Palin's own 'Climate-gate'

Wash Post ^ | 12/15/09 | Eugene Robinson

[pissant]

Robinson is Keef Olderwoman’s lapdog.

[HerrBlucher]

I don’t think it hurts her at all, when I say its a ding that is from my point of view, since I have thought AGW an obvious fraud from day one. But, Sarah doesn’t have a science background so she can’t be expected to see the AGW idiocy right away.

[unseen]

Wow a politician that changes her positions based on the newest data available. Unlike Obama whom when shown the data of his stimulus bill's failure wants to double down on stupid.

an open-minded leader?? say it isn't so. A leader that leads based on science instead of PC correctness or partisan ideas? Say it's not so.

[FreeStateYank]

I don’t believe Palin ever believed in anthropogenic climate change. However, Alaska did face consequences of ‘normal’ climate change AND providing due diligence on environmental impact from various resource exploration and harvesting. Makes sense to create a non-partisan commission to investigate the issues. Makes it harder for special interest groups of any persuasion to influence the process via backroom deals or dramatic media displays.

Robinson is a boring hack who is intellectually dishonest and/or intellectually deficient as he cannot or will not explore a topic fairly and impartially. Take your pick or choose all of the above!

[Clinging Bitterly]

btrl

[rabscuttle385]

Check this out.

Also D1, fyi.

[DoughtyOne]

The Washington Post is great at printing about half the information on a topic to make people on the right look bad.

I believe there’s a very good chance Palin could have a decent explanation for this.

I’m going to wait and see how this fleshes out.

Thanks for the link. I’m glad to know this issue is out there.

Looks to me like the Left has declared war or Palin. Like we didn’t know this was coming.

We know more about her past than we do Obama, and he’s president.

[rabscuttle385]

Just please keep an eye on this. I know the WaPo is biased, but they did manage to dig up her official executive order, which *IS* credible evidence, no matter how it’s put out.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes that was credible. On this I do believe she should be given a chance to respond though. It’s not quite as cut and dried as a comment made like the one the other day, not that I like it.

I don’t mince words and this has been filed away.

This kind of thing doesn’t surprise me. I was fearing some stuff like this would pop up.

We’ll see how it goes.

[mkjessup]

This ginned up so-called 'scandal' is pure 100 percent unadulterated horse manure.

IF bogus data is disseminated throughout the scientific community and the general public, it should come as no surprise that officials are going to generally accept the premise until the bogus data is proven bogus.

When dealing with scientific 'evidence', that task becomes exceptionally difficult due to the complex nature of the alleged evidence, it isn't easy to refute without having the scientific credentials to truly challenge the evidence (which many scientists have been doing despite efforts to muzzle them), OR obtaining proof (as in email messages) that the parties seeking to perpetuate this climate fraud on the public were conspiring together to alter the data (which we now know is the case).

As another poster said "there is no 'there', there." Sarah Palin should state clearly that due to the fraudulent actions of a clique of environmental wacko scientists and their underlings, the entire world was fed a lie and those responsible should be held accountable.

As for your statement about us knowing more about Sarah's past than we do 0bama's, I'd love to see Sarah Palin begin to stand up in front of the crowds, pull out a true copy of HER birth certificate and say "Here is MY proof that I am an American citizen and Constitutionally qualified to serve as President if I should choose to pursue that great Office, why can't Mr. 0bama produce this document?!?"

I would pay money to watch the exploding heads at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if she were to do that, LOL

[stephenjohnbanker]

Great page on man’s contribution to the greenhouse effect:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Man’s TOTAL contribution is 0.28%.
Man’s CO2 contribution is 0.117%.

Any statisticians out there that can tell me what qualifies as “noise”?

56 posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:53:12 AM by MrB “

Also Google

“Harvard and MIT debunk global warming”

Whole page is loaded.

[mkjessup]

Any statisticians out there that can tell me what qualifies as “noise”?

Any time that a 'Rat or RINO opens their freakin piehole, it qualifies as "noise", lol

[stephenjohnbanker]

There is no excuse for anybody in a position of power not to know that man made warming is a hoax. There are many 8th graders who can point it out, why not adults? Because they are intellectually lazy, that’s why.

[mkjessup]

No arguments there. You’re absolutely right.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, that would be a hoot.

I don’t know if it fits here or not, but the federal government requires governors to do certain things if they expect to get federal highway dollars and the such.

Palin may or may not have had to jump through some hoops as a stipulation to get federal dollars. I honestly don’t know if that played into this or not. It is a possibility.