WWTBAM Bored

Chicken Little wrote:Flip Flop on AGW

Flip Flops are very inappropriate attire for Alaska

ABC News really should require a reading comprehension test for its reporters.

(Well, all media outlets really should, based on stories posted about each campaign. I've given up on the bloggers.)

Chicken Little wrote:Flip Flop on AGW

I fail to see the flip-flop here. She had said previously "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."

The exchange with Gibson:
"That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now," said Palin.

"But I -- color me a cynic," Gibson said, "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. Sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Senator McCain's."

"I think you are a cynic," Palin said, "because show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that. I have said that my belief is there is a cyclical nature of our planet — warming trends, cooling trends — I'm not going to argue scientists because I believe in science and have such a great respect for what they are telling us. I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make that man's activities can be attributed to changes."


I fail to see the flip-flop there. So scientists might or might not be right about the climate changes being cause by man. She's not taking that as fact, but she's not denying it as an impossiblity either.

Just another media person trying to come to the aid of the Obama campaign. Is this really the best that they can do?

danielh41 wrote:

Chicken Little wrote:Flip Flop on AGW

I fail to see the flip-flop here. She had said previously "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."

The exchange with Gibson:
"That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now," said Palin.

"But I -- color me a cynic," Gibson said, "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. Sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Senator McCain's."

"I think you are a cynic," Palin said, "because show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that. I have said that my belief is there is a cyclical nature of our planet — warming trends, cooling trends — I'm not going to argue scientists because I believe in science and have such a great respect for what they are telling us. I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make that man's activities can be attributed to changes."


I fail to see the flip-flop there. So scientists might or might not be right about the climate changes being cause by man. She's not taking that as fact, but she's not denying it as an impossiblity either.

Just another media person trying to come to the aid of the Obama campaign. Is this really the best that they can do?

Sorry, but to me, original statement #1, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," is contradicted, as Gibson put it "a little bit", by the more recent statement #2, "That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now."

Statement #3, "Show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change," is disingenuous at best, and a very cynical attitude toward the average American's knowledge of science. You can't prove a negative. It's not what was asked. And it's not what the typical listener would have understood about your position on global warming from either statement #1 or #2. As she well knows.

Excuse me now. I need to go borrow Dr. McKeeby's pitchfork in preparation for tonight's interview segment.

Two other Palin statement on the subject, from an AP wire story:

In a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne in December 2006 about listing the polar bear as a threatened species, Palin questioned what human activities could be regulated to help the bear.

"When a species' habitat (in this case, sea ice) is declining due to climate change, but there are no discrete human activities that can be regulated or modified to effect change, what do you do?" she wrote.

In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity."

gsabc wrote:Sorry, but to me, original statement #1, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," is contradicted, as Gibson put it "a little bit", by the more recent statement #2, "That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now."

I still see no contradiction here. If you removed the word "potentially" from statement #2, then you might have a contradiction. The left is just clutching at straws...

danielh41 wrote:

gsabc wrote:Sorry, but to me, original statement #1, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," is contradicted, as Gibson put it "a little bit", by the more recent statement #2, "That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now."

I still see no contradiction here. If you removed the word "potentially" from statement #2, then you might have a contradiction. The left is just clutching at straws...

Throwing in a bunch of weasel words doesn't make it any less of a contradiction.

danielh41 wrote:

gsabc wrote:Sorry, but to me, original statement #1, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made," is contradicted, as Gibson put it "a little bit", by the more recent statement #2, "That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now."

I still see no contradiction here. If you removed the word "potentially" from statement #2, then you might have a contradiction. The left is just clutching at straws...

"Potentially" is just a weasel word. If these statements were from two different people, I'd say that #1 thinks humans aren't causing climate change, and #2 thinks that in part they are. There is some change here.

To all this I say "Politics happens".

You'd think this is the first time this has ever happened with a politician- left OR right.

Jeemie wrote:To all this I say "Politics happens".

You'd think this is the first time this has ever happened with a politician- left OR right.

It's not the first time or the last. That doesn't make it right.

I'm naive. I like to think that if someone changes their position, they can give me a reason why they did. I may not agree with the change or their argument, but at least they're showing me that there was some thought behind it.

Changing your position and then claiming that there hasn't been a change in the face of evidence to the contrary is lying, either to yourself or to us.