Palin likens global warming studies t...

Palin likens global warming studies to 'snake oil'

There are 363 comments on the Sacramento Bee Newspaper story from Feb 9, 2010, titled Palin likens global warming studies to 'snake oil'. In it, Sacramento Bee Newspaper reports that:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch of snake oil science" Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sacramento Bee Newspaper.

SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#354 Feb 19, 2013
Drunk Watch wrote:
<quoted text>There is no reason to even respond to PHD.He is obviously uneducated,he can't spell to save his life and flip flops on what he claims to believe.When he is presented with different points of view he simply calls it scientific science fiction with out even responding to the points being made.He attacks others who share his point of view because he is truly too stupid to understand that they are agreeing with him.He is a lost soul with very little intelligence.
Excellent summary.

Thanks.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#355 Feb 19, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I don't Rush Limbaugh knows or cares right now. It is only a small movemenet that is picking up speed and is where the global warming movement was back in the eighties.
Only the right wing talks about a cooling age today.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the no science agency, you may be right. I have never considered the NAS to be that much into science but they were in the thick of it.
The NAS is just the nation's top science agency.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
After all, congress was willing to hand out millions to study it. NASA was also involved.
NAS is independant. And NASA was not involved in the review.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it will not be offical to you until Al Gore proclaims it so. Funny thing is that Al Gore has just as much a degree in science as Rush Limbaugh.
I wouldn't know. I go straight to the science sources.

Unlike you!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#356 Feb 21, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the right wing talks about a cooling age today.
<quoted text>
The NAS is just the nation's top science agency.
<quoted text>
NAS is independant. And NASA was not involved in the review.
<quoted text>
I wouldn't know. I go straight to the science sources.
Unlike you!
Are you sure that it is only the right that believed in global cooling? How about the scientest like Dr. Norman Page. In fact he had a perfect description of what AGW really was. To quote him,

"The entire anthropogenic global warming meme is a mass delusion foisted on a scientifically illiterate British and Western public by a grant ,position and honour seeking sycophantic scientific establishment and by ecoleft politicians ( including Cameron ) to reward their rent seeking campaign contributors and wind farm land owning friends."

As for the NAS, who said that they are the nations top sceintific agency. It could be argued that NASA could just as well deserve that title. And lets not forget that the DOD is also involved in research along with the EPA, NOAA, and a host of other agencies. There there are plenty of non-government research groups that are also involved in science. Of course what you mean is that the NAS was the top agency in promoting AGW funded by the government. Then again you might be wrong. After all, the IPCC is also just as involved in that research. As for the NAS being independant, who do they receive the majority of their funding from? If that funding was cut off could the NAS continue? Some how I see the federal government as the source and if they federal government was to cut funding that the NAS would be out of business in a year.

As for going straight to the science source, magazines and web sites are not going straight to the source. The actually studies are the source and not NASA's web page, skepticalscince, or a magazine. In fact the last two are by definition second hand sources.

Then again, why would you bother to waste your time reading the actual studies. As far as you are concerned, there is nothing new for you to learn in them. After all, if you were to read them you just might discover that you were wrong.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#358 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure that it is only the right that believed in global cooling? How about the scientest like Dr. Norman Page.
/[QUOTE]

Never heard of him. When I put his name in Google only Right Wing sites comes up. He doesn't appear in Wikipedia, probably never published anything in a peer reviewed SCIENCE journal is what that usually means.

[QUOTE who="tina anne"]<quoted text>

As for the NAS, who said that they are the nations top sceintific agency.
Organizations don't get to vote on that one. LOL. You obviously are clueless. Check out Wikipedia on them.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
It could be argued that NASA could just as well deserve that title.
The scope of NAS is larger than NASA

And don't forget you called NASA a left wing organization when I proved their official view was global warming was real and a threat/
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And lets not forget that the DOD is also involved in research along with the EPA, NOAA, and a host of other agencies.
not on climate studies.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
There there are plenty of non-government research groups that are also involved in science. Of course what you mean is that the NAS was the top agency in promoting AGW funded by the government. Then again you might be wrong.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a non-profit organization in the United States. Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
After all, the IPCC is also just as involved in that research.
The IPCC is a UN agency that compiles existing scientific research from around the world on climate.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for going straight to the science source, magazines and web sites are not going straight to the source. The actually studies are the source and not NASA's web page, skepticalscince, or a magazine. In fact the last two are by definition second hand sources.
Yes they reference peer reviewed science journals though, not junk authors who are not published like whoever Norman Page is.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Then again, why would you bother to waste your time reading the actual studies. As far as you are concerned, there is nothing new for you to learn in them. After all, if you were to read them you just might discover that you were wrong.
I've read original science journals when I am interested in delving that far.

You ONLY reference NON-science right wing sites like Watts Up and Climate Depot dear.

Pot calling the kettle black, I am afraid.
Bailey

South San Francisco, CA

#359 Feb 24, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I don't Rush Limbaugh knows or cares right now. It is only a small movemenet that is picking up speed and is where the global warming movement was back in the eighties. As for the no science agency, you may be right. I have never considered the NAS to be that much into science but they were in the thick of it. After all, congress was willing to hand out millions to study it. NASA was also involved.
Of course it will not be offical to you until Al Gore proclaims it so. Funny thing is that Al Gore has just as much a degree in science as Rush Limbaugh.
Everyone knows that you can't disprove a theory by professing a belief in a different theory.Didn't you have to take a class in logic and critical thinking in college? You are,as PHD so eloquently pointed out,as dumb as a box of rocks.
P.S. Al Gore has nothing to do with this.You can check the Farmer's Almanac if you want unbiased info on temperatures from people who live and dies on accurate temperature info.Farmers tend to be a conservative lot and I really doubt they are cooking the books to please Al Gore.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#360 Feb 25, 2013
Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone knows that you can't disprove a theory by professing a belief in a different theory.Didn't you have to take a class in logic and critical thinking in college? You are,as PHD so eloquently pointed out,as dumb as a box of rocks.
P.S. Al Gore has nothing to do with this.You can check the Farmer's Almanac if you want unbiased info on temperatures from people who live and dies on accurate temperature info.Farmers tend to be a conservative lot and I really doubt they are cooking the books to please Al Gore.
Actually it was less than a box of rocks pertaining to wind mills.

Theory: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

Opens the idea for scientific science fiction what do you think?
Bailey

United States

#361 Feb 25, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it was less than a box of rocks pertaining to wind mills.
Theory: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.
Opens the idea for scientific science fiction what do you think?
She is definitely a believer in "scientific science fiction" as are you.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#362 Feb 25, 2013
Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>She is definitely a believer in "scientific science fiction" as are you.
Learned behavior and your an excellent teacher.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#363 Feb 25, 2013
Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone knows that you can't disprove a theory by professing a belief in a different theory.Didn't you have to take a class in logic and critical thinking in college? You are,as PHD so eloquently pointed out,as dumb as a box of rocks.
P.S. Al Gore has nothing to do with this.You can check the Farmer's Almanac if you want unbiased info on temperatures from people who live and dies on accurate temperature info.Farmers tend to be a conservative lot and I really doubt they are cooking the books to please Al Gore.
Nice to see some rationalism here.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#364 Feb 26, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Organizations don't get to vote on that one. LOL. You obviously are clueless. Check out Wikipedia on them.
<quoted text>
The scope of NAS is larger than NASA
And don't forget you called NASA a left wing organization when I proved their official view was global warming was real and a threat/
<quoted text>
not on climate studies.
<quoted text>
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a non-profit organization in the United States. Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine
<quoted text>
The IPCC is a UN agency that compiles existing scientific research from around the world on climate.
<quoted text>
Yes they reference peer reviewed science journals though, not junk authors who are not published like whoever Norman Page is.
<quoted text>
I've read original science journals when I am interested in delving that far.
You ONLY reference NON-science right wing sites like Watts Up and Climate Depot dear.
Pot calling the kettle black, I am afraid.
I didn't ask if organizations get to vote just who declared the NAS the nations top scientific anything. After all, NASA is far better known to the man on the street when you are talking about science. Yes the NAS is a non profit but then again so is NASA and the EPA, like the NAS they all receive their funding from the federal government.

Also your science magazines are just that magazines. No better or worse than say Popular Science and far lower circulation than Popular Science or Popular Mechanics which also publishes just as much science. I prefer to skip the summaries and actually read the actual studies. I have access to databases of studies.

Also, what makes you think anything in wikipeida is accurate? Given that it has a history of wikipeida is one of errors and baised entries the real question is why would anyone accept wikipeida as anything but a questionable source. Then again you have a history of only hearing what you want to hear.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#365 Feb 26, 2013
Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone knows that you can't disprove a theory by professing a belief in a different theory.Didn't you have to take a class in logic and critical thinking in college? You are,as PHD so eloquently pointed out,as dumb as a box of rocks.
P.S. Al Gore has nothing to do with this.You can check the Farmer's Almanac if you want unbiased info on temperatures from people who live and dies on accurate temperature info.Farmers tend to be a conservative lot and I really doubt they are cooking the books to please Al Gore.
Actually I can check online databases of temperatures which even includes those of newspapers, and yes the Old Farmer's Almanac. As for Al Gore, did you not forget a certain award winning movie called Inconvient Truth? Which is now considered a docudrama after it was discovered to be more fiction than fact.

And yes, I took a few classes on logic and critical thinking to only discover the professor had brains like overcooked mush. Which made getting an A an easy task.
litesong

Everett, WA

#366 Feb 26, 2013
tiny-minded anne wrote:
How about the scientest(sic) like Dr. Norman Page.
From Stoat:
The Watties are back to plaintively whistling for cooling. This time its “Dr.” Norman Page, and just like last time there isn’t really any point wading through the details because its all self-deluding nonsense.
////////
...... an oil exploration geologist.
A favorite read by 'tiny-minded anne' to gently ease her off to sleep at night.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#367 Feb 26, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask if organizations get to vote just who declared the NAS the nations top scientific anything. After all, NASA is far better known to the man on the street when you are talking about science. Yes the NAS is a non profit but then again so is NASA and the EPA, like the NAS they all receive their funding from the federal government.
NAS scope is much greater than NASA's on science. NASA is aeronautics, space and Earth's atmosphere.

Was that a tough one?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also your science magazines are just that magazines.
With a science in front of them right?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
No better or worse than say Popular Science and far lower circulation than Popular Science or Popular Mechanics which also publishes just as much science.
They don't publish the right wing ideological trash you cite either.
So what is your point?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>I prefer to skip the summaries and actually read the actual studies. I have access to databases of studies.
No, I have not seen one peer review scientific study cited by you.

I have only seen right wing websites where someone posting their garbage that no one else would have.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, what makes you think anything in wikipeida is accurate? Given that it has a history of wikipeida is one of errors and baised entries the real question is why would anyone accept wikipeida as anything but a questionable source. Then again you have a history of only hearing what you want to hear.
I have found few things 100%. Wikipedia will usually link to a reputable site for proof.

If you had something better I would always consider it.

Your "better" is some right wing site of the likes of your hero Rush Limbaugh, who is a fat lying oaf.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#368 Mar 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
NAS scope is much greater than NASA's on science. NASA is aeronautics, space and Earth's atmosphere.
Was that a tough one?
<quoted text>
With a science in front of them right?
<quoted text>
They don't publish the right wing ideological trash you cite either.
So what is your point?
<quoted text>
No, I have not seen one peer review scientific study cited by you.
I have only seen right wing websites where someone posting their garbage that no one else would have.
<quoted text>
I have found few things 100%. Wikipedia will usually link to a reputable site for proof.
If you had something better I would always consider it.
Your "better" is some right wing site of the likes of your hero Rush Limbaugh, who is a fat lying oaf.
You still haven't been able to tell me who declared the NAS the top science agency which means it is nothing more than your very personal and very biased opinion. After all, NASA, EPA, NOAA, and several other agencies do just as much in the field of climate research if not more than the NAS. They all receive funding from the same source.

Also, you magazines still remain magazines and are not or never have been actual studies. Usually they are nothing more than the press releases of studies. And they are still driven to sell magazines. And as you point out they don't right wing ideological trash, they publish left wind ideological trash.

And I doubt you have ever seen an actual study. I normally do not provide links because they tend to be sites that charge for access and I would not ask others to pay for access.

As for Wikipedia, when it come to the subject of climate it isn't links to reputable sites but sites like skepticalscience or something similar. Add to that wiki's track record means that it isn't accurate. Of course that isn't just my view. Take any course at a place of higher learning and try to use Wikipeida as a source and watch the prof drop points because of it if not outright give you a big fat zero. When it comes to better, just about anything is better source of accurate data than wikipeida.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#369 Mar 1, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't been able to tell me who declared the NAS the top science agency which means it is nothing more than your very personal and very biased opinion.
Yeah I assumed you could read a link.

Well it was Abraham Lincoln (no joke.)

"The Act of Incorporation, signed by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, created the National Academy of Sciences and named 50 charter members. Many of the original NAS members came from the so-called "Scientific Lazzaroni", an informal network of mostly physical scientists working in the vicinity of Cambridge, Massachusetts (c. 1850)"
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
After all, NASA, EPA, NOAA, and several other agencies do just as much in the field of climate research if not more than the NAS. They all receive funding from the same source.
They have different missions -- meaning scope.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, you magazines still remain magazines and are not or never have been actual studies. Usually they are nothing more than the press releases of studies. And they are still driven to sell magazines. And as you point out they don't right wing ideological trash, they publish left wind ideological trash.
The mainstream science media quotes from peer review science journals.
Your right wing websites do not -- any wingnut will do -- doesn't even need a degree...
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And I doubt you have ever seen an actual study. I normally do not provide links because they tend to be sites that charge for access and I would not ask others to pay for access.
They give free summaries. Some will show the full paper for free.
You never show them.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for Wikipedia, when it come to the subject of climate it isn't links to reputable sites but sites like skepticalscience or something similar.
Their bibliography often has links to published peer review science journals.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Add to that wiki's track record means that it isn't accurate. Of course that isn't just my view. Take any course at a place of higher learning and try to use Wikipeida as a source and watch the prof drop points because of it if not outright give you a big fat zero. When it comes to better, just about anything is better source of accurate data than wikipeida.
Wikipedia is just a summary. If you want more detail you need to drill down into their links.

Your right wing sites typically have no citations. Just their "ideology" or funky statistics they made up for it.
Deer Slayer

Diamond Springs, CA

#370 Mar 3, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't been able to tell me who declared the NAS the top science agency which means it is nothing more than your very personal and very biased opinion. After all, NASA, EPA, NOAA, and several other agencies do just as much in the field of climate research if not more than the NAS. They all receive funding from the same source.
Also, you magazines still remain magazines and are not or never have been actual studies. Usually they are nothing more than the press releases of studies. And they are still driven to sell magazines. And as you point out they don't right wing ideological trash, they publish left wind ideological trash.
And I doubt you have ever seen an actual study. I normally do not provide links because they tend to be sites that charge for access and I would not ask others to pay for access.
As for Wikipedia, when it come to the subject of climate it isn't links to reputable sites but sites like skepticalscience or something similar. Add to that wiki's track record means that it isn't accurate. Of course that isn't just my view. Take any course at a place of higher learning and try to use Wikipeida as a source and watch the prof drop points because of it if not outright give you a big fat zero. When it comes to better, just about anything is better source of accurate data than wikipeida.
Your reasoning for not providing links to your info doesn't hold water.What are you afraid of?You claim to have proof supporting your claims about an imporant subject that the Government is wasting billions on and yet you leave us all here at the mercy of the "mainstream media".If you have the links to where you are reading these studies then provide them.What are you afraid of?We can decide for ourselves if we want to pay for access.You act like this is such an important issue and you could emlighten us with just a click and yet you don't.You just spend a lot of time talking in circles
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#371 Mar 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
From Stoat:
The Watties are back to plaintively whistling for cooling. This time its “Dr.” Norman Page, and just like last time there isn’t really any point wading through the details because its all self-deluding nonsense.
////////
...... an oil exploration geologist.
A favorite read by 'tiny-minded anne' to gently ease her off to sleep at night.
There you go again "pinheadlitesout" has diarrhea, incontinence issues and another diaper rash.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#373 Mar 4, 2013
Bailey wrote:
<quoted text>More intelligent commentary by our village idiot.Another example of a "box of rocks" LOL.
Are you pointing your stub at me?
Bailey

South San Francisco, CA

#374 Mar 4, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I can check online databases of temperatures which even includes those of newspapers, and yes the Old Farmer's Almanac. As for Al Gore, did you not forget a certain award winning movie called Inconvient Truth? Which is now considered a docudrama after it was discovered to be more fiction than fact.
And yes, I took a few classes on logic and critical thinking to only discover the professor had brains like overcooked mush. Which made getting an A an easy task.
What does Al Gore have to do with me?Once again you are ruled by assumptions.So here are some for you...So you say you have accessed data bases regarding temps since the beginning of the industrial revolution.Well....what have you found?Has it been getting colder when you compare temps around the globe?How about in the US?I have never seen Al Gores movie but from how you speak I would assume that you have.It seems to have had a profound impact on your life.You're right about your college professor having brains like "overcooked mush".How else would he let you through with an A.You say that you took"a few classes on logic and critical thinking". LOL I would have to assume that a smart girl like you wouldn't take multiple classes from the same professor who had brains"like overcooked mush".What a waste of time. I don't know why you keep making this stuff up because it isn't working for you.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#375 Mar 5, 2013
Deer Slayer wrote:
<quoted text>Your reasoning for not providing links to your info doesn't hold water.What are you afraid of?You claim to have proof supporting your claims about an imporant subject that the Government is wasting billions on and yet you leave us all here at the mercy of the "mainstream media".If you have the links to where you are reading these studies then provide them.What are you afraid of?We can decide for ourselves if we want to pay for access.You act like this is such an important issue and you could emlighten us with just a click and yet you don't.You just spend a lot of time talking in circles
I have the proof but the sites charge for access. As for the government wasting money, it has a history of wasting money. As for the links, yes you would have to pay and you would have to access it directly.

Yes, this is an important issue and you should consider it important enough that you would take the time to look things up for yourself. Consider it a chance to learn something you did not know you did not know.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 1 hr Facke Facts 5,486
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr Bill Dunning 12,191
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr Big Al 38,325
News Sea ice cover at both poles at lowest point of ... (Mar '17) 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 61
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 3,264
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 hr FART BRIGADE 64,456
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) Sun Fugooo 1,386
More from around the web