparation necessary for a debate?

Here is her response to a question on the economy, a critical issue, you would agree, Sen. McCain:

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.


COURIC: That answer, Sen. McCain, as noted by Fareed Zakaria, is incoherent.

MCCAIN: Yes. (nodding his head).

COURIC: Well, isn't it actually important that a potential President actually comprehend issues? That is, beyond debate preparation?

MCCAIN: No, Katie. That's what I mean by "gotcha journalism". It's obvious from these prior interviews that Palin has little to no comprehension of fiscal policy and economics. For heaven's sake, she received a "D" in macroeconomics in college! And, as I've I said in the past, I have little understanding of economic issues myself.

No, what's important, Katie, is that she sound like she understands the issues. In the debate. If she is sufficiently prepared, she can give an illusion of understanding the issues--even if she is only giving answers with the prepared and practiced spontaneity and content necessary to give that illusion force.

Given that the bar is set at the lowest standard imaginable, Katie, if she accompanies that performance with sufficient charm, we believe that media will follow, into focusing on the change from that low standard, and on those superficial entertainment values--you know, Katie, (McCain smiles through tight lips and squinting eyes and moves his hands up and down)--"She certainly appears to be more confident tonight; she appears more poised, coherent, humorous"--rather than her readiness to be President from an objective standard. After all, using the more important standard of Presdidential capability, she has already demonstrated that she is unprepared to be President.

So, Katie, we want them to focus on that difference, on her debate preparation, rather than on her actual well-demonstrated Presidential unreadiness. And that's what I mean by "gotcha journalism."

KATIE: But if I understand you correctly, Sen. McCain, you actually believe that it's not important that she understand the issues actually facing the nation...

MCCAIN: Right.

COURIC: On which many people's very jobs, health and life will rely at this critical time...

MCCAIN: Yes.

COURIC: And that all that really matters creating a standard so low that she actually is rewarded for her widely seen and repeatedly demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding. That we would be using what is essentially a remedial standard for Presidential capability--rather than one of actual capability.

Sen. McCain, you seem to be actually suggesting that we should decide that she is ready for the Presidency, simply because, after preparation, she has improved. Even though just days earlier, time after time, she was unable to give coherent answers on these subjects.

No one can gain Presidential-level understanding in days. And in the office of the Presidency, with its intense crises and unforseeable events, she will not be prepared for each unpredictable day, as she was for the debate.

Yet you expect media to focus on these values, rather than actual readiness to be President. That's what you mean by "gotcha journalism"?

MCCAIN: Exactly. And they will. Once again, Katie, I would say to the media: Once again--we "gotcha" to lower the bar. We "gotcha" to set expectations far below those actually required for a President. We "gotcha". (smiles).

COURIC: How can you expect the media to fall for that?

MCCAIN: It worked for Bush.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

When asked if humans caused global warming, Palin eventually says it "doesn't matter" if we caused it because we simlply have to fix it.

What ?? This makes no sense. How can we fix it if we don't know what caused it?

If our behaviors have contributed to it, then we must change our behaviors in order to fix it.

Posted by: ProudAmerican1776 | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Maybe she could call in another witch doctor from Nigeria and call upon the sun to lower it's energy output. I'm sure that would help.

Posted by: Dolmance | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Scientific theories are supposed to be questioned. Nobody can possibly know that global warming exists and secondly, whether or not it's being caused by man.

Posted by: luncheaterguy | October 1, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

What is the human role in acid rain? I believe its just gods way of telling us to be better people. It has nothing to do with humans creating toxic chemicals in the air.

Posted by: huvajan | October 1, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

She says 'we need to do something about it' but if she won't acknowledge that humans have a role in causing it, then she cannot fix it. What does she think 'do something about it' means, putting fans on the icebergs so they won't melt so fast? If humans have a role, even a small role, you have to acknowledge that in order to change human behavior. Her answer, like so many she has given, is nonsensical.

Posted by: rose_la | October 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

peeeuuu Palin is a complete waste and joke of any type of candidate and is outright pathetic....

Looking foolish when she does not know the Bush Doctrine, or other Supreme Court cases, or talking non-sensical gibberish about "Putins' head" going over Russia...et cetera.....

Let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin...WHAT???

Will it be heard at John McCaint's ranch near Sedona, Ariz.?

peeeuuu is cloistered there with the senator's chief wordsmith and strategist getting prepped for Thursday night's debate, with Joe the Shark....

Unleashing peeeuuu Palin would create yet another chance to shake up the race, after McCaint's return-to-Washington stupidity her performanceon Thursday could be mind mumbingly awful...

McCaint may be looking at the last time she spoke freely, in Juneau to a New Yorker reporter a few days before being tapped as running mate.

The subject was Alaska's program to gun down wolves from airplanes.

Wolves kill moose and elk. If wolf populations are diminished, there will be more elk and moose for Alaskans to kill.

Palin approved paying a $150 bounty to hunters who blow away wolves from planes in certain parts of the state.

They would need to chop off the left foreleg and supply it as proof.

A judge halted the bounty program, but not the hunt.

"It's not aerial hunting," Palin insisted. "It's predator control."

Uh.....WHAT???

A lot of people would call it barbarism. And a lot of people are beginning to worry about peeeuuu Palin's vendetta-filled record, as well as her ability to take over if the 72-year-old McCain should die or become incapacitated..

Although carefully scripted, peeeuuu Palin had a rousing entrance to the national stage at the GOP Convention.

The huffy reaction of feminist pundits seemed only to fortify favorable ratings for the "pit bull with lipstick"

An ABC News/Washington Post poll, on Sept. 7, found 58 percent of voters surveyed had a favorable view of peeeuuu Palin, compared to just 28 percent who reacted unfavorably.

Two weeks later, in the same poll, upbeat opinions had fallen to 52 percent, while negative impressions were up to 38 percent.

Favorable opinions among women had fallen to 43 percent.

peeeuuu Palin has been shut off from local news interviews and pulled off of fundraisers, including a lavish Hunts Point event a week ago.

Questions were verboten when Dr. Henry Kissinger tutored her in foreign policy. Even Fox News complained....WHAT??

The result was peeeuuu Palin's deer-caught-in-the-headlights performance under the eye of CBS.

Try to decipher the response from peeeuuu Palin after Couric asked how she felt about the $700 billion Wall Street rescue passage:

"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 -- oh, 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, um, 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 part of that."

Absolute gibberish coming from this pathetic vp candidate of McCaint and his laughable campaign...

Does this answer give confidence in, as the vice presidential nominee called it, a "peeeuuu Palin-McCaint administration?"

Obviously, peeeuuu Palin has been overmatched and overcoached.

She gave an almost unintelligible answer about Russia and muddled through the Middle East.

Delivering bromides about democracy, Palin was obviously unaware that the militant Hamas won the Palestinian election.

The history of debates shows there is danger in assuming you know more than your foe.

Al Gore, in 2000, sighed during George Bush's answers and made a lumbering physical approach to his opponent.

The verdict across America, and in the Snohomish home where I watched, had Gore winning but Bush the more likable person.

And last Friday, McCaint behaved with condescension toward Obama, preceded his answers with demeaning remarks about the Democrat and refused to look at him.

Post-debate polls showed Obama the clear winner.

So if peeeuuu Palin looks good but sounds stupid, Biden had better not laugh or he'll be made to look insensitive.....to her stupidity....

"Thanks but no thanks to the lies that bridge America to nowhere..."

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 1, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Isn't questioning the whole point of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD? As our future Vice President, and hopefully President someday, I'm glad she is willing to put aside petty differences of opinions and go right to what options can be done to address climate change.

Posted by: JakeD | October 1, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company