They've created a smokescreen now by creating this fight over whether the change is caused by man or is natural - that takes away from other, more important conservation issues.
Palin had an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post today that really hits home how I feel about this issue. Once again, she says it so much better and taps into her actual experience, something DC beltway politicians don't have (yet they're creating the policy):
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes.
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.
Also take note that the corrupt media might try and "silence" Palin by not publishing her opinions in this manner anymore. I include NRO in this since they linked a HuffPo article about Palin being unqualified to write an op-ed instead of discussing the content of her op-ed.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder begged to differ with Smith's latter point. "Her boycott call is like a video press release," he wrote. "She's looking for a way to inject herself into this and found it." Ambinder published a critical "annotated" version of Palin's piece, noting at the onset, "Once again, the Washington Post has given Sarah Palin the chance to harness herself to the political story of the hour."This is a perfect example of why Palin is smart to stay on Facebook and Twitter, so her voice will be heard unfiltered by the corrupt media, and also so her voice will be heard at all if media outlets give her the cold shoulder. By staying on social media sites and alternative methods for getting her voice out, she's in control of the message and always one step ahead of the corrupt media.
The response to the op-ed was even more critical from science writers. ScienceBlogs.com's Tim Lambert chose to headline his piece on Palin's op-ed: "The Washington Post can't go out of business fast enough." He pointed out that the Post's own reporting contradicted claims made by Palin in the op-ed. "The Washington Post simply does not care about the accuracy of the columns it publishes," he concluded.