Sarah Palin: Just say NO … to Copenhagen

_{William Dembski

December 5, 2009

Climate change, Global Warming}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

– Sarah Palin

Comments

Voice Coil. I understand your position and could not disagree more. As Jay Budziszewski has eloquently stated, some things you can’t not know. Those things are the standard, or, as Lewis called it, the Tao. Your and Mr. Frank’s statements imply that that we cannot be sure that the prescriptions of the Tao really are transcendent. Rubbish. Lewis again: Can you even imagine a world in which men who run away in battle are applauded or where men who betray and kill those who have loved them best are admired? Neither can I. Another example from Lewis: In some societies you can have one wife; in others five, but there is no society in which the men can take any woman they please. There is room to debate on the edges of the Tao, but its core is absolute. What’s more, I am not telling you something you don’t already know, deep down, no matter how many times you may deny it.Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

BarryA:
Mr. Frank, there is nothing to judge the standard by; for it is the standard by which we are judged. Your question is meaningless, quite literally nonsense.
I find Mark's question intelligible. There is an unanswered difficulty with "absolute standards" to which it speaks: How does one discern whether one is in possession of absolute standards, or rather have embraced more ordinary standards, of human devising, that include the content "these are absolute standards?"Voice Coil_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Mr. Frank, there is nothing to judge the standard by; for it is the standard by which we are judged. Your question is meaningless, quite literally nonsense.Barry Arrington_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

#74 Both “moral” and “monster” imply a standard. And what do we judge the standard by?Mark Frank_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Seversky,
I know I am a “moral monster” and “rabid atheist” but would you like to be more specific about where exactly I am going wrong?
Both "moral" and "monster" imply a standard. A standard which you reject. You might think you're moral, but you also think that morality doesn't actually exist outside of your thinking. "Monster" implies that there is a type of being that "shouldn't" be the way it is. But on the premise of evolution, there is no being that "should" or "shouldn't" be. On that premise, we are all, quite literally, mutated space dust. There is no fixed being that is approximated to, to even begin to constitute another being as monstrous by comparison. On the premise of evolution's endless and aimless becoming, all are from the same natural source. You may as well say that the wind "should" blow east, but since it blew west, it is a "monstrous" wind. And on the premise of the evolution of morality, you have admitted that torturing babies to death for fun is good and moral in principle, if evolution decreed it as so. And all dictates that you impose, such as "mutual interest" and "reciprocal altruism" and "survival" all hinge on the premise that they "should" be sought as a moral "duty", and thus your system begins with what you maintain doesn't really exist objectively. It begs the question. In the end, you cannot provide a real system of values for why any of your dictates should be followed, for they all rely on the premise that says that they just "should" be followed. But you cut off the branch you are sitting on when you make those fundamentals subjective. You have no basis for it; you cannot provide an "is" for your "ought," though you claim to be able to. This is why you are wrong, and demonstrably so.Clive Hayden_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Mr Seversky, How many modern voters do you think would have the patience or the interest or the intellectual capacity to do that? That would depend on what was on TV, or if they had just downloaded that new game, or if the battery of their iPod needed recharging, or if they had to stop texting while standing there listening. Politics as entertainment has not kept up with the alternatives. We used to worry about sound bites, but now the message has to fit in 150 characters! Intellectual capacity? We have it, even if we use it for something else. Vocabulary? A different question, though 19th century politics had a much sloganeering and mud slinging as today, if not more.Nakashima_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Jackson was a great soldier and a great president, although his reputation is tarnished by his treatment of the Indians.
He also was wrong about the central bank and, by virtue of his veto of it's 1832 recharter and the subsequent withdrawal of government money from the Bank, managed to precipitate a significant and long lasting economic downturn.
I know I am a “moral monster” and “rabid atheist” but would you like to be more specific about where exactly I am going wrong?
Well, I would guess it is because you don't accept Clive's assertion of an objective moral code. I would surmise that even if Clive was to actually codify his objective moral code and you were found to live your life by that code without exception, he would still look at you disapprovingly because you didn't accept that God was the source of that moral code. Faith, works, you know the deal.hummus man_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 33
Your quote:
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron
Is absurd elitist claptrap. The “plain folks of the land” are nothing to belittle. This is what our Republic was intended to be, a government of the people. It is elitist absurdity that would equate “plain folks of the land” with voting-in a moron.
Mencken was lamenting the fact that then, as now, politicians who wanted to win had to pander to the lowest common denominator in their electorate and the logical extension of that process would be a moron in the White House. Hardly surprising when a large part of that electorate will have graduated from schools where being popular and good at sports is considered far more important than any scholastic achievement.
The plain folks of the land voted for every single one of our presidents. Andrew Jackson comes to mind, in which the elite thought that he was the epitome of the unwashed masses and that the White House had been adorned by a moron.
The plain folks who followed the Founding Fathers and elected those first presidents were people who would buy and devour the latest densely-written political tracts hot off the press. They could actually follow and understand them, too. They were interested in the ideas and the arguments. They would stand for hours just listening to the oratory of the great speakers of the period. How many modern voters do you think would have the patience or the interest or the intellectual capacity to do that? Jackson was a great soldier and a great president, although his reputation is tarnished by his treatment of the Indians. He was smart, tough-minded, determined and, if it wouldn't have been ungentlemanly to do so, would have squashed a Sarah Palin like a bug if she had been foolish enough to get in his way. The sad thing is that most of the Founding Fathers and early presidents would today be seen as members of the sort of elite you, Sarah Palin and small-town America despise and would hence be almost unelectable.
You know, Seversky, on a personal note, you, quite frankly, epitomize everything that I think is wrong with our current culture. I engage you because I want to help you. But, I’m not sure if it’s just a lost cause, because almost everything you write I think is wrong, and demonstrably wrong.
Actually, I was thinking much the same thing. I know I am a "moral monster" and "rabid atheist" but would you like to be more specific about where exactly I am going wrong?Seversky_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

----hummas man: "So, to wrap this up, you do believe that Obama got into Harvard, elected on the The Review, and graduated in the top 10% of his class not because of any merit, but solely because of Affirmative Action. Okay, fair enough. One question though. Do you feel similarly about programs at Ivy League schools that award legacy admission to children of wealthy and powerful alums?" You bet! I doubt very much if George Bush [Yale] or Ted Kennedy [Harvard] would have been allowed to fail a course or even get a scandalously low grade. Indeed, I suspect that both of those men rank very, very low as compared with the average student in both institutions. They were allowed in only because they are members of the privileged class. We end on a solid note of agreement. Also, I must allow for the possibility that, in spite of my protests to the contrary, Obama really did do a turn around and accomplish that which he was given credit for. If he didn't have talent, his supporters would not have groomed him for bigger things. Also, talented people sometimes don't get their fire lit until late in the game, which would explain the lower scores in undergraduate school. Still, I would have expected something concrete in the form of a thesis or some other written artifact to seal the deal. Anyone who is truly a member of the top 10% of an institution that typically rejects probably over 90% of the applicants, should really have something on the ball. In such cases, the scholarship oozes out of them. You don't have to go looking for proof of their capacity to perform.StephenB_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

You make no argument and no point. I see the trees and the forest- and made my point.
Actually that whistling sound you heard wasn't the tea kettle, it was my point passing right by. So, in light of this being the season of holiday travel and reveries, I'll dispense with the Socratic Method and just show you what you are missing. Let's look at the deficit trends over the course of each administration: Kennedy - constant and essentially zero Johnson - constant and essentially zero Nixon - constant and essentially zero Ford - increased deficits Carter - constant Reagan - increased deficits Bush 41 - increased deficits Clinton - decreasing deficits and surplus Bush 43 - increased deficits So, given this, it isn't clear to me how you could ever come to the conclusion that Democrats borrow more.
Yes republicans barrow and spend- but Dems have BARROWED a lot more.
Clever play on words. I was thinking you didn't have a sense of humor, but I am glad to see I am wrong. Reminds me of the joke about how you define an honest politician as one who, once bought, stays bought.hummus man_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Hummus at 65, You make no argument and no point. I see the trees and the forest- and made my point. Yes republicans barrow and spend- but Dems have BARROWED a lot more.Frost122585_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

why are all his other academic records a secret and why didn’t he publish anything worth reading?
Probably for the same reason that Sarah Palin doesn't release any medical records proving that Trig is really her child. For the record, I don't believe (contra Sullivan) any of the rumors that Trig isn't her child. I believe he is, but that isn't my point. So, to wrap this up, you do believe that Obama got into Harvard, elected on the The Review, and graduated in the top 10% of his class not because of any merit, but solely because of Affirmative Action. Okay, fair enough. One question though. Do you feel similarly about programs at Ivy League schools that award legacy admission to children of wealthy and powerful alums?hummus man_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

---hummas man: "By the way, Steven, you do realize that magna cum laude is presented to the top 10% of a class, so you may want to clarify what you mean by grade inflation. Were grades only inflated for the minority students, leaving the poor white kids to fend for themselves?" Yes, I am aware of that fact. You will recall that I have reason to believe Harvard provided Obama with special treatment. ---"Also, do you have any actual evidence that Harvard Law School (and apparently the University of Chicago Law School) are rife with political correctness run amok, or are you starting from your conclusion that Obama is unqualified and working backwards?" I feel no need to prove that Harvard is a stronghold of political correctness. They pioneered it and defined it. Obamas SAT scores are a secret and so are the facts of his performance, except for those awards that you mention. Here are a few things to think about: Occidental College records – Not released Columbia College records – Not released Columbia Thesis paper – “not available” Harvard College records – Not released Selective Service Registration – Not released Medical records – Not released Illinois State Senate records – “not available” Illinois State Senate schedule – “not available” Law practice client list – Not released Certified Copy of original Birth certificate – Not released Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth – Not released Harvard Law Review articles published – None University of Chicago scholarly articles – None Is this what he means by "transparency?" On the other hand, maybe he really did pull it off. I have no way of knowing for sure, so I can only go by four pieces of evidence which are at variance with one other [A] He has always been given special treatment, [B] His defining records are a secret, [C] Harvard awarded him Magna Cum Laude, [D] If [C] means anything, why are all his other academic records a secret and why didn't he publish anything worth reading?StephenB_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

What is funny about your link Hummus is that you can see how Bush’s tax cuts actually stimulated revenues for a short period
Ah, Frosty, I see the trees. But, I don't think you see the forest. Try again and this time look at the trends associated with each administration. Then associate party affiliation. See it now? Democrats (which I am not) may be "tax and spend", but I can only conclude that Republicans are "borrow and spend."hummus man_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Read what I worte- and dont you forget it - it is the truth.Frost122585_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

and Pardon my logic there Hummus- I was up late and tired- the trend is the same just not the exponent obviously- you are right that your little graph shows yearly deficits- and I am right that under Bush they eventually began to retrench- but here is the graph you SHOULD have shown from the same source I think- http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present as we can see the Obama deal is heading back the other way- and quite frankly I think this chart is biased in his favor- as almost ever other stat I have heard or seen shows an even worse projection under Obama. And for the shocking difference in the TOTAL budget debt go to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt under the section " Calculating and projecting the debt" you will see in 2005 the projected debt was about 2.3 trillion- but now Obama's own people are projecting a hockey stick to 20 trillion by only 2015. And what is Obama's plan to fix this bottomless pit? Spend more. He is even trying to take the tarp money that is being paid back and spend it now. I don’t let Bush or Obama off the hook- both allowed terrible spending- and Bush fell for all this bum rush bail out hysteria- but now that Obama is in it is on him and he is just proving his ineptitude. And one last note- even with all this stupidly spent stimulus and bailouts- the markets are not even improving- it is morel like they are on life support than actually rebounding- proven by the falling again stock market and the unemployment rate that refuses to budge. Oh and how does Obama plan to help those who cannot find a job to get medical care? He is going to FORCE them to pay about 3k per year of money they do not have to buy health insurance they may not need- and if hey do not they will face government punishment- something right out Stalin’s hand book.Frost122585_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

What is funny about your link Hummus is that you can see how Bush's tax cuts actually stimulated revenues for a short period- helping to cut the national debt from about 425b to 250b- a very significant 59%. At the time in 2006 or so there were some big stories on how the tax cuts through economic growth caused a startling INCREASE in tax revenues. But the Communist News Network (CNN) and PMSNBC and all the toilet papers only mentioned it for about a couple days- even though it was a HUGE story as it pertained to the US economy and economic theory in general.Frost122585_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Hummus, http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/Frost122585_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

By the way, Steven, you do realize that magna cum laude is presented to the top 10% of a class, so you may want to clarify what you mean by grade inflation. Were grades only inflated for the minority students, leaving the poor white kids to fend for themselves? Also, do you have any actual evidence that Harvard Law School (and apparently the University of Chicago Law School) are rife with political correctness run amok, or are you starting from your conclusion that Obama is unqualified and working backwards?hummus man_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Frost:
You chart only shows up to 2006 where the deficit was apparently about 250 billion then- but now after Obama we are up to about 10 Trillion.
The chart was yearly deficits, not cumulative. Try again. As for others, why is it a recession is an excuse for deficits under Bush (which is true), but not Obama. As for Steven, you are probably the first person ever to argue that a Harvard Law degree is meaningless. You are truly a groundbreaker.hummus man_{December 8, 2009
December
12
Dec
8
08
2009
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Frost122585 -
You chart only shows up to 2006 where the deficit was apparently about 250 billion then- but now after Obama we are up to about 10 Trillion.
This is a remarkable - 40-fold if I have my figures correct - increase, although I haven't seen it presented anywhere else. If true this is appalling. Do you have a source?PaulT_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Hummas all that evidence shows is that the deficit began before Bush at the end of Clintons era- and the end of the tech bubble which grew the economy vastly and produced great tax revenue. Then Bush got in and the recession hit about at the time he started- before he did anything- and the deficit grew regardless- and yes after Bush went to war (wars I personally think were worthy) the deficit grew even more despite the economic growth that was spurred by Bush's tax cuts. Coupled with the fact that Bush and the republicans did nothing to lower government spending the deficit grew- However with an already obvious imminent and expanding budget crises the US people lead by a pathetic education establishment, apparently,. and a TOALLY corrupt mainstream media- (which still is as CBS did a story tonight on how the science proves that AGW is definetly happening) proven by things like Dan Rather's forged evidence of Bush skipping military service- resulted in the election of the biggest and most irresponsible spender in US history. You chart only shows up to 2006 where the deficit was apparently about 250 billion then- but now after Obama we are up to about 10 Trillion. Good grief.Frost122585_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

---hummas man: "Was his being elected editor of the Harvard Law Review another freebie tossed his way? His magna cum laude graduation? Was he filling a quota when he taught constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the nation for 12 years?" Yes, I suspect that all of it can be attributed to affirmative action. Why do you think he never speaks of his experiences at Harvard? Harvard Law School was the first to initiate the use of affirmative action in selecting candidates for law review selection. Also, it has different law review admissions based on race. Between grade inflation, the lobbying efforts of his comrades, and what may have been total insulation from any "white" competition, my guess is that his Magna Cum Laude means nothing.StephenB_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

"Was his being elected editor of the Harvard Law Review another freebie tossed his way?" Probably. He never wrote anything for the Law Review, one of the few ever in history.jerry_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

"So, what is the best inference from this evidence?" That we were on the way to a balanced budget till we got a Democrat congress in 2006. The Republican congress forced spending restraints on Clinton. That along with the reduction in defense spending and the incredible income from the dot com bubble gave us a temporary surplus. Then a recession hit in 2000 as the bubble popped and slowed the economy down. Capital gains revenues dropped dramatically. Then came 9/11 which froze the economy for a while and which then added additional military spending. We were headed to another budget surplus when the sub prime mess hit.jerry_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Stephen:
beginning with an undeserved admission to the Harvard Law School
Was his being elected editor of the Harvard Law Review another freebie tossed his way? His magna cum laude graduation? Was he filling a quota when he taught constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the nation for 12 years?hummus man_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Frost:
furthermore he is spending the US into a hole of debt so deep that it will not take too much more to spiral the US into a currency crises-
So, what is the best inference from this evidence?hummus man_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Obama got into Harvard through his Black Muslim connections.jerry_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

----Walter Kloover: "Gibson asked her what insight that closeness gave her into Russia’s actions in Georgia." Alaska has military bases and Palin is undoubtedly aware of any security issues in her purview, which would include Russian border issues. Clearly, that doesn't rise to the level of face to face interactions with the Kremlin, but it is not nothing. Obama, on the other hand, had no foreign policy experience in any context, no executive experience, and as far as I know, has never even had a real job. So, if you are embarrassed by Palin's executive experience and limited foreign policy experience, you should be much more embarrassed by Obama's total lack of both. From what I can tell, Obama has been given unearned privileges all throughout his career, beginning with an undeserved admission to the Harvard Law School, which he clearly did not earn, to his privileged inclusion into Chicago politics. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, had to work her way up the hard way. She even had to explain to the press why she once received a low grade in macro economics. No one has ever asked Obama to explain his mediocre performance in college [he didn't even receive honors] and why it entitled him to attend the most prestigious university in the United States. Can you explain it? ---"I suppose you also think that a perfectly sensible answer to the question “what newspapers and magazines do you read?” is “all of them.” No, I don't like that answer. What do you think of Joe Biden's foray into public speaking where he asked a man in a wheelchair to stand up and take a bow?StephenB_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

StephenB- Can you go back to your comment #3 and explain how Palin's answer "makes perfect sense"?
—-GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you? —-PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska. It was Gibson who used the word, “proximity.” For Darwinists, that means “closeness.” In that context, the answer makes perfect sense. In addition to Gibson’s confusion about context, he probably has never seen a curved world map. You CAN see Russia from Alaska, since it is much less than fifty miles away.
At the time, some supporters of Governor Palin were making the ridiculous argument that the fact that Russia is close to Alaska gave the Governor some foreign policy expertise. Gibson asked her what insight that closeness gave her into Russia's actions in Georgia. Instead of making a sensible answer, which would be to say "Well, it's not the proximity Charlie, it's my experience with Russian trade and diplomatic missions, my study of the history of our close neighbors, etc. that gives me the following insights . . . ", she said [the proximity gives me the insight that] "you can see Russia from Alaska." You think that aswer makes perfect sense? I suppose you also think that a perfectly sensible answer to the question "what newspapers and magazines do you read?" is "all of them."Walter Kloover_{December 7, 2009
December
12
Dec
7
07
2009
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply