Palin On Climate Change: Now And Then
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Environment, Palin, Quotes, Science
Now
“Show me where I have ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that.”
Interview with ABC News, 9/11/08
Then
“I’m not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist, blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I’m not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren’t changes.”
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 12/4/07
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”
Interview with Newsmax, 8/28/08
September 12th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
JG,
I think this Palin person is becoming an obsession with you….
September 12th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
gerryf - Ya think???
BTW- I have not listened to this portion of the interview, but responding to just this post - There is nothing inconsistent in those three quotes.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Obsession?
Listen, we know virtually nothing about this politician except what we’ve been told by her campaign, what we’re currently trying to uncover and this interview. That’s it. She has been on the national scene for a grand total of 2 weeks. I’m sorry if you think I’m focusing too much on her, but she is the story right now.
And to be sure, last year during this time I was blogging the hell out of stories about McCain, Giuliani, Hillary and Obama. But, again, Palin is brand spanking new and she’s going to get more coverage as a result. If you think this is odd, that’s fine, but I think the amount of coverage is appropriate given the time period we have to get to know her.
And so far I’m really nervous. No, strike that, I’m disappointed. This pick by McCain seems completely unserious, especially given all the talk by Republicans about how things have changed in a post 9/11 world. Don’t you think that he’d at least want to pick somebody who has some foreign policy experience, instead of the nothing Palin has? She’s not on the record about ANYTHING, so everything she says is essentially her foreign policy stance.
But getting back to the point of the post, she is on the record about certain things, and if she’s going to ask about when and if she said something different than her current position, I think it’s more than fair to point it out. And to mw, how are those quotes consistent? She’s obviously putting the responsibility for the climate crisis on natural environmental change, not changes created by man. The language is crystal. But yes, if you’re looking to see if she said “absolute proof” at some point in the past, then you’ve got me. She didn’t say those exact words.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
She could be a heartbeat from the presidency, and from what we’ve seen she is a bag of lies and distortions, just like her running mate, yes she should be a point of focus to everyone, do you really want to risk having a lying wacko in the oval office?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
All three quotes are slight semantic variations of the following points, which I take to be her position then and now:
1) There are climatic changes.
2) It may or may not be a crisis.
3) We have to be concerned about it in Alaska
4) While possible, it is not clear to me that the changes are man made.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Avinash,
People will make a decision about her in the same way they made a decision about another candidate with comparable experience - Barack Obama. By watching her in interviews and debates and speeches and reading about what she did as governor, and deciding whether they are comfortable with her as a second to John McCain.
I know this will disappoint you, but they won’t be making a decision based on people with an axe to grind calling her a “lying wacko” or trying to invent inconsistencies that don’t exist. They will make their own decision based on what they see and hear. Just like they did with Obama.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I think Justin might be falling right into the trap that McCain’s camp wants Obama supporters to fall into–make the campaign about Obama vs. Palin. A lot of people like me are scratching their heads wondering why so much attention is being paid to Palin. Listen, Dan Quayle is my litmus test. Hate to say it, but it’s true. If a candidate picks someone I perceive to be more of a doofus than Mr. Potatoe Head himself, I’ll get worried. McCain has totally distracted the left with this pick, so hats off to his strategery.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:16 am
mw, people will only make a decision nbased on that stuff if the media like Justin do their job and vet her
September 13th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Personally, I don’t care about that. Regardless of McCain’s “stratergey”, I want to know where Palin stands on the issues. That’s it. Very simple.
And right now she is completely unknown and her record needs to be vetted. In the end, this could be a brilliant move by McCain, but that doesn’t concern me nearly as much as reporting on her positions on the issues…or lack thereof.
In other words, I don’t think I’m falling into anybody’s hands if I continue to blog about the woman who could be President. Perhaps you disagree, and to that I say, “Fair enough.”
We shall see.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Now that SARAH PALIN and the world has been educated - will the infamous Bush Doctrine cause more U.S. casualties?
September 13th, 2008 at 5:11 am
MW, you dont see the inconsistency?
She states that she has never asserted, “there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change.”
the two opposing quotes do acknowledge that there is climate change but as to cause, in relevant part state,
“I’m not one…who would attribute it to being man-made.”
“I’m not…blaming the changes in our climate on human activity”
If you hold that there is climate change but it is not man made you are also holding that the activity of man had no effect. Otherwise you would have to say that man has at least contributed to an increase or maybe a decrease. You either have an effect or you dont. Her statements about the role of man in climate change are straightforward in asserting that man has no effect. To pretend like she is not saying that is intellectually dishonest. She makes allowance for man made impact in the first quote but not in the other two.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:33 am
JG,
I agree with everything you say–but that doesn’t mean youaren’t obsessing over her.
In fact,your arguement almost mirrors one I’ve made several times over the past few days. These are serious with serious problems and we we need serious people to solve them.
She’s not a serious candidate and John McCain’s choice of her, his continued defense of her, and the party’s support of her tells us everything we need to know about JOHN MCCAIN and the GOP.
I think it’s fine you toss out these Palin posts, but Palin bashing–shoot even not Palin bashing but give the right a nebulous comment that they can turn into bashing — has become a waste of time.
The examples in this post show a discrepency, but they are vague enough to allow her to wiggle her way out of it and the right to ignore it. By all means, toss out some Palin stuff (the Hannity one was hilarious) when something pops up, but don’t let it comsume so much of your time and effort.
The people on the far right are not going to be convinced because they do not want to be. The people in middle have already begun to judge her to be interesting but ultimately the poor choice and fading fast. The people on the far left are insulted by the choice and have been driven crazy by her.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:28 am
From the unbiased PolitiFact:
Still want to claim she’s being consistent?
September 13th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Ok, Justin, but the key Palin problem for the Obama camp is that every left criticism of Palin is an exact replica of an Obama criticism. Flip-flopping, lack of experience, being more celebrity than substance. If we’re going to disqualify Palin as a VP for these reasons, then why on earth would anyone vote for Obama as POTUS based on the exact same reasoning. Again, this is another strategic ploy by McCain–get the left to create the argument against Obama. There’s going to be a slew of commercials in October pointing this out–the Dems criticize Palin’s experience, but their own candidate has precious lack of experience. The Dems are criticizing Palin for flip-flopping, then out comes the litany of differences between Obama’s far-left Senate record and his current moderate positions. It’s a losing battle.
My suggestion? Refocus the discourse on the platform differences between the two Presidential candidates.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I have no idea what you are reading. Lets read them together
“I’m not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist, blaming the changes in our climate on human activity, but I’m not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren’t changes.”
Al Gore has adopted a propagandist’s absolutist view of global warming, its ramifications, and its causes. Using “inconvenient facts” as a basis - some of what Al Gore says is true, some of what Al Gore says is provably false, some of what Al Gore states as absolute scientific fact is not - and is either yet to be determined or with serious debate remaining about his claims.
Palin is clearly saying that she has not adopted Al Gore’s quasi-religious absolute certainty about the causes of climate change, where no such certainty exist. But she does not preclude it. She has an open mind about it, which is exactly the right mind-set on this issue, imo.
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”
This is a very similar statement. She is not stating that she knows for a fact that climate change is not caused by man. She is stating that she does not adopt the quasi-religious absolute belief that climate change is attributable to the actions of man. There is a big and easy to understand difference in those statements.
It is like saying “I do not accept for a fact that there is a god.” That is not the same thing as taking an atheist’s position and saying “I know there is no god” - which are the words you are trying to put in her mouth. It can also mean “I don’t know if there is a god or no god and am open to either.”
True, but irrelevant. You ignore the very real possibility that we do not yet know the answer whether there is an effect or not. You also ignore that man could have an effect, but it could be a very minor effect compared to a natural phenomena like periodic variations in the sun’s output, as some scientists assert to be the primary cause.
Oh - and let me save you the trouble of the usual non-argument that invariably arrives at this point in this discussion to whit: “Anyone who does not share my religious belief in the causes of global warming that I learned from Al Gore is an idiot.” Thanks, I’ve heard it before.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Normally I would just accept poli-fact. But based only on what you quoted here, I think they on this issues they have the same reading comprehension problem as is evident in this thread:
Those are two clear statements that Palin didn’t believe that human activity contributed to global warming. She agreed that global warming was real but implied that it had non-human causes. In her interview with Gibson, she said that “man’s activities certainly can be contributing.” We rule this one a Full Flop.
Whether this is a flip flop is 100% dependent on how much certainty you want to invest in the word “implied”. With that word, Poli-Fact is acknowledging that she did not reject out of hand that the causes of global warming are man made. She expressed doubt, which is the same thing she did in her more recent statement. They are really over-stating this as a full-flip. At worst it is a half-flip, but I would hold out for a no flip. I’ll send them a note and have them correct it.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
@exiledindependent
Yup.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
@ExiledIndependent and @mw - Again, we’ve known this person for a grand total of TWO WEEKS. And don’t you think McCain’s choice as VP says something about his ability to lead? And to that point, when you fact check a lot of what she says it turns out being either half true, barely true or just plain false. To me, that’s important.
By the way, the race will refocus on the issues around the time of first prez debate. Until then, Palin is the story. Personally, I don’t care if people think it’s playing right into McCain’s hands. History is littered with dubious political strategies and not reporting on Palin b/c it may benefit McCain certainly sounds like one of them.
And @mw, we’re debating the definition of implied now? Okay then, what else was she implying was causing the climate crisis beyond natural causes?
September 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
@jg
You are the one that one converted her statements into some sort of absolute rejection of the possibility that climate change (which btw - is not a crisis yet and may never be) is caused by man. She never said that. The word “implied” confirms that she made no such absolute statement. Implying that climate change could be due to natural causes (which it could) is in no way equivalent to a statement that rejects any possibility that it is caused by man - except in the mind of those who wish to show inconsistency where none exists.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Listen, if you honestly believe that she’s implying man made changes are possible, I’ve gotten nothing more for you. Obviously I think that parsing is incredibly intellectually dishonest. Especially in the case of the Newsmax interview where she brought up the idea of “man-made” completely unprompted.
Still, I’ll be curious to see what PoliFact comes back with after that email you sent them. In fact, I urge you to post it as an open letter here on Donklephant so everybody can read it and judge for themselves.