Political Action And Scientific Result

Can political action change the outcome of a science experiment? Can ‘scientists’ get away with lying and faking the truth? Correct me if I’m wrong, but Sarah Palin seems to believe that these things are true. I do not believe that either one is true.

We all are participating in one of the largest science experiments that has ever been undertaken. The stakes are enormous. The worst case scenario is the eradication of all life on earth. Sarah Palin seems to think that some petty infighting among some scientists (and yes, perhaps some data fudging and lies) means that global warming is a hoax. She seems to think that because some scientists lie, that means that all scientists must lie. (Makes me think of politicians, for some reason.) Palin also seems to be arguing that the economy trumps all, even science. I wonder how the economy will be doing when we are all dead?

I have a proposal. It could even be a new reality TV show. Would Sarah Palin be willing to participate in a science experiment? How long does she think she could sustain her life if she were put in a sealed enclosure which had a constant source of carbon monoxide being pumped into it. She could have some plants, trees, salmon, and polar bears in there with her to make her feel at home. I know that this is an oversimplification, however the reality is that we put all kinds of bad things into our air, atmosphere, and water. Why is Sarah Palin not concerned about this? I know that I am. Why does she think that global warming is a hoax? I know that I don’t.

From Copenhagen's political science by Sarah Palin:

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

What “trustworthy science” is Palin basing all of this on? Why isn’t what she is saying and doing “politicizing” the issue? Is it even possible for a political issue to not be politicized?

Palin doesn’t want Obama to go to Copenhagen. I want him to go. Does my wish cancel out hers? The president should not boycott Copenhagen. There. That settles it.

Palin bases much of her outrage over ‘Climate-gate’ (as she calls it) on emails that some hackers discovered. I’m still outraged over these emails. Is she?

Political scandal seems never ending. Scientific scandal always seems to lead to the truth eventually. Is global warming a hoax? Do we want time to tell?

Whether or not global warming is a hoax or not seems to be irrelevant to the argument that Sarah Palin is trying to make. She seems to be in favor of air and water pollution. Does she not think these things are bad for us?

Update:
Here is more on all of this. There is also this and this.

Update:
Only right wing Republicans use the phrase "cap and tax." The rest use the term "cap and trade." To use the phrase "cap and tax" means that one is making a "political move."