That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.
Wha-a-a-a . . . ?!? Oh, but then she goes on:
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real.
Oh. OK. That makes more sense, in light of her opening paragraphs.
With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.
The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.
Well, I've held Sarah in uniquely high regard, from the very moment she first appeared on the national scene. And I especially like her use of scare quotes around the word "experts," when she's talking about actual -- ahh -- experts. But almost everything in that last paragraph is wrong.* What is correct is the word "some." If you take "some" to mean a very tiny minority.
But what about that "Climate-Gate" scandal. Isn't that every bit as damning as Sarah claims?
Oh. Well maybe not so much. Gee, this is getting awkward.
Maybe we should give Al Gore the last word.
That raving tirade didn't help much either. Perhaps we should just have another look at the science.
Hmmmmm. Getting warmer.
Hat tip to Krugman. Source