The WaPo goes rogue…
…and publishes (gasp!) an op-ed on Climategate by Sarah Palin.
If you glance at the comments, you’ll see a great deal of outrage by the WaPo’s readers at the newspaper’s heresy.
[NOTE: I think the op-ed’s title, “Copenhagen’s Political Science,” is clever. But I know enough about newspapers to know that was probably some WaPo editor’s work. Of course, there’s no dearth of people saying the whole op-ed was probably ghost-written, since we all know that Sarah Palin is functionally illiterate. But it’s not very slick, and it sounds like her to me, especially the word “clobbered” in the fourth paragraph.]
I think Trig wrote the op-ed.
First comment wins the thread!
Palin has become such a vaudevillian rave-off line to the left that it’s almost becoming fun to just drop the name in to watch the apoplexy. Petty of me, I know.
Not to over-think it, but I wonder if they posted an op-ed on Climategate by Sarah Palin knowing that very few of their readers would take it seriously simply because it was written by Sarah Palin. So many on the left automatically write off anything she has to say as stupid, and they thusly believe the opposite side of the story must be the correct (and more intelligent) side. Therefore, Climategate itself is the hoax.
Natalie: I think that’s spot on. This way the WaPo get to claim it is covering Climategate, while at the same time it gets to subtly ridicule those who find it an important issue that reflects poorly on AGW, through the mechanism of having Sarah Palin be the spokesperson for that point of view.
Natalie,
That would certainly be cunning. Palin is not known for her intellect, but we should evaluate her statements independently of what we think of her character.
So let’s take a few…
…we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real
Any potential benefits of emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs? And we can say that with certainty?
I
don’t
think so
Patrick:
And these folks that you cite are basing their apocalyptic predictions on…what? Data from Hadley CRU?
As for your comment…
I
don’t
think so.
Did you click the links and read the articles?
Someone who was interested in being open to all points of view would have done so.
If you are interested in evaluating all points of view, including those which might contradict your current opinion, have a careful read of this article. It’s a very clearly written, very clearly argued piece, from a source which is about as unpolitical as it’s possible to get.
That article was frought with opinion. had no data. and no science.
We aren’t 1st graders Patrick.
We are human beings who have been studying this stuff for decades (well – I have)
Release the data!!!!!!! Release the data !!!! You can’t argue with that Patrick – can you? Release the data
If you are interested in evaluating all points of view, including those which might contradict your current opinion, have a careful read of this article.
OK. I read it. It’s unsupportable scare-mongering nonsense. Unscientific, poorly written, partisan and alarmist.
Another sermon from the Church of Global Warmism.
Obviously you have no background in engineering or science.
Patrick:
Two can play at this game.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
enjoy,
Daniel in Brookline
Patrick, go back to the head office and have them send Mitzu back after sabbatical. You’re done here.
i accidently came across this just as i came across this post here… syncronicity.
its interesting as it reminds one of how the soviet union used to use medical fields as weapons. especially using psychology and its doctors as weapons against other nations and their own people.
ALSO in WAPO..
It’s natural to behave irrationally
Climate change is just the latest problem that people acknowledge but ignore
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403619.html
rather than sit and look at things in discreet parts one at a time… lay them out… look where they are positioned not just physically but which large group is being targeted that is receptive to the angles.
if you read this article the day before, then read the article today by sarah palin you might have a schizophrenic breakdown trying to internalize it all.
however the one yesterday is even more sinister, in that its trying to employ Adorno’s crap authoritarian personality bs to climate.
the thing to focus on is that the researchers writing are so far superior that they are completely looking down on us as we are animals. and these are scientists in some very inexact and politically loaded disciplines.
they are so sure of their position, and never ever question the veracity of the facts that they have not concluded themselves, but instead are accepting blindly because the message comes from those in which they are politically collective with.
“We are collectively irrational, in the sense that we should really care about the long-term well-being of the planet, but when we get up in the morning, it’s very hard to motivate ourselves.” Duke behavioral scientist Dan Ariely
how does he determine the irrationality? oh… that a large majority doesnt agree with what he does, and which he has already accepted in faith.
[one thing to note is that the leftist scientists who are not caring about the methods of the climate people may also be employing those methods themselves!!! that is, they think that that stuff was how science is done!! so they dont see anything wrong with it, nor do they see how it changes the conclusion]
Psychologists studying the issue say that the now-familiar warnings about climate change kick at emotional dead spots in all human brains – but especially in American brains.
Researchers have only theories to explain why people in the United States have done less than those in such places as Europe and Japan. Some think Americans are culturally leery of programs the government might develop to target climate change, trusting instead that the free market will solve major problems.
One U.S. researcher thought television is to blame: All those TV ads have made Americans more focused on their own wants, she theorized, and less likely to care about the long-term good.
its a very advanced form of shaming for a higher than average reading public. its oozing with so much negative emotion that anyone who reads it and cant decide things for themselves would just not want to be in that camp… even if that camp is right…
he has no idea that social engineering is experimening in the lives of people by presuming your teleological ideas are all valid correct and as good as empirical ideas, which is just a status quo tool, not some real thing.
so every good idea these idiots get, they think is empirical and ok, and such… why? cause they wouldnt have the idea if it wasnt… (can you see how someone with this thought pattern can think that killing the family cause they hear voices is ok? or sending people to a gulag go make a future? its schizoid (?))
its a clever application of the old soviet “false conciousness gig”.. worked to move women out of the home, didnt it? now the kids are in the hands of the state (who from whats hit the news recently have been giving out fisting kits, and other interesting things)… and crime is higher than ever before… etc.
worked to make russia
worked to change america irreversibly with feminism
why not use the same tool for environment?
after all, it works, and the people will fight to be a part of it.. like women fought in the 60s to become ladettes… (while dreaming tha doing so would create a population of barret brownings and such… whoops…)
Those who are concerned that a real problem is being left unaddressed have called for a change in the way that green groups talk about climate, which has traditionally been heavy on warnings about drought and stranded polar bears. Instead, researchers suggested a new set of back-door appeals, designed essentially to fool people into serving their own — and the planet’s — best interests.
its very interesting to think that he is desiring to use the same tricks that fooled him to fight.
this is why zombie movies resonate… he was bitten… and now, he wants to bite others, and is willing to lie, cheat and steal to do it..
why? because the cause is so right, and everyone else has to be saved from themselves
how does he know?
back-door appeals, designed essentially to fool people into serving someone elses interests painted to be in their own interests.
and the climate emails really threaten to make people think that all researchers are flakes like this. after all, he is sitting there like the cpusa when wwii broke out and they didnt know about the molotov treaty…
his view is so soviet that he doesnt realize that socialism isnt scientific… though they ahve tried to use infalsifiable things to seem to prove it was. but its been astonishingly wrong more times than right… (an accomplishment in itself).
in the whole piece, every possible explanation BUT the people can reason for themselves is presented.
basically they are saying that your crazy if you dont side with me… and in the soviet union, that was enouhg to put you in a hospital on strong drugs incapacitated till you learned better.
[and van jones talking about connecting the gulag system the environmental movement so they can use prison labor to make things green is not making things better… ]
To hell with climate, and to hell with knitting. I’m going to Hogwarts.
🙂
Patrick, if you’re still hanging around, have a look at this:
Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data
Everyone else: This is a good link to bookmark and send to everybody you know. It really puts things in perspective.
Artfldg is very correct. The essence of leftism is to demonize opponents as evil, stupid or crazy, with the use of people who present themselves as ‘experts’ that are beyond the reach of the opponents intellect. Not with real debate and arguments. When Al Gore was to present his case to Congres, the Republicans had invited lord Monckton to challenge and debate him. The Democrats blocked (apparently for the first time in history) the possibility for lord Monckton to speak. They knew Al Gore would have been humiliated by Moncktons superior knowledge, intellect and eloquence.
And then they dehumanize people like Sarah Palin for lack of ´intellect´. It is all a vicious scam.
And the worst suckers are all these Democrat idealists (there are still a few) who don’t know anything about the science themselves but are ready to blindly believe their Leaders wherever they command them.
I read for years about the AWG issue. The Sarah Palin column is not a scientific one. It is a reflection of a politician to this issue in which scientists play a very controversial role. I found it commonsensical, wise and true.
The advise at the end to Obama is the best advise he can get.
I am sure that the US and the world in a few years will very much regret that in 2009 Sarah Palin was not there to block this crazy Copenhagen treaty.
AVI,
Where you been? You haven’t posted on your blog since November some time. I was going to call 911 but I suspect you’re using an alias and live in either Bloomington, Illinois or Caribou, Maine. What was I going to say to them? They got that caller ID thingy and I got enough people looking for me already.
Roy
As George Orwell noted, some ideas are so absurd only an intellectual could believe them.
As Pravda would have said, it is no accident that the articles Patrick linked to are dated well before the recent Climategate news about lost or fudged data and “scientists” more concerned with pushing an agenda than in the truth.
Patrick, when you can prove to us that none of the data used came from the CRU, we will consider those articles. On another blog I observed one commenter stating that there were THOUSANDS of research papers that proved AGW which did not use CRU data. He was challenged to find one. The one he supplied used IPCC data. Guess where IPCC gets its data?
CRU.
ROTFL
The most prominent climate “scientists” have been exposed as the charlatans and in the process have discredited themselves and demeaned the name of science itself. Anyone now wishing to be called a scientist would be wise to steer clear of these “experts” and understand that their own credibility is on the line. They need to practice science as science and not a as political campaign. The proper response to anyone spouting these phony theories: “You are quoting a liar. Why should I believe you?”
It is a clever title…and Sarah Palin is a clever lady, extremist opinions notwithstanding. 😉
Maybe, just maybe, somebody at the WaPost has something larger than a walnut attached to their brain stem and figure out that Sarah’s mere presence would give an amphetamine boost to their sales. Gawd, what Punks the Beltway Slicks are. A President, with an alleged intellect, who is beyond clueless at leadership and is 95% ideology driven. Not so much exec-experience as Night Shift Ass’t Mgr. at a Circle-K Mini Mart, but, by gum, Sarah is to be sneered at! Pathetic.
CO2 is only one of 6 gases EPA is putting their hands on apparently…
See this nonsense about methane…
http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2009/12/09/fun-facts-about-methane/
The Age.
Is seeing it’s readers are smarter than their reporters on this subject
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_even_age_readers_arent_buying_the_reporters_excuses/
Population control called key to deal
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.
so THATs why hitler, stalin, mao, and others are now heroes.. they stopped all that carbon from polluting…
isnt that comforting?
As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.
The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions”.
Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: “Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton” whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.
When several years ago I began to follow climate debate, the problem seemed at first well-defined and simple. But the further I studied it, the more complicated it looked. This was Alice-in-Wonderland experience: weider and weirder, nothing really being what it seemed to be. My previous experience with ideologies and groupthink gave me some clues how to deal with such puzzles. As with Marxism and Darwinism, I began with attempts to improve and elaborate them and ended with demolishing them altogether. Climatology now is at the stage of negative discovery: the more we know, the less we understand, and the less plausible the basics assumptions are. Here we have the two basic assumptions that need to be abolished: that there is some global heat balance governed by solar radiation and greenhouse effect, and that globally averaged mean temperature gives us some clues to assess causes of departure from this balance. Both assumptions are false, and this can be demonstrated. First, such balance can be held only in millenial time scale and needs not be held at every moment of time, because there is no thermal equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean, and lots of heat can be pumped in or out of the ocean by thermohaline circulation. That means that short-time climate variations are governed not by any variation of greenhouse gases, but quite independently of them by variation of ocean currents. Second, globally averaged mean temperature is meaningless concept, a statistical abstraction or artefact, having nothing to do with actual physical processes driving global climate. All climate, just as all politics, is local. Only understanding of these regional climate systems (Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, Southern) can give us insights into workings of climate system as global phenomenon – because these regional systems are weakly coupled with each other, and their interactions are second-order corrections to the main processes. As folows from above, neither greenhouse effect nor global temperature averages enter into these considerations even as minor factors (at decadal or century time scale, at least). So let the complete demolition of the present climate orthodoxy begin!
Roy, thank you for noticing my absence. I have stopped blogging, perhaps permanently. Out of my 2100 posts, there are enough that I prefer people would read instead of anything new I might write. That is rather against the spirit of blogging, I know, where freshness and reminder are as important and persuasive as precision. Still, I seem to be hitting the same dozen topics repeatedly.
Check my sidebar offerings, I guess.