What are the ramifications of a U.S. Vice President that is willing to shrug off the scientific realities of global warming?
Guess we'll find out if John McCain takes the White House. In an interview with Newsmax today, McCain's vice-presidential running mate Sarah Palin stated that:
"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. "
I guess Palin spends her time reviewing climate science as reported on Newsmax and other media outlets (read: Fox News) bent on ignoring and confusing the warnings from top scientists at the nation's most prestigious scientific academies, like NASA and the National Academy of Science.
As the National Academy of Science rightly points out, the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is an age-old scientific finding dating back as far as the 1800's:
The theoretical realization that human activities could have a global discernible effect on the atmosphere came during the 19th century, and the first conclusive measurements of atmospheric change were made during the last half of the 20th century.
And the link between the massive upswing in heat-trapping greenhouse gas, human activity and major disruption to the earth's climate system in the 20th century is also a scientific reality. According to the National Academy of Science:
The first greenhouse gas demonstrated to be increasing in atmospheric concentration was carbon dioxide, formed as a major end product in the extraction of energy from the burning of the fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas--as well as in the burning of biomass.
Palin's apparent ignorance on the contemporary science of climate change speaks to a much bigger issue about US science policy in general.
If Palin is willing to ignore such robust science concluding catastrophic effects on our climate systems due to our ever-growing over-consumption of fossil fuels like coal and oil, what other scientific realities will a McCain administration be willing to ignore at the behest of its second-in-command?
UPDATE: Here's at least one other scientific reality it looks like Palin will ignore, courtesy of Brandon Keim at Wired Science.
UPDATE #2: Greenpeace just sent out a comprehensive look at Palin's history on environmental issues (attached to the bottom of this blog post).
Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia
Loading comments…
It seems many of Sarah Palin's opinions and decisions are shaped by her 'faith'. In that respect, she is no different than Bush. For them, it is God over science. Not good as we are heading into some very turbulent times on the climate front.
It's been cooling. Don't belive this? look at the data. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
IIRC, the values plotted are the average of the year plus the 7 preceding years. This trace has reached an inflection point. the theory put forward by the AGW Alarmist community calls for monotonically increasuing global temperature as a result of the monotonically increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. That is not what is happening.
The predictions of the AGW community are also failing: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001317veri
Some people would consider this proof that the AGW alarmist are wrong. Others ....
According to Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory discussing a leveling off of sea surface temperatures for the last three years. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
I wish man made global warming deniers would find an argument they like and stick to it. They change arguments to deny warming almost daily.
BEHusseinM777
And by the way, since the numbers are so very very small, isn't it just a LITTLE bit likely that us bringing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to levels never seen before MIGHT have something to do with it, and if we were to LOWER those levels wouldn't it just be a LITTLE bit possible that we could counteract this problem!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Where did you get this idea from? Current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is about 380 ppm. Science has shown that values of 2,000 ppm have occurred in the last 65 million years. CO2 has gone up and has gone down, all without the aid of humans.
However, the really big question that we should be asking ourselves is, who could McCain have picked who would have been qualified to be POTUS?
I don't think so. Eisenhower, Warren, Rockefeller, Goldwater, the original Romney, Reagan, they are all gone. Dole could have done it, but he is too old, and has enough sense to know it. Now all we have left are Baby Bush, Baby Romney, Giulani, Graham, Larry Craig, Cheney, and a whole bunch of other lightweights who shouldn't even be in public office.
The real story here is that there is not a single person in the GOP today who is qualified to be president, so obviously there is no one qualified to be vice-president.
The sun is and always has been what dictates climate change on planet earth..The evidence in the ice at the poles provides thousands of years of accurate and verifiable record of CO2 in the atmosphere over the centuries, and millenniums..The sun's activities have been recorded for hundreds of years..Here is the reality for all you tree-huggers that, as poet Browing said, are "too soon made glad"..The sun's increased activities precede CO2 increase EVERY TIME - period! - That's the culpable, in hand, non-speculative, non-manipulated, evidence of fact!!..
It is not always smart to follow the lemmings of political correctness..
If you think humans are to blame for global warming - here's a URL to the facts - short video..http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-7761675-QU_3tex&t=4
Not 99% of the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists are either undecided or have concluded anthropogenic global warming is not large enough to constitute a calamity. The group who support these notions of human induced calamity are a very small number of the larger scientific community.
Some perspective: The National Academy of Sciences says there are over 2,000,000 scientists employed in America alone. At least 250,000 of these hold advanced degrees in the physical sciences, meaning they have a basis to hold an informed opinion on this topic. The total number of scientists worldwide who actively support and publish AGW catastrophe is thought to number about 650.
So why do you think 99% of the scientific community buys into this idea that humans are causing a global climate catastrophe?
The overall C02 level since 1820, however, has INCREASED as a percentage of total atmosphere volume, and this steady and measured increase has been attributed to increased burning of fossil fuels, in addition to loss of "carbon storage" capacity on the planet, as in loss/destruction of forests, etc. F' chrissake, READ ALL THE SCIENCE.
They are truly desperate and eager to steal Hillarys votes. Well if I was a woman for Hillary, I would listen to what she said at the convention and not be fooled by this bizarre nomination of a right wing wacko pageant who believes in Creationism and doesn't believe in Evolution.
The Republicans are saying basically that women are stupid if they believe that they can be convinced to vote for them just for the gender factor. Women are smarter than that.
And by the way... showing up on stage with the toddler.... short if breast feeding it... gimme a break !!
SIGHHHHHHH