Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sarah Palin: Just say NO … to Copenhagen

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

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
Chauncey Gardner? Peter Sellers at is best.CannuckianYankee
December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
jerry, "Being There" is one of my all-time favs! But I wonder who else will get the "Chauncey Gardner" ref?Joseph
December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
The conspiracy that Palin refers to sounds a lot like the wedge strategy.olin
December 6, 2009
December
12
Dec
6
06
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Evidently, Seversky has gulped the kool-aid, and thinks that Palin's just a rube, a joke, a hick with gapped teeth. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091206/D9CDHPGG2.html Oh, I almost forgot. Gee, thanks so much, Seversky, for your part in putting BO and Plugs in the White House. How's that hope and change workin' for ya?riddick
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
The islands that Palin is referring to are the Diomedes in the Berring Straight. Little Diomede (in Alaska) is approximately 2.5 miles from Big Diomede (In Siberia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diomede_IslandsCannuckianYankee
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Leftist, secular political correctness has poisoned the humanities for decades in the academy. Just look at the sociology, psychology, history, English and other departments in the humanities to see what has happened. I was once there in the the 1970s, and even then I was indoctrinated with moral relativism, Marxism, and hatred of traditional Christian values -- at taxpayer expense. But something much more nefarious and destructive has recently taken place: The physical sciences, which were the last bastion of objective research, have now been poisoned by political correctness, so that no one can have any further faith in the objectivity of any pronouncement from the academy. I now automatically assume that any paper coming out of any publicly funded university is probably tainted by philosophical bias and corrupted by leftist, secular ideology.GilDodgen
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”. . .conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming.. . . Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. . . . “restore science to its rightful place.”
The major issues relating to UD are the particularly the abuse of science and tribalism of Darwinists and their seeking to exclude everything except naturalistic materialism. We need to restore integrity to origins science as with climate science.DLH
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
A slightly off topic question - where can I find Dave Scott blogging on this topic?Douglas Moran
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Any criticisms of Sarah Pallin relevant to her experience should apply more so to Barach Obama as he had less experience than Pallin did when he was elected. Granted he is now getting a fantastic experience on what it takes to run the country but coming in he was an almost complete amateur. I often laughed at the criticism of my Obama supporting friends who said she was only a couple heart beats away from the presidency while supporting a guy who was to be given the top job and had no relevant experience. We might have been better off with Chauncey Gardner.jerry
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
---hummus man: "So, Sarah Palin gets an A for geography. Too bad it was a foreign policy question." Explain that to Charles Gibson who framed a foreign policy question in terms of Alaska's proximity to the Soviet Union, obviously unaware of the fact that the two countries almost touch, a strategic reality that shouldn't need any further explanations. It is almost 6,000 miles from Chicago to Moscow. It is only about 35 miles from the Alaskan border to the Russian border. See how that works?StephenB
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Quoting Sarah Palin on UD? Really? Really????Gods iPod
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Sometimes its really sad to see the depths which some will sink to slander another person. Usually it ends up saying more about the slanderer, then the one being slandered. I will be the first to admit that Sarah Palin is not a scholar at the Ivy League professorship level. Few people are and quite frankly, most people at professorial level usually make horrible executives. She is hardly a dummy though either, having fought a political battle against an entrenched corrupt machine and won - even though the corruption was in her own party. But to slander her as you did in your post is contemptible. If you actually watched the interview for body language, and actually read the unedited portion, you would realize that she made that comment as an off hand remark leading to a much longer answer that was cut by ABC. To claim that she offered the fact that you could see Russia from Alaska as a complete justification for foreign policy experience is to make up something as ridiculous as believing that VP Joe Biden thinks JOBS has three letters ( even though he said it during the campaign ) or the President Obama thinks we have more than 57 states ( as he also stated during an interview ). Selective editing of a piece to slander an individual is very easy to do. All you need is a willing media, and a group of people willing to be duped by the media. Seversky, I don't really know if you think that the last comment you recorded in your post discredits the Governor or not. I hope you are smart enough to see its irrelevance to the issue of global warming or to judging her ability to effectively assume a leadership position. If you can't see that, you are being willingly duped.JDH
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
Liberals are not conspicuous for their knowledge of geography.
So, Sarah Palin gets an A for geography. Too bad it was a foreign policy question.hummus man
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
Sarah Palin has a humble heart and sees the need for Godly counsel. A lot of the American people will take that rather than the UN blueprint to impose global government described by Lord Monckton, especially now that climategate has exploded the smoking polar bear of truth under the "retreating glacier" of deception. And both Russia and icebergs are visible from Alaska so Sarah Palin has insight into foreign policy and climate.waterbear
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
I heart Sarahtribune7
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
----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. Liberals are not conspicuous for their knowledge of geography. ----“whose mastery of foreign policy issues was expressed, in an interview with Charlie Gibson.” Obviously, Gibson did not know that there are several aspects to the Bush doctrine, including the justification of pre-emptive wars, the conviction that the U.S. should spread democracy at the end of a sword, and a multitude of other considerations. Palin asked exactly the right question. Gibson was too uninformed to understand its significance.StephenB
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
"whose mastery of foreign policy issues was expressed, in an interview with Charlie Gibson" The same Charlie Gibson who asked a question condescendingly about the Bush Doctrine and then proceeded to explain it incorrectly when Sarah Pallin indicated she didn't know what he was talking about. It turns out it was he didn't know what he was talking about. Drill Baby Drill.jerry
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
This is the Sarah Palin whose concern for the environment is expressed thus
Governor Palin is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program whereby wolves and bears are shot from the air or chased by airplanes to the point of exhaustion before the pilot lands the plane and a gunner shoots the animals point blank. Palin offered a $150 bounty for wolves to entice hunters to kill more wolves in certain parts of the state, with hunters having to present a wolf's foreleg to collect the bounty. She actively opposed a ballot measure campaign seeking to end the aerial hunting of wolves by private hunters and approved a $400,000 state-funded campaign aimed at swaying people's votes on the issue. She also introduced legislation to make it easier to kill wolves and bears and which would have also removed the aerial hunting initiative from the ballot and block the ability of citizens to vote on the issue. The Board of Game, which she appoints, has approved the killing of black bear sows with cubs as part of the program and expanded the aerial control programs. The media is currently looking into reports that state officials implementing one of the aerial wolf killing programs illegally killed five-week old wolf pups just outside their dens.
This is the Sarah Palin whose concern for the environment is expressed thus
Governor Sarah Palin has an extreme anti-conservation record on issues ranging from global warming, energy and drilling to wildlife and habitat protection. Aerial hunting of wolves and bears Governor Palin is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program whereby wolves and bears are shot from the air or chased by airplanes to the point of exhaustion before the pilot lands the plane and a gunner shoots the animals point blank. Palin offered a $150 bounty for wolves to entice hunters to kill more wolves in certain parts of the state, with hunters having to present a wolf's foreleg to collect the bounty. She actively opposed a ballot measure campaign seeking to end the aerial hunting of wolves by private hunters and approved a $400,000 state-funded campaign aimed at swaying people's votes on the issue. She also introduced legislation to make it easier to kill wolves and bears and which would have also removed the aerial hunting initiative from the ballot and block the ability of citizens to vote on the issue. The Board of Game, which she appoints, has approved the killing of black bear sows with cubs as part of the program and expanded the aerial control programs. The media is currently looking into reports that state officials implementing one of the aerial wolf killing programs illegally killed five-week old wolf pups just outside their dens.
and whose mastery of foreign policy issues was expressed, in an interview with Charlie Gibson, thus
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.
Seversky
December 5, 2009
December
12
Dec
5
05
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply