It was going so well for Climategate. The real or imagined scandal has been getting more Web hits than the saga of Tiger's Wood EU Referendum, via James Delingpole). The scientists behind the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are struggling to regain public credibility. Al Gore has cancelled his trip to Copenhagen. But then it turned out that the only major country officially denying the reality of AGW was Saudi Arabia, that progressive bastion of democracy and human rights. And now I learn that the Anti-warmists have a new and vocal supporter. One who hails from one of the few places on earth that stands to benefit from an overheated planet. Yes, it's Sarah Palin:
The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. ...Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.
Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased.... The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.
Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet.
Perhaps she's right. About the economic impact of anti-warming policies, I tend to think she is, on the whole. But it does rather bear out what I was saying yesterday about anti-warmism being the preserve of political mavericks. And does she really think it helps her case to remind the world of her vendetta against polar bears?