Post User Polls

Palin on climate change

Read Palin's column

By Jodi Westrick  |  December 9, 2009; 10:30 AM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Federal deficit stress | Next: Right to fly flag?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

When the Post sells its Op Ed page to the Republican Party as an advertising platform for its 2012 presidential candidates, you should really flag this fact to your readers. Today you featured an apologia for Mike Huckabee's role in the clemency of Maurice Clemmons, who gunned down four police officers; a plug for ignoramus homophobe Rick Santorum; and the the ghostwritten polemic on climate change by the Michaela Salahi of the Republican Party--Sarah Palin herself. We know you need the money, but at least let your readers know when you run paid placements. Thanks!

Posted by: AngryCyclist | December 9, 2009 1:04 PM

To be truly "fair and balanced", you really should post the reader poll next to the op-ed on the opinions page. Too bad you can't do this in the print version, too!

Posted by: martimr1 | December 9, 2009 1:23 PM

let's try this again. (You know, trying to claim I'm not logged in wehen I am just because you don't like the fact that I said Palin is a pathological liar, is pathetic.

Posted by: fosseweber | December 9, 2009 1:34 PM

Does it matter if she is credible? She only has to be believable to a sizeable group of people

Posted by: dctax4u | December 9, 2009 1:55 PM

Would anyone care to present Sarah Pailin's scholastic credentials certifying that her educational achievements are in line with her highly questionable positions?

IF she has the "chops" scholastically her opinions are valid.

Otherwise, she is exactly what many of us already think of her... a dimwit bimbo of the first order, who is puling a G.W. Bush when it comes to claims of leadership abiity...(READ: LIAR)


Posted by: BellsBlu2 | December 9, 2009 2:07 PM

Newspapers across the nation have been giving Palin so much free advertising for "her" book that it is getting a bit silly. To accept a commentary from her on climate change when she, demonstrably, has no credentials to talk about climate science either pro or con or anywhere in between, is ludicrous. Her opinions on this subject are equal to any other person on the street, which is to say, totally meaningless.

So why does she get to have op-ed space in the Post? Perhaps, like the old Doonesbury cartoon about the senate watergate hearings calling Nixon's wife, "we thought it would be a giggle."

quit advertising her book for free. Make her pay like everyone else.

Posted by: summicron1 | December 9, 2009 2:45 PM

how could someone like palin,who left her job instantly after seeing the writings on the wall(numerous ethic's complaint storming,be credible on anything,This woman is a stupid evil spreadind hatreds and lies against our President,she's very dangerous and deceptive.Shé palling with stupid people on our pres.birth certificate.The Pres.was born in classy HAWAII and this stupid birthers keep going on with absurdity,and palin is distorting the truth for crying out loud.
palin should go back to wassila and stays there, and preach death panels fabrication to Alaskans...She is the most stupid people in America today,it's all about stuffing dough's in her wallet and PERIOD.
the book is even fabricated..
This woman is a disgraced to America.

Posted by: gracie-mansion | December 9, 2009 3:03 PM



This way we can drop Republican representation of the electorate to 10% in '10 !

Also, anyone who remains in the party ientifies themselves as an ignorant wingnut at that point, and the MSM can stop wasting valuable air time covering them.


Posted by: onestring | December 9, 2009 3:06 PM

dctax4u writes:

"Does it matter if she is credible? She only has to be believable to a sizeable group of people"

Yeah cuz wishing makes it so.

In the 1500's, nobody believed in gravity because it had not been discovered yet.

Does that mean that things do not exist until people believe in them?

Posted by: frantaylor | December 9, 2009 3:08 PM

Why would a Know-Nothing be considered a credible commentator about anything important?

Posted by: corbinb | December 9, 2009 3:08 PM

How ANYBODY in the media sees fit to provide a forum for this inbecile is amazing. She is an accident of history - the result of a minor brain eruption by John McCain. She not only should not be listened to, she should not be recognized by more than 0.5% of the country. Please STOP providing a forum for people who don't know what their talking about.

Posted by: topperale | December 9, 2009 4:05 PM

Palin did not write this, all she did was sign her name. Same as her book.

Posted by: lewfish87 | December 9, 2009 4:21 PM

Sarah Palin is an extreme partisan conservative without any insightful or interesting arguments about anything. It is unfortunate and frustrating that people who have the education and experience who can really inform us on this topic are given no prime space, while every snitty remark made by this nitwit is sent sent spinning through the cyber world at hyperdrive speed.

Posted by: maddymappo | December 9, 2009 4:36 PM

I have no problem w/ the Post running the OpEd supposedly written by Palin.

That has nothing to do with the fact that she is an imbecile and couldn't possibly have a serious discussion on the issue on her own for more than about a minute.

Let her expose herself, so to speak. She will continue to have about 20% of the country, the true believers, wackos, etc., think she is wonderful, while the other 80% see her for the shallow, vapid, opportunistic quitter that she is.

Posted by: fendertweed | December 9, 2009 4:56 PM

It's taken me years, but I'm finally learning to duck the "drama mamas" (on both sides of the political aisle); right now Sarah Palin (and Ann Coulter and Carrie Prejean) are dragging the Republican party off a treacherous cliff, and the cynic in me says this if for the greater good.

Just a note, though, to my fellow liberals . . . Out there waiting in the wings are analogs to the Palinator; their tactics are attention-getting and effective (witness the Salahis, and I note how Palin apparently had no trouble getting her column published), at least in the short run. But invariably it is about themselves, and the greater good be hanged.

Posted by: concolor1 | December 9, 2009 4:59 PM

Please, Sarah, stop making stuff up.

Posted by: zeugma | December 9, 2009 5:01 PM

I'd like to know how WaPo executives voted on it.

If they too voted no like the sane, overwhelming majority did in the poll above, why then, did they let her piece be printed?

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | December 9, 2009 5:25 PM

I know y'all just love to bash anything Palin says or does, but if you took a minute - before you unleash your thought of the moment here - to... go to the library and log onto the internet... and actually read what she said about:

1) The blatant politicization of science, and 2) the lengths such activists will go to "hide the decline" and conspire to exclude any and all skeptics from being published in "peer-review journals", and 3) how they can with a straight face exhibit the unmitigated gall to cite the manufactured "fact" that there are no critical accounts of the science in peer-reviewed journals as evidence that they have been proven right... rather than being having been proven outed and busted for acting more like underworld characters than world-famous scientists.

Frankly, regardless of how she came up with her opinion on this, she is correct in each of the arguments she makes, and the counter argument from WaPo is "How dare Sarah Palin" comment on CLimate Change.. unlike Al Gore, she is not a highly trained meteorologist or scientist... she's a politician, and more to the point, she's a REpublican.
Y'all ought to save your weak arguments for the sort of battles you are almost or mostly right about, so you'll end up having a chance to be proven right rather than be proven to be so highly partisan and in thrall of Dear Leader and all that he stands for (which based on Rev. Wright, he'll stand for anything, but I digress). Don't be so anxious to show the world that we're as activist as all get out, and won't let facts that we haven't hand-crafted of freshly baked interfere with our decision-making skills.
I regret having to tell you that the facts support Sarah, but the emotions seem to be in your favor. Good luck with that. You will certainly need it as you hold your breath to reduce your personal CO2 output and family carbon footprint.

Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | December 9, 2009 5:29 PM


Your comment does not make sense. Based on your assumption people in the 1500s "believed" the sun revolved around the earth until of course a "credible" source proved them wrong.

The position I am stating is that Palin as a Politician/Writer/Marketer need only be believable such that people voter for her or buy her books. A credible source would be someone who has studied climate change, analyzed the data, and presented their facts to a scientific community which validates those claims. In this regard Palin is not credible, nor does she need to be to sell books.

Posted by: dctax4u | December 9, 2009 5:36 PM

Palin is not a credible critic not because of her close ties to oil and gas interests. She served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. As governor she increased the kickback Alaska citizens got from taxes oil companies paid the state. Her history of treating oil as a cash cow makes any criticism she has of climate scientists' bias completely meaningless. She has been paid to embody the "Drill, baby, drill!" mentality, and any criticism she has of climatologists simply has to be dismissed as doing the job she has been paid to do.

Money talks. The amount of money talking on the climatologists' side is peanuts. Palin's oily allies have literally billions of times more dollars than the scientists. Who is more likely to lie and slant the truth, based on the sums of money involved?

There's no question that the climate is changing, and we can see it all around us. Just ten or 15 years ago snow covered the ground where we live (Minnesota) from late October or early November until April. Now the first snowfall that stays comes in December, a full month later. That's a huge change in less than 20 years.

Posted by: bkvam | December 9, 2009 6:26 PM

Gee thanks, WaPo. Should we look forward to Palin's views on current medical therapy in Health, Palin's suggestions for room makeovers in Home, and Palin's career advice in Jobs next?

Let's see, she's not in public office, she's not a known candidate for office, she's not a scientist, she's not an economist, she's not a scholar... why are her views on climate change relevant? Oh right, because she drives up the page views! Maybe the actors from Twilight need some op-ed space, too.

Posted by: thingsfallapart | December 9, 2009 6:28 PM

When it comes to Plain and the climate, I might believe her if she told me it's going to snow--provided we were in Alaska in December. Even then, though, I'd probably check with the Weather Channel. When it comes to the climate, how can you believe anyone who pulled her science from the Book of Genesis? She and George Will are a perfect pair. Both have delusions of scientific adequacy respecting the climate.

Posted by: klakey1 | December 9, 2009 7:22 PM

When it comes to Plain and the climate, I might believe her if she told me it's going to snow--provided we were in Alaska in December. Even then, though, I'd probably check with the Weather Channel. When it comes to the climate, how can you believe anyone who pulled her science from the Book of Genesis? She and George Will are a perfect pair. Both have delusions of scientific adequacy respecting the climate.

Posted by: klakey1 | December 9, 2009 7:24 PM

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

Yet, this is the man liberals and dolts in the media are willing to bet their very lives on when it comes to complex scientific issues surrounding meteorology and climatology. On a regular basis, such folk have the nerve to suggest that Gore is more knowledgeable when it comes to these matters than scientists who have spent their entire lives studying and educating others at the finest colleges and universities around the world.

Posted by: charlietuna6661 | December 9, 2009 8:48 PM

If Sarah Palin established a subcabinet on Climate Change while Governor of the only Arctic state in the nation, how does that make her a "denier" as Gore calls her? Hmmm....

How are Al Gore and Barack Obama more credible on Climate Change than Governor Palin? As another commentator posts, Gore's science grades were less than stellar, and President Obama studied law. The truth is they are not, as none of them are scientists. Oddly we do not hear anyone taking them to task for not being experts in a subject which they profess to have a vast knowledge about.

If you carefully read what Governor Palin wrote, she merely asked President Obama to take a stand against the falsified emails and documents of those who ARE so-called experts in this field. She asked him to be a true leader and take a stand for what is right, which is something a leader should do.

The overall message was about Climate-gate, and ultimately leadership, which is truly lacking in this current administration.

Posted by: lcgop | December 9, 2009 9:20 PM

While blather rages, Mother Earth has already turned up the heat and is getting ready to cook our collective goose. Palin, parsing of her own farts for some foggy political gain, is not helpful.

Posted by: mikie44 | December 9, 2009 10:07 PM

Is Palin credible as a climate change commentator, you asked.

I'd have another question. Is Palin credible as a commentator on ANYTHING, even her professed beloved Bible? Is she even credible as a bimbo?

Posted by: steviana | December 9, 2009 10:20 PM

I have no objection to a citizen, or even a noncitizen expressing an opinion. However, it seems clear to me that a newspaper with a national standing would choose to screen such commentators to at least select those with a minimum of credentials to discuss a complex topic. The San Francisco Chronicle has a columnist, also a woman, whose approach to global climate change issues is very similar to Palins'. That is, one strives in vain to see where any sort of thought went into the article, other than quoting those with whom she agrees and scoffing at or ignoring any other "opinion". And there lies the problem. This is opinion without anything behind it other than belief. What is the value to society of science if findings with which one is uncomfortable are relegated to the status of 'just your opinion'?
I have trouble understanding what the Washington Post is attempting to do here. There is a strategy of some sort, since you do not publish just any opinion by the uninformed. A decision was made to use the space for a simplistic repetition of silly opinion. Is this what the modern American newspaper has become?

Posted by: entomon | December 9, 2009 11:16 PM

Egged on by Howard Kurtz, the Post is so clearly afraid of being labeled "liberal" that it will do almost anything to placate a howling mob of wingnuts who post incessantly on its web site but never buy the paper.

Mrs. Palin has the vision to be able to see Russia from her home state of Alaska. Too bad she can't turn her head a bit northward and see the melting icecaps as well.

OTOH I have to admit that on the issue of climate change, when you read the last 50 columns on the subject by George Will, Mrs. Palin sounds almost coherent by comparison.

Posted by: andym108 | December 10, 2009 12:05 AM

"Mother Earth has already turned up the heat>>."

OK. I will buy that as a metaphor. It is just like the thermostat in my dining room.

However, if you consider the context I might also say "It is summer and I want to turn the thermostat down." or even "It is December 12th. I want to turn the thermostat up since it will be old tonight."

Get the point. We can make the Earth warmer than it normally would be.

But do we want it warmer or not?

You may say "Of course not."

Most of the time I would agree.

But what if an ice age were about to start. Then I would want it warmer. Much warmer.

Wake up.

There is more to this discussion that learning if we make the Earth warmer or not. That is only one link in the chain of logic.

We also need to know which way the ice age cycle is going and if we want warmer or cooler.

In this and the next century we will have a whole set of space based tools to adjust the temperature of the Earth.

This is just the first round of that discussion.

Consider the implications of that capability and ask other questions.

What do we want?

Don't let others tell you what you want. Think for your self. it does not take much science - just some common sense.

Posted by: gary4books | December 10, 2009 2:29 PM

Keep this poll in mind when wondering why the Washington Post eventually goes out of business. Ask yourself why this paper decided to give this woman a platform to spout her fact-free nonsense, despite an overwhelming majority of humanity knowing that she has no credibility on anything. Then ask yourself why anyone would pay for the privelage of reading such an article.

Posted by: jbanks979 | December 10, 2009 5:31 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company