CHRYSTIA FREELAND, "THE FINANCIAL TIMES": Well, I was really surprised by one thing in her op ed, which was that she actually said that she isn`t sure that climate change is caused by human actions. So, that to me was really, really interesting, and quite a radical position for her to take. I think a pretty dangerous one, because --Somehow it's 'dangerous' for Palin to express uncertainty as to whether 'climate change' (meaning she acknowledges there is climate change) is 100 percent the fault of mankind? Wow. Do they not realize that every scientist isn't 100 percent sure either? Here's one, for instance:
MATTHEWS: Who`s writing this stuff for her, Randy Scheunemann or somebody? Is this some incredible ideologue -- she`s got to be smarter than this. I don`t care what you think of her politics. Doesn`t she know the reality of the ice cap? Doesn`t she see?
Notice that Schmidt is the one who interrupts the most. BTW, that's courtesy WUWT, who also hosts another scientist with an interesting look at one of the Greenland ice cores and what it might say about climate over the last 40,000 years. Check out the big picture:
"In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline".
Does the graph, which shows many periods of cooling and warming greater than we're seeing now, prove whether man is affecting climate over the last 100 years or not? No. But it does show that variability is the rule of nature long before SUVs or even humans. The so-called enlightened set have tried to diminish the same kind of proxy data that shows the MWP by saying it wasn't global, although they accept current global warming even though not every weather site is warming.
With that in mind, is Sarah Palin's measured reply really so out of whack or is it the cacophony of group-think coming from lock step warmists and their shrill intolerance to anything but party line (and all the socialist-fascist mitigation entailed) that's actually more the example of 'political science'? Seems settled to me.