Sarah Palin: “It doesn’t matter…”
Note: If you are a fan of Sarah Palin, stop reading now.
This person may be energetic. This person may excite her supporters. This person may be nice. But this person is not qualified to govern this country. Not. Even. Close.
Conservative commentators that I may not agree with on policy issues but I otherwise consider rational and thinking human beings are starting to come out against this choice (e.g., Kathleen Parker of the National Review, George Will, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, and others). This is a dangerous choice.
I told myself I wasn’t going to join in on the growing public critiquing of Gov. Palin — there is plenty — but, I can’t really help it in this case.
Here is a small snippet of a disastrous interview with CBS’s Katie Couric this week:
Couric: What’s your position on global warming? Do you believe it’s man-made 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 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 …
Palin trys to dodge the question … talks about impacts of climate change instead of cause. To her credit, Katie Couric pressed Gov. Palin to answer the question that was asked.
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: You know there are – there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, 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 change there. But kind of 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.
Please read that answer again … … … okay, you done?
First of all, I think she meant “attributed” not “contributed”. Secondly, does that second sentence make sense … isn’t the cause and effect backwards? Just so you know, this is the official transcript from CBS … and I watched it with my own eyes a few hours ago … these are her exact words. Over history? What history? Geologic history I hope.
Finally, and much more important than mere fumbling of words, is the second-to-last sentence. Doesn’t matter? What do you mean Gov. Palin? If these patterns are cyclical (and thus not anthropogenic) what are you going to do about it? I’m serious. If I may remind you Gov. Palin that your running-mate, your ‘co-maverick’ John McCain, is proposing a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon dioxide emissions. If it “doesn’t matter” what the underlying cause is, then why propose that? What is curbing carbon dioxide going to do? I really don’t understand this answer … at all.
I’m not trying to incite discussion or debate about global warming – you can go elsewhere for that. What I’m highlighting here is that either she doesn’t have a coherent position about this topic or she does and she’s just being cryptic. There are plenty of people who think global warming is largely natural, there are others who think it’s all a hoax (i.e., a nefarious global conspiracy of some kind), and others who think it is largely anthropogenic.
Why do you think understanding and debating the cause doesn’t matter, Gov. Palin?
John McCain is not a young man … he appears to be in good health, but are people really truly ready to have this person govern this nation? The thought of it scares the hell out of me.
-
UPDATE (10/5/2008): RealClimate has more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ll try not to argue with you since it seems we’ve just got differing opinions on a lot of issues, however…
Granted that most politicians are not scientists, I’d say that Sarah Palin’s answers there show that she at least got briefed on the issues of Global Warming or Climate Change prior to being interviewed about them.
What do you believe about global warming Bryan? How would you go about answering those questions?
I’m just going to throw this one out there without giving an opinion on it:
Hundreds of Methane Plumes Discovered in the Arctic
I think it’s so strange when commenters make up unreal or fake URL’s. Why? What’s the point? Do they think we can’t click or can’t read?
Brian, thanks for pointing out George Will’s editorials. I’ve always respected his opinion. Maybe I should start taking the Washington Post again. It’s been a long time. [Hard to believe he wrote for Bush, but I guess someone had to.]
quantum flux … like I said, this isn’t a discussion of global warming per se, and it’s not a discussion of what I think. My point is what is Palin’s position? Who cares what I think? I’m not running for VP of the U.S.
Well, given that she’s a young-Earth creationist, probably not…
I heard a clip of this on CNN the other night; the part that was putting me off (other than the obvious ridiculousness) was her use of ‘man’ and ‘man’s’ like in the bible.
Isn’t it our magnetic field, produced by the earth’s core, which holds our atmosphere against the earth? And, that most of the atmosphere was ‘captured’ at inception/formation and once completely depleted or no longer held by an active core (presumed/theorized fate of Mars) that our planet will ‘die’? Also, that our forests assist in making the environment organic life friendly by holding carbon dioxide and expelling oxygen (the opposite of what oxygen breathing organic life does) Isn’t it also true, that although plants assist in creating (or replenishing) life granting oxygen; that our green house gases are compromising the integrity that is our atmospheric protection of those valuable resources?
But, it must just by ‘cyclical changes’ with no cause, as the universe is littered with reactions without cause… hmmph.
On a somewhat related subject, if I understand geomagnetic reversal correctly– the magnetic field encompassing our planet as is moderated by our core, will reverse polarities sometime in the next 2-3 hundred thousand years and already shows evidence of starting (there is such a zone in which the magnetic fields have reversed, causing the southern hemisphere to have a ‘spot’ of misbehaving magnetic waves.) This reversal, in process, may leave our planet susceptible to a higher percentage of the sun’s rays as the change, while happening, will decrease our magnetet field significantly in various areas of the globe (affecting all areas, as we rotate.) Because when the hemispheres begin to be speckled with opposing flow patterns, the integrity of the globe’s defense is severely weakened, though only temporarily.
Could the beginning of this reverse polarity cause global warming? Just throwing that one out there for fuel…
It’s obvious that green house gases, caused primarily by humans, are causing detriment to the earth’s livelihood through its implications and affects on our planet’s essential ‘shield’. An important shield, that keeps our life granting gasses in, while keeping life ending sun rays out.
But, this is a woman who believes that a god created man and that animals are here for our food and pleasure (let’s all kill bears!!!)
So, for such an ignorant person to say something additionally ignorant is not surprising.
I’m right there with you, it scares the hell out of me…
KAS
Woah woah woah there, elitists! Sarah Palin ate Moose meat once. MOOSE MEAT. The meat of the Moose is the most authentic of sustenances, undreamt of by you liberals. ALSO, she lives next to the ocean that is next to western Siberia, which is next to a part of Russia where people actually live, so you know she UNDERSTANDS foreign policy. Understands it down to th every core of her TOWER OF HAIR.
Nah, just kiddin’. Sarah Palin is an idiot without peer.
By the way, did you guys see Matt Taibi’s piece on her in Rolling Stone? It’s online at http://www.alternet.org/story/100551/mad_dog_palin/
I think Sarah Palan believes that global warming is real as evidenced by the unusually high levels of glacial melt in Alaska and around the Arctic regions, but doesn’t know fully what is causing it. In fact, it’s both, manmade and natural since the end of the last Ice Age (12,000 years ago, right?).
Granted, Sarah Palin is stupid, all politicians are stupid, in fact all people are stupid which is plenty proof that we all evolved from retarded lungfish that walked onto land about 400(?) million years ago.
quantum_flux … why does she think a CO2 cap-and-trade system is necessary policy?
Actually, Brian, I think you hit it on the head when you said that she lacked a coherent policy statement. She literally doesn’t know anything about anything, so when a question gets asked, her brain switches over to “spew words you’ve heard before” mode. That’s why any follow up questions send her into a nose dive: she doesn’t know what she said, and doesn’t know anything.
Take, for example, the most recent Couric interview excerpts (at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/eveningnews/main4490618.shtml?source=mostpop_story). When Couric asks her what magazines she’s read to help inform her world view, Palin answers “Um, all of them…”
ALL OF THEM!?! And when Couric presses her, she can’t name a one.
That’s why the debate on Thurs is going to be sweet oh it will be so very sweet…
Besides, she’s a raving apocolyptic-lovin’ fundie! Anything and everything under the sun is leading us gloriously to the Rapture, so we don’t have to worry about it!
Eric … it’ll all depend on the format of the debate. Palin is very effective at giving speeches and horrific at fielding questions … but, debates are a bit in between. Typically the questions are broad enough that she (and Biden for that matter) can insert the talking points answer in there. But, if the format is similar to the first Obama/McCain debate, where there is chance for follow-up, clarification, and specificity she’ll have to try and fit her script into her answer.
I predict that she’ll end up repeating the same lines over and over again because of that. If she draws a blank and robotically repeats talking-point answers it won’t be pretty (for her).
hahaha! I think she probably blew McCain to get that position. Anyhow, what is so dumb about the “Cap and Trade System”?
quantum_flux says: “Anyhow, what is so dumb about the “Cap and Trade System”?”
I didn’t say anything about the cap-and-trade system, don’t make this about me … you’re either missing my point or dodging it … one more time: Why would Palin support a CO2 cap-and-trade system if the cause doesn’t matter? Explain that logic.
Well, she’s a politician type. In politician logic, anytime there is a controversy, it pays off to be as vague as possible so as to not offend anybody. In saying “it doesn’t matter what the cause is”, she is avoiding saying something specific (such as “the cause is this or that”), and thereby she is not isolating her voters by saying something that they may potentially disagree with.
i.e… If she came out and said, “it is all natural” then she’d be isolating the people who think it is manmade, if she said “it is all manmade” then she’d be isolating the people who know about methane plumes and volcanoes, or if she said “it is both” then she’d be isolating the people who think it’s only one or the other. She therefore goes for the “it doesn’t matter what the cause is, but it’s real” response since most people agree that it’s real.
In the context of the question, the cause doesn’t matter since she’s trying to be vague. However, in the context of what she truly believes about the cause, she thinks it’s manmade or maybe she knows it’s both or maybe she doesn’t know and is playing it safe.
Andrew Revkin has posted about the same section in the interview. He also has a little more of the exchange where Couric asks how we stop global warming if we aren’t the cause.
Couric: Because, if it’s not man-made, then one might wonder, well, how can human beings contribute to a solution?
Palin: Well, human beings certainly are contributing to pollution today. And to some adverse effects on the environment. And it’s all of our jobs to do to clean things up. And that’s what we’re committed to doing.
Her answers, although very dodgy, make sense if her idea of a response is more adaptive than mitigative.
Lab Lemming … exactly! If that is in fact her position, why can’t she state that clearly? Read the rest from the link ChrisM provides and there’s nothing very coherent.