Looks like I picked the wrong weekend to visit friends in Washington, DC. It’s so cold here that I saw a Congressman walking down Independence Avenue today with his hands in his own pockets. [cue: rim-shot]
Bet those environmental lobbyists at the “Carbonhagen” summit feel pretty superior right now, seeing as how they can’t come home: The biggest December snowfall in Washington since 1922 is closing all the airports. Oops.
Speaking of the whole intersection between politics and the climate-change thingy, someone sent me a piece about Sarah Palin. Seems she’s feuding with Ahhhnold the Kahl-ee-FORN-yah Governator.
He says she’s off her rocker for questioning the link between human activity and global warming during last year’s U.S. presidential campaign. Last week he told Financial Times:
You have to ask: what was she trying to accomplish? Is she really interested in this subject or is she interested in her career and in winning the [Republican] nomination [for president]? You have to take all these things with a grain of salt.
Point to Ahnold. But the soccer-mom swings back on her Facebook page:
Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sorts of policies in Copenhagen that have helped drive his state into record deficits and unemployment? Perhaps he will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change. While I and all Alaskans witness the impacts of changes in weather patterns firsthand, I have repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities for those changes. And while I did look for practical responses to those changes, what I didn’t do was hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act “greener than thou” when talking to reporters.
Ouch. Somebody call the “cutman.”
Wait. Did Palin just write that she has “repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities” for climate change? Why yes — yes she did.
Maybe I’m just confused. Let’s review the record.
September 14, 2007, in a press release: Then-Governor Palin says she’s forming a “Climate Change Sub-Cabinet.” One of her stated reasons is to “guide the state’s participation in local, regional and national efforts to curb and to respond to global warming.” (Can you curb what you haven’t caused? Just askin’.)
September 14, 2007, in the Alaska Governor’s “Administrative Order No. 238″: Palin officially charges her new “Sub-Cabinet” with responsibility for making recommendations on 15 things, including these five — which sound an awful lot like responses to man-made global warming:
- the potential benefits of Alaska participating in regional, national, and international climate policy agreements and greenhouse gas registries;
- the opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management, and transportation planning;
- aggressive efforts toward development of an Alaska natural gas pipeline to commercialize clean burning, low carbon natural gas reserves;
- the opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the operations of Alaska state government;
- the opportunities for Alaska to participate in carbon-trading markets, including the offering of carbon sequestration;
FLIP
December 4, 2007, in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Palin insists “I’m not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity …”
FLOP
July 2008, in the opening to her report about the new Sub-Cabinet: “Alaska’s climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented within the time of human civilization.”
FLIP
August 29, 2008, in an interview with Newsmax: “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”
FLOP
September 11, 2008, in an interview with ABC News: “I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change … I’m attributing some of man’s activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now … [S]how me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any affect, or no effect, on climate change.”
FLIP
December 9, 2009, in an opinion piece published by The Washington Post: “[W]e can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes.”
December 18, 2009 (Yesterday), on her Twitter feed:
(Did she mean “eons” instead of “ions”? Or did I sleep through both Earth Science and Chemistry in high school?)
What in the name of Holling Vincoeur happened between last September and last week? By which I mean, of course: What kept her mouth shut for so long?
Side note: I’m giving myself mad points for not going for the obvious Sarahypocrisy:
Related posts:
- Hop on the Copenhagen Bus! Or Don’t. Did you know the delegates at Copenhagen have their own...
- Al Gore Charges Extra for BFE (Busted Fraud Experience) Have too much money? Don’t have enough brains? Then visitcopenhagen.com:...
- Al Gore Can’t Find a Warm Reception Anywhere From Christopher Booker in the 7/25 edition of London’s Daily...
- Climate-Change Climate Changing: Settled Science Unsettled? You may have noticed that world-class geniuses like Greenpeace and...
- It Takes Some Big Carbon Shoes to Save the Planet And hey, you’re gonna leave some footprints! That’s what the...
Welcome to DC. We get snow like this every six to ten years. Last time it was this bad was probably 1996. Winter of 1993-1994 was bad enough that Fairfax County Schools was one snow day short of declaring a natural disaster (which negates the need to make up snow days). Instead, we got stuck going to school for an extra 45 minutes a day for a couple months, along with adding days at the end of the year (I think we lost some workdays, too). Elementary school kids go crazy by the end of the regular school day though, so our teacher gave us recess for the extra time (we were GT, we learned all our crap anyway). I learned to play poker. Way to give me extra education!
As for Palin, to be fair, she has never supported either stance absolutely. I have always had the impression that her particular stance is that nobody knows what is going on for sure, so let’s not go crazy. I’m still pissed I missed her on her book tour. She hit my local BJs, and I found out a couple hours AFTER it was all over.
I don’t think school sex-ed would have saved Bristol Palin, anymore than it has saved any other kid. It’s just like alcohol education during driver’s ed: the kids who wouldn’t drink and drive anyway get the message and everyone else learns it long enough to pass the test, then goes out and gets plastered before driving home. Kids in DC can get free condoms from the school nurse, but they refuse them because the city bought the uncool brand. Unfortunately, kids make stupid decisions, and in many ways, it is as much luck as upbringing or anything else. At least Bristol’s being responsible, and at least her parents aren’t abandoning her.
Am I blind? I don’t see any hypocrisy. She admits to climate change, she says that some of it may be man-made, but there is no reason to believe it is all caused by man, consistently. ???
I think I agree with babeltek here. I think she’s kept her approach to environmentalism open, without making any absolute, case-closed kind of statements about it. Just because she’s unsure about “is global warming real?” or “what causes global warming?” doesn’t mean she’s not allowed to explore the issue and possible ways to help the issue. I also think she’s correct in not sacrificing industry and jobs just to go-all-in with the green movement.
Also, I never agreed with the stab the public took at her for her stance on sex ed. vs. her daughter being pregnant. I don’t see how that shows any wrongdoing on her part, or hypocrisy. It would only be hypocritical if she put on a dog-and-pony show for the public eye about teaching abstinence, but at home told her kids “oh it’s okay, go ahead and have sex, here’s a condom”.
I’m with the previous two:
Palin said:
“can’t primarily blame” human’s influences.
What don’t you get, Oversneer?
Maybe “right wing” doesn’t always fit your narrowmindedness?
Love deceiver, but Oversneer, you’re weak.
How is saying ‘I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made’ and then ‘I’m attributing some of man’s activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate’ not hypocricy? The lack of consistancy it noticable.
As for the pregnancy of her daughter, if you advocate abstinence programmes as a way of reducing teenage pregnancies, and your teenage daughter gets pregnant, well maybe it isn’t hypocrisy, but it does show the weakenss of her arguement.
Compare this with Al McManBearPig, and this doesn’t even register on the hypocrisy meter – is it a slow news day at Deceiver Central?
In my defense, I have snow blindness. And also, well — COME ON! I know the Palinmobile has a fresh tank of gas, but can’t you people see she’s playing both sides of the fence here? When she was a VP candidate it was all “Oh yes, we have to sell carbon credits and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” (Notably, that was pretty much John McCain’s position.) But now that she’s on a book tour, Palin is suddenly a contrarian? I’m not buying it. If you are, try saying some of her quotes above with a North Dakota accent, and wink a lot. It comes off like a beauty pageant contestant trying to answer an interview question without using the words “World Peace” ot “Children Are Our Future.”
I’m with Oversneer on this one. Palin needs to explain why she supported “green” policies as governor if she believes we “can’t primarily blame man’s activities” for global warming. Politicians need to check what they want to say NOW with what they said BEFORE, and if there is anything that can be construed as incosistent, they need clarify that from the get-go, instead of seemingly hoping people won’t notice the shift.
“I know I said…before, but I’ve had a change of heart due to (or) there are other aspects I haven’t touched on…”
That’s the kind of thing politicians need to say when shifting direction.
By the way, love the DC Congressman joke!
Weak tea…..
I’m with babeltek and fallingstar and… well, most of the group here. Fact is, what we humans do certainly does impact the environment. (You think LA had smog before all those cars got there?) The question is: How much do we impact something as major as ‘Climate Change’?
The answer is: Not anywhere near as much as those with an agenda (Gore, etc.) are vested in claiming. Certainly, the left is mired in plenty of embarrassing news on this score (as I myself have been predicting for ages now). BUT saying man’s activities have had “no effect at all” is NOT the answer either. Palin may be less than absolute in her stance, but it’s not an ‘absolute’ kind of issue. In fact, from what I’m seeing, she gets her dander up when someone like Ahnold makes one of those absolutist, PC-pandering claims. That’s sufficient for me. She doesn’t need to take a stand that’s 100% opposed to the world’s Gores, as an anti-lefty litmus test, as the Oversneer would have her do.
The Oversneer offers quotes, implying that Palin flip-flops to pander to her audience. To draw that conclusion, I’d need to know the circumstances behind each quote. None are offered. Therefore, I can only conclude that, as I said, there is a fair amount of grey in this area. I actually would have LESS trust in Palin if she were merely repeating a mantra of what I wanted to hear.
This is not the first time Deceiver has overreached to make an un-makeable point. I like the site, but sometimes it does this in order to grind out a post. As a writer/designer, I have learned over the years that sometimes you need to spike an idea because it’s just not going anywhere. That’s tougher to do with a blog, where it’s all about fresh content. The inclination is to just throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. I get that. Well, this one didn’t stick.
On a more positive note, it says something about this site that it attracts the kind of person who will come right out and disagree (fairly respectfully and decently, I mean) with the people who run and write for it. That’s rare.
Life goes on. Bring out the next hypocrite.
I can see her practicing good environmental policies even while possibly not riding the global warming train. We must be good stewards of the planet we have, but we don’t have to follow Gore into fantasy land. My biggest worry with the current light shed on the global warming scare is that if it’s finally exposed, people won’t believe that anything we do impacts our environement and they’ll go back to the previous attitude of not caring at all, just because one big giant stupid Gore-boy cried wolf.
But….maybe she should just stop talking about man-made this and that and be done with it.
as much as i don’t care for her, i have to admit.. that is a pretty picture of her. maybe its because i love the snow, lol
Not that I haven’t gone on long enough, but this bit begs for comment:
“I’m giving myself mad points for not going for the obvious Sarahypocrisy:”
This leads to the cartoon, where Palin is calling for abstinence, and there’s her pregnant daughter. Don’t give yourself TOO many mad points, there. Palin is entirely consistent in this regard. She believes in abstinence (not sure if she is actually against sex education) and is personally against abortion. OK, her daughter gets pregnant. What does she do? She does NOT try to hide the kid in the closet, because she knows full well that unplanned pregnancies happen. Instead, she supports her daughter and helps raise it. She’s teaching her daughter to take responsibility for her actions, and she walks the walk alongside her, as a loving mother should. (I thought Deceiver FAVORED ‘walking the walk’? Did I read your tagline wrong?)
The only hypocrisy here is that the Oversneer said (s)he was NOT ‘going for the obvious’ by running the demeaning cartoon – and then running it. (Yes, I know, it’s “a joke”. Making it “a joke” is a nice excuse for a cheap sucker punch – and a nice cover for hypocrisy. But I’m just joking around here, so you can’t attack me.) Compounding all this is the simple fact that the cartoon has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the post. Nada, nothing, zip, zero.
The more I look at this post, the less it looks like a merely poorly-conceived idea. The Oversneer disliked Palin going in, and indulged in a poorly-rendered hatchet job. I’d like to think Deceiver is better than that – but OK, if you insist, it’s not.
“When she was a VP candidate it was all “Oh yes, we have to sell carbon credits and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” (Notably, that was pretty much John McCain’s position.)”
What’s the VP candidate’s job again Oversneer? Something to do with supporting the lead candidate and not running off with your own policy decisions?
It may be me being technical and all but she did say “can’t primarily blame”….
-Denise
I think a bigger hypocracy would be if her daughter became pregnant and then got an abortion.
Is it just me, or would this crowd have been frothing at the mouth if the same exact chain of quotes was attributed to Joe Biden?
I’m just saying’.
Maybe we need a hard-core liberal blogger around here, just to keep everybody on their toes.
I don’t understand why she would feel the need to play both sides of the fence. There isn’t a chance in Hell anyone on the left would ever consider voting for her. So why pander to them? She doesn’t need them. Period. No one really does. I would be disappointed if she keeps this up.
And I never really considered the writers at Deceiver to be liberal, or conservative. Just interested in truth. Don’t do that please. The last thing anyone needs is a hard-core liberal hanging around.
We would have been frothing at the mouth if Joe Biden had said that, but only because it would be shocking to discover that he can form sentences.
“Maybe we need a hard-core liberal blogger around here, just to keep everybody on their toes.”
Seems to me everyone is very much on their toes here. How is it that you’re not noticing?
“…would this crowd have been frothing at the mouth…”
You sure it’s a good idea to attack your readers? That’s going to come across as a desperate last resort for an undefendable post.
The beauty of the readership here is that it does NOT behave much like a ‘crowd’ or ‘mob’. There are some solid, individual, independent spirits here.
Again I have to ask – how is it you’re not noticing?
So Palin is palying both sides of the Fence and the Guvhnor (spelled incorrectly on purpose), who touts himself as a Republican, is letting California spend like a drunken crack whore while asking the rest of America to bail them out?
Can someone spot the RINO in the room?
Redefining your opinion on a subject is not hypocracy, it is simply logic. Unlike all the nut jobs who want to bankrupt America while letting the UN tax us for percieved pollution that they can’t acurately measure.
Global warming isn’t the only reason to be more efficient, and look for cleaner energy and newer renewable energy.
1. Many of our energy sources( natural gas, oil, coal ) are limited, and so it is in our best interest to use them as efficiently as possible.
2. We have used up many of the limited resources that are easy to get to/extract, which means when we switch to shale-oil, oil-sands oil, etc, that due to the additional work it takes to get, it will be more expensive.
3. Many of these resources are located in areas that are populated by people that don’t like us, i.e. want us dead, so they can either cut us off, hurting our economy, or the money we use to buy them is then used against us.
4. Pollution many not have the effect some claim on the climate(I don’t believe it does), but it does have an effect on many peoples health, so lowering pollution would help many people live longer happier healthier lives.
5. If we can find more efficient, renewable energy sources(solar, etc), then the work/effort currently directed to that can be redirected, increasing productivity/innovation, and improving quality of life all over, especially for the poor.
I meant to mention that although I believe that we should be efficient, I don’t believe the government should have anything to do with it, efficiency by its very nature saves money, so businesses and the public will naturally adopt/invest in it. There is no reason for draconian rules and artificial subsidies that cost people jobs, make everything more expensive, and harm our economy.
PS: Bio-diesel from algae, especial from power-plant bio-reactors, is awesome.
I just LOL’d at that one Beige! Ahhh, Biden jokes never grow old.
I’ve never really understood the hypocrisy of her abstinence position (especially since she’s often misquoted on it). Would she be less hypocritical if she promoted safe sex and had a pregnant daughter?
You’re still trying to claim that Sarah Palin never supported sex education in schools? She said she thought kids should be taught about contraception but also that abstinence is the only way to make sure you don’t get pregnant. Fail, guys.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/nation/na-sexed6
Scandalous. Much more scandalous than the fact that Obama was actually a Kenyan citizen until 1984? (I’m guessing you’ll pretend this is not relevant).
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obama-and-kenya-again/
I’ve heard Cherubim is looking for a job…hubby has some big child support payments to make.
@Fortunate_Son – No, amazingly enough, it isn’t relevant, but that’s never stopped you so far.
LOL that the far left has gone from denying Obama held Kenyan citizenship until 1984 to pretending that it isn’t relevant to being POTUS.
The birth certificate people seem to be gaining credibility by the day.
History may not be kind to Mr. Obama.
To all who are surprised by this post, I believe I can explain it. It’s just a matter of balance, actually. See, Deceiver spends quite a bit of time pointing out liberal hypocrisy. Every so often, gotta make a few token potshots at some Republican, so that the site can appear more balanced.
That said, this post is pretty reaching … there are plenty better examples of Republican hypocrisy out there …
Ok, lets see if I can help clarify things. I live in Alaska, I’m conservative, but Palin has become a complete enigma from the governor who I voted for and sometimes I wish she would just keep her mouth shut. The more soundbites you put out, the more foolish you seem, SNL will ensure that. Yes, I can see Russia from Alaska too, but that’s irrelevant because SNL said so. Here in AK it’s very noticeable, the winters are getting colder and the summers are getting hotter. Glaciers you used to see from the highway, are now a couple mile hike in. Something’s going on and nobody can explain it. Many give into the gloom and doom, hellfire and brimstone approach, i.e. Al Gore. Anyways, back on point, We need to be good stewards of the earth, only an idiot would argue otherwise, but, why is global warming/climate change effecting the Arctic at such a rapid pace compared to the rest of the world? Wouldn’t it make sense for industrial cities, that are constantly covered in man-made pollutants (ex. Beijing, where they had to curb pollution for the athletes sake) to be experiencing the greatest fluctuation, instead of the least populous and industrious parts of the planet? I understand pollution gets spread out, but it is far more concentrated consistently in other areas with little climate effect. Health effect may be different but we’re discussing the climate. Longer story shorter (sorry), pollution is bad, while global warming is something else that man may be contributing to. Any deals going on in Washington are monetarily driven. After all the U.S. cap and trade would only reduce carbon 1%-4% by generous estimates.