Oh yes...by all means...let the foolish captioning begin!!

She's a republican politician. I thought those were both qualifications for the job.

Surprisingly stupid given that she is the governor of the state that will be the most affected by the global temperature increase.

GAT_00: Surprisingly stupid given that she is the governor of the state that will be the most affected by the global temperature increase.

Maybe she wants it warmer there.

Or that polar bears will be threatened by continued warming. Or that there isn't enough oil available domestically to solve our energy dependency, even if we drill offshore and in ANWR.

Maybe it would be easier to keep track of the science she doesn't reject?

Mid East oil energy dependency

FTFM.

Maybe she is the perfect GOP candidate

That's because global warming isn't man made. There are natural cycles whereby the Earth changes temperature. Is it likely that man's usage of fossil fuels likely accelerates the process? Absolutely.

But global warming isn't "man-made"

Jon Snow: FTFM.

Isn't it better to replace those barrels of foreign oil with barrels of domestic oil while we transition ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto a renewable energy source?

Global warming. Get it? Global. That's code for UN commissars telling Americans what the temperature's going to be in our outdoors. I say let the world warm up. Let's see what Al Gore has to say about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska.

KaponoFor3: That's because global warming isn't man made. There are natural cycles whereby the Earth changes temperature. Is it likely that man's usage of fossil fuels likely accelerates the process? Absolutely.

But global warming isn't "man-made"

Completely true. However, of the ~1C that the planet warmed last century, at least half of it was from man-made warming, and since CO₂ and methane levels are increasing, the warming will be getting worse. Also, the warming of the northern permafrost has the potentially lethal problem of the fact that below the permafrost is very large quantities of methane. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, and there is only 2ppm in the atmosphere of methane, as opposed to 380ppm of CO₂

We won't know for years whether this warming is man made. the cold snap between the 1400's and late 1700's makes it too hard to tell.

well, that's because "man-made global warming" isn't a fact. evolution is, however, a fact, so she gets a 50% success rate. better than McCain or Obama, since they are both two ewoks stacked in a human suit.

Doesn't this put her at odds with her running mate?

/not that I care

KaponoFor3: That's because global warming isn't man made. There are natural cycles whereby the Earth changes temperature. Is it likely that man's usage of fossil fuels likely accelerates the process? Absolutely.

But global warming isn't "man-made"

Can you tell me which specific cycles, preferably with periodicity and amplitude, that are driving this current warming?

Seriously? Not literally every watt/square meter is due to anthropogenic forcing, but c'mon.

KaponoFor3: Isn't it better to replace those barrels of foreign oil with barrels of domestic oil while we transition ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto a renewable energy source?

No. Not really. Pricing carbon for its negative externalities is the fastest market-based solution to this issue. I'm pretty sure I've already shown you our own EIA reports on what the effects of drilling offshore and in ANWR would be.

Besides, on the oil issue I was making two broader points- she's fundamentally in opposition to McCain's position on ANWR and she believes, literally, that we can "drill our way out of this". That is in opposition to basically every credible expert on the subject. She simply doesn't deal in reality.

Edipis: evolution is, however, a fact, so she gets a 50% success rate. better than McCain or Obama, since they are both two ewoks stacked in a human suit.

Evolution IS a fact, but evolution doesn't intend to answer the question of what what the original "spark" that started the evolutionary process. *That* is what "creationists" really should be arguing about, not whether or not everything was created 6,000 years ago (because carbon dating don't lie)

Jon Snow: Can you tell me which specific cycles, preferably with periodicity and amplitude, that are driving this current warming?

No, I can't. I'm not a climatologist and I don't have a hard science background, so I'm not gonna play and act like I do.

Jon Snow: Seriously? Not literally every watt/square meter is due to anthropogenic forcing, but c'mon.

Like I said -- human activity accelerates it but isn't likely causing it. But people a lot smarter than you and I, with much more learned backgrounds on the subject, disagree about the causation issue.

Jon Snow: I'm pretty sure I've already shown you our own EIA reports on what the effects of drilling offshore and in ANWR would be.

I don't think you have shown me as I don't remember this. Regardless, my justification for offshore/ANWR is not price but supply. I'd rather our money goes to evil oil companies that at least employ US citizens to work rather than sending our money off to the House of Saud or Mexico. The more barrels produced in US territorial jurisdiction, the less we have to buy from other governments.

anyone that doesn't think that man is affecting the climate is ignoring the very simple fact that the result to an equation is the sum of the variables in it, and if you change those variables, the result changes. we have changed the variables. considerably. the result WILL change.

KaponoFor3: The more barrels produced in US territorial jurisdiction

Because the oil companies are required to sell it back to us?

Evolution IS a fact, but evolution doesn't intend to answer the question of what what the original "spark" that started the evolutionary process. *That* is what "creationists" really should be arguing about, not whether or not everything was created 6,000 years ago (because carbon dating don't lie)

No, they really shouldn't be arguing about that, because "God did it" is not a valid scientific explanation.

KaponoFor3: I'm not a climatologist and I don't have a hard science background, so I'm not gonna play and act like I do.

Then what are you basing your opinion on? Please, link me to the sources for you opinion that "natural cycles" are driving this.

Like I said -- human activity accelerates it but isn't likely causing it.

Based on what?

But people a lot smarter than you and I, with much more learned backgrounds on the subject, disagree about the causation issue.

I'm doing you the favor of not questioning your intelligence or background on the subject and merely asking for a reference or two. I assume that you understand that you are making a statement in contradiction of the primary scientific literature, virtually every relevant scientific organization, and the National Science Academies of the G8+5 (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK, and the United States)[1][2][3].

I don't think you have shown me as I don't remember this. Regardless, my justification for offshore/ANWR is not price but supply.

Drilling offshore will have no significant impact on price at the wellhead. Drilling in ANWR at best makes a literal pennies on the gallon difference. This is assuming that massive increases in drilling and infrastructure expansion required to access the oil aren't passed on or written off to the consumer, which is a fairy tale[4][5].

Beyond price, do you understand what the supply you are talking about amounts to vs. the projected growth in demand without a price on carbon?

bulldg4life: Because the oil companies are required to sell it back to us?

The multinational oil companies? Who care so much about the plight of the average American that they have funneled millions of dollars into propaganda schemes in the mode of tobacco companies in order to confuse the public about climate change[1][2][3][4][5]?

I resent the implication on your part that these record-profit making machines wouldn't do right by Joe American Consumer.

And this differs from the typical Republican position how?

It seems that Republican party faithful have little or no understanding of the the scientific method. If it didn't come from Fox news, AM radio or their preacher, it's "liberal propaganda".

Jon Snow: infrastructure expansion required to access

I don't know about you, but I think it is great we are building an infrastructure to drill for more oil instead of building an infrastructure for alternate fuels.

bulldg4life: I don't know about you, but I think it is great we are building an infrastructure to drill for more oil instead of building an infrastructure for alternate fuels.

What? A low-loss DC grid encouraging decentralized energy use that could take advantage of private sector and individual efforts to use PHEVs charging on the cheap during off-peak hours from renewables like wind, PV, solar thermal, etc.?

That's exactly what the commie, terrorist-appeasing, dirty hippie, anti-capitalists want you to support!

The LULZ of comparing what is possible with a minimum of market signaling by pricing GHGs vs. the right-wing demands for corporate welfare for increased domestic oil and nuclear would be hysterical if they weren't both so aggressively insulting to one's intelligence and so transparently hypocritical.

And to tie this back to Palin-

She undermines McCain on two of the last, shriveling issues he could still clasp onto in the name of his ever-diminishing Maverick brand: ANWR and anthropogenic warming.

He is left with the options of: faking a belief conversion to the theocon base of the GOP; acknowledging that this is a pure play for votes despite his many promises that his veep choice would not rest on this and in doing so cede to Obama the mantle of running to Govern vs. to win; pretending neither and risk the conclusion that he has become ever-looser from his mental moorings.

Thank God they picked this rocket scientist bible-thumper to head up NASA

Anyone have the clip where she says "nukular"?

/thanks in advance

Do you people even know McCain's views on global warming? Who cares what VPILF thinks?

Link

But by all means continue your pointless debate.

/not voting for McCain

bugenhagen: Do you people even know McCain's views on global warming? Who cares what VPILF thinks?

Damn straight! It doesn't matter what a stupid Vice President with ties to big oil thinks.

bugenhagen: Do you people even know McCain's views on global warming? Who cares what VPILF thinks?

Link

But by all means continue your pointless debate.

/not voting for McCain

Well, let's see.

First, he equivocates on whether or not he'd make emissions caps mandatory[1]. Then, one of his surrogates claimed that like on many things, he would trade his position for the one that would please the GOP[2].

Then its revealed that he is the No. 1 recipient of Big Oil donations[3]. And after selling himself out on offshore gained a lot of oil support[4]. Unsurprisingly, the Republican Platform Committee has basically guaranteed that anthropogenic climate change will not be an issue in the 2008 election, or should he win, a McCain presidency[5]. Next, McCain chooses someone that not only opposes him on one of the last environmental holdouts he still clings limply to (ANWR), he chooses someone that straight up denies anthropogenic warming, in complete disregard for his dodderings[6][7].

If you're trying to make the case that McCain's actions suggest he takes the subject seriously, you're failing worse than his actual actions, which were poor enough.

Jon Snow: Next, McCain chooses someone that not only opposes him on one of the last environmental holdouts he still clings limply to (ANWR), he chooses someone that straight up denies anthropogenic warming, in complete disregard for his "missteps"[6][7].

bugenhagen: Do you people even know McCain's views on global warming?

Does John McCain even know what his views on global warming are?

How does he stand on coastal drilling? How does he feel about madatory emissions caps? How does he feel about the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming?

I can guarantee you all of that has changed in the past 4 months.

She's not unqualified because she's a Republican, or due to lack of experience, or because she's a woman.

She's unqualified for the VP spot because she's a moron.

Palin can pull her press release off the State of Alaska's pages, but The Google has a cached copy for your perusal - genius

SphericalTime: She's unqualified for the VP spot because she's a moron.

That's good because when McCain inevitably kicks the bucket, she'll be ready for the top job:

Snarfangel: GAT_00: Surprisingly stupid given that she is the governor of the state that will be the most affected by the global temperature increase.

Maybe she wants it warmer there.

Alaska does have a whole lot of coastline that will open up when all that pesky ice melts and those stupid polar bears die.

/Quickly and poorly done
//MS Paint FTL

Gyrfalcon: Snarfangel: GAT_00: Surprisingly stupid given that she is the governor of the state that will be the most affected by the global temperature increase.

Maybe she wants it warmer there.

Alaska does have a whole lot of coastline that will open up when all that pesky ice melts and those stupid polar bears die.

On the other hand how's alaska's elevation and population? wouldn't most of them have to move?

Jon Snow: If you're trying to make the case that McCain's actions suggest he takes the subject seriously, you're failing worse than his actual actions, which were poor enough.

I'll gladly accept fail on this point if we can just move on to more pertinent issues that clearly and unequivocally divide Obama from McCain, and that are much more likely to be important to the undecided voter.

Legs this pic has them

Meet reason #2 why I am having serious doubts about McCain!

(Reason #1 is McCain himself.)


I can't really argue on climate change because I don't know anything about it, but I do know something about how science works, and thus I am more inclined to trust the scientists on the issue than a beauty contestant. (Ooh, see what I did there?)

I do know a thing or two about evolution, if mainly from the standpoint of molecular biology, so I can say that anyone who doubts it is either uninformed or an idiot, and in either case I don't want such a person making any policy decisions that have anything to do with the subject.

mesohorny: Legs this pic has them

MY GOD HER RUG HAS TEH CRABS!!!!

she's completely indoctrinated. will be interesting to see how she does in debates. people who have opinions that arent their own tend to suck at defending them.

PoopStain: GAT_00: Completely true. However, of the ~1C that the planet warmed last century, at least half of it was from man-made warming, and since CO2 and methane levels are increasing, the warming will be getting worse. Also, the warming of the northern permafrost has the potentially lethal problem of the fact that below the permafrost is very large quantities of methane. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and there is only 2ppm in the atmosphere of methane, as opposed to 380ppm of CO2

Indeed, but we don't have any idea what's going to happen once the shiat hits the fan.

Most of the global warming alarmists couldn't pass a fifth grade math test, much less explain any science behind why they think it is happening.

The biggest enemy of this planet is ignorance, and the farking environmentalists have loads of it. Humans are still a blip on the whole of the planet. We're making the planet more uncomfortable for ourselves but we are far from destroying it.

That hasn't stopped the liberals from trying to earn money from it, or the conservatives from trying to earn money from it. The stupid are paying the rich, as always.

Go nuts, people. This planet will kill enough of us off in order to survive. That's science. Someone make me care enough to stop it. Otherwise you farking retarded idiots can die as nature intended.

I'm not sure that's cynical enough you may have to take it up a notch.

cfish78: she's completely indoctrinated. will be interesting to see how she does in debates. people who have opinions that arent their own tend to suck at defending them.

They also tend not to realize how much they suck at defending them.

See: any creationist or religious apologetic arguments

The standard talking points for the adherents to the arguments get cheers from the peanut gallery, though. You can recycle the worst of the worst creationist logic and still get cheers from the creationist crowd.

Funny, I did not see anything about evolution in there. I know most of you "open minded democrats" have seen Al Gore's movie, but have you watched 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? It has lots of fun facts and graphs in it too.

B-b-b-but she has an (R) after her name, she MUST be teh evuls!!!11!!11!

STFU and deal with your defeat.

Whatever, she's got tits.