The Curious Science of Sarah Palin

2 years ago

0 Comments Say Something »

Text Size

Contributor

"I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics," wrote Sarah Palin in her much-maligned op-ed piece on climate change in the Washington Post this week.

I'm delighted that the former vice presidential candidate's views on the value of scientific research have evidently undergone a transformation since last year, when she mocked government funding for genetic-mapping research commonly conducted on fruit flies. (Palin's zinger on the subject: Some of the research took place in France! "I kid you not," the then-governor of Alaska said.)

But in an article with a number of strange assertions, calling for a dependence on "sound science" -- when the scientific consensus is that human activity does indeed contribute to global climate change -- struck me as probably the strangest. Palin points to leaked e-mail exchanges that climate change skeptics have seized on as evidence for their complaints, in which scientists at the University of East Anglia discuss ways to present the data and statistics in their climate studies and mock global warming skeptics. Of course, among scientists, the overwhelming conclusion was that nothing in the e-mails had any effect on or called into question the scientific principle -- based on the accumulation of research -- that human activity contributes to global climate change.

Invoking a group that disagrees with your conclusion as evidence to back your conclusion is a rather unusual (or perhaps just maverick-y?) move. Or, it could be a sign of something else: an assurance that your comments will be taken at face value, even when they fly in the face of the evidence. And it's that assurance, perhaps even more than Palin's troubled relationship with science, that I find most concerning.

Filed Under: Environment, Energy, Sarah Palin, Woman Up

Tagged: climate change, ClimateChange, copenhagen, global warming, GlobalWarming, sarah palin, SarahPalin

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.