Sarah Palin: Climate Change is “Junk Science.”

Via on Dec 12, 2009

sarah palin climate change

Phew! Well, guess we can all go back to shopping.

Sarah Palin—eminent scientist (she wears glasses, after all)—has announced that this Climate Change stuff is “doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes if feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.”

Al Gore responds, patiently, in the video below:

“The basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and—presto!—physics is overturned, and carbon dioxide doesn’t trap heat anymore?”

Watching the below, I’m reminded that Al Gore is getting a Ph.D in communication: how do we talk about this stuff without making it partisan, political, ideological, impatient, aggressive, or anti-business?

It’s a tough job, this warning people about future threats gambit: Winston Churchill did no better in the 30s, warning a war-weary world continually about the increasing Nazi strength…he was called a warmonger, and pushed to the edges, far from the center of influence.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive. Questions? info elephantjournal com

399 views

19 Responses to “Sarah Palin: Climate Change is “Junk Science.””

  1. It is discouraging that politics can so readily trump brains, common sense, and societal self-preservation, isn't it?

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  2. It is discouraging that politics can so readily trump brains, common sense, and societal self-preservation, isn't it?

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  3. It is discouraging that politics can so readily trump brains, common sense, and societal self-preservation, isn't it?

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  4. It is discouraging that politics can so readily trump brains, common sense, and societal self-preservation, isn't it?

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  5. It is discouraging that politics can so readily trump brains, common sense, and societal self-preservation, isn't it?

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  6. Robb Hindle says:

    *dons flameproof suit* I would personally like to see a bit more in the way of science on this debate instead of talking points. I would also like to see the thoughts & science of those who have nothing to gain, either politically or economically. What I've seen on this debate comes exclusively from those who very likely have a personal stake in it.

    In other words, Let's take the politics out of this debate. Get back to science. Let the politicians have their debate on an issue more within their scope of practice, like deciding what the national marsupial should be.

    Flame On!

  7. Robb. Respectfully, at what point of scientific near-unanimity does something become a fact and not a debate? Surely any objective observer would conclude that we long ago reached that point with climate change.

    Al Gore is right and non-political because he reflects the astoundingly solid scientific consensus. Sarah Palin reflects a miniscule fringe minority, and is therefore political.

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  8. Robb. Respectfully, at what point of scientific near-unanimity does something become a fact and not a debate? Surely any objective observer would conclude that we long ago reached that point with climate change.

    Al Gore is right and non-political because he reflects the astoundingly solid scientific consensus. Sarah Palin reflects a miniscule fringe minority, and is therefore political.

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  9. Robb. Respectfully, at what point of scientific near-unanimity does something become a fact and not a debate? Surely any objective observer would conclude that we long ago reached that point with climate change.

    Al Gore is right and non-political because he reflects the astoundingly solid scientific consensus. Sarah Palin reflects a miniscule fringe minority, and is therefore political.

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  10. Robb. Respectfully, at what point of scientific near-unanimity does something become a fact and not a debate? Surely any objective observer would conclude that we long ago reached that point with climate change.

    Al Gore is right and non-political because he reflects the astoundingly solid scientific consensus. Sarah Palin reflects a miniscule fringe minority, and is therefore political.

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  11. Robb. Respectfully, at what point of scientific near-unanimity does something become a fact and not a debate? Surely any objective observer would conclude that we long ago reached that point with climate change.

    Al Gore is right and non-political because he reflects the astoundingly solid scientific consensus. Sarah Palin reflects a miniscule fringe minority, and is therefore political.

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  12. Robb. Respectfully, at what point of scientific near-unanimity does something become a fact and not a debate? Surely any objective observer would conclude that we long ago reached that point with climate change.

    Al Gore is right and non-political because he reflects the astoundingly solid scientific consensus. Sarah Palin reflects a miniscule fringe minority, and is therefore political.

    Bob Weisenberg
    http://YogaDemystified.com

  13. [...] something we allll want: Democrats, Republicans…even Sarah Palin.* *who apparently doesn’t believe in Climate Change, unlike so-called Whole Foods Republicans; and who was recently told to get back in the kitchen by [...]

  14. integralhack says:

    Robb,

    Al Gore has certainly invested a great deal of time and effort in bringing climate change to the world's attention with a movie, speaking tours and two plus books on the subject. Does he have a personal stake? Who cares. The science (and common sense) validates the general message, if not the fine points.

    Celebrities and politicians are heard on these issues for the simple reason that they get attention; they get airtime. We live in a world where Octomom and Jon & Kate get national attention, after all. Thank god for Al Gore.

    Yogis/Buddhists have a responsibility to awaken not only themselves, but their communities and the world to the impending catastrophes of climate change. Let's call it Bodhisattva Challenge 2012! Personally, I would like to continue to have a habitable world for my children and everyone else's children as well.

    Heck, I even want to put Bjork and all the animals on my ark!

    -Matt

  15. Heidi Kubler says:

    Regarding your "Flame On" response, Robb: I assert that one of the reasons Al Gore is working toward a PhD in communication is so that he can better tell the story of the scientists he has consistently credited. He, like Palin, is not a scientist, I will give you that. But that is where the similarities between Al Gore communicating about the issue and Sarah Palin communicating about the issue ends.

    Listen to Al Gore the next time he speaks on this issue, he is quoting science and scientists. He has never claimed to be the scientist. He is the messenger. Then listen to Palin. She somehow becomes the expert on telling people why the issue isn't one, but has not supplied any science to back it up.

    And regarding your comment above about "assigning blame": If we had to assign blame to someone or something, and he/she/it had to take responsibility for it before we did something about it, millions more children would starve to death in the world every year, Nazi Germany would be Nazi Hemisphere (or worse), and you and I would not be writing anything like this on a blog in the Internet (that I'm pretty sure would not exist either).

    I agree that politics screws things up and makes it more difficult to actualize change. By the same token, politics is also capable of providing the platform for broad-stroke change that has made our world better. It is how Barack Obama became the first Black President of the Untied States of America. It is how hunger is being fought in famine"d", war-torn communities in the US and abroad. It is one way, not the only way, mind you, but one way we can find unity, bring more heads into the discourse, and come up with solutions.

    We cannot wait for the blame game to play itself out – we have to press forward in spite of the blame game, and begin mitigating this issue. When politics becomes the door slamming in the face of change that makes sense, then we will continue to use our heads, our pens, and our ability to think and act critically and analytically, and come together to once more shove it open.

    Thanks for dialog.
    Heidi

  16. Robb Hindle says:

    @integralhack, sorry for the long delay, but other things had my attention there for a while. I guess I'm just a gadfly on this subject, but the investment of money in an obviously political film still does not change my opinion regarding Mr. Gore (or Ms. Palin), or the subject at hand. I do think that the climate is changing, but as I have stated before, I have seen no evidence either way presented by a party without a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. And yes, as a Buddhist I do want to see a world where all sentient beings have a healthy place to live, but I also realize that change is a part of life, and the want of and clinging to wanting things to be different is the nature of suffering, according to The Buddha. And I see this debate as not only politically based, but divisive and creating even more suffering. The debate needs to be empirically-based, not used as a means to either be in power, or stay in power. Look, all I'm saying is take the politicians and people who stand to make money on the outcome out of the equation, and let's NOT be in the business of pointing fingers. If we can do something about climate change, let's do it with science as the lead, not politics. And lets not be the kind of people that think that ours is the only right opinion. There's already too much of that.

    @Bob, again, I must respectfully disagree. Scientific near-unanimity does not exist on this subject. There is enough empirically-driven scientific evidence to make this debate continue for some time, and I think that Mr. Gore and Ms. Palin are counting on this. What the politicians would like to see is the continuation of this debate endlessly. Divisiveness is what politicians thrive on, and this is exactly the sort of thing that keeps them in power. I'm sorry, but critical thought tells me that just because someone says something enough times doesn't necessarily make it so.

Leave a Reply