Palin denies climate change realities on first day as McCain's running mate

Fri, 2008-08-29 11:06Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Palin denies climate change realities on first day as McCain's running mate




"The first greenhouse gas demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration was carbon dioxide, formed as a major end product in the extraction of energy from the burning of the fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas--as well as in the burning of biomass."





Hat tip to the Daily Green.

This entry was cross-posted on Huffington Post. 

Palin Enviro Backgrounder.pdf157.56 KB


"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee About Dr. David Gee 

(note: please convert massive url's using a tiny url in the DeSmog comment section:  

Remember how Steven Goddard backed off his earlier claim that the Arctic ice isn't retreating and all is well? Well, we at the International Journal of Inactivism have uncovered the True Story behind Goddard's retraction:


Oh, great, you're giving away the Great Conspiracy, just when we've got it nicely rolling. Where's the cigarette smoking man when we need him?

Ah yes... the whereabouts of the obligatory man smoking a cigarette (or maybe a cigar). I think that'll need more research and peer review by, well, someone.

Meanwhile, ever noticed how "Oreskes" and "Revkin" sound like Russian names? (I can hear it now: Bwahahahahaha...)


=="For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"==


He's cherry picking 1998 and 2008.
Even though those two had really strong positive and negative ENSO's those year.



"The Climate comes down to one variable, and if CO2 doesn't by itself explain EVERYTHING, then it can't explain ANYTHING."


"The climate comes down to unlimited variables, and therefore it's impossible to know anything! So we should just hope for the best and assume that it's not a problem."



Good catch there, David.

Also, models can't predict climate accurately, and models can predict climate accurately but they've obviously been rigged to do so.



and yet the only real solution to the CO2 problem (if it's a problem) are generally put forward by skeptics - yep I'm talking about massive nuclear power programs.

I have no idea what most alarmists want to do about the problem. Seems like mostly nothing - except talk ... and buy bigger boats.



You didn't see this comment.


She also think creationism should be taught alongside evolution.

The war on science continues...



Sarah Palin may have "got" what NWS Tom Ainsworth said about global warming in 2006:


"It's not necessarily a bad thing," Ainsworth said, adding that the planet continuously goes through climate-change cycles. "It's a natural thing. But if we can use our information of these cycles to improve our lifestyle, then I think we should." ...



"NWS has a staff of 5,000 meterologists and hydrologists in 124 offices throughout the US" ... implying that Tom Ainsworth speaks for all of them. That's quite a leap, isn't it?

Here's another NWS Meterologist in Charge who voiced his skepticism to the media and public:

“Bottom line is we're not really sure what is causing global warming or if it is even going on,” ... “It could be a combination of human causes and natural causes.”


May 15, 2006
Duluth, MN

and there's more (I was NWS employee from 1976-2006).

That's two. And of course they're both weathermen, which is tantamount to asking a taxi driver how to build a car.

Many at NWS have misled the public on climate change, list
below for 2005-2006:


David L.Johnson, NWS Dir.

John Jones, NWS Deputy Dir.

Dennis McCarthy, NOAA NWS Services

Gary Foltz, NWS Central Region Acting Dirr, KC MO

Michael Looney, NWS Central Region Dep. Dir.

Daniel Luna, NCRFC Hydrologist in Charge, Chanhassen MN




I see no such implication. Typical denier hysterics.



She may have read these in fact:



Thirty Years of a Failed Democrat Energy Policy

"This lady is obviously well read and intellegent."

I'm sure she is. She might even be able to spell long words and stuff.


"As hysteria over AWG climate change tanks in all respects ..."

Eliminating your hyperbole by substituting "concern" for "hysteria", what proof do you have that this is "tanking"? All I see are repeated assertions of that claim in the denier blogs. In the real world, concern continues to mount.



Spelling blunder...sorry Alex.

Until now, if I were a Yank, I would have been unable to to vote for president. Obama is a "nothing" and McCain has swallowed the AGW glop. Now, with a tough sceptic to balance the ticket, McCain is at least semi-palatable.

Streetcar and Rick C : Are you claiming that Palin is a creationist or merely sufficiently liberal to be willing to give the ID crowd a piece of the podium? Creationist doesn't seem compatible with the rest of her personna. Links? (Other than the Wired hatchet job.) has a few other samples linked:

Her father was a public school science teacher.





Seems creationist, no? At the very least, she obviously believes creationism has the same scientific merit that evolution does and that there's a scientific controversy on it to teach about -- both objectively false.

But that doesn't stop Gary from noticing she rejects AGW and concluding she's well-read. Odd, that.


I like to think of her as James Inhofe with breasts.

So predictable.
So irrelevant.

AGW is tanking in all respects?
Can you show me one major science organization and/or association that has changed it's official position on the subject from that of the consensus? I can find a few that have restated to agree, but none to the opposite.
Your Friday morning libertarian coffee klatsch doesn't count.

The Geologists that met recently in Oslo.

Oh Sorry, they agree with the Overwhelming concensus.

...not 35,000. You are off by an order of magnitude. Also I know of no polling done at the Oslo convention. There were some hostile-to-IPCC presentations and Q&A, and a 'debate' or two at the end. But there was no polling.

If there were, it would not be scientific, as Geologists are likely to be biased in favor of oil, coal, and other mineral exploration interests. The presentations and Q&A were apparently weighted against the IPCC...but this is not quite the same thing as a Consensus™ among the geologists present.

my source:
section 10 and 11 deals with the climate debate.

31000 on the Orogon petition.
5100 in Alberta
4000 in Coenhagen
400 on the Inhof list
500 at the YC climate convention.




...that there are 31,000 climate scientists in all of North America, much less Oregon.






Signs of sanity emerging:

MICHAELS: Record low for climate science

Lest we forget!
The most prominent AGW lie circulated regularly by alarmists.


In Fact there were some 2500 scientists.
Approximately 600 of them were climate scientists.


Lies, Damn Lies and Political statements!


Heh, fun.
It's David Evans.

He's an Electrical Engineer telling the world he knows best on matters of climate science. (Oh, and that he's secretly a Rocket Scientist)


"So when Evans wrote:
He meant that we had found the signature, but Evans didn't think it should count."

And of course the usual BS arguments such as:
"Evans: The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001"

When clearly thats just cherry picking 1998's strong ENSO.

This guy is just pathetic

On the contrary, there's no scientific institutions in the entire world that say that carbon emissions aren't a significant cause of recent global warming.


Lastly, he makes the usual argument that since carbon doesn't cause ALL climatic events throughout the history of the earth. Then it can't possibly be causing ANY thing.

When clearly we're dealing with multiple climatic variables.

and the primary variable over 10,000+ year time sclaes is changes in the earth's orbit.

He doesn't even possibly consider the factor that we've thrown the natural order of things completely out of whack.


This guy is worse than Tim Ball, or James Inhofe.

He doesn't even try to put up anything more than pathetic strawman arguments.

misleading headline up there - She doesn't deny the reality of climate change. She is merely unconvinced about mankind's role in climate change.

The reality is that climate change is happening and the answer to the 'Why' is our carbon emissions - but Palin and NWS Dan Luna have been misleading the public about the 'Why'.


"It would be hard-pressed for anyone to argue that we're not seeing evidence of warming. 'Why?' is another question, ...

"This entry was cross-posted on Huffington Post."

No! What? Really?!!!

Nothing to see here. Move along.

It's the Phantom Soviet Empire working in cahoots with the Bavarian Climatati. Bwahahahahaha! ( )

I really thought this had to be a joke - I can't believe you actually admit to such utter stupidity in public!?!

I can't believe anyone with an IQ above 15 could really fall for all this denial stuff.

Just hang on kids, you are totally right!:

The Earth IS Flat!
And the Earth revolves around the Sun.
And smoking is good for you.
And Bush is a great intellect
And God hates gays

Plenty of intelligent and highly educated people honestly reject the concept of man made global warming. Calling them dumb doesn't make your case as well as you think it does.






read more