Governor Palin pulls no punches in stating the almost certain results of this Copenhagen conference:
The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.
She continues, later in the column, on this theme (the links were in the WaPo column webpage, and apparently they copy right over):
President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign).
This, as one might expect, has caused all sorts of people to crawl out of the woodwork to either defend Mother Earth or slam Sarah Palin, or both. I'll list a couple of the usual suspects.
For example, Gawker.com, which I truly don't want to link but will anyway, has published a column adopting both prongs of this attack. Its premise appears to be "the science is settled, and so say people who just might be in a darn good position to benefit in a cap-and-trade-based world economy, though we won't say that, and besides, she's an idiot, so shut up." With that premise in mind, the columnist (Ravi Somaiya--yeah, I've never heard of him in a discussion of leading climate experts either), presents what is marketed as a total fisking but takes several things out of context, ignores the "Obama admitted' quote entirely, and presents the opinions of other columnists as unquestionable fact. I'd fisk it back, but time is short. Maybe later. Instead, I'll just point out that the column is unreadable as a whole due to the tone of superiority present throughout. One can almost picture the columnist's nose in the air as he types.
And, of course, Al Gore, whose mansion uses more energy in a month than you probably do in a year, has to defend, well, mostly his own reputation. In an interview with bastion of objectivity MSNBC, he said, "the deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes ... what do they think is happening?" This seems to be leaning more toward the insulting Sarah Palin and all those poor misguided souls who agree with her, as the science in his statement is, well, pretty much nonexistent. When you start your argument with an emotional appeal, you don't exactly have a great foundation. Add to that the fact Al Gore has returned to his I'm-smarter-than-you tone of voice that worked so well for him during the first presidential debate of 2000, and you have a completely unwatchable interview. Luckily, it was on MSNBC, and therefore most people missed it.
Now, of course, there are some people who would hate Sarah Palin if she were to discover a cure for cancer, simply because she doesn't fit their mold of a woman to emulate. However, to use one's hatred for her to discount her point is ridiculous. For starters, just take a look at some of these brilliant comments at the WaPo column, which have not been edited in any way by me:
I especially like that last one. Why should we have a debate? Just shut up.
The only problem with that chilling approach to discussion is that the science is certainly not settled. For example, see this data-heavy piece that shows how much temperature data has been manipulated to support the AGW theory (hat tip: Ed Morrissey/HotAir, Conservatives 4 Palin).
So, does Sarah Palin have a valid summation to her column when she says, "The president should boycott Copenhagen"?
And no amount of ad hominem attacks against her will change that.
Edit 12/09: Sarah Palin has responded to Al Gore in a Facebook note.