Sarah is right on. Of course man is causing some of the changes, and of course we should try to be cleaner in our planet.
The place that she is missing, is that she is not up to date on the latest in climate change study and that we are headed not for catastrophic warming, but the next ice age. Google solar cycle 24 and the Dalton and Maunder minimums. Even the 'experts' at the IPCC know about/quietly acknowledge this.
I don't understand the issue with her acknowledging that man can and does change the climate to some degree and that we need to be cleaner in our environment. Isn't that what we want?

I like that..."pollution".

When did everything stop being about pollution and start being about Carbon Dioxide.   Co2 is the New Coke of environmentalism.

We have to return to the basics of pollution -- what about CO (monoxide)...still making plenty of that...and debris and so on.  

Once CO2 is controlled, H2O...water vapor...will become the evil byproduct of evil human activity.

You heard it here first.

The answer will be Marxism and Marijuana.

Just like today. Just like yesterday.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

Does a site become so troll-infected that it becomes worthless?

As was stated -- between the minute I read the comments and now: because Grist has been "in the news"... there will be trolls.

Never once does Palin call the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by its rightful name, always saying ANWR.  She's says: "ANWR, of course, is a 2,000-acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million-acre swath of land."  That's nonsense, of course, because she has reduced the entire refuge to the land that oil companies want.  If the refuge were 2000 acres, it would pretty worthless to very much wildlife.  The 2000 acres at issue, of course, is entirely essential to the survival of the Porcupine Caribou herd of hundreds of thousands of migratory animals.  It's like saying that you can have your entire house except for the kitchen and all its functions.  Without a kitchen, even a bedroom is ultimately useless.  That 2000 acres is where conditions (including winds to prevent complete disruption of breeding by parasitic insects like bot flies, warble flies, and mosquitoes) permit calving.  That is the most sensitive place in the entire range of that herd. Palin did everything she could to avoid giving straight answers, and she certainly isn't going up to acknowledge the true impacts of what drilling in the arctic would do.  And it does absolutely nothing to wean us of oil dependence.  This is a very scary woman.

The trolls serve a purpose; they demonstrate why someone like Palin can have broad support in this country. Their incessant chatter remind us how many people are still ignorant about climate change and why a site like Grist is necessary.  

But am I the only one who's noticed that ever since she showed up, Palin has spent more time in the spotlight than Obama, McCain and Biden combined? What the #$%!! is up with that?

Is it because she's a woman, and the "Obama is black" thing has already gotten old?

Is because she's better looking than those other three (and let's face it, while some might argue that in favor of Obama, she is)?

Is it because she's the one with the (pardon the irony, if not the lewdness) balls to make smart-assed comments about herself on national TV?

Anyone have any enlightening thoughts here? And more importantly, is there anything we can do about it, so McCain doesn't get elected based on a lame media fascination with his bizarrely charismatic running mate?

Hallmarks of liberal intellectual discourse.

Diverse points of view? No...Trolls!

Troll is the "N word" the left loves best.

That and "Denier".

Why can none of you geniuses come up with a set of data that would disprove your hypothesis regarding AGW? It isn't complicated. Obviously you don't see that data today. But if you can't establish what would disprove your assertions, you admit that this is about religion and politics. Not science.

Just like Feminism just admitted that it is about liberalism and not women.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

pathos-
This is simply how the MSM works. There always has to be something fresh and sparkly for the news cycle, while substance is a peripheral concern.

So the media's already bored with Obamamania (which it triumphed last winter in the 1st place because it was bored with the Hillary pre-anointment). And while they have inexhaustible affection for Mccain personally, he's still just a senile lump.

So it's no surprise that they salivate over the energetic, mediagenic yee-haw redneck, so productive of stories - younger and aggressive (so unlike the fossil at the head of the ticket); moose-hunting slice-of-life (plays in Peoria); trailer-trash tabloidism; they can resurrect the female-candidate storyline they used to have with Hillary, got bored with back then, but are happy to use again now; most of all this lets them be a crier for all the Mccain lies without actually having to focus on mccain - that these are "mavericks", ready to take on Washington pork, knowledgeable and concerned about energy and foreign policy, that they care about anyone other than the rich and special interests.

Palin just might concede that she used to be a porn star.  The sheeple in this country that are going ga-ga over her right now would love her even more by saying that she's just a hard workin' gal trying to make a living with her God given talents.

She's just an image cult, like all the rest.  A plastic personality and a pretty face.  This country is heading for a fall and the last thing we need is just another pretty face with an empty head behind it.  We are our own worst enemy and people worship like this will be our undoing. Pray I'm wrong!

Most times for evil to win it doesn't take a large, horrible event; it just takes a lot of people each doing just a little bad. AOOOOOOooooooooo.........

It's funny how many times I see the IPCC being referenced as THE EXPERTS on climate change, when they have been disproven and their "science" debunked.

Young scientists have to play a game to stay relevant and employed. Thus, using Global Warming as a buzz-word in pretty much any scientific study, instantly grants them funding. It's all a game. It's all BS.

There is no global warming -at least not man-made global warming. Any warming/cooling trends are part of cyclic trends that have been going on for millions of years.

I, for one, don't believe any of it.

I hate to keep piling on, since this isn't even one of the lies (like the repeated fib about not supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere"), but isn't it interesting that she actually challenged Gibson when he reminded her that she has changed her position on the human influence on global warming.  She twisted his statement, pointing out that she had never said "there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect...on global warming."  Nice try, but obviously, that's not what Gibson said.  Where did the "absolute proof" nonsense come from?  It was a disingenuous way to perpetuate an untruth about her clear earlier denial of human involvement in global warming. How ridiculous, and nobody has called her on it.  I guess she gets a free pass again, in spite of the right-wing claim that she is being persecuted when she is asked about her positions.