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 ...
This was McCain position, which she had to subscribe to. In all statements during (and after) the campaign she abundantly made clear that she is skeptical of the alleged role man plays and favors in any case oil and gas energy (see the interviews), regardless of “green concerns”.
BTW it’s rather odd that some are acting surprised here, when it’s consistent with her comments she made during the campaign.
Oh, you mean this?
"Regardless though of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet"
Nice foot shot.
Of course, she's since moved on from such vague pandering and waffling to the point where she now contends that the IPPC models and other global warming junk science studies are the "most credible."
And the remark about "most credible" is from the paragraph where she is making the case for non-green petro-energy. She merely points out that even those who believe these models and the notion behind it (man made) should be supportive of non-green petro-energy.
IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?Her apologists are starting to seem like O.J. jurors.PALIN: I do. I do.
Lying like a cheap rug. She says nothing of the kind and assigns no relative weight to either.
IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?Time for some more "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" spin.PALIN: I do. I do.
In your very own post is this part of her quote: "part of the cyclical nature of our planet"
She does not fixate on either possibility but is skeptical of an alleged role of man.
Fully consistent with all other remarks she made.
Hogwash! She didn't subscribe to his position on ANWR.
she abundantly made clear that she is skeptical of the alleged role man plays and favors in any case oil and gas energy (see the interviews), regardless of “green concerns”.
And you ignore my questions. If she is so skeptical, how does she justify subjecting us to cap-and-trade, international taxation, and trillions in foolish spending? Why support trillions for a "transition to green energy alternatives" "such as wind or tidal power" when more viable alternatives are available? Not once did she use the word nuclear in her statement.
"Alaska’s OCS has received little analysis of its potential to provide renewable energy resources, such as the wind or tidal power. As we transition to green energy alternatives, we cannot afford to foreclose opportunities in our OCS." (Palin, 4/14/09)
BTW it’s rather odd that some are acting surprised here, when it’s consistent with her comments she made during the campaign.
I'm not surprised. I'm just surprised at how many here are willing to completely ignore facts, misrepresent what Sarah has actually said and done in the past, and call freepers "trolls" for telling the truth. Trust me -- that is not a winning strategy for Palin's campaign. Encouraging her to get educated on this subject, ASAP, would be a better use of your time.
One more time:
If climate change is not caused by man but caused by cyclical changes, why on earth would we cap greenhouse gases? If climate change is not caused by man, why implement a cap-and-trade program and damage the U.S. economy while subjecting ourselves to otherwise unnecessary international government and international taxation? If climate change is not caused by man, why would we throw trillions of dollars at an 'all of the above' approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change" instead of establishing an energy policy based on sound critera such as cost that will not strangle our economy?
You apparently aren’t familiar with the concept of “compromise”. All the points you mention are McCain policy.
She always before, during and after the campaign meanwhile insisted on drilling in ANWR and expanding NON-GREEN energy (oil and gas). It’s her bread and butter. You are trying to make Palin the owner of McCain’s stances.
She gave a blatant lie and the truth equal weight, before crawling into bed with the Global Warming cultists? That's a fine example of (inadvertently) damning with faint praise.
That's an interesting euphemism for selling out.
McCain wrote her statement that she made yesterday? I think not.
She always before, during and after the campaign meanwhile insisted on drilling in ANWR and expanding NON-GREEN energy (oil and gas).
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
-- Vladimir Lenin
Which Global Warming cultists support expanding OIL and GAS use!?
McCain! Couric!! Bustamante!!!
You forgot the LA Times, LOL.
What has her statement yesterday to do with it? Ah right! Nothing. Yesterday she said that there are folks who believe in man made global warming, and that those folks should also have an interest in non-green energy.
Guess you never bothered actually thinking about her statements and the purpose of them (convincing Obama’s green Interior secretary about the importance of non-green energy.)
BTW interesting to see you quote Lenin...
How do you do that and cap carbon emissions?
IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?PALIN: I do. I do.
WHY SARAH??? WWWWHHHHHYYYY!!!!!!
Alright... I’ll buy it. The only way to cure “Global Warming” is to stop up all the animals and kill off all the humans.
SHEESH!!!
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.