Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palin sets off sarcasm, climate change debate

Our Readers have filed more than 1,000 comments in response to Sarah Palin's op-ed column attacking climate change science and suggesting President Obama should not go to Copenhagen for the international climate talks.

The comments are full of sarcasm and attempts at humor and fall into these categories: Palin is right; Palin is wrong; The column is ghostwritten;The Washington Post has lost its way for publishing her.

The global warming debate has gained considerable volume in recent days because e-mails and files have come to light showing "the leaders of climate-change science discussing flaws in their own data, and seemingly scheming to muzzle their critics," as David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin wrote recently.

We'll start with kerrd, who wrote, "Let's see. Whom should I believe regarding the question of climate change? Sarah Palin or the National Academy of Sciences?"

But chazmull said, "...Ms. Palin uses facts and logic to make her case and her critics call her names and have the temerity to suggest that they are her intellectual superior."

PamelaM1 wrote, "It is hard for me to believe that Palin wrote this article. It is written with complete sentences and is coherent. Trust me,I am not trying to be funny. Love to see her live debating the issue. I doubt her handlers will let THAT happen."

pjs1965 said, "...I'm convinced Sarah Palin actually wrote some of it because it contains no data. It all boils down to conspiracy theories surrounding these leaked emails, and the reasoning that we should do nothing about global warming until we're really, really, really sure that it's actually happening... I would rather put my trust in those who have actually studied climate change..."

glitch83 wrote, "Wow, the washington post has fallen to new lows. This screed lacks any evidence to support her views other than the leaked emails which have been shown by experts to not mean much more than showing that scientists are human and have, at most, reduced reality to its bare minimum for the sake of explaining the science to the layman. I can't believe that WaPo would publish this..."

whowhat said, "Absolutely Sarah. To heck with this so called climate science. It should be thrown out with all that nonsense about Evolution. And lets get rid of all this math stuff. I don't understand it and I don't trust anyone who does. If the good Lord had meant us to He wouldn't have given us calculators!"

jdbalmer8 wrote, "Now that the Post has solicited Dr. Palin's expert opinion on climate science, I wonder if follow-up op-ed pieces by Alfred E. Neuman and Tweety Bird."

To which bmadden3 replied, "Professor Al Gore, who earned half a degree in theology, has become the god of the progressives church of the environment"

bourassa1 wrote, "...when the chips are down and money is tight, the Post's not above hopping on the Palin gravy train for a ride. More hits, more ads. More ghost-written trash."

And kathleen_oconnor asked, "Why are you giving this ditzoid space?"

To which douglaslbarber replied, "Because online, when a person clinks on a page which contains an advertisement, the publisher gets money. Sarah Palin's the surest bet to get clicks. (Or was, until Tiger Woods went on that peculiar drive).
I say let Ms. Palin air it out..."

subscriptionsinbox asked, "What on Earth has happened to the Washington Post? Katharine Graham would be appalled that you would run such ghost-written drivel by such a disreputable person .. and present it as a legitimate op-ed. Tragic."

bob59 said, "2009: Global Warming exposed as a hoax. Oblah-blah begins his lame duck term.
2010: Liberal Democrats kicked out by voters. Obama begins 2nd year as a lamer duck. Economic recovery begins.
2012: President-elect Sarah Palin. Lamest duck Obama cheered out of office.
2013: President Sarah Palin and her female vice-president show TRUE bi-partisanship. Country begins to heal. Obama who?"

coastofutopia wrote, "Palin makes good points about the role of scientists in public debate and the high costs of carbon emissions reduction schemes. If anyone else had written this piece, it would be greeted with polite interest."

honorswar26 said, "Thank you Sarah Palin for plainly telling the truth about how the liberal's "climate change" agenda will destroy America's economy while the rest of the world takes advantage of our foolhardy administration."

stephanie9 wrote, "This woman is incredibly ignorant about science. The main problem though is that there are a lot of Americans who think just like her. God help us!"

We'll close with mdpilot, who wrote,"Dear Sarah, Which newspaper would you read to determine if Copenhagen is a:
1. Country
2. Continent
3. Tobacco"

All comments on this op-ed are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  December 9, 2009; 7:39 AM ET
 | Tags: Global Warming, Palin, Washington Post  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Should we leave equipment in Iraq?
Next: Not buying Medicare buy-in

Comments

This issue is too important to trivialize with remarks by Sarah Palin. Naturally, her position is "busines as usual." The Republicans, the WSJ, big business do not want to change their trajectory one iota even if it means the end of the human race. That will be then, this is now, and there's money to be made. That is their view and that is, naturally, Sarah's view.

Posted by: think4yourself1 | December 10, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

"Sarah on Science"? Isn't that kinda like, "Hitler on Hanukkah"?

Posted by: washpost18 | December 9, 2009 11:56 PM | Report abuse

The real question is why did a once supposedly "respectable" newspaper like the Washington Post give her the space to spout her silliness?

There must have been a lot more people with a lot more knowledge about some subject of interest who could have easily filled the space on the op-ed page.

If there had to be a anti-climate change Op-Ed, there are certainly "scientists" (as Palin puts it) who are much more qualified than Palin.

Guess the Post's need for attention outweighed their concern for the true public welfare.

Posted by: WUSRPH | December 9, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Liberals think anyone who disagrees with them is stupid. Sorry you little leftwingnuts, but there are reasonable people who disagree with you. Liberals refuse to even admit the hacked emails show that the global warming effort was being skewered with phony stats. When someone is so set in their ways, they cannot accept any departure from their line of thought, well, it sort of makes conservatives think liberals are what, maybe...stupid.

Posted by: johntu | December 9, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

And what evidence do you have for Obama's supposed genius"

Thats to easy to answer, maybe because the stimulus he passed has staved off another depression? Those are leading economists words not mine. And you comparing him to Palin who didnt know Africa is a continent? hahaha you are to much. This is to easy.
=================================
The stimulus didn't work jack off.
We are still in an Obama created depression. Unemployment went way above 8%.
Remember

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Al Gorge the big idiot in chief on the global warming scam.

This manbearpig doesn't have the credentials to speak about science. Yet the libtards bow to his every word.
"The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.

Gore said that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. And he pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue.
=================================
Yeah the vast majority happens to be the group that took over the peer review process and prevented dissenting opinion.
Liar in chief. The manbearpig who tried to steal the election from Bush.
Thank you Jesus from saving the country from this hypocritical buffoon.

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"And what evidence do you have for Obama's supposed genius"

Thats to easy to answer, maybe because the stimulus he passed has staved off another depression? Those are leading economists words not mine. And you comparing him to Palin who didnt know Africa is a continent? hahaha you are to much. This is to easy.

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I findit quite amusing that all the emotional drivel from the detractors could apply to the current POTUS as well (hasn't done much, doesn't know history, etc.). I suppose it is unreasonable to expect a lib to actually use reason and logic to support any argument posed. Hey Libs, get a new play book; name calling doesn't work and makes you look like an idiot!

Posted by: rickshawjim
___________

Unlike your adult and erudite post, eh Rick?

Posted by: arancia12 | December 9, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Rick,

Do you not understand history? Do you not understand that George W. Bush added 8 trillion to the national debt? Do you not realize he borrowed 2 trillion from the Chinese? Do you not realize that the economic disaster in this country was from the bad policy's of the GOP who held all 3 branches from 01-07? Of course you dont, why do i know this? Because you think Palin is an intellectual. So my real question to you is Why do you hate America so much?

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

While our fifth columnist press has done its best to hide Comrade Obama's disturbing past, each day more Americans are seeing that this man hates his country and is hellbent on ruining our economy and undermining national security. Now he wants to give the enemy combatant who masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks a public stage to spew his hatred of America. Perhaps it is Obama's actions and his anti-American, anti-freedom ideology that explains the growing disapproval with this president.

And what evidence do you have for Obama's supposed genius when he doesn't even know how many states are in the US and sounds like a stuttering buffoon without his teleprompter?

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

===========================
You lie. Proove it.
We all know "genius" er ah er ah Obozo reads a teleprompter...
Not so Bush...

Posted by: rickshawjim
____________________

Too funny! Bush may not have used a teleprompter but he came up with gems such as;

"Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." Whaaaaaaa...uh, ew.

I'll bet Rove wished he could have tied the boy-genius to a teleprompter after that one.

Posted by: arancia12 | December 9, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Of course, Palin and Bush do not use a telepromter: they cannot read.

Posted by: DavidS11 | December 9, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I findit quite amusing that all the emotional drivel from the detractors could apply to the current POTUS as well (hasn't done much, doesn't know history, etc.). I suppose it is unreasonable to expect a lib to actually use reason and logic to support any argument posed. Hey Libs, get a new play book; name calling doesn't work and makes you look like an idiot!

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Rick,

There’s one reason above all others that President Obama uses a teleprompter in delivering most of his speeches: he’s good at it.

Ronald Reagan was the same way. He was more at ease in reading his speech off the dual screens of a teleprompter than looking up and down at a speech text on his lectern

Not so, George W. Bush. He often got that nervous, deer-in-the-headlights look when giving an address from a teleprompter. He would seem stiff and ill-at-ease. He did not convey a sense of understanding.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4848259.shtml

I guess you never watched any of his State of the Union address, if you did look to the left and right of the podium, guess what you see A TELEPROMPTER......

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Rick,

Did you get your parents permission before using the computer today? Your saying Bush never used a teleprompter? Get real, or get a clue junior. Oh and also i believe Palin was on the ticket last year during the election and you know what SHE LOST. So good luck with your pipe dream of her being elected President. She isnt qualified to be President of the FAA much less the United States.

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama, the only president to use a teleprompter."

Boy you guys are dumb, no wonder this country kicked the GOP out and still thinks Obama is the best to fix this country's mess. Dubya mangled the English language and he was SPEAKING FROM A TELEPROMPTER.
===========================
You lie. Proove it.
We all know "genius" er ah er ah Obozo reads a teleprompter...
Not so Bush...

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

rick,

Her popularity is up, not her electorate popularity, which is still in the teens, except in the no nothing GOP circle.

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

"Obama, the only president to use a teleprompter."

Boy you guys are dumb, no wonder this country kicked the GOP out and still thinks Obama is the best to fix this country's mess. Dubya mangled the English language and he was SPEAKING FROM A TELEPROMPTER.

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Palin doesn't use a teleprompter.
The "genius" in the Wh does.
Obama, the only president to use a teleprompter.
Quite laughable really, if you have ever heard him speak without one...
'er ah er ah ah ah"..
Genius my arse.
Fool with a Harvard degree is still a fool.

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"For those who claim that we are afraid of Sarah Palin i guess you havent heard her speak or didnt watch her during the VP debate. We are not afraid of Palin, we are more of afraid of the ignorance of you who support her"

Palin's polls are up, Obama's are down.
Keep calling Palin a dunce and the man that's destroying the country a genius.
Genius, I say Carter redux pathetic!!!!1

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

rickshaw,

Show me a speech by Dubya or Cheney that they didnt use a teleprompter? Moron

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin looks like a C+, B- student at best. How can anyone take her opinion seriously on something as COMPLEX as global warming?
Posted by: mtbunker | December 9, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

~~~
Looks like a C+, B- student at best?????

The problem is that she thinks like a D-, F student, who uses other peoples work to get attention.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | December 9, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

So she's a dunce - well at least she can speak without a teleprompter. And the crowds she gathers she never had to offer free food and a rock band (something your paper and none of the other media outlets bothered to report). And like all liberals you offer "facts' without proof. You say "Obama is briliant" - but the idiot won't release any of his grades, scholarly papers, and work from the Harvard Review to "show us his brilliance". It is strange that when he was at the University of Chicago he never once attended any of the round tables and seminars even though he was invited, maybe because he would have picked up on the act. Read the American Thinker, they have been putting a compendium of Obama witticisms - by looking at them one would think he was Yogi Berra. But most of you liberal readers ad you who control this blog will look at it but just say: Sarah Palin is a dunce, because the fact that all of you were conned by a charming poltroon is beyond you own imagination. If this reality became clear, you would have to double your prescription of Prozac or you would "slit your throats" because of the humiliation.

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

For those who claim that we are afraid of Sarah Palin i guess you havent heard her speak or didnt watch her during the VP debate. We are not afraid of Palin, we are more of afraid of the ignorance of you who support her. She has done nothing but quit her job as governor, tells the media to "quit making things up" when she quit and runs to Facebook 2 weeks later to give her fictitious version of death panels. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So please please please i beg of you, send her all your money, get her nominated, put her on the ballot. I for one cannot wait to see that debate, if she couldnt beat Biden and deffer-ed on 2 easy questions, what do you think Obama is going to do to her?

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin looks like a C+, B- student at best. How can anyone take her opinion seriously on something as COMPLEX as global warming? The ice caps are melting. The glaciers are melting. It is unequivocal. The BIG OIL lobby is trying to appeal to the dumbas@es of the nation, which is most of the nation unfortunately. Big oil needs to go the way of Big Coal - it needs to go away. News organizations keep quoting "polls" of the American public. Why in the world would ANYONE poll any group on any scientific issue in which 70% cannot find the seven continents and the five oceans of the world on a globe? It is like a bad joke.

Posted by: mtbunker | December 9, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I heard that Biden is going to write a book called "Going Rogaine" Is that true? It must be all about why he is half bald. Well, we can't have everything in life and he doesn't have anything at all. In fact when does he work?

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody noticed there is more and more Conservative commentators dominating the op-ed section lately????
Wonder why?
There isn't any liberal commentators that are worth printing...
All the best sellers are written by Conservatives.
Can you imagine Al Gore writing anything coherent that would be worth printing in a large national paper?
Think not.
Let alone John Kerry...
You libs will just have to go elsewhere to read your "regurgitated crapola".

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

The attacks on Obama are growing stronger, even in this paper. Watch out libs, your bastion of liberal bias, the WP is going to be over taken...by people who get Palin.
The more you try to smear Palin, the higher her polls rise.
And the lower Obama's goes.
When she reaches 60% and he is down to 30%
will you finally STFU!

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

One thing I have noticed, the most negative Palin comments and defense of Climategate are all concentrated on two or three blogs. The WP, NY (backwards)Times, and HuffingPuff Post. Everywhere else these hyena liberals would be laughed and drowned out by posters who would agree with Palin's assessment and praise her.
WP, NYTimes, didn't exactly print any of the Climategate emails, or do any invetigative reporting on the subject.
The liberal, Palin Hating/afraid ones, are all clustered in one or two sites, and it gives them the illusion they are in the majority.
They are not. They look like fools.
Oh BTW Gore said , three times, that the newest email was "10 years old".... but of course he hasn't read them. Go liberals, defend your apostle Al...
When you and your kind are booted out of every office in the land.. then we can truly rejoice and the country can recover.

Posted by: rickshawjim | December 9, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey Doug why have you chosen the most drivelous comments from the right as examples?

If you're getting paid to do this, you're probably getting paid too much.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 9, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post needs to apologize to its readers and to the nation for running an article by a revealed liar and champion of ignorance on a vital subject she has no business writing about.

This really was beyond the pale. Bad enough you run irresponsible loonies like Krauthammer and Kagan but at least these people, nutty though they are, have been educated.

I bet WaPo lost a lot of subscribers for this, and deservedly. They've lost me as a Kindle reader. If I were a paper subscriber I would have canceled yesterday.

Shame, shame, shame. I bet Ben Bradlee is spinning in his grave.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | December 9, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"It makes me wonder if you're all really this full of unreasoning hatred in your daily lives? Or do you just reserve your hysterical contempt for women who are demonstrably smarter and more successful than you'll ever be?"

really? you are smart enough to put together several words to create a sentence, and this is what you come up with?

Ha, ha, ha .... no wait...no, I can't stand it!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .....oooooh please ....Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee....

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | December 9, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

b202,

Lets see Gore graduates cum laude from Harvard with a BA in government and Palin graduated from lets see Hawaii pacific university, nope left after a semester, North Idaho college, nope only stayed one year there, University of Idaho, nope only spent a year there, Matanuska-Susitna College, nope only spent one semester there, and finally got a journalism degree from University of Idaho. So who has the better pedigree? Oh and i forgot she is the same person that installed a high school buddy in an Alaskan cabinet position because of their love of cows. So you think that gives her credibility on climate change? I bet you think George W. Bush is an expert on foreign affairs and economics?

Posted by: rharring | December 9, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

What a state of rot. This is eerily similarly to Omarosa appearing on celebrity apprentice.

Omarosa was a no-name participant on Apprentice, and was booted. Then she gained notoriety, and became (gosh!) a celebrity which then qualified her to reappear on Celebrity Apprentice.


Doug Feaver has, probably intentionally, conjured up a deja vu.

WaPo recruits the Bimbo-from-whose-house-you-can-see-Russia to "author" an uneducated op-ed (redundancy noted)

WaPo gets pilloried for doing so with thousands of comments, which then prods Doug into doing a post-game show on the comments, with supposedly equal time for the Bimbo-from-whose-house-you-can-see-Russia's goobers!

Seriously, shouldn't an op-ed piece serve *some* journalistic goal?

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | December 9, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Wow, so this is what passes for "debate" these days? [...] If your idea of reasonable debate is to call your opponent a ditzoid beauty-queen, then, despite what you think, you've already lost."
Posted by: horace1

Wow, so this is what passes for "debate" these days, simply labeling your opponent as having already lost without considering all that is being said? Must be nice to not only define the debate but choose its winners and losers.

Posted by: Fate1 | December 9, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Wow, so this is what passes for "debate" these days? I read nothing but sanctimonious, patronizing, sexist, and vile and personally vicious comments - nothing (and I do mean "nothing") but ad hominem attacks, in every form.

It makes me wonder if you're all really this full of unreasoning hatred in your daily lives? Or do you just reserve your hysterical contempt for women who are demonstrably smarter and more successful than you'll ever be?

If your idea of reasonable debate is to call your opponent a ditzoid beauty-queen, then, despite what you think, you've already lost.

Posted by: horace1 | December 9, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

How sad is it that conservatives are so far removed from the current science of this that they think it was all generated by Al Gore? They probably think the actors in the pharmaceutical ads on TV developed those drugs in the lab and studied their efficacy. If you found out that one of those models in the commercial had had an affair, say, that would sure blow the lid off the whole "modern medicine hoax", wouldn't it?

It's the same thing with Al Gore. Because he is a public mouthpiece for this issue, every breath he takes is scrutinized. If he presents a thousand points in his movie, and 7 of them turn out to be a little shakily-worded, well then. Kind of renders the work of thousands of PhD climatologists over a couple of decades completely meaningless, doesn't it? Yessireebob, whatever Glen and Rush say.

I wish we had intelligent, educated people in this country. Instead we get candidates like Palin, and millions of mindless minions following her off a cliff (and trying to drag the country and world with them).

Posted by: B2O2 | December 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Newsweek is claiming greed might save us in the Rev. Al Gore issue. Rev. Al is making a killing on this stuff and Palin has a book out, so she's in the green stuff. What can I get out of you without giving you anything for it is going to save the planet. Everybody build a still!
Alcohol Fuel: A Guide to Making and Using Ethanol as a Renewable Fuel (Books for Wiser Living from Mother Earth News) (Paperback) will get you started.

Posted by: Dermitt | December 9, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

JimWatson101 wrote: "Meanwhile, the exhalted Lord Gore is claiming that earth's interior is "millions of degrees" and that the most recent of the CRU emails is at least "10 years old"."

I watched Gore last night on Letterman and he said "some" of the emails that people like Palin are touting are 10 years old. I din't hear any claim about the earth's core temperature. If he really said that it was probably a slip where he meant "thousands", you know, the kind of slips Bush use to make at every speach and when we laughed we were called unpatriotic?

JimWatson101 wrote: "And you Left-overs are claiming that Palin is botching the science?"

How does claiming that Gore got a fact wrong in anyway imply that Palin is not botching the science? Pointing out other's failings does not improve your image you know. But at least Gore is out there, being interviewed, getting questions on the fly, exposing himself to scrutiny. Palin hides behind Facebook and op-ed pieces where she has no pesky questions to answer. She hides from scrutiny and accountability to hide her inabilities and lack of knowledge.

Posted by: Fate1 | December 9, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, the exhalted Lord Gore is claiming that earth's interior is "millions of degrees" and that the most recent of the CRU emails is at least "10 years old".

And you Left-overs are claiming that Palin is botching the science?

Posted by: JimWatson101 | December 9, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Face it, the WaPo blew it, and everyone knows it.

Only an "editorial board" filled with America-hating dunces would have had a weathergirl write an op ed about global warming.

Posted by: WillSeattle | December 9, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I think Palin is right. She is a known expert in climate since she can TRULY SEE the sky in Alaska even if she cannot see Russia from where she was.

Posted by: steviana | December 9, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Here's, basically, the contrast that sums up the profound insanity currently afflicting the conservative wing of our country. It's the "1% Doctrine" versus the "97% Doctrine".

The "1% Doctrine" (courtesy of Dick Cheney): If there is a 1% chance that fundamentalist religious terrorists might get WMD, then that justifies spending a trillion dollars and sacrificing a million human souls to invade a secular country that has expressed some abstract interest in WMDs (but is not on speaking terms with the fundamentalists). Oh, and by the way that country sits on the world's second largest crude oil reserve, but that has nothing to do with our, er, interest. (And we've been speaking in private with the oil industry about Iraq, but the details are none of the public's business and I will fight to the Supreme Court to keep them secret.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html

The "97% Doctrine": Even if there is a 97% consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are causing the planet to heat up, and that will cause massive droughts, disruptions, unrest and who knows what other manner of chaos down the line if we do not address it NOW, that is still not enough certainty to act. You need to convince every last oil industry-funded "scientist" before we will lift a finger to help.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

Posted by: B2O2 | December 9, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

re: katie6
Palin's interviews

Interviews with Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson and Sean Hannity don't really count as interviews.

Posted by: jjj141 | December 9, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey Doug, we can read the posts ourselves. How about some context? How does Palin attempt to convince us that the science can't be trusted? Did she succeed? How can you reprint the exchange between jdbalmer8 and bmadden3 and not address the merits of their argument. Apparently all opinions are equal.

Posted by: mus81 | December 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is entitled to her opinion...and that is what it ism her opinion. However her opinion means as much as my 2 yr od daughter's opinion (although I take my daughters opinion more seriously than I take Palin's)

Posted by: jjj141 | December 9, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

For Mrs. Palin,

1. There is plenty of room for scientists to debate the exact nature of climate change. But to suggest that a lapse in professional integrity by a few climate scientists makes other work done in this field unsound and invalid is like saying failing a Chemistry test makes the science of Chemistry illegitimate. It's absurd notion.

2. I agree that policymaking requires politicians and administrators to weigh real world costs and benefits. Such deliberation always takes place in light of fact, evidence, reason, and values. Even if all parties reach the same fact-based conclusions about the impact of climate change, what they decide to do about it will be influenced greatly by their political values. This is the normal policymaking process in a representative democracy. The fact is that Mr. Obama won last November and Democrats expanded their majorities in both houses of Congress; so, while it is perfectly legitimate for Republicans to oppose the president's policies, it is nonsense to say he's making an "end run around the American people". The EPA, whose job it is to set and enforce environmental policy, works for the president--and through him the American people.

3. The American people spoke quite clearly last fall. After a brutal primary fight and even fiercer general campaign, the American people elected Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency. He is now implementing the policy agenda that he discussed extensively during the primary and general campaigns.

Feel free to object to Mr. Obama's environmental policy. But don't pretend he's being undemocratic in implementing the environmental policy on which he campaigned.

Feel free to state the obvious: there are plenty of unresolved questions as to the exact nature and impact of climate change. But don't pretend that the behavior of a few lazy and unethical scientists invalidates all of the work done on climate change.

Posted by: poitoueksophia | December 9, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse


Thank God someone is willing to tell the Climate-Cult Kool-Aid drinkers that that Earth is not flat.

Posted by: pgr88 | December 9, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

ghost written is the first thing that came to my mind whilst reading the editorial by ´sexy` sarah who was briefly the governor of my state. I have discovered after years of research as an Alaskan sourdough discovered the source of global warming and am now going to reveal it. All of the middle aged man who break out into ´hot flashes´ when they fantasize about dear sarah are raising the global temprature. ´she is so hot´ seems to be the common refrain at gunshows, on the streets of Anchorage, and with grey haired men that I meet in my travels outsidein the lower 48 if they choose to discuss our short term governor. Americans ´who don´t believe in evolution certainly won´t beleive in climate change.
What with her ´big hair´I suspect she drives Bill Clinton into a frenzy
gil
kasilof, ak

Posted by: other_one99 | December 9, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin's editorial is not only full of misleading statements about the CRU emails, it is also quite rich with irony. Because unlike the scientists at the CRU, the author of this piece didn't just talk about not sending papers to a particular journal which had fallen into disrepute, she actively squelched her own climate scientists, in Alaska, over the polar bear issue. Here's an interview with one of them:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/17/sarah_palin_and_global_warming_alaska

"Later in the year, the USGS, which does most of the research on polar bears, United States Geological Survey, put out nine studies. This was in September of ’07. And again, the state’s marine mammal scientists were asked to comment, to review that science, comment on it. They did, and they found that the conclusions were solid. That was the scientific work that predicted that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears would be gone by mid-century, and all of the polar bears off of Alaska would be gone. And then they had a caveat about that, saying they thought that was a conservative estimate and that it would probably happen faster than that.

So, here you have the state’s marine mammal experts, three or four of them, very reputable scientists, agreeing with the federal proposed rule to list polar bears and with the USGS studies showing that polar bears are in serious trouble, yet the governor maintaining her political position that polar bears are not threatened by anything, and they’re opposing the listing.

So what you had, essentially, was a situation where the governor made a political decision, not a scientific-based one, to oppose the listing. Secondly, she misrepresented the basis of her decision to the public, saying it was based on science, when indeed it really wasn’t, and then, thirdly, tried to conceal all of that, when I was simply asking for that scientific review to be released. So there’s three red flags there for the public. "

Posted by: B2O2 | December 9, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"If Palin was to rely on original data, and the National Academy of Sciences was to rely on second-order data from a source which admitted that it threw out its original data so it could not be verified, probably, Ms. Palin, as hers would be a calculation, the NAS, a guess."
Posted by: Paladin7b

Ok, what is Palin's data? Just what is the data she is relying on to make a scientific judgement and what qualifies her to understand what a scientific judgement from climate data?

To equate this sad little politically driven woman with the NAS is preposterous. Do you also consider statements from Monday morning quarterbacks who know little about how football is played about the technical details of the last Redskins game?

I've known scientists, some of them are my friends, and Palin is no scientist. She is likely unable to understand the meaning of the ingredients on a soup can much less climatic data.

I find it extraordinary that some would listen to a politician over thousands of scientists about the results surrounding scientific data. If you think the scientist would be politically driven and not the politician I really have to wonder what world you live in and whether you run to a hospital when serverely sick or seek out advice from people like Palin, who is just as qualified to treat the sick as she is to evaluate climate data.

Posted by: Fate1 | December 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

What do you think are the chances that Palin wrote that op-ed herself? Why don't you put her in a web chat, so we can see how much she actually knows about climate change?

Posted by: pjkiger1 | December 9, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Sara Palin and Science is a Oxymoron or a palinoron. As a famous general would say this is "Nuts".

Posted by: ILuvUS | December 9, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

This is the column on climate change the DC Post SHOULD have run:

December 9, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist - The New York Times
Going Cheney on Climate
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well.

- full column at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Posted by: maryeor | December 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

What is the quality possessed by these folks that proceed to present themselves on the public stage long after their failings are announced.

Go take a seat in the back of the class and listen for what you missed.

Palin proceeded through a national election while her teenage daughter navigated unwed motherhood.

Go sit down.

Huckabee showed up on the Dailey Show last night, acting like, the dog ate his homework, no big deal; hello, four police officers are dead.

Or Governor Sanford. Hey, take a seat in the back of the room.

Spitzer seems to have confronted his personal failings better than most of these jokers on the national stage, and he was the rare player who actually had substantive ability to deal with the major finanacial debacles the nation needs to confront.

Posted by: cnezblvnaolcom | December 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Let's see. Whom should I believe regarding the question of climate change? Sarah Palin or the National Academy of Sciences?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Palin tells you that 2+2=4 and the National Academy of Sciences says it equals 5, who will you believe?
======================
The National Academy of Sciences would never tell you that 2+2=5. The situation you pose is completely impossible.

Posted by: aallen1 | December 9, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

-----------------------------------------
If Palin was to rely on original data, and the National Academy of Sciences was to rely on second-order data from a source which admitted that it threw out its original data so it could not be verified, probably, Ms. Palin, as hers would be a calculation, the NAS, a guess.

Posted by: Paladin7b | December 9, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

It's gotten so I can barely tell the Washington Post's editorial pages from The Onion. They are both completely non-serious and good for a chuckle. The difference of course is that the Onion does it on purpose.

Posted by: markswisshelm | December 9, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

The question is NOT: "Is Sarah Palin credible in climate?" The answer to this irrelevant question is YES, because she poses the real relevant question: "Are Scientist Credible in Climate?" And We all know now the answer to that: NO!
But you can tell us and VOTE at http://www.robbingamerica.blogspot.com

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | December 9, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"It was 1 degree where I live yesterday and the normal is 40. "

This is what the Washington Post does when it publishes anti-science drivel like Palin's [or whoever wrote it] piece.

You give credence to people who are as sadly ill-informed and ignorant as the poster above. Congratulations for further dumbing down the public discourse.

Posted by: drindl | December 9, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"Let's see. Whom should I believe regarding the question of climate change? Sarah Palin or the National Academy of Sciences?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Palin tells you that 2+2=4 and the National Academy of Sciences says it equals 5, who will you believe?
======================
The National Academy of Sciences would never tell you that 2+2=5. The situation you pose is completely impossible.

Posted by: aallen1 | December 9, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"It was 1 degree where I live yesterday and the normal is 40. No one who actually has any sense at all can see the earth is NOT warming."
Posted by: katie6

You use weather to explain climate. Sorta shows just where your knowledge about climate is. The two are not the same, but don't let that get in the way. God forbid making stuff up and non sequitors can't be used to prove your point. Do you use whether your car is in your driveway or not to explain traffic patterns? You probably think that is silly. I agree, just as silly as your statement about temps in your town while record icebergs are cleaving off of Antartica and the north polar cap has shrunk 40%.

Posted by: Fate1 | December 9, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Palin is a moron. Moreover, she's also a self-serving, delusional moron.

Why does she think she's now a climate and weather expert? Because she can see it from her kitchen window?

I wish she'd shut the hell up and go back to disemboweling moose.

Posted by: EdSantaFe | December 9, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

And of course, the moose-slayer is never sarcastic herself, is she?

I guess I misinterpreted her unrelenting sarcastic squawk, her racist smearing and gutting of Obama that passed for an acceptance speech at the GOP convention last year! I guess her daily sarcastic insults and smears against Pres. Obama until his election (YES by golly, the Democrats DID win! (sad that they don't realize it) were really high-brow-minded, diplomatic and dignified talking points.

I loved her racist old running mate's sarcasms too, especially the, yes, racist, "That One" sneer at Obama during a debate.


Posted by: strohblumen | December 9, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

You are right, Obama can't function without a teleprompter. He's burned more fuel, wasted more taxpayer money and glamorized himself and Michelle more than any other administration. He's spent more than $4 trillion federal money in the first year; compare that to other administrations.
And, yes, global warming is scientists wanting to keep their grant money.

Posted by: kathy26 | December 9, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Palin is a sleeper, just wait and see. She's getting her act together, knowing America is on to the schemes of Obama and his Chicago mafia-style rule.

Posted by: kathy26 | December 9, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Between Palin's overreaching screed and the fluff piece by Parker about Santorum, it is just appallingly clear that the Post Op Ed pages have lost any relevance with respect to the issues of the day and is now a barren intellectual wasteland wherein any idiot can opine about something...wait, isn't that already the Internet? I'm seriously considering canceling my subscription since I'd rather not subsidize idiocy when I can view it for free on the Internet. You reap what you sow, Post.

Posted by: lloydamy | December 9, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"Let's see. Whom should I believe regarding the question of climate change? Sarah Palin or the National Academy of Sciences?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If Palin tells you that 2+2=4 and the National Academy of Sciences says it equals 5, who will you believe?

Posted by: Hawaiian_Gecko | December 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is a "ditzoid" obviously has never watched a hapless Obama when the teleprompter fails or listened to Biden say ANYTHING, teleprompter or no.

One thing is clear about Palin: this momma from Alaska has got the Left absolutely terrified. This is why she deserves ink in the Post.

Posted by: JimWatson101 | December 9, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

When was the last time the Post published a column and then sponsored a discussion about the credibility of the author? Certainly, then, I would expect a future discussion to center on whether Eugene Robinson is a credible critic of Tiger Woods or whether Richard Cohen is a credible critic of Obama's Afghanistan policy.

It's called op-ed for a reason. You would think the people who worked at a newspaper would know something about the subject.

Posted by: diehardlib | December 9, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Those who commented who said Palin is not smart never saw her last two extensive interviews on television apparently. There is nothing dumb about her. What she is not is a total ruthless politician like Obama. When he is off script says some pretty dumb things in a very slow manner. His intelligence has been greatly exaggerated by the media. As for global warming, this is all about money, BIG money and the redistribution of income. Not real science but a cult. It was 1 degree where I live yesterday and the normal is 40. No one who actually has any sense at all can see the earth is NOT warming. These eco freaks have been caught moving heat sensors to asphalt roof tops to show more heat. Gores 21 feet in sea rise turns out to be flawed, it is 21" if at all. There are 20,000 polar bears compared to 5,000 in the seventies. The list of flawed data is endless and so is the greed to take our much needed money and give it away.

Posted by: katie6 | December 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is credible beauty queen and wolf killer. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: arancia12 | December 9, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company