Sarah Palin has now offered a variety of views on climate change. When asked about her changing rhetoric on the issue at the VP debate, Palin said, "There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet." She added, "I don't want to argue about the causes."
In an interview yesterday with a local NBC affiliate in Las Vegas, she was asked to elaborate about what some of those man-made causes might be, but she couldn't name a single one. Instead, she again claimed that is shouldn't matter what's causing climate change.
"Right, well what I have said about this is really the debate at some point, had better shift to, no matter the cause, whether it all be attributed to man's activities or just the natural cycle of climate changes in our earth's history," she said. "We have seen this before."
Here's the video, via Think Progress:
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Damien Posted 12:29 pm
22 Oct 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:14 pm
22 Oct 2008
I've been investigating the Global Warming Scam for two years now, and there's not a shred of truth in any of it.
Permalink
Glauke Posted 7:10 pm
22 Oct 2008
Seems to me that these reporters don't want to be too hard on her -it's easy to come off as a bully. Or they don't fully grasp the concepts involved -entirely possible.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:43 am
23 Oct 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
BlackBear Posted 2:17 am
23 Oct 2008
I've said it before. I can't vote someone into office less informed than myself. This is not a terribly high bar, people. :)
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 4:16 am
23 Oct 2008
Which is always a dilemma for "people of faith": Like the rest of us, most of them live most of their lives on the basis of a rational interpretation of facts (when one violates traffic signals, one gets into accidents, therefore avoid violating traffic signals) ... and moreover will eagerly cite the rational interpretation of facts when it seems to support their religious dogma (for example, archeological evidence that supports the existence of an historical Jesus)
... except of course when those facts collide with their dogma.
Which is what drives me crazy. You can't have it both ways. One either has to accept the scientific method as the best (albeit imperfect) method we have to make sense of our physical world, and then happily enjoy the benefits like quality medical advice and cool cellphone technology and heavier-than-air planes that can fly us to the other side of the globe .... OR one has to throw the scientific method out the window (dismiss it whenever it seems convenient amounts to the same thing) and live with the consequences of a life ruled by superstition and imaginary powers.
Such illogic is rampant in America, I know. But that doesn't mean we have to vote that illogic into the White House.
Which reminds me: HAS EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE ALREADY EARLY-VOTED???? If not, please do so as soon as possible. I don't want long lines and mass confusion on election day to serve as a convenient smokescreen for Repugs to steal the election in my state. Nor yours.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 4:49 am
23 Oct 2008
Which is why I of course I recommend that struggling airlines save money by removing all of the wings from their planes.
Permalink