Comments on: Gov. Palin and the Republicans http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/ The World Affairs Blog Network Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:42:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: dennis moore http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-2011 dennis moore Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:55:33 +0000 http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/#comment-2011 Climate change is topic which must be taken seriously, because it concerns not the nation public but the world at large. The government play a vital role to reduce effect of climate change. For that you have to have guts, courage and vision to play the card in a most systematic and planed manner. the political leadership should be clear on this topic before going to election their intention and plan. No doubt not only this issue but, on the major issue issues which are facing the country must be clearly explained to the voting public. So that the can chose the leader who better suit in his approach to redress all these issues. http://www.statedemocracy.org Climate change is topic which must be taken seriously, because it concerns not the nation public but the world at large. The government play a vital role to reduce effect of climate change. For that you have to have guts, courage and vision to play the card in a most systematic and planed manner. the political leadership should be clear on this topic before going to election their intention and plan. No doubt not only this issue but, on the major issue issues which are facing the country must be clearly explained to the voting public. So that the can chose the leader who better suit in his approach to redress all these issues.

http://www.statedemocracy.org

]]> By: Bill Hewitt http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-1988 Bill Hewitt Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:49:52 +0000 http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/#comment-1988 Would "non-partisan" have been more to your taste? Yes, of course, they are political, in that they are trying to convince people of a particular perspective and a way of doing business. They have had an agenda for many years to advance sustainable development, as does virtually the entire world at this point. You might refer to my post of a while back, <a href="http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/04/13/if-you-don%e2%80%99t-like-al-gore-then-%e2%80%a6/" rel="nofollow">If You Don't Like Al Gore, Then</a> There is a rather broad consensus, across the political spectrum, and worldwide, that climate change is caused by us. You can certainly choose to characterize that consensus any way you like, but the fact remains that it exists - among scientists, economists, policymakers, corporate leadership, and government leadership. I, myself, am from the "fact-based" community. Would “non-partisan” have been more to your taste? Yes, of course, they are political, in that they are trying to convince people of a particular perspective and a way of doing business. They have had an agenda for many years to advance sustainable development, as does virtually the entire world at this point.

You might refer to my post of a while back, If You Don't Like Al Gore, Then There is a rather broad consensus, across the political spectrum, and worldwide, that climate change is caused by us. You can certainly choose to characterize that consensus any way you like, but the fact remains that it exists - among scientists, economists, policymakers, corporate leadership, and government leadership. I, myself, am from the “fact-based” community.

]]> By: Bob S http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-1987 Bob S Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:07:47 +0000 http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/#comment-1987 "... from the wholly nonpolitical sustainability think tank, Worldwatch Institute." It never ceases to amaze me how many agenda based groups insist they are 'non-political' in order to convince others what they say is uncompromised by bias. Calling WorldWatch Institute "non-politcal" abets this BS while ignoring the clear bias in plain sight. Worldwatch has a hardline man-made climate change agenda and deliberately mischaracterizes Palin's refusal to be stampeded into an irreversible action as obstruction of said agenda. Even without fact checking (i.e., strip WW's spin from their own report) it is clear Palin has been walking a middle course between those who advocate and those who remain skeptical. I, being on the other side of this divide, do not entirely approve all she has done abetting the hysteria any more than you approve her 'resistance'. Though she expresses her own opinion, she does not let that get in the way of doing her job; including meeting environmentalist obligations imposed on her. She does not reject the possibility of climate change outright, she merely sets a higher standard than you do for proof and takes only those actions addressing immediate concerns regardless they are man-made or natural in origin; which seems to me perfectly reasonable and responsible. The WorldWatch article you cite seriously misrepresents the science and so called 'consensus'. The IPCC (which WorldWatch references as its source of authority) is no more an unbiased body than it is wholly 'scientific'. It is headed by a political group with an avowed agenda that has willingly misrepresented the findings of its contributors on multiple occasions. Evidence is piling up that climate change is mostly natural and beyond our control, with more plausible theories gaining over admittedly flawed modeller-scenarios. “… from the wholly nonpolitical sustainability think tank, Worldwatch Institute.”

It never ceases to amaze me how many agenda based groups insist they are ‘non-political’ in order to convince others what they say is uncompromised by bias. Calling WorldWatch Institute “non-politcal” abets this BS while ignoring the clear bias in plain sight. Worldwatch has a hardline man-made climate change agenda and deliberately mischaracterizes Palin's refusal to be stampeded into an irreversible action as obstruction of said agenda. Even without fact checking (i.e., strip WW's spin from their own report) it is clear Palin has been walking a middle course between those who advocate and those who remain skeptical. I, being on the other side of this divide, do not entirely approve all she has done abetting the hysteria any more than you approve her ‘resistance’. Though she expresses her own opinion, she does not let that get in the way of doing her job; including meeting environmentalist obligations imposed on her. She does not reject the possibility of climate change outright, she merely sets a higher standard than you do for proof and takes only those actions addressing immediate concerns regardless they are man-made or natural in origin; which seems to me perfectly reasonable and responsible.

The WorldWatch article you cite seriously misrepresents the science and so called ‘consensus’. The IPCC (which WorldWatch references as its source of authority) is no more an unbiased body than it is wholly 'scientific’. It is headed by a political group with an avowed agenda that has willingly misrepresented the findings of its contributors on multiple occasions. Evidence is piling up that climate change is mostly natural and beyond our control, with more plausible theories gaining over admittedly flawed modeller-scenarios.

]]> By: Jack Fuller http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-1985 Jack Fuller Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:45:46 +0000 http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/09/12/gov-palin-and-the-republicans/#comment-1985 I was just about convinced that I should hold my nose and vote for Obama. I would have closed my eyes at the last second so I would not have to actually see what I was doing, but I was seriously thinking I would do it. I wanted someone else in charge who at least gave lip service to stopping the hemorrhaging budget and I knew the Republicans 8 year decent into financial oblivion showed where their heart is. I figured the Democrats probably wouldn't spend less but raising taxes was better than borrowing more and more money. Then came Sarah. She certainly got Obama's attention. Not only is she easy on the eyes but she is smart, articulate and apparently actually adheres to her convictions. Her slashing of the Alaska state budget by 10% immediately got my attention. She said she would do it and then did. What is that all about? A politician who actually follows what she says she believes? Maybe there is something new happening in Republicanville. It was not a sure thing but it looked promising. I didn't know. I would have to wait and see, I told myself. She hadn't taken on the OpFor yet ,also known as the main-stream media- and I it was a sure bet they wanted her hide. They were all lining up for tickets at the Obama Presidential Balls and now maybe they wouldn't be the honored guests they thought they should be given the overwhelming pro-Obama force they have turned out to be. Well, it hasn't taken long to see what Sarah has done to the Dems. She has given a new meaning to opposition research and creating political disarray in the other guys. For certain there is turmoil in Demtown .They seem to be eating their own. Biden is wondering out loud if Hillary wouldn't have been a better VP choice. What was that , a trial balloon? And yesterday Obama went to Bill for advice. I'll bet that was interesting. I wonder if the Dems know something few of us outsiders know. I guess we will find out, but for now, Sarah changes the whole picture. So, am I still seriously considering voting for Obama? Not so much. I was just about convinced that I should hold my nose and vote for Obama. I would have closed my eyes at the last second so I would not have to actually see what I was doing, but I was seriously thinking I would do it. I wanted someone else in charge who at least gave lip service to stopping the hemorrhaging budget and I knew the Republicans 8 year decent into financial oblivion showed where their heart is. I figured the Democrats probably wouldn't spend less but raising taxes was better than borrowing more and more money. Then came Sarah.

She certainly got Obama's attention. Not only is she easy on the eyes but she is smart, articulate and apparently actually adheres to her convictions. Her slashing of the Alaska state budget by 10% immediately got my attention. She said she would do it and then did. What is that all about? A politician who actually follows what she says she believes? Maybe there is something new happening in Republicanville.

It was not a sure thing but it looked promising. I didn't know. I would have to wait and see, I told myself. She hadn't taken on the OpFor yet ,also known as the main-stream media- and I it was a sure bet they wanted her hide. They were all lining up for tickets at the Obama Presidential Balls and now maybe they wouldn't be the honored guests they thought they should be given the overwhelming pro-Obama force they have turned out to be.

Well, it hasn't taken long to see what Sarah has done to the Dems. She has given a new meaning to opposition research and creating political disarray in the other guys. For certain there is turmoil in Demtown .They seem to be eating their own. Biden is wondering out loud if Hillary wouldn't have been a better VP choice. What was that , a trial balloon? And yesterday Obama went to Bill for advice. I'll bet that was interesting. I wonder if the Dems know something few of us outsiders know. I guess we will find out, but for now, Sarah changes the whole picture. So, am I still seriously considering voting for Obama? Not so much.

]]>