Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Sarah Palin’s Washington Post Op-ed: Copenhagen’s political science

Sarah Palin’s new Op-ed in the Washington Post is a more fleshed out version of her recent Facebook note calling for Obama to boycott the UN’s climate change summit in Copenhagen. Palin once again calls our attention to Climategate and all the questions that arise from it.

Palin points out the common sense in waiting for solid answers to the questions raised by Climategate, before America agrees to anything in Copenhagen. By doing this, Palin makes Obama’s decision to attend Copenhagen look naive at best or nefarious at worst.

Why shouldn’t we wait to see what those climate scientists were up to? Why should we be damn sure there isn’t a hidden agenda behind man made global warming? These are the very questions this administration seems loathed to answer or to even be asked. Palin’s op-ed will clearly add pressure to have these questions answered.

Copenhagen's political science

By Sarah Palin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.
The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.
This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized 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 had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.
Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinetto deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow themto increase their emissions -- President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.
In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.
Via: Memeorandum   


Uffda said...

Oh, she's running. She's running..... :)

HalifaxCB said...

Cool that by 9am DC time the op-ed piece has well over 1100 comments. Usually a hot op-ed will draw a few hundred over a day; most get only a few dozen.

Jess said...

The President should avoid the summit, but if he did, he'd have to stay and do something he really doesn't and earn his pay. Then again, when he does do anything, it's such a disaster the repair to the U.S. is almost impossible.


Janelle said...

The Copenhagen climate summit is the 2009 version of "Little Shop of Horrors". Pity that we can't send several "Audreys' to dispose of the waste and grow large enough to consume all the carbon dioxide being emitted by those present at the meetings. The ladies of the night would make a terrific chorus in the background.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

I've read her opinion piece and the comments that went with it. Question: would it matter if SHE raised the point of caution or are people too fished in by the climate bunk to care?

Clifton B said...


I am becoming convinced she is running too.

Clifton B said...


Behold the power of Palin. What is interesting to note, is that the haters leaving comments clearly have not read the Climategate emails. This show that their Palin hatred is reflexives and unreasonable. That will come in VERY handy if Palin runs in 2012.

Clifton B said...


Yeah we are in a rock and a hard place moment with Obama. Have him stay home and work and we all go to the poor house, send him to Copenhagen and we all go to the poor house.

Clifton B said...


The Palin haters have reflexive hatred. If Palinwas proven 100% correct they would still knock her because she is Palin. A very foolish strategy, because as Palin hatred grows more unreasonable, people will start to tune out her critics as nothing more than Palin Haters. Good for Palin, bad for her critics.

Clifton B said...


"Little Shop of Horrors
A perfect description of the Copenhagen summit.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

That's just it. There IS a reflexive hatred of Mrs. Palin for sure.
If people bothered to be objective for two minutes, she's not saying anything over-the-top. Of course there should be skepticism given the hacked e-mails. What I've seen is that "climate change" has become so cultish that anyone could be smacked over questioning it.
Just my thoughts.

Clifton B said...


Palin's critics have no intention of listening to her. That will be their undoing because what she says isn't way out there. The Climategate emails do show a reason for us to at the very least, double check their findings. Yet because Palin suggests it, these folks write it off as hogwash.

Climate change as cult is almost a necessity. If you start questioning it too much, the whole concept unravels.

Related Posts with Thumbnails