Posted on 04/14/2009 8:33:13 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
(AP) — ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin acknowledged Tuesday that global warming was harming her state but said stepped-up natural-gas production could mitigate its effects.
Speaking at a hearing before Interior Secretary Ken Salazar -- the third of several he is holding to consider renewed oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf -- Palin said that relatively clean-burning natural gas could supplant dirtier fuels and slow the discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
"We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington," she said. "The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us."
(Excerpt) Read more at silive.com ...
When did Palin dispute the exact quotes in the transcript? Your lame spin is going nowhere.
I see the same old stuff starting up again...
Truth is...Palin is an energy and free enterprise warrior and you and your co-horts love to exploit every fault the MSM hands you. Despicable.
They are going full bore on this generation
For the youngers thats roughly 14 years.
See ,I used the words global warming and you reacted just like I said people do in my previous post. Which was my point about what happens when someone brings up the words global warming. Trying to be a smarty pants with the cool at night,warm during the day remark lets me be a smarty pants by saying that I guess the cooling that began in 2000 means that it must be night all the time according to your theory. Hate to tell you but the earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age with a small cooling trend from around 1940 to 1970 when the warming trend that began at the end of the little ice age resumed. In 2000 another cooling trend began which brings us to today. In case you are wondering where I got my numbers they are from a global warming skeptic sight called a Skeptics guide to debunking global warming alarmism. Like a lot of people you have attached the people to the words and the people have become the words. So here is how the natural cycle of the planet works. Sometimes there is global warming then sometimes there is global cooling then sometimes there is global warming then sometimes there is global cooling... The attachment of man made to the words global warming is what the arguement is about and Gov Palin never used those two magic words.
I know. I had been reading the pdf file on her website and was going to post it when I noticed you already had. I had selected the exact same excerpt as addressing the subject of the thread. However, in reading it again, I'm more disappointed. In her opening statements, she quotes from Salazar's confirmation speech and says she "completely concurs."
I'm just disappointed that she either thinks she has to pander, even in the slightest, to the Left or that she doesn't really understand how global warming is a hoax in the fullest extent. That it was created only to push an economic system via another means because the fallacious concepts and the factual and historical disasters wherever it was tried was too embarrassing for liberal/progressives to promote explicitly in an upfront manner. Global warming is their current 'workaround'. It was Global cooling before that and it will be something else in the future.
Very well stated. I felt the same way about McCain when he went into his campaign spiel -- it was so aggravating. Something like: "Let's just go ahead and spend all this money on green energy and implement cap-and-trade -- what's the worst that can happen? If we're right we'll save the world. If we're wrong, we'll have a cleaner world." He would not acknowledge what happens to our freedom, our sovereignty or our form of government, not to mention the U.S. economy as a result of cap-and-trade.
As I said upthread, I would like Palin to get a BIG dose of Inhofe.
YOU are the one making the assertions.
If you want anyone to believe you, back them up.
NOTHING would make me happier than to hear the words of Inhofe coming from Sarah's mouth regarding "climate change". But I refuse to put my head in the sand and ignore what she has repeatedly said in public.
You may think that is playing "gotcha." I call it accepting reality.
I also believe that the phrase "Caveat emptor" applies to politicians.
I posted quotes from Sarah, in context, with sources and links.
You are posting demands that others go search google for what you want to be true.
BTW, asking you to support your assertions is not bullying. It is truth-seeking.
What she has said by far the most in public is that she is for increased Alaskan oil production.
You choose to play gotcha and look for some exceptions. Go right ahead and play your games. By all means look to Couric for your proof. She welcomes your cooperation.
You may dislike Governor Palin and thats OK. Go ahead and saY which governor you do like.....
I do not know how to make it any simpler for you so you can understand it. Lets do it this way. Since she starts the statements that follow with the words many believe that means that any statements she makes are the beliefs of the many. Unless she changes it to I believe or Sarah believes or whatever she is not taking possesion of any of the beliefs that are stated. You could plug in any words in the paragraph to replace the ones like : Many believe that there might(global warming)life on mars, due to Nasa’s most credible models of the conditions on mars. If Sarah Palin makes this statement in no way is she saying she believes there is life on mars,just that many people believe it due to the credible models of Nasa. Something tells me that you do understand what I am saying but are one of those people who never admit when they are wrong. If that is true do not bother responding as you have wasted enough of my time.
That's great! I agree!
You choose to play gotcha and look for some exceptions. Go right ahead and play your games.
Supporting a cap-and-trade program is hardly "an exception." I believe it is probably the most dangerous policy being considered by our politicians and will do more to damage this country than any war could do. It is NOT a game -- it is an important policy issue that every freedom-loving American should be concerned about.
By all means look to Couric for your proof. She welcomes your cooperation.
I wasn't looking to Couric -- I was quoting Sarah. Are you saying that those are not her words?
People have quoted from her own statement on her website. They have quoted her in an interview with Charlie Gibson. In her debate with Biden, she says she favors capping greenhouse gas emissions. Am I supposed to disbelieve all of these words that Sarah uttered? You're really looking silly, IMO.
I don’t dislike Sarah.
I want her to get EDUCATED on this hoax and not get shnookered by the AlGorians.
There is still time — but ignoring her words and the path she is following is no solution!
I believe she has been educated at least as well as BO. John McCain is of a stature that cannot be met. It was probably wrong of him to introduce her. I disagree with him constantly yet voted for him. His life is something else. I need America to come back. :^)
I agree with Kent C's #239, above:
she doesn't really understand how global warming is a hoax in the fullest extent. That it was created only to push an economic system via another means because the fallacious concepts and the factual and historical disasters wherever it was tried was too embarrassing for liberal/progressives to promote explicitly in an upfront manner. Global warming is their current 'workaround'. It was Global cooling before that and it will be something else in the future.
I've been opposed to cap-and-trade for years, long before I had ever heard the name "Sarah Palin." Here was one of my posts from last year that pretty much sums up the goals of cap-and-trade. I am hoping that Sarah is only uneducated on this subject; it would be an extreme disappointment if she supports this scam with full knowledge of where it will take us.
She did NOT say what the AP headline implies. If you folks would simply READ then article you would have seen that.
To those who are hysterical about her remarks about climate change. She clearly states: “Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”
There is also a difference between actual changes in the climate (which happen all the time since it all began) and man made global warming.
Palin always denied the latter:
Quote: “I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made. “
Her policies and recent statements make clear that she pursues energy independence through more use of oil and gas over any “enviromentalist” concerns.
The point of her testimony to Salazar, to which the above article refers to, is to convince the Obama administration of the sense of petro-energy.
She says that there are many others believing that capping emissions would help fight “man made” climate change (without subscribing herself to this opinion, which she consistently has rejected) and therefore want “green energy”.
She then makes the case as advocatus diaboli, that even for those who believe it pursuing oil and gas energy now would make more sense than just waiting for “green energy”.
She is making the case for increased domestic petro-energy, which is rejected by globull warming hysterics.
She points out their logical folly, by making the case that petro-energy use would make sense, not only those who support it anyway (like her, over enviromental concerns) but also according to their models.
Anyone reading it sees clearly that she is making the case for petro-energy, regardless of enviromental concerns, and using the arguments of those believing in man made climage change to convince them (Salazar) of the importance of petro-energy.
Note how she says “many believe” and “credible models”, not “I believe” or “scientific fact”. She is trying to sell petro-energy to those who oppose it (Obama administration) and she dismisses the focus on “green energy only”.
Her comments from the campaing etc. are clear. She does not believe/know/give a hoot about whether or how much man contributes and said clearly that it’s just as likely to cyclical changes etc.
She consistently makes the case for “non-green energy”, which is diametrically opposed to the stance of the green envirowhackos.
She is far ahead of any other serious GOP contender (not to mention democrats). Her strict pursual of energy independence is one of THE cornerstones for America winning the war on terror, the global struggle against Russia and Middle Eastern tyrannies and strenghtening our economy in the long-term. NO other candidate is so determined on this issue that will increasingly be about life and death for this country.
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2229427/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.