Introduction and Part I of this six part series, are below. For the full series, click:
- Part II – The Basic Science, in Stark Contrast
Part III – Climate Variability, Threshold Effects, and How to Subvert Informed Discussion
Part IV – “Political” is Whatever I Don’t Like, and Science is Whatever I Assert
Part V - Real Editorial Debate, and the Costs/Benefits Myth
Part VI – The Hacked E-Mail “Scandal” Scandal, and the Real Issues: Palin’s assertions, the Post’s Misleading Promotion, and the Ensuing Misinformation Driving Our National Debate
The recent decision by the Washington Post to publish celebrity author and former politician Sarah Palin’s climate change piece in the name of “debate,” brings the issue of the paper’s seemingly lax editorial review and fact checking process into clear focus. It also constitutes a stunning example of media promoted, misinformed celebrity pundit hood over substantive knowledge.
The Post also made the piece its feature op-ed, taking up more space on the online opinion home page than the other editorial lead-ins combined. And for its lead page caption, the Post used a line that is wildly misleading, and, ultimately, flagrantly false.
Palin herself fed readers an astounding quantity of highly misleading and erroneous information. How this adds to rather than subverts informed debate is hard to fathom: Let alone when it is promulgated by a leading national figure, in one of our nation’s leading newspapers.
Part I – Palin’s Assertions
Palin asserted that the United Nation’s climate change conference in Copenhagen was based upon “politics” and an “agenda” — without ever illustrating how or why. She also essentially claimed that such efforts therein to address climate change were based upon “fraudulent science,” once again with no basis, save for an otherwise essentially irrelevant hacked email scandal (see Part VI). And she implicitly impugned the vast majority of world scientists in essence as “frauds.”
On the other hand, in contrast to these science “frauds” concerned over lack of climate change redress, Palin asserts that she is a believer in “sound science,” not politics. She does this, again, without attempting to show how Copenhagen – as opposed to everything with inevitable political repercussions – was based on “politics.” And she also does this without explaining what she means by “sound science.”
Perhaps by “sound” she means science not based on CRU “scandal” scientists, while maneuvering around making a direct, challengeable assertion to this effect. Thus, by her insinuation, either most scientists are “frauds” (an unfounded and wild accusation), or Copenhagen was based not upon an enormous worldwide consensus, but some potentially tweaked data by a handful of CRU related scientists (a profoundly misinformed assertion).
The only real hint we get of what Palin herself might, more relevantly, mean by “sound” science is when she notes that climate change is “real,” But asserts that the climate is “changing,” in essence, all due to natural variability. I.e, “We recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends.” (We just don’t recognize our impact – that would be “fraudulent science.”)
Like a carefully trained witness once again deftly maneuvering around outright perjury or, in this case scientific absurdity, she essentially tells readers that this is only due to natural causes, without directly saying it is due only to natural causes. And, as Palin pointed out just afterward on her Facebook page, climate “always has, and always will” change. Therefore, she actively asserts, since she recognizes that climate does change, she is not a climate change “denier”.
Though a reader obviously cannot see her expression, Palin presumably makes this assertion with a straight face (or perhaps with a wink, and a “you betcha”), as if climate change refers to the long understood scientific fact that climate changes, rather than the issue of man’s ultimate effect on it through enormous net emissions of long-lived heat trapping gases into the atmosphere. This is something that in her op-ed Palin quite specifically does deny, while simultaneously claiming she is not denying it. But then it was a noted conservative, Kathleen Parker of the Post, who first wrote that “If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street by herself.”
It gets worse: Palin — once again raising serious questions as to why she is “teaching” Americans on this same subject matter and why the Post is actively promoting and publishing this “teaching” – also asserted that man can’t change the weather. This is consistent with the “deny” part of her “I don’t deny climate change even though I do deny it” charade, as the entire basis of the climate change issue is not only that we can affect climate (and hence weather), but that we very likely are.
This is also not much different from asserting that the sun revolves around the earth, if less intuitive: That is, mankind indisputably can and is altering greenhouse gas levels; greenhouse gases indisputably affect climate, which ultimately and indisputably drives weather. Thus her assertion that man can’t change the weather is flagrantly false. (There are also numerous other ways we can more subtly change the weather, not otherwise relevant to this piece.) (also see here).
Palin even implicitly labeled efforts like Copenhagen — to address ongoing net anthropomorphic emissions of heat trapping gases –“radical environmentalism.” According to her logic, the vast majority of the world’s apolitical scientists are “radical environmentalists;” and sensibly addressing climate change by trying to reduce the emissions of the heat trapping gases that are likely leading to it, is “radical environmentalism.”
Blatant, ridiculous, and somewhat head in the sand political spinning aside, the far bigger problem with Palin’s piece is that it wildly misleads and promotes false information throughout, in order to try and support this.