A screenshot of CBS news anchor Katie Couric's interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, which aired Tuesday.
Palin says cause of global warming “doesn’t matter”
By Eoin O'Carroll | 10.01.08
In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric that aired Tuesday, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said that it “kinda doesn’t matter at this point” if human activity is responsible for climate change.
You can see a video of the interview here. The topic of global warming comes up about four and a half minutes in:
Couric: What’s your position on global warming? Do you believe it’s manmade or not?
Palin: Well, we’re the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there, with the changes in climates. And, and certainly it is apparent. We have erosion issues, and we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I’ve done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real, and …
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: You know there are – there are man’s activities that can be contributed [sic] to the issues that we’re dealing with now, with these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.
Gov. Palin’s response is similar to the one she gave last month when ABC News’s Charlie Gibson asked her the same question. Mr. Gibson pressed the issue harder than Ms. Couric did. Here’s how that exchange went:
Palin: I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only Arctic state in our Union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area, with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change – whether it’s entirely, wholly caused by man’s activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet, the warming and the cooling trends – regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we got to do something about it, and we have to make sure that we’re doing all we can to cut down on pollution.
Gibson: But it’s a critical point, as to whether this is manmade. He says it is. You have said in the past it’s not.
Palin: The debate on that even really has evolved into, “OK, here’s where we are now: Scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now, what do we do about it?” John McCain and I are going to be working on what we do.
Gibson: Yes, but isn’t it critical as to whether or not it’s manmade? Because what you do about it depends on whether it’s manmade.
Palin: That’s why I’m attributing some of man’s activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.
Gibson’s point – that humanity’s response to global warming should be informed by its cause – is a valid one. If greenhouse gas emissions are changing the earth’s climate, then efforts to protect ourselves from the effects of climate change should include curbing these emissions. If global warming is caused only by natural cycles, then curbing emissions will do nothing and humanity should focus on adaptation.
Alaska’s Climate Change Sub-Cabinet, which Palin established in September 2007, does take up issues of mitigation, but most of its focus is on adaptation – such as how to help remote Inuit communities deal with coastal erosiion.
A story last week in the Washington Post indicates that the Alaska governor is well aware of global warming’s effects on her state, but has dodged the question of its causes:
Palin does not minimize the consequences. When she established her climate sub-cabinet last September, she said in a news release that Alaskans “are already seeing the effects” of warming: “Coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice and record forest fires affect our communities and our infrastructure.”
But when environmentalists urged the governor to include language attributing global warming to humans and suggested that the state set a target for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, Palin hedged. Instead, she issued an executive order saying the state needed to develop a strategy that would “guide its efforts in evaluating and addressing known or suspected causes of climate change. Alaska’s climate change strategy must be built on sound science and the best available facts and must recognize Alaska’s interest in economic growth and the development of its resources.”
Before being selected as John McCain’s running mate, Palin took a stronger stance against the notion that humans are to blame for global warming. When Newsmax asked for the Alaska governor’s “take on global warming” this summer, she said, “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 manmade.”
According to the Associated Press, in December 2007, Palin said to the Fairbanks (Alaska) Daily News-Miner, “I’m not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.”
Palin’s current position, that the causes of climate change are unimportant but that we should take action to protect ourselves from it, is somewhat undercut by the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet’s website. The section called “What Is Alaska Already Doing,” has only two words: “coming soon.”
<< Treading lightly: How to gauge my carbon footprint? | MainComments
2. Nathan | 10.01.08
Indeed, Aloha, man-made global warming is an affront to the American idea of freedom, or rather, what we’ve come to believe is freedom these days: consumerism, SUVs, obscene amounts of waste, etc. It just doesn’t compute with most of us that our own greed and extravagance is causing our own demise. (Ha! We might shop ourselves to death!)
But we don’t have to fear this. In fact, I agree, a “golden age is dawning.” This is an opportunity for us to reinvent our lifestyles, change our ways of thinking, and actually, dare I say it, pay attention to science!
And if Palin’s beliefs are keeping her from protecting the fragile environment of America, we need to choose another leader.
3. ms p | 10.01.08
Boy she sure sounds confused from this article. Plus, she’s looking more and more like a person who can’t make up her mind one way or another about some things. Then when she’s in the public light as she is now, and she wants the be the VP you can see she does, her positions and views start to change…something familiar about it. oh yeah! it’s called expediency! typical politician, through and through. that’s what I personally see in her. sorry for any offended people.
4. Eoin | 10.01.08
If the “American idea of freedom” means simply that you are free to pursue your happiness however you want, provided that you don’t prevent others from pursuing their happiness, then I hope that the current climate crisis won’t diminish that. I, for one, am not willing to give that up so easily.
The trick, I think, is recognizing how seemingly innocent actions – going for a drive, booking a flight – can have far reaching effects that will mess up the lives of people you’ve never met. The (classical) liberal axiom, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” still applies here, as long as we recognize that our swinging fists can reach all over the planet.
5. Braden Mugg | 10.01.08
Palin’s position on global warming is totally incoherent. If, as she claims, global warming is caused by something other than green house gases and other human activities, what could we possibly do to stop or slow it?
6. Moderate | 10.02.08
Sarah’s right. Global warming is here. Now let’s deal with it, because it’s probably a mix of both climate change and man’s past desire to pollute his own home.
I think we’ve got to get away from this blame game. Al Gore’s film was insightful, but when we start going after people, instead of going after bad behavior, which frankly we all exhibit from time to time, we’re not getting anywhere.
We’ve all agreed to pollute our environment, haven’t we? We’re still buying cars that are not the most energy efficient — we’re still opting to drive instead of take public transportation — so why can anyone of us be so self-righteous as to throw stones at everyone else?
Crucifying people does not solve problems. Getting rid of people does not remedy ills — end wars — bring peace — bring progress. Only a change/re-education of attitudes does.
Guilt didn’t get rid of addictive drinking smoking. But factual information did. People re-educated themselves, with the help of strong anti-drug dependence ads and information.
So with global warming. Why waste time arguing over who’s the most guilty or who’s the most greedy, and let’s spend our energy on funding programs that fix the problem? And encourage the greedy ones to refocus their energies.
And can we please stop posturing arrogantly to condemn the candidates on either side? Both sides have legitimate points and good ideas. Let’s listen to them and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Then let’s vote — not by what they say they’ll do, but what they’ve already proven by their example they do do, whether their experience is long or short.
It’s quite simply really. A man’s character is best judged by his actions, more than his words.
7. Peta | 10.02.08
I would have thought that knowing the cause would make a difference to how you deal with the problem. Unless you just want to keep building ****.
8. Peta | 10.02.08
Hmmmm, caught out. On my previous post I said:
Unless you just want to keep building “things that the dutch build” but it was censored. So I will re-write:
I would have thought that knowing the cause would make a difference to how you deal with the problem. Unless you just want to keep building levees.
9. rohit | 10.02.08
I just find it amazing that people think that happiness is more and more and more. It is like you are never where you are but always going somewhere and so we keep acting selfishly. “Shoot that moose!” “Kill that foetus!” “Drive that SUV at 75 miles an hour!” “Bomb that building in Baghdad!” Because this is America, and there is no limit to what we can have. Well, Mother Nature is about to tell us that there are limits.
10. Jeri DeYoung | 10.02.08
Being a pessimist, this is one item where I would agree with Palin. It is too late. American/Western greed has already pushed the climate beyond forseeable recovery with no regard for peoples of other nations. Maybe just maybe, with humans gone, the planet will recover on its own. For once I’m glad I won’t be around that much longer. Save the planet, Make humans extinct.
11. Mike | 10.02.08
Climate change is continuing to occur around the world as it has since the beginning of time, but there is NO evidence that supports global warming. In fact at this years earth scientists meetings in New York the preponderance of evidence points to a world cooling trend instead of warming. Since “Global Warming” is really a world-wide marketing ploy, determining its cause is immaterial.
12. beyond-green | 10.02.08
The interviews and soon the spectacle of VP debates proves very revealing.
America is dumbing-down its politics to the advantage of the financial power elites (Thanks - Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG, and soon a cast of hundreds) who have fleeced the American taxpayers before (IRAQ war machine) and now prepare to do it again since “we can’t let the big investment banks fail.”
Well where is the funny money “minted” by all the crooks during the Wall Street crack-party? I bet it is offshore in bearer bonds, gold and numbered accounts. It sure is not on main street. Mr Cheney, I bet you know where your money is. Mr. Paulson — same same. America is broke, and since our educational system has been plundered to fund the war machine, more and more ignorant people are on tap to fall for the same old stuff. By the way ignorance can be corrected, stupidity is forever! How about spending that war money on education and renewable energy.
Makes me want to rent the movie “Idiocracy” (2006) R (Netflix review =)
To test its top secret Human Hibernation Project, the Pentagon picks the most average Americans it can find — an Army private (Luke Wilson) and a prostitute (Maya Rudolph) — and sends them to the year 2505 after a series of freak events. But when they arrive, they find a civilization so dumbed-down that they’re the smartest people around.
Nuff said ………..
……………………………..
13. Paul | 10.02.08
Can i say that the confusion that is expressed by Palin is typical of anyone who has a conflict of interest. Who can possibly do a job well if they don’t agree with what they have to do in the job!?
eg. If a pacifist goes for an interview to be a soldier, unless they are a good liar, they aren’t going to pass the interview.
It is pretty clear to me that Palins religious and other interests, conflict with the actual requirements of the job.
Politics has moved on. Anthropogenic Climate Change is a fundamental political issue across the world that requires major changes in peoples lives.
14. Keith | 10.02.08
Ms Palin is correct. While I take the point that it’s important to recognize and acknowledge Global Change’s cause I think it’s far more important to act to stem the change. In a certain matter of fact, hands on the ground way the history of how we got here doesn’t matter right now. We’ll have generations to refine our view of what brought us to this point, right now we need real action. Carbon caps, recapture, renewable energy and the like. For those who have fought so long for a change of attitude it simply argumentative to chastise Ms. Palin about this. It’s counter productive, even the republicans admit the change is happening, now what can we all do about it.
Keith
15. Peta | 10.02.08
Mike says “there is NO evidence that supports global warming”.
The vast majority of scientists involved in climate disagree strongly with this statement. But what would they know?
16. Larry B | 10.02.08
I can’t believe that anyone could get so garbled on this topic (public official or not) to say, as Ms. Palin did, “[Couric]: Is it man-made, though in your view?” [Palin]: “You know there are – there are man’s activities that can be contributed [sic] to the issues that we’re dealing with now, with these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.” She’s getting her conditions and their consequences mixed up.
17. HiloBob | 10.02.08
Palin: You know there are – there are man’s activities that can be contributed [sic] to the issues that we’re dealing with now, with these impacts.
WE CAN ONLY HOPE ALL IT WILL TAKE IS A FEW OF THESE
TONIGHT, SOME INDICATION THAT SHE’S CHOKING AND FAKING ON ANOTHER ISSUE AND SHE’LL JUST FADE AWAY LIKE MCCAIN, AN OLD SOLDIER.
THE NARROW STRUCTURE OF THE DEBATE INSISTED ON BY THE REPUBLICANS WILL MOST LIKELY KEEP HER UNDER CONTROL AND OUT OF HARM’S WAY.
I hope somehow, somewhere and prominently in this debate Biden figures out a way to out her and shred like cheap Mozarella any lingering doubts of her being capable of leading the free world if called upon.
18. Martin L. | 10.02.08
How did this woman get elected governor? She is a complete moron. She has really done the impossible: She has made Bush look intelligent by comparison. But the real issue that Sarah Palin brings up is the judgment of John McCain—his first executive decision as the presidential nominee–and he makes a cynical and reckless decision. McCain is not qualified to be president–that’s the most important issue!
19. Laura | 10.02.08
Sarah Palin is not a scientist and has never claimed to be. The world’s most fertile scientific minds can’t find consensus on the root cause of global warming. Why would we think a political candidate would be better informed than they? Often our expectations of political candidates is unrealistic.
20. Elrey Jones | 10.02.08
Gov Palin gave a good answer. We do need to do something about global warmer. One thing that will help the earth is depopulation. The earth is overpopulated and needs to depopulate back to sustainable levels that would probably be somewhere in the 1-2 billion range. This will also reverse deforestation and help reduce the rate of growth of global warming. One thing we need to be direct about is the third world is over populated and something needs to be done to reverse population growth there. Churches that disagree are like churches that believe the earth is 6 thousand years old - they are ignorant. Also, I think it is discraceful that we allow the third world to invade the USA when we don’t want them here and there coming here doesn’t solve anything. The world can be as educated as it likes but leaders need to show something for the education they get. I don’t see it. It is just lies, lies, and more lies about the root problem of global warming i.e. overpopulation.
21. Diana T | 10.02.08
Perhaps if Gov. Palin would do well in reading Thomas Friedman’s new book, Hot, Flat & Crowded. If she is capable of retaining knowledge, she may learn something.
22. Nick Burman | 10.02.08
Right from the very first comment that “Global Warming Doesn’t Matter” I can tell you that I would not vote for Palin to be dog catcher. She may have traits that make her popular but nothing that tells me there is any intelligence there.
23. Jeff | 10.02.08
Anthropogenic global warming science has pursued research that supports the hypothesis that mankind causes global warming. With $billions spent by governments over the years, the scientific community has developed quite a nice cottage industry for themselves, while putting all research eggs in the basket of this one hypothesis. Now we have a potential dilemma.
If this one hypothesis is presumed correct, we must react accordingly by stopping use of fossil fuels, ASAP (even before viable alternatives exist, according the the really hard core warmists). Note that all major industrial nations must do the same to have any real global effect… a very tall order.
If some other cause for the warming is the real culprit, our costly actions will have pleased only the environmentalists, governments, AGW scientists, and companies that build windmills, solar panels, etc. The nacent AGW industry we created will be with us forever. Some have speculated that AGW is a smoke screen aimed to force environmental and other goals upon a reluctant and unsuspecting populace by the power elite. If so, the power elite, too, will be pleased. Only the populace gets screwed. The Al Gores will still be living large, easily able to pay for their “pollution”.
Despite Al Gore’s proclamation that the science is settled and the debate over, given the stakes, we need to conduct research for other hypotheses before we commit to any plan of action having such potential magnitude.
Certainly, Sarah Palin understands this, but (because of the politics) cannot say it as plainly.
The bottomline is that we all have a dog in the fight against harmful climate change, be it too hot or too cold. Many of us are not satisfied that we should rely on science based on qualifiers such as likely, very likely, maybe, perhaps, may, if, might, suggests, etc. Many of us feel that due diligence is in order, and that it requires researching other possible causes.
It may be too late. Perhaps the “scientific-industrial complex” has become strong enough to prevent this from happening. This could be a really inconvenient truth.
24. George Robertson | 10.02.08
It sounds like what she was saying, from the context of the interview, that in her opinion it doesn’t matter because it’s happening no matter what the cause of the warming. That’s not good, because if you think that global warming is man-made, then the problem can at least in part be man-fixed. If you don’t then there might be a lack of sense of urgency to do something about it.
25. l.s | 10.03.08
i wish their was climate change, it was kind of cold this winter
the sun changes the climate not carbon dioxide, water vapor i the biggest greenhouse gas
by far the biggest one out there so why not worry about that, i mean it has way warmer in the past, there has also been more CO2 in the atmosphere hundreds of times more and the temperature stayed the same, if you want to waste money wan we could be help other people like the third world go ahead.
26. Lee | 10.03.08
“…kinda doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.”
Thanks for your misleading yellow-journalist titling.
****.
28. moi61537 | 10.03.08
Any idea on why the Little Ice Age came about? I strongly agree w/ being more responsible in use of God’s creation since we are perhaps stewards of it. The crass exploitation of the environment seen in Communist countries or in Afica now, repeats our destruction of ecologies for the sake of energy. Some of this discussion reminds me of the passages in the Gospel of Mark after the death of Jesus. Darkness, earthquakes, natural disasters and general chaos follow as an indication of not accepting Jesus as God’s Son. Maybe environmental trauma (extreme global warming or cooling) is our modern day version of not accepting God’s hegemony?
29. Rick | 10.03.08
There is a secret here that only a few know about! There are more choices then the two party system has you believing. And further, positive cahnge for the individual starts with believing that the individual has control over his own decisions, and choosing to live a life that will benefit all life - the planet. The country is really run by corportate interest. We need to vote for who we want running the corporations of the world. That election happens every time you spend a dollar!
30. R. MacLeish Sr. | 10.03.08
Why even trust AP as an unbiased news source, when it is as left-leaning rotten as the other three major tv networks?
rotags47
31. PauPer | 10.03.08
NASA: “solar cycle will have regional climatic impacts on Earth”
Fear not the Sun…the Govt can fix anything with more money!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071113142105.htm
32. Mike | 10.04.08
Peta #15, whether the scientists you say disagree with my statement or not, they are unable to point to any empirical evidence that proves their claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes dangerous global warming. All of their claims are based on computer models that have proven to be dead wrong (e.g., they failed to forecast the drastic cooling of the past 18 months even though CO2 has continued to increase in the atmosphere). Why would you trust them to predict the temperature of the Earth 100 years from today?
View the track records of the computer models at: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg . The blue line represents the satellite record and the green line represents the Hadley Centre (U.K.) surface temperatures. All the other lines represent the predictions of the computer models.
33. Paul | 10.04.08
Mike said:
“The blue line represents the satellite record and the green line represents the Hadley Centre (U.K.) surface temperatures. All the other lines represent the predictions of the computer models.”
Erm. yes, the trend is up. The graph is also extremely misleading and has been replotted to make the Hadley and Sat data look more ‘dramatic’ in comparison to the modelled data. As such it lacks credibility. And of course the icecap web site is sceptic.
The other point is that ‘weather’ data (daily/monthly etc. temp readings) is never going to match exactly long term ‘climate’ data or long term ‘climate’ modelling. The important issue is climate temperature trends, which are rising.
As the Hadley centre has recently reported, they EXPECT ten year periods to vary (even more so yearly).
34. Paul | 10.05.08
Jeff said:
“If some other cause for the warming is the real culprit, our costly actions will have pleased only the environmentalists, governments, AGW scientists, and companies that build windmills, solar panels, etc. The nacent AGW industry we created will be with us forever. Some have speculated that AGW is a smoke screen aimed to force environmental and other goals upon a reluctant and unsuspecting populace by the power elite. If so, the power elite, too, will be pleased. Only the populace gets screwed. The Al Gores will still be living large, easily able to pay for their “pollution”.”
Paul says:
If some other cause of global warming is the culprit (there is no scientific evidence that something else is) then we will have cleaner energy industries, our resources will last longer because we consume less and humanity will have a better chance of survival either way. Americans should be proud of their growing clean energy industries, if nothing else!
Logically it makes sense to change.
Also most environmentalists are on the side of the small guy who runs an environmentally sustainable business locally, generally speaking it is a requirement of sustainable living to produce locally, if you are American that would mean bringing jobs back to America that were recently exported.
I find it completely bizarre that Americans politicise climate change and the environment into left/right politics so much.
Green politics has nothing to do with either, it needs to cut a path of its own and only borrow from left or right where appropriate.
35. MikeH | 10.05.08
Paul #34,
Climate rationalists don’t object to change and clean energy, they simply object to government coercion and subsidies to accomplish this end. The government’s record for wasting money is legendary. There is no doubt in my mind that when these clean energy alternatives are cost-competitive, they will be adopted. We know from experience that a free market produces the most efficient results. We are only arguing for the free market and the political freedom to not be burdened with unnecessary taxes that will only reduce our standard of living.
I also need to correct you when you state that there is no evidence to suggest that something else is causing global warming. The true lack of empirical evidence is the case for man-made global warming. From the best evidence we have, the current warming is part of a natural cycle that remains well within the range of the past 10,000 years. This is validated by the ice core records.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI for details.
36. Paul | 10.05.08
MikeH said:
“Climate rationalists don’t object to change and clean energy, they simply object to government coercion and subsidies to accomplish this end. The government’s record for wasting money is legendary.”
Paul Says:
I’m not interested in specific governments, that is a problem that needs to be dealt with locally. Americans in particular focus a lot on their own issues.
Fossil fuels have been around for so long that people have forgotten how much they subsidise our lives in developed nations, by creating high levels of convenience.
As a result other new forms of energy and clean technology will initially always be disadvantaged and require subsidy in order to encourage development.
The other point is that America has low fuel prices when compared to other nations, even if you strip away all tax. Which effectively means Americans are subsidised purely based on buying and military power.
MikeH said:
“There is no doubt in my mind that when these clean energy alternatives are cost-competitive, they will be adopted. We know from experience that a free market produces the most efficient results. We are only arguing for the free market and the political freedom to not be burdened with unnecessary taxes that will only reduce our standard of living.”
Paul says:
Because most people largely go for the cheapest option when they buy something, fossil fuels will always have an advantage because the industry has many decades of investment and knowledge that effectively subsidises production today.
We don’t have the time to let clean tech to develop at it’s own rate in competition with fossil fuels that are subsidised in one way or another, in fact because of the massive investment already in fossil fuels, it is unlikely many clean technologies would get started.
Given that we must cut emissions, there is no choice but to help it along.
The other point is that free markets do not exist. Both America and Europe have significant tariffs on a range of imported products in order to protect their own industries. So if they don’t exist, why lie about it?
MikeH said:
“I also need to correct you when you state that there is no evidence to suggest that something else is causing global warming. The true lack of empirical evidence is the case for man-made global warming. From the best evidence we have, the current warming is part of a natural cycle that remains well within the range of the past 10,000 years. This is validated by the ice core records.
Paul says:
The sun, natural cycles etc. are included in the research on climate change (including proxy data from ice cores), it is accepted that current warming is being forced by human created emissions.
37. Paul | 10.06.08
BTW Mike, you reference the ice core records, British Met Office data and probably other data in your posts.
Those records are funded by tax payers money, yet you are happy to accept them to support your own beliefs about climate change and your own beliefs about tax!
If something is wrong with state funded science, why do so many sceptics like you use the data?
If you don’t trust the science why do you trust the data collected?
38. Mike Higgins | 10.06.08
Paul,
There you go again… You have once again proven my point. Clearly, you did not take advantage of the opportunity to listen to Professor Carter’s presentation. Then, instead of offering evidence to support your assertion, you simply say, “it is accepted that current warming is being forced by human created emissions.” Where is the beef?
Perhaps, this will help — http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/roy-spencers-testimony-before-congress-backs-up-moncktons-assertions-on-climate-sensitivity/ .
Dr. Roy Spencer has a PhD in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has been involved in global warming research for close to twenty years. He has authored numerous peer reviewed scientific articles dealing with the measurement and interpretation of climate variability and climate change. He is also the U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and a former NASA employee.
39. Paul | 10.06.08
Mike,
I have no assertion, this is a discussion about the environment and US politics. I’m asking you about what you believe and the motives behind that belief.
Previous posts of yours are all ’sceptic’, yes?
Mike said in another thread:
“The last time I checked, NOAA and NASA were funded 100% by the United States Federal Government, which probably spends millions of dollars for to pay James Hansen and his staff to generate the junk science they produce.”
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/08/12/study-climate-change-to-produce-extreme-rains/
Yet now you are saying that it is OK to pay some scientists if they agree with your political ideology!
If sceptics do not trust scientists that are paid for by the state, why trust the data?
You are happy for tax to be paid to scientists (such as Roy Spencer) as long as it gives the results you approve of?
What does that remind me of?
40. MikeS | 10.06.08
To all those out there who are still naysayers, think it’s a scam or on the fence when it comes to global warming. A direct benefit to less greenhouse gases is less pollution. So even by erring on the side of caution we all get to breath a little easier.
41. Mike Higgins | 10.06.08
MikeS,
It is important to note that, although carbon dioxide (CO2) is a minor greenhouse gas, it is not a pollutant. It is colorless and odorless, and it is one of the three elements on Earth (water and oxygen being the other two) that is necessary for all life to exist. Animals exhale it and plants inhale it.
42. Jeff | 10.06.08
(RE: Comments 23 & 34) Paul says:
‘If some other cause of global warming is the culprit (there is no scientific evidence that something else is) then we will have cleaner energy industries, our resources will last longer because we consume less and humanity will have a better chance of survival either way. Americans should be proud of their growing clean energy industries, if nothing else!
Logically it makes sense to change.’
Jeff says: I’m hearing you say that if mankind isn’t causing GW, then the money we’ve spent is still for the good, because we will have served a number of social (environmentalist and humanitarian) goals.
I have a couple of big problems with this. First, AGW and the pronouncements of environmental groups, governments, the IPCC, and ‘the consensus of most scientists of the world’ would thusly be proved to be the Great Lie. Not an ‘Oops’, a Great Lie. If global warming is not really happening beyond the range of cyclical climate variations known to have occured in the past, then the entire concept of AGW would smack of a ruse. A ruse to scare a frightened populace, desperate for salvation, into acceding to the incredibly expensive AGW climate fix. ‘…no harm done…’ is the best you can say… after trillions of dollars would be spent, after you’ve killed the goose that laid the golden egg of inexpensive energy, after people living in grass huts in Africa continue to suffer from starvation and high rates of infant mortality, and after developing countries find they can’t develop with gasoline selling for hugely inflated prices. ‘No harm done’, indeed.
Second, if the alarmists’ predictions of doom and gloom are not really a lie and are really going to happen (hey, GW is GW, no matter what forces might cause it), and having squandered the planet’s resources chasing the notion that man’s GHG emissions caused it, we still must deal with the effects of GW caused by Mother Nature. Unfortunately, we will have a decades late start in so doing. If the Warmist mantra of the Tipping Point is actually true, then the Warmists have doomed us all, owing to the decades-long late start caused by chasing down the nonexistent CO2 culprit.
Most people doubt the ‘tipping point’ means anything, except to Al Gore and James Hansen. It’s difficult to know what is or isn’t real when it comes to GW. There are so many lies, half truths, embellishments, and innuendo swirling around, neither Warmist nor Skeptic knows what’s true any more. Most are not concerned about dealing with the doom and gloom of global warming, because (one way or another) they intuitively know that it simply isn’t going to happen… else why the lies, half truths, embellishments, and innuendo?
Paul, to me, your comments strengthen my sense that AGW is an elaborate lie whose intent is to bring about life-altering social changes. You are a humanitarian who most likely has no nefarious goals. We are simply on opposite sides of the GW issue. One of us is supporting that which is not true. In time, we will know which of us it is.
43. Mike Higgins | 10.06.08
Paul,
As you well know, the comment that I made in another thread was in direct response to a proponent’s criticism about the funding sources of someone who disagrees with them. I have no argument with a scientist’s funding sources. I am interested only in the validity of the research, which can best be ascertained by the review of other scientists and the use of common sense.
As regards your point of view, it appears that you support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. Am I wrong about that assumption?
My position on man-made global warming can best be explained by the popular author of the Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park and State of Fear. Listen to his explanation in a recent interview with Charlie Rose at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noec6Xkx73k .
44. Paul | 10.06.08
Mile said:
“It is important to note that, although carbon dioxide (CO2) is a minor greenhouse gas, it is not a pollutant. It is colorless and odorless, and it is one of the three elements on Earth (water and oxygen being the other two) that is necessary for all life to exist. Animals exhale it and plants inhale it.”
The definition of pollution is roughly “the action of polluting the environmental with man-made waste”.
CO2 and other GHG gases produced from fossil fuels and other human activities is ‘man made waste’ and is additional to the natural carbon cycle that current species have adapted to.
45. Tim Dunn | 10.06.08
“In fact at this years earth scientists meetings in New York the preponderance of evidence points to a world cooling trend instead of warming. Since “Global Warming” is really a world-wide marketing ploy, determining its cause is immaterial.” Anyone with the brains to look at a thermometer or to notice when the flowers bloom can see global warming. Daffodils keep blooming earlier and earlier, tropical species are creeping into higher latitudes, record breaking annual temperatures keep occurring, it’s not rocket science-it’s obvious to anyone whose head isn’t stuck where the sun don’t shine. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
46. Paul | 10.06.08
Mike said:
“As you well know, the comment that I made in another thread was in direct response to a proponent’s criticism about the funding sources of someone who disagrees with them. I have no argument with a scientist’s funding sources. I am interested only in the validity of the research, which can best be ascertained by the review of other scientists and the use of common sense.”
Paul said:
You said that a NASA organisation produced junk science. The poster that made the comment about Exxon funding didn’t say anything about junk science.
The implication is that you thought the funding of James Hansen was wasted.
47. Paul | 10.07.08
Jeff said:
“Paul, to me, your comments strengthen my sense that AGW is an elaborate lie whose intent is to bring about life-altering social changes.”
Paul Says:
I haven’t actually strengthened anything. I think your posts make that clear.
48. Paul | 10.07.08
Jeff said:
“First, AGW and the pronouncements of environmental groups, governments, the IPCC, and ‘the consensus of most scientists of the world’ …”
Paul says:
The list of people that are now actively involved is wider ranging than that.
It includes big and small businesses, banks, farmers, religious leaders and many other ordinary people. You are probably just concerned about the people that are more vocal.
Jeff said:
“If global warming is not really happening beyond the range of cyclical climate variations known to have occured in the past, then the entire concept of AGW would smack of a ruse.”
Paul says:
That assumes a pre-disposition to think it is, or was a ruse.
Eg. you already think that and have pre-judged it.
This analysis isn’t specifically anything to do with the climate change issue, but anyone that obviously doesn’t believe something in the first place is obviously going to say they didn’t believe it in hindsight, after the event as it were.
Jeff said:
“A ruse to scare a frightened populace, desperate for salvation, into acceding to the incredibly expensive AGW climate fix. ‘…no harm done…’ is the best you can say… after trillions of dollars would be spent, after you’ve killed the goose that laid the golden egg of inexpensive energy, after people living in grass huts in Africa continue to suffer from starvation and high rates of infant mortality, and after developing countries find they can’t develop with gasoline selling for hugely inflated prices. ‘No harm done’, indeed.”
Paul says:
Not much of that is really worth commenting on!
But on the question of your concerns for African people (i actually have friends and family that live in Uganda and Kenya, unlike some Americans that throw money at the problem and stay at home, they have gone out there and live there).
But anyway many of the poorer African nations have a tiny per capita carbon footprint and as such it would be reasonable for them to raise that footprint without doing any harm. However the average American has a carbon footprint some 700 to 1000 times higher than some of the poorest African nations.
So basically the people that get the bad deal from your perspective is you!
You shouldn’t worry about Africa, it’s nice that you appear to do so though.
The “people living in grass huts in Africa” as you put it have plenty of room to manoeuvre and to improve their living conditions, whilst still living a sustainable life. The problem is you and me.
49. A.Viirlaid | 10.17.08
Listening to what Sarah Palin says leads me to conclude that she is correct. Perhaps she could have been a little more clear in her explanation.
But IMHO her questioners were more befuddling in their questioning than she was in her responses.
She maintains that humankind is not the ONLY source of global warming — that is true since the natural background cycles also add to, and sometimes, subtract from, manmade causes. There is no dispute on this.
The IPCC states that mankind is the “predominant” cause — the IPCC makes this SPECIFIC statement, with its so-called 90% certainty.
But even the IPCC does NOT state what actual PERCENT CAUSE of the warming is manmade and what is not. It could be 70% or something else entirely. The IPCC believes only that a ‘majority’ of the waming is causally anthropogenic in origin.
Sarah Palin says it is not AS important as to what the actual causes are AS IS the fact that action needs to be taken. She says she knows this from the warming effects on Alaska.
On this point, she is also correct — although maybe she does not elucidate her reasoning clearly enough. Her questioners seem dumb-founded. Maybe they are just dumb?
Let me explain why I think she is correct — it is because NO ONE is going to actually REDUCE CO2 — believe me, it AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.
Joe Biden says that mankind is 100% the cause of warming, which no one has actually ever said, including the IPCC.
Palin is more accurate than Biden, because humankind is not going to REDUCE CO2 emissions over the next 30 years. We would be lucky to just reduce the GROWHT RATE of such emissions.
This leaves only MITIGATIVE steps as any kind of ’solution’ — which is what Palin has promoted. This seems eminently sensible.
What else are you gonna do? Suck CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Other steps are the only ones left with which to effectively mitigate the — supposedly 100% effects according to Biden — of CO2.
So, Palin ends up being correct in her interpretation.
Namely, that it does not matter what the cause is.
Putatively according to some this cause is CO2, not in its 100% attribution according to Biden and some others, but something else — again what Palin said.
Folks — realistically — there will NOT be any ACTUAL reductions in CO2 that, over the next 30 years, EFFECTIVELY, can be relied on as mitigations against global warming. That is all that I think Palin was saying.
Even if I personally think CO2 has only about a 5% forcing effect within the array of all warming causes and the IPCC thinks this is about 98%, what difference does that make?
Guess what? In the end, neither my personal opinion on this last point NOR the IPCC’s OPINION is of much relevance.
50. Paul | 10.20.08
A.Viirlaid said:
“Even if I personally think CO2 has only about a 5% forcing effect within the array of all warming causes and the IPCC thinks this is about 98%, what difference does that make?”
Paul Says:
The belief of a 5% forcing, is effectively saying that humans are not responsible, eg. a sceptic view. Because if you took away that 5% then we would still have climate change caused by natural causes.
This does make a difference, because it shapes a persons views about what should be done or what is possible. If Palin thinks like you then there is a problem and your ‘political’ assumption that it makes no difference is not logical or scientific.
51. Paul | 11.12.08
Jeff said:
“A ruse to scare a frightened populace, desperate for salvation, into acceding to the incredibly expensive AGW climate fix. ‘…no harm done…’ is the best you can say… after trillions of dollars would be spent…”
Paul Says:
Just thought i would update you Jeff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7723576.stm
To get the remaining oil out of the ground will require some $36 trillion and then that will be the end of it. An expensive price to pay for something that is terminal, in more ways than one.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. The Global Warming » Blog Archive » Palin says cause of global warming “doesn’t matter” | 10.01.08
4. Climate change- of course causation matters. But not to Palin. Why? « The Way Things Break | 10.03.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. aloha | 10.01.08
why is it so difficult for many to accept the notion that, if man changes the chemical composition of the atmosphere, it will have consequences, no matter what direction!? Maybe it’s because people feel conciously or subconciously that the American idea of freedom is in trouble. Freedom obviously correlates with carbon dioxid emission. We thought that with American power having eliminated the worst dictatorships on this planet, and free markets becoming reality, a golden age is dawning. But now we must realize that we just might have been spreading another form of ideology that will look foolish to historians looking back at our age.