Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/15/2009 7:47:45 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Climate change: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin acknowledges global warming is affecting her state But the former GOP vice presidential candidate contends gas drilling will help curb rising temperatures
By Kim Murphy | Tribune Newspapers April 15, 2009
ANCHORAGE — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin acknowledged Tuesday that global warming is harming her state but said stepped-up natural-gas production could mitigate its effects.
Palin spoke at a hearing before Interior Secretary Ken Salazar — the third of a series he is holding across the country to consider renewed oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The 2008 Republican nominee for vice president said relatively clean-burning natural gas can 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 chicagotribune.com ...
Nooooooo!!!
Climate change is real
The left chooses to use it as a political and social policy tool by inflating claims about the role that humans play in it.
Huh? Say it aint so Sarah!
Its so sad how the GOP has let rhetoric and pseudo science take a hypothesis and make it political reality..
So.
She’s joined Newt on the Global Warming Band Wagon.
NEXT!
I guess I’ll have to lust after another woman from now on....
“Climate change is real.”
####
It certainly is.
It is warmer today than it was yesterday, but it is supposed to be colder tomorrow.....
She acknowledges warming, but not as “man-made” warming. She’s calling their bluff. If it’s warming, then we need to develop more natural gas which has a low carbon footprint.
Is she turning into a loon?
I'm a big Palin fan, but it pains me to point out that she's talking about "greenhouse gases" and "carbon footprints" and "green energy".
She seems to have swallowed to kool-aid.
The left chooses to use it as a political and social policy tool by inflating claims about the role that humans play in it.
Bingo! Climate changes, period. It is never stable for eons, there constant shifts. We are not the cause, we may make a small contribution to the factors effecting climate, but nature is the ultimate, unstoppable, unchangeable power in climate change.
Oh... give me a break. She is not subscribing to “man made global warming”. Climate change(s) are real. They are caused by cyclical factors and such as the sun. There is no denial. When do folks realize there is a friggin difference between man made global warming and climate change per se.
She is a avowed skeptic of “man made” global warming.
Before turning hysterical read the comments here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2229427/posts
Sarah’s True Color has a little bit of chameleon in it, hayna? When I saw her trying to campaign-finesse her brat’s forthcoming brat, I expected more of the same, and I’m getting just about what I expected. This really isn’t news, it’s just a politician being a politician.
In her testimony to Salazar she makes the case for oil and gas energy, saying that even for those who believe in man made climate change, oil and gas now would make more sense than waiting for “green energy”. (What enviro loon supports more petro-energy!?)
She never rejected the notion that there are cyclical and periodical changes (which are real and happen since beginning of time), but have to be attributed to the sun, cyclical changes etc. Anyone surprised hasn’t paid attention to the campaign.
Her statement makes abundantly clear that she is pursuing oil and gas energy regardless of “enviromental concerns”.
She is trying to show the enviros that even they should be supporting petro-energy.
If she doesn't believe it is man-made, why would she believe switching to a low carbon fuel would make a difference?
If she promotes human changing activities to help the problems, then it is claiming human activities as at least part of the problem.
The final nail. Palin - go away.
No, climate change, as portrayed by ALL the MSM is a man made “concern”. We all know the earth goes through NATURAL climate changes and is part of life...hence, the Ice Age, Warm periods, cold periods, etc.
The entire “CLIMATE CHANGE” BS that EU adopted and making billions off it is what has me pissed. Then the UN, etc want to tax companies that are “believed” to be causing Global Warming. It’s a scam. plain and simple...a money making SCAM. If you think it’s man made, which I do not believe you do, then why are ice caps melting on Mars? because of pollution and industry? So I find your post BS...carry on!
Agreed. I’ve always beleived we’ve had warming and cooling, but I scoff at those who want me to live like a hermit while they dine on rare species fish...
Well see you Sarah... If you believe this nonsense, then I have to let you go.
That's exactly how I see it. Makes me sad.
She has repeatedly said that she is skeptical and does neither rule out nor settle on man being a factor. In her testimony to Salazar she says that IF the opinion of those who claim man is a factor is true, they TOO should have a reason to support petro-energy, instead of waiting for “green energy”.
She is advocating oil and gas and points out that the arguments of the opponents are a non-sequitur.
Then why is she suggesting that changing fuels will help?
Oh my gawd - I just can’t believe it.
Back to the hunt for true conservative candidates.
You obviously haven't paid attention to her before. There is no change in her position. Climate change is real, but not man made. She has always said that she is skeptical of man's part in it.
That's a good question. My personal belief -- for what it's worth -- is that she doesn't believe in man-made global warming but she has to navigate the politics of it to get the gas pipeline built so she plays on their fears of man-made global warming and promotes natural gas as having a low carbon footprint. In doing so, there are some inconsistencies.
Stop it. You'll come in the way of those who only heed headlines and are too lazy to actually cull and discern the salient facts.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
ABSTRACT:
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.
Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.
If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________
The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods. Look carefully at this historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases -lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to increased warming, at least not when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl
_______________________________________________________________
"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
_______________________________________________________________
So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________
Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change
ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm
She was selling non-green energy to an audience (Salazar) who believe in green energy.
See comment 29 and 32. I don’t understand why some folks are suprised. There is no change in her position.
For the record, I visited Alaska in May of 2008 and the Exit Glacier on the Kenai Penninsula. It is a National Park. As you approached the glacier and the Park Service visitors center there were signs several miles away from the toe of the glacier.
The first sign said 1896 and the dates increased on the signs as the approach neared the visitors center. The signs represent the location of the glacier toe in the indicated year.
What this means is the US Government has been aware of retreating Alaskan glaciers for at least 102 years.
If she can sell the Enviro-whackos on the “benefits” of natural gas as it pertains to their “global warming’ panic then it goes along way towards breaking any road blocks the would otherwise throw up.
It's a smart play, sadly some just don't get tactics...
Huh? What are you on about? I read the article. She admits to warming.
I think that is what I was saying?
You will die a frustrated death. You require a purity that doesn’t exist
Anything wrong with that?
Looks like you confuse Global Warming with MAN MADE Global Warming. Huge difference. The first IS real. The latter is hype without real proof.
Palin always said she is skeptical about the latter. In the remarks above she was making the case for gas prodcution in front of an audience inclined towards green energies. She merely pointed out that if their arguments are true, they too should support gas production. No man made global warming hysteric is a an advocate for oil and gas production (like Palin is).
I think it is, just agreeing with you.
If it is of course ;-)
perhaps
She just put me under the bus.....so sad.
Besides, she might just as well waste hot air by publicly bemoaning that night follows day because there is absolutely nothing mankind can do to change the diurnal cycles either.
You don’t think there are climatic changes? This is beyond doubt. The issue is whether they are man made or not.
The earth is cooling. She is addressing the belief of global warming, if not she should be more direct in her statements.
I agree with you. See my post #29
She said “warming”, when the truth is we are cooling.
She has always said that she is skeptical abot the claimed factor man plays. She also expressedly said that she want oil and gas production regardless of "green concerns", but makes the case for oil and gas production, saying that even those on the "green side" should be supportive of it. That's all her out-of-context remarks are all about.
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.