Sarah Palin Superbly Answers Gibson’s Leading and Ignorant Global Warming Questions


Video and transcript via The Jawa Report, head over there for Ragnar’s commentary on why it was spot on.

Transcript follows:

GIBSON: 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…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’ve 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’s said 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 going to be working on what we do about it.

GIBSON: Yes, but it’s…isn’t it critical as to whether or not it’s man made? Because what you do about it depends on whether it’s man made.

PALIN: That’s why I’m attributing some of man’s activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.

GIBSON: But I…call me a cynic, but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there, when you say yes, now, you’re beginning to see it IS man made. Sounds to me like you’re adapting your position to Senator McCain’s.

PALIN: I think you are a cynic. Show me where I’ve ever said that there’s absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect, or no effect, on climate change.

Note that global warming fearmongering zombieGoresheep always try to pin the straw man of “You claim that no global warming/climate change exists!”, when the actual stand of skeptics is that the degree to which global warming is caused by human activities is poorly understood.

See more examples of Gibson’s sneakiness at Blatant Anti-Palin Bias in the Liberal Media: A Collection, example 53.


Tags: , , , ,

34 Responses to “Sarah Palin Superbly Answers Gibson’s Leading and Ignorant Global Warming Questions”

  1. huthrun Says:

    So Gibson`s bottom line is finish off, say, half the world population and accordingly this so-called climate change will be reduced by half. Seeing as he, al Goering, Nansi Peelozi exude so much methane maybe they should be done away with first.

  2. huthrun Says:

    OF COURSE, DEMOCRATS and cultural lefties, since the Sarah phenomenon exploded on the national scene, have spent a good deal of time either on their fainting couches or beavering away passing on Sarah groin shots from the liberal blogosphere. The “Slime Sarah” movement is as active in Florida as it has been across the country. But it hasn’t gotten any more traction here than it has elsewhere.

    Folks who didn’t care a fig about the “Troopergate” story when it had to do with Bill Clinton are trying to pump some life into a Sarah Palin Troopergate. Otherwise bright people are trying to whoop up brain-dead stories about Sarah Palin such as Sarah the book burner, complete with an attached list of books Palin allegedly tried to have removed from the Wasilla Library, some of which were published years after Palin was mayor there.

    Nothing is too preposterous for a desperate left, horrified that a strong and successful woman who has chosen a large family, belongs to the NRA, and sees the global warming scam as the crock that it is, is wildly popular among walking around Americans. “Hey, did you hear? She drinks the blood of flies for breakfast, and snatches food from the mouths of hungry widows and orphans.”

    http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/hurricane-sarah-the-palin-effect/

  3. huthrun Says:

    Someone`s let the air out of the Great Black Hope (GBH) doll and they are now in delirium tremens. The empty man`s suit is sluggish on him:

    WASHINGTON — The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to “start slamming down some phones.” Camille Paglia suggests, “be boring!”

    Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter’s pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports — news flash! — that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

    But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain’s Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama’s meteoric rise was based not on issues — there was not a dime’s worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues — but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

    The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer’s remorse, was the Democrats’ realization that the arc of Obama’s celebrity had peaked — and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008177994_kraut14.html

  4. jezb1 Says:

    In August 29, 2008 interview with conservative source Newsmax, Palin stated she was not one to attribute global warming to being man made. See last question in interview:

    http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html

    Here is that last question and answer summarized from article:

    Newsmax: What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?

    Palin: 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.

    So, why wouldn’t an interviewer (Charles Gibson) question her change in position on an issue as critical as global warming? She changed her position within a two week timeframe. That would seem suspect and very validly open to questioning by anyone and everyone.

  5. enviro414 Says:

    There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. By definition it complies with all laws of nature including physics and quantum mechanics. Einstein said “no number of tests can prove I’m right but only one is needed to prove I’m wrong”. That one test that proves to be wrong the theory that added atmospheric carbon dioxide causes significant global warming was run on the planet computer and the results are archived in the Vostok ice cores. They show that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html . Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm . Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback and therefore anthropogenic (human caused) global warming does not exist.

  6. Xplain Says:

    “She changed her position within a two week..”

    How has she changed her position?

  7. Xplain Says:

    “She changed her position within a two week timeframe”
    No she hasn`t.

    “..as critical as global warming”
    Only for those afflicted with “Goremania”. Temperatures have fallen.

  8. Xplain Says:

    Obama has to be yet put to the same tests as Sarah is being put to. Why does the media run away from grilling Obama. He has a whole lot more to answer.

  9. jezb1 Says:

    Xplain –
    I said: “She changed her position within a two week timeframe”
    You said: “No she hasn`t”

    please explain your logic in concluding she didn’t change her position regarding ‘man’s contribution to global warming’ within a two week timeframe.

  10. wits0 Says:

    http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc206.htm

    excerpt:

    “Democrats do not nominate good presidential candidates because Democrats do not make good presidential candidates. The problem starts with Democrats’ complete lack of understanding of what the nation desires in a leader. It is compounded by the fact that, for a Democrat, the building of a successful political career requires a litany of actions that will make you unattractive as a candidate for president.

    Americans like their presidents strong, decisive, patriotic and unapologetic about what he or she plans to do with the office. Republicans can vow with pride and confidence to keep the military strong, taxes low and the size of government under control. Once in office, they typically succeed at the first, have mixed success on the second and fail miserably at the third. But a Republican can claim plausibly to want all three, and for the most part, the country wants all three as well.”


    No matter how leftist liberal leaning international publications, like Time and Newsweek(for decades) assume that the rest of the world subscribe to their fudge and spins, the fact is still obvious to us that Donks simply suck. big time – after John Kennedy.

  11. Xplain Says:

    ‘please explain your logic in concluding she didn’t change her position regarding ‘man’s contribution to global warming’ within a two week timeframe.”

    Don`t just run around like chicken little screaming “position has changed”.
    That is being obtuse. Considering you are an expert in logic, explain how the position has changed, so you may be rebutted.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Palin: 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.

    – jezb1

    Ah, but see, she said that she didn’t believe that human activities were the main cause. That’s the same thing she said to Gibson.

  13. data Says:

    Scott, I think you should have waited for jezb1`s reply to Xplain`s request for “further and better particulars” (as the lawyers would call it🙂

  14. hutchrun Says:

    Hey guys, remember Obama who said: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

    His position has changed. He`s now causing all those typhoons/hurricanes/earthquakes soon after saying that.
    Damn, and there I wuz waiting for him to start changing water to wine, now that`d be something. Wine`s gotten so expensive.

  15. wits0 Says:

    “I wuz waiting for him to start changing water to wine, now that`d be something. Wine`s gotten so expensive.” – Hutch

    As with fuel…he could at least have changed water into Ethanol, if not gas. It seems that the only thing he could miraculously wrought is to change normal semantics into hot air.

  16. hutchrun Says:

    But he sure is full of a whole lot of gas and now he`s deflating at an astonishing rate.

  17. jezb1 Says:

    august 29,2008 interview:
    Palin: “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 interpret that second sentence to mean she takes a hard-line stance and attributes NONE of global warming to being man-made.

    august 12,2008 interview:
    Palin: “I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change…”

    Palin: “That’s why I’m attributing some of man’s activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now.”

    These other quotes use “can be contributing”, “potentially causing some”…

    Seems like she’s having a hard time saying she believes some of man’s activities contribute to some of the current climate change.

    Perhaps you’re right. Maybe she hasn’t changed her stance, and still believes that climate change is not being affected by human activity in any way at all. By saying it the way she did in Gibson’s interview, she actually relieves herself of owning a belief that some of man’s activities are contributing to some of the current climate change, while at the same time she relieves herself of owning a belief that none of man’s activities are contributing to current climate change. Making a statement as definitive as “no, i don’t believe any of man’s activities are contributing in any way to current climate changes” would be too contradictory to McCain’s stance that global warming has been caused, at least in part, by human activity, and would be unpopular with about 61% of Americans. It would also put her in a tougher position when pushing to drill in ANWR.

    On the other hand, if she’s now implying she believes some human activity does contribute to at least a part of climate change, then my opinion (based on my understanding of her original statement) is that she has changed her view.

    She gave a very slippery answer. I’d still like her to give a more clear and definitive answer. It would seem to drive the nature of her proposed policies, of which we all currently know so little about.

    What say you Xplain? What it your understanding of her original statement on Aug 29 vs. the Gibson interview?

  18. jezb1 Says:

    ooops… I meant to say, that if her view is some climate change is caused by some human activity, it would put her in a tougher position when pushing to drill in ANWR. And, McCain currently opposes drilling in ANWR.

  19. Drill Says:

    Members of the GOP platform committee voted to stick with an energy plank that doesn’t mention drilling in the refuge, saying it would only highlight an area where they differ with the Arizona senator. McCain opposes drilling in that protected land, and some committee members said they would rather bring him around on the issue once he’s in the White House than widen their disagreement now.

    “He’s not there yet,” said delegate Jeff Grossman of Oregon. “Prudence would dictate that we leave the text as it is until our candidate catches up with us.”…

  20. jezb1 Says:

    Scott Thong / Xplain –

    How is it Xplain’s post to me asking “How has she changed her position?” is listed out of the chronological order in which he actually posted the question? ie. he posted that question after I posted my request to him to explain his logic in concluding she had not changed her position within two weeks? Yet, there that post is, placed very conveniently right after my original post, and in front of his original posts. Are you trying to put ‘spin’ on the line of questioning? Isn’t that trying to mislead anyone who reads this thread?

    AND, I might add, I actually explained my position. He has yet to do so.

    What’s up with all this?

    posted Sept 16, 2008 05:21:15 PT

  21. Peggy McGilligan Says:

    Again, the “Bush Doctrine” question, among others was unprofessional. Mr. Gibson didn’t know enough about the “Bush Doctrine” to field a question. Mr. Gibson had to answer Governor Palin’s question about specifics, with yet another question. Either Charlie Gibson was unprepared to articulate the “Bush Doctrine,” or so intent on leading the interview or both was he, that when Ms. Palin asked for clarification Charlie blew it. By tossing the erroneous question back into her lap, Mr. Gibson appeared at least a lazy journalist. So, I’m not surprised Charlie Gibson misquoted the prayer either. Sarah Palin did an excellent job of articulating her take on the “Bush Doctrine.” Don’t do your homework, it’ll show. And, I noticed the demeaning TV camera techniques. One might have expected a hint of impartiality; instead of having to do a double take, to see whether Gibson hadn’t in fact sawed the legs off Ms. Palin’s chair: http://theseedsof9-11.com

  22. bitchslapper Says:

    AND, I might add, I actually explained my position. He has yet to do so.
    What’s up with all this? – jezb1

    You must be a seriously pathetic case if you think that people are sitting glued to the pc to answer your questions. Maybe you have no other life, but a lot of us do other things other than to attend to spoilt brats like you.
    You have in actual fact answered Xplain yourself when you wrote:
    “Perhaps you’re right. Maybe she hasn’t changed her stance, and still believes that climate change is not being affected by human activity in any way at all.”

    So what. Your motherF8uckin Obama promised that: “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Bollocks, ever after that there have been hurricanes and earthquakes.

    Ok. So Sarah doesn`t believe in what she said. She lied. Happy?

    So kindly take your airs (sounds the same spelt the other way) elsewhere instead of behaving like the bleeding cat`s whiskers you lunatic. Go find some LLL blog to get F*cked if you can`t behave here.

  23. bitchslapper Says:

    This blardy Jezebel is a narcissistic paranoid. Needs some real good bitchslapping and then serious ramrodding of the rear.

  24. bitchslapper Says:

    Damn jezebel c*nts as bad as that other Heavenly bitch who used to hang around. Same modus operandi.

  25. wits0 Says:

    I tend to skip verbose rubbish from sick minds.

  26. bitchslapper Says:

    It`s a wonder this bitch whose paranoia sees “spin” all around, casting aspersions, and yet can`t follow the advise of the like-minded Heavenly bitch who in plain words said not to hang out here. It`s amazing how they need to be slapped around to be kicked out. Go get your black dick to fill you up. I hear they are good, but you pray to them.

  27. bitchslapper Says:

    Jezebel probably dreams of a Black Phallus every night hence the need to defend the Black Muslim Basta so much.

  28. bitchslapper Says:

    “I tend to skip verbose rubbish from sick minds.”

    So do I. But this freak needed it real bad. How I wish it were real life. There have been quite a few broken bones and torn muscles I`ve left behind. They never understand until they are put to strict proof. You should see how they whine then. One real bastar* like this jezebel,I`m happy to say, was even sacked on account of me when I showed him up.

  29. Scott Thong Says:

    Scott Thong / Xplain –

    How is it Xplain’s post to me asking “How has she changed her position?” is listed out of the chronological order in which he actually posted the question? ie. he posted that question after I posted my request to him to explain his logic in concluding she had not changed her position within two weeks? Yet, there that post is, placed very conveniently right after my original post, and in front of his original posts. Are you trying to put ’spin’ on the line of questioning? Isn’t that trying to mislead anyone who reads this thread?

    AND, I might add, I actually explained my position. He has yet to do so.

    What’s up with all this?

    posted Sept 16, 2008 05:21:15 PT

    – jezb1

    First up, your comment above has the timestamp by my reckoning as 20:21 Sept 16 2008. My clock is 15 hours ahead of yours, so take note when you read the times below.

    Okay, I had no idea about that or what happened, and I am a bit confused as to which comments you mean, but here’s the timestamp on all your comments according to my WordPress Dashboard.

    —————

    1) jezb1

    20:32 Sept 15 2006

    In August 29, 2008 interview with conservative source Newsmax, Palin stated she was not one to attribute global warming to being man made. See last question in interview:

    http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html

    Here is that last question and answer summarized from article:

    Newsmax: What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?

    Palin: 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.

    So, why wouldn’t an interviewer (Charles Gibson) question her change in position on an issue as critical as global warming? She changed her position within a two week timeframe. That would seem suspect and very validly open to questioning by anyone and everyone.

    —————-

    2) Xplain

    22:35 Sept 15 2008

    “She changed her position within a two week..”

    How has she changed her position?

    —————-

    3) Xplain

    22:42 Sept 15 2008

    “She changed her position within a two week timeframe”
    No she hasn`t.

    “..as critical as global warming”
    Only for those afflicted with “Goremania”. Temperatures have fallen.

    —————-

    4) Xplain

    22:47 15 Sept 2008

    Obama has to be yet put to the same tests as Sarah is being put to. Why does the media run away from grilling Obama. He has a whole lot more to answer.

    —————-

    5) jezb1

    23:04 Sept 15 2008

    Xplain –
    I said: “She changed her position within a two week timeframe”
    You said: “No she hasn`t”

    please explain your logic in concluding she didn’t change her position regarding ‘man’s contribution to global warming’ within a two week timeframe.

    ————————

    6) Xplain

    07:45 Sept 16 2008

    ‘please explain your logic in concluding she didn’t change her position regarding ‘man’s contribution to global warming’ within a two week timeframe.”

    Don`t just run around like chicken little screaming “position has changed”.
    That is being obtuse. Considering you are an expert in logic, explain how the position has changed, so you may be rebutted.

    ———————

    This is followed by 2 more comments by jezb1, a long one at 12:15 Sept 16 and then a short correction at 12:51 Sept 16.

    ——————–

    Looking at the contents of the comments, particularly “How has she changed her position?” by Xplain (number 2 above), I don’t see the problem. Xplain quotes “She changed her position within a two week” (in number 2 above) which was from your preceding comment (number 1 above).

    It seems to be in order. Are you sure Xplain posted his “How has she changed her position?” comment after your “request to him to explain his logic in concluding she had not changed her position within two weeks”? What makes you come to that conclusion?

    If I am on the wrong track, tell me which ones you actually mean by their number if need be.

    To be entirely honest, I didn’t edit any of the comments or timestamps here (or anywhere else where it involves guests, except to bleep out extreme profanity). I only ever edit my own comments to update the text, and never change the timestamp.

    As a declared Christian, I let my yes be yes and my no be no, and I tell you the truth that I did not edit any of the comments on this page, and especially not in order to commit any dishonesty.

  30. Xplain Says:

    I consider it below my dignity to engage in any further communication with this Jezb1 thing.

  31. jezb1 Says:

    Sure. Don’t explain. That’s all good.

    Scott Thong – my apologies if you did not rearrange the comments; I remembered the sequence of my and Xplain’s comments differently over an approx. 15 hour time gap, and thus implied your were rearranging them. My bad if you did not do so.

    I do find it fascinating, however, many of the commentors here are willing to go through such lengths to discourage exchange with a relatively independent voter, and seek to berate and discourage them through brutal language that has nothing to do with the election, rather than through an actual discussion about the issues. Many here are as guilty of the lies and spin they blame the far liberal left of (of which I am not a part). They fall back on the biased liberal mass media, the unfair treatment of the GOP candidates… basically the same complaints the far liberal left has but they believe the mainstream media is biased to the right and the Democratic candidates are treated unfairly.

    I just wonder if they know what issues they stand for and what candidate will best represent those??

  32. Marlin Says:

    This earth is self replentising, self cleaning and self sustaining. Scientist prove themselves wrong on a daily basis. They have a long history of fraud, theory, and an ability to manipulate statistics to favor their view of what is happening.

    Here is an example of statistical manipulation, the average lifespan has climbed in this century by leaps and bounds, right? Yet, If you take one simple factor out, you see that the average lifespan has declined, and that is Infant mortality. We have made saving babies more effecient, but lifespan has actualy dropped, but because of averages, the total numbers have raised while the ones who do make it to adulthood live a much shorter life than the statistics suggest.

    I suppose that there are falicies in the weather and it is beintg used as a political tool.

    They will keep pushing “Global Warming” with limited and skewed data to fit the agenda, and the scientist that go against the grain will continue to lose funding.

    Want to know why this is for political gain? go to carbontax.org and read the plan.

    A World carbon tax creates a world government, it is that simple. so just agree, do not think for yourself and follow directions and be good little world citizens. Better go with this or tomorrow the sky may be falling!

  33. turkey shoot Says:

    GLOBAL WARMING A LIE

    Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.

    But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an Ozone hole over North America.

    Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon – five years before Congress had intended – and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport – Bush’s vacation home.

    Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers, that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the old one.
    http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

  34. Scott Thong Says:

    Well jezb1, sorry if commentors here seem to want to squelch any dissenting voices. Most of them I haven’t seen here before. I suppose they feel it is a necessity to pre-empt any advances by perceived Obama supporters.

    On a semi-related note, I’ve gotten into dozens-of-comments long battles with commentors over at some other posts, until one of us got bored. It’s part of the package.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: