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 ...
And that they are the most credible. You keep "forgetting" that part.
She never ceased to support and advocate more oil and gas output.
To claim otherwise is silly.
So why is she still "compromising" the truth?
Simple questions. Why not answer them, one by one.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?
Really. Just like they do when the MSM plants false stories about Mitt Romney and the headlines have nothing to do with the actual story and there is no evidence or factual subtance to support the headlines whatsoever, right? LOL.
It appears the MSM is planting stories specifically designed to alienate certain candidates from the conservative base. Interesting....
Nope. You keep twisting that part.
She said that non-green petro-energy should be also supported by those who believe in man made global warming and said that their "most credible models" support the argument of increasing non-green petro-energy.
Quite a difference to your "truth".
One last time... these are McCain’s campaign positions, which she compromised to. He was head of the ticket... you remember. As you stated yourself McCain and Palin disagreed over energy (i.e. drilling in ANWR). She defended McCain’s policy in the debate, and presented a much more non-green alternative (including OIL and GAS) as an alternative to the democrat green energy.
So, you're saying that, when asked what her position was on the issues, Sarah lied?
She lied in the Couric interview?
She lied in the PBS debate?
She lied in the Gibson interview?
And she really really doesn't want a cap-and-trade program or want to cap greenhouse gases?
What Sarah is really saying to them is “If you are serious about wanting to reduce CO2, then you should be in favor of allowing Alaska to drill and ship more natural gas”, thus turning their own arguments against them.
On Gibson she repeatedly stressed Oil and Gas and clearly said that despite her own skepticism over man's alleged role in the climate and her own support for drilling in ANWR she compromises with McCain.
On ANWR: "We'll agree to disagree but I'm gonna keep pushing that and I think eventually we're all gonna come together on that one."
She never made a secret that she and McCain had differences over these issues and that they'll have to compromise on it.
Not "their" most credible", she said "required under most credible climate change models". Why change her words? She gave no qualifiers as you imply.
The old adage still holds true..
Never fall in love with a politician. In the end, they’ll break your heart everytime.
She is eligible for re-education too tho.
She made no such qualification. You are adding words to make it sound like want you want it to be.
I am not adding words, I am making emphasizes. Sorry if you got the idea that the italics and quotations marks were meant to be quotes.
You are taking her quotes out of context.
They were, for all to read, within a paragraph that was introduced (this time a quote) “Many believe that [...]” and was, exactly as I said, about making the case for non-green energy to a green audience.
I don't have a problem with that part.
I have a problem when she calls greenhouse gases "pollution", when she says she supports capping greenhouse gases and a cap-and-trade program, and when she supports the "all of the above" energy plan which includes throwing trillions at costly and unproven energy alternatives.
Oh... and I have a problem with FReepers who absolutely ignore her words, misrepresent her public statements, and instead choose to attack those who would like to see her modify her position on those subjects. We didn't need the Kyoto Treaty and we sure don't need the plans coming out of Copenhagen.
No I am not. As I said before, (I believe) it was to respond to those "who believe".
You are adding a context that doesn't exist.
Many believe that in order to mitigate these long term and systematic changes it will require a national and global effort to decrease the release of human produced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, simply waiting for low carbon emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals for reducing CO2 that will be required under most credible climate change models, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeled scenarios. Meeting these goals will require a dramatic increase, in the very near term, to preferred available fuels - including natural gas – that have a very low carbon footprint and that can be used within the existing energy infrastructure. These available fuels are required to supply the nation’s energy needs during the transition to green energy alternatives.
In the second setence, starting with the word "However", she is responding to that concern.
This is your interpretation. I think you are reading something into it, as you accuse me to do.
In my opinion it is plain apparent that as I said repeatedly before, she is making the case that those who believe in man made global warming should be supportive of non-green energy, instead of waiting for green alternatives.
We will continue to disagree.
Sadly, I don’t think she has changed her view, but has begun more pandering to environmental groups. I haven’t agreed with Gov Palin on everything, but I always felt her strength was with her being true to her values and beliefs. I see these words as one more example of it.
Cheers...
You should address the subject and quit attacking FReepers with unfounded assertions. When she uses terms like "I believe" or "I think", she either truly believes it (truth) or she is only saying what McCain wants her to say even though she does not believe it (a lie).
Bottom line: If it ain't caused by man's greenhouse gas contribution, then limiting said greenhouse gas contributions can't stop it. That is not a lie, that is common sense. To entertain such solutions is political folly and a WASTE of taxpayers money. To entertain international solutions, subjecting us to international courts and taxation, is naive and/or dangerous, depending on one's knowledge of the true implications of such a policy.
On Gibson she repeatedly stressed Oil and Gas and clearly said that despite her own skepticism over man's alleged role in the climate and her own support for drilling in ANWR she compromises with McCain.
Really? LOL. Charlie Gibson's Second Interview With Sarah Palin
GIBSON: Let me talk a little bit about environmental policy, because this interfaces with energy policy and you have some significant differences with John McCain. Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?PALIN: I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. 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 -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution.
GIBSON: But it's a critical point as to whether or not this is man-made. He says it is. You have said in the past it's not.
PALIN: The debate on that even, really has evolved into, OK, here's where we are now: scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now what do we do about it. And John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it.
GIBSON: Yes, but isn't it critical as to whether or not it's man-made, because what you do about it depends on whether its man-made.
PALIN: That is why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.
GIBSON: But I, color me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there. When you say, yes, now you're beginning to say it is man-made. It sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Sen. McCain's.
PALIN: I think you are a cynic because 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 affect, or no affect, on climate change.
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.