Sarah Palin is Really Saying, I Got Mine As She Conflates Weather and Climate

Sarah Palin's recent Facebook post has been published in the Washington Post as an editorial. This is the newspaper that at one time employed two investigative reporters named Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Their reporting led to Watergate and ultimately, the resignation of Richard Nixon. More recently, the Post has been caught selling "face time" with its reporters, via elegant dinner parties, to political insiders and lobbyists, fired one of the finest political analysts on its staff (Dan Froomkin), and is happy to print whatever garbage Sarah Palin has written for her (come on, you heard her resignation speech not six months ago, you don't actually think she has actually learned spelling and grammar in that period of time, do you?) on its editorial page.

Staying true to form, Palin inserts herself into the issue of the day, and offers President Obama policy advise based, no doubt, on her depth of experience that as she said to Bill O'Reilly last week, is so much greater than Obama's and even Vice President Biden's. After all, she was a city council member, a mayor, served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (for a whole year), and Governor of Alaska for two years. She also claims business experience, although she claims that her qualifications for higher office (and the reason that she is better than Obama or Biden) are her executive experience, so her work fishing likely does not count as she has never included it herself.

Seriously, when did it become about executive experience anyway? Who cares? We need political experience, foreign affairs experience (Biden has decades), experience dealing with politics at the national level (Obama and Biden), experience with working hard for what they've got (Obama and Biden - both worked damn hard for what they've got - where on earth did she get this elite nonsense about them? So Obama went to Harvard. How does she think he got there? And Biden is as blue-collar as they come.) All Palin has is city council and mayor of a town of 7,000, one year on a commission (quit), two years as governor (quit), and a failed national campaign in which she couldn't even handle the media. After three interviews, she had to bring McCain with her, then after that, no more interviews. No press conferences. Her behavior since and her book only serve to demonstrate how thin her skin is and her inability to deal with the slings and arrows that are inevitable at the national political level. Rumors? Threaten a lawsuit. Innuendo? Threaten a lawsuit.

As a brief aside, O'Reilly actually asked her some of the more difficult questions of any I've seen, asking her if she thought she was smart enough, and she promptly equated intelligence with common sense (which she says she has) to elite ivy league educations that produce spineless weakness (implication being that is what Obama has) and a resume that is based on anything but hard work and free-market principles (?!?).

Back to the Post post.

In that post, Palin suggests that Obama cancel his trip to Copenhagen as the email "scandal" has revealed the

"...appalling actions by so-called climate change experts [that] allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue."


"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse."

[...]

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. You don't get to conflate weather and climate. Conflate means to combine the two because you don't know any better. Weather is today. Weather is what happens now. Sunshine, rain, snow, sleet, what the weatherperson talks about on the five o'clock news. The day to day, immediate happenings around us that absolutely, we cannot change. Weather is whether or not it is going to be an early or late fall, or whether or not Punxsutawney Phil is going to see his shadow or not. Climate, however, is the cumulative effects of weather. Climate is usually looked at in increments of thirty years or more and is regional rather than local as weather is. Climate is important because it can take years before we see changes and patterns and if there is damage, can take years before we can correct it. The one positive aspect of climate, is that we know that man has an impact on it, and because we do, we can change it.

"The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals ...This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics."

I note that Sarah Palin has not included in her diatribe that the emails were 1) hacked (stolen), and were between a few scientists, meaning that, 2) they were not even the complete record of the communications between the scientists involved. The emails have "proven" that all of the data regarding climate change must somehow be false because included in these emails is the use of the term "decline" in referencing data patterns, and instructions on use of a "trick" to manipulate data.

What has been explained, several times, and Sarah Palin and the talking heads at Fox News refuse to acknowledge, is that scientists use the term "decline" to refer to the fact that the tree-ring density patterns used to record temperature are no longer valid after 1960 and after that date, recorded temperatures are used instead. This is a "trick" or "trick of the trade." Palin and others have instead chosen to see the use of the word "trick" as trick to fool us, pull the wool over our eyes, cheat us, manipulate us for some reason.

Not being a scientist, I can't explain the specifics of their data, but I am trained in scientific methods of research as they are the same for any field. To be valid, results must be repeatable, and the data must be collected according to standards set forth within that field. For example, in sociology, we study people. Once we have a hypothesis (the question we want to prove false), we decide the sample needed to collect valid data to reflect that population. Obviously there will be variations, but over time and with enough replications, if your sample is truly random and properly drawn, and you have shown cause and effect, then eventually you or anyone can repeat the results. That is what the bell curve is all about. In the case of climate change, thousands and thousands of scientists from around the world contribute data that is collected according to the same standards, collated according to the same standards, and produces results according to the same standards. A few (relatively) emails taken out of context read by people who do not understand the jargon (language unique to a specific field) prove absolutely nothing.

This brings me to the point of Sarah's comment about trying to silence their critics by preventing their publication in peer-reviewed journals. I'm not sure Sarah understands what peer-reviewed means, but in the academic world, it means exactly that. Unlike the Washington Post, which has apparently lost all journalistic ethics and standards, academic journals publish academic papers. Academics do research. A lot of people outside the university world think universities are all about teaching, but they're not. They're all about research. The teaching is to produce more researchers and money to fund research, at least at the higher level universities. Research, to be valid, has to be repeatable (see above). To prove that your research is valid, you share it with your peers. To do this, you submit your research in the form of a paper at conferences, and to journals. There, your peers analyze your research methods and your data. They try to replicate your results. They make sure that you are using sound science. They make sure that you haven't cut any corners. They argue, they discuss. They review. Sometimes they make you go back and rework some of your conclusions and rewrite your paper. Sometimes, if you are really lucky, your work is accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Think about it. There are a lot of journals, but there a lot more academics out there doing research (this includes graduate students and even some undergraduates if they have a professor who thinks they have done good work). Academic journals are not like magazines; they do not publish every month. Typically, they publish at most, four times per year. But. Here is a big one. Not all journals are created equal. If a journal has a sloppy peer-review process, then other researchers will not value the work published in it or the researchers whose work is accepted for publication. Sort of like a degree from U of I vs. Harvard.

In the case that Sarah Palin cites, research was published in a journal that had sloppy peer-review and other scientists did not use the results cited in that journal and recommended that others do the same. Some scientists had built their own work on data published in a journal whose work had been found to be faulty, thus making the entirety of that work faulty whether it was or not. Sort of like building an excellent house on a cardboard foundation. First time it rains, there goes your house. Not political, just sound science.

"Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state ...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. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs..." [emphasis added]



"...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."


"Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen."

I think I have satisfactorily debunked Sarah Palin's Facebook post, reprinted in the Washington Post. Who has a political agenda? Of course President Obama has a polical agenda. He is a politician. He also listens to his advisors. Climate change has been supported as fact by 95% of the world's scientists for years. The fact that some years are colder than others means nothing (ever heard of El Nino or La Nina?). Climate is completely different.

As I read somewhere the other day, conservatives like to drive SUV's because it drives liberals crazy. Because they don't care. Even if there is climate change, the attitude of the Sarah Palin's of the world, the GOPhers and other bots, I got mine. And that is about as political as you can get.

                                      

MSM, False Equivalencies, and Liz Cheney

From Media Matters Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher, in an online Q and A:

non-election question: Given Liz Cheney's sudden prominence (man, nepotism in DC never ceases to amaze me), I'm curious as to why none of you reporters are asking her questions re: her recent comments about Obama's trip to Dover. She said that Bush routinely made the same trip and didn't "stage photo ops." A) she flat out lied - Bush never went to Dover, B) he couldn't have had photos taken because of the Pentagon policy at the time and C) Mission Accomplished, anybody? Ultimate photo op. What gives? Or is being related to Dick sufficient to protect her from questioned?


Michael A. Fletcher:If we begin questioning Liz Cheney that way, then we would have to do the same with conservative (and liberal) commentators who make all kinds of charges every day. It is their way of making a (great) living. Some comments, I like to think, sink under their own weight.

This illustrates one of my ongoing pet peeves which I have discussed before. The supposed "liberal" mainstream media uses false equivalencies, softball questions, and careful timing to ensure that the "news" we are fed is slanted to make the current administration look foolish and inept and the Republican Party (despite its massive almost 20% of the population identifying itself as such) as the arbiters of reason.

David Gregory in particular is guilty of perpetuating the MSM move to stenography rather than actual reporting with his statement regarding the role of the press corps in the run up to the Iraq war:

I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. "I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."

This is an example of something that happened years ago, but any sampling of the Sunday morning talks or the evening national news will show the same kind of "journalism." Panels sit around and discuss the issues of the day, carefully selected by the hosts. If the guest currently in the hot seat responds with something more controversial than the host is able or willing to handle, then it's time to move on. This past Sunday's Meet the Press with David Gregory kept the most controversial guest, Jon Krakauer, till the very end. He was then asked only a couple of questions about General McChrystal's role in the Pat Tillman case and the initial cover-up - discussed now because of McChrystal's current position in the news - and when Krakauer provided fairly damning answers, Gregory immediately wrapped it up. Great journalism. Tough interviewing. Oh wait. It's not his role.

Back to Liz and the Washington Post. The biggest question? Why are we seeing Liz Cheney on our tv machines at all? Her claim to fame? She is the daughter of the ex vice-president. Period. She did have a job at the State Department, but so does my cousin. And so do thousands and thousands of other people. Liz's job wasn't even particularly high up or particularly important. She oversaw a unit within a bureau that was one of eight managed by one of the Under Secretaries. I used to work at one of the PAC-10 universities (meaning it's huge). I managed the administrative functions of a unit within a division under one of the Vice Presidents, so I had one less layer between me and the top. Was I important? Absolutely not. Could I speak for the University? Absolutely not.

The next question? Why this false equivalency? A reporter hears an answer that is demonstrably false and shrugs because it will "sink under its own weight?" If they have to question every commentator, then why not? If their way of making a living is to lie, shouldn't they be called on it? Asked to back up their claims? Do slander and libel laws mean nothing anymore? Is journalism now simply reporting he said she said? It used to be gathering facts and examining what people said for truth and shining a light on what was going on behind the scenes so that the viewers and readers that did not have the kind of access that reporters have could know what was going on. That is the whole point behind the 1st Amendment and why the Founders put it first in the Constitution. 

What Liz talks about when she speaks about terrorism and the Bush Administration and foreign policy (and the return of fallen soldiers at Dover Airforce Base) is hearsay or conjecture at best. More likely, her comments are disinjenuous statements made to enhance her father's image, promote her own agenda, and belittle the Obama Administration.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin Attacks 1st Amendment

There are a number of Alaskan bloggers writing about Sarah Palin and a number of non-Alaskans who write about her as well, but she's the topic of the moment and one I've followed since she burst on the national scene.

Many people have questioned my continuing interest in her, particularly after the election, saying "She lost, get over her." Unfortunately, she remains extremely popular, has a large and growing base, a PAC that is well-organized and raises a lot of money and is well-placed to monitor the blogs to attack anyone who works against her, and her Alaska Fund Trust, set up to fund her legal bills, has money pouring in - even after the announcement of her resignation. No one knows what her plans are, although everyone agrees that her stated reasons for resigning come nowhere near the real reasons for leaving office.

The word-salad of her resignation speech, given at her home in the presence - oddly enough - of husband Todd and daughter Piper, but not daughters Willow or Bristol, or son Trigg or grandson Tripp - verged on the incoherent and was clearly written by Sarah herself. Despite her statement that this had "been in the works for months," Todd had reportedly had to leave his fishing boat unexpectedly to attend this press conference and Sarah's father stated that he had no idea this was going to happen. Definitely odd not to mention something so major to your immediate family if it's been "in the works" for months.

The transcript of the speech, posted on the official website, contains weird capitalizations, disconnected and rambling streams of consciousness, and obvious notes to self, as well as numerous exclamation points as if to remind herself of what was important.

Oddest and most remarkable to me? The point that has kept me following Sarah Palin throughout? Her incredible ignorance of the concept of truth. And, her complete ignorance of the Constitution. She loves to wave the flag, to be photographed wrapped in it or waving it, and she loves to cite the Constitution, but has no conception of what it actually is or what it means.

Every speech references it, every speech references the troops, Alaska, her family, and whatever else she thinks is necessary to score political points and make herself look good. She poses for photographs in Runners World not realizing how inappropriate they are for a woman in her position, not realizing how offended people will be at the use she puts the flag to in those photographs, but instead is concerned only with how well she appears physically and how many votes she might gain - never mind how many she might lose.

After her speech, rumors that have been swirling for months got louder. Bloggers that have been discussing many issues, including some that Sarah discussed in her speech, got calls from mainstream media and requests for interviews and Shannyn Moore, a radio talk show host, blogger, and regular Huffington Post contributor, appeared (as she does on a regular basis) on MSNBC to discuss the whole situation with David Schuster. In a post Shannyn described threats of legal action for reporting on some of these rumors in her blog and discussing them on MSNBC.

In her resignation speech, Sarah Palin reference the Constitution twice. She said, "We’re protectors of our Constitution – federalists protect states’ rights as mandated in 10th amendment." And later, "We need those who will respect our Constitution ..." referring to bottom-up government rather than top-down government but combing it with some mixed metaphor of calling an audible and passing the ball. Weird.

But the true irony? Let's take a couple of sections of Sarah's speech and look at them.

"...the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money not going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” …"

In a press release dated May 21, 2009, the Governor's Office announced signing the operating budget for fiscal year 2010 at $8.7 billion. Two million is barely a ripple in that, not to mention that there is an ethics committee whose sole function is to deal with ethics complaints. And, if Sarah had a better understanding of the truth, ethics law, and Freedom of Information Act rules, there would be likely little need for citizens to file ethics complaints to find out information she should be providing to them as a matter of routine.

"I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to help people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor."

No, probably not, but people seek higher office because it has been demonstrated, over and over again, that the higher the office you hold, the more you are able to accomplish.

"And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it."

And because I'm a maverick, and go my own way, the only way to prevent Alaska from having a "lame duck" governor who "milks it" is to quit. How stupid can she be? Can you say circular thinking? I'm governor. I'm only going to have one term, therefore the moment I decide that - even if it's the day after I'm sworn in - I have to quit. Dumb. What if she decides to run for re-election? And loses? Does she quit the day after the election? Or what if she wins? Does she still quit the next day? After all, she won and immediately becomes a lame duck, because after all, she can't run again.

This woman does not know how to think beyond the end of her nose. How on earth did she get a college degree from an actual college? Her family isn't rich so they couldn't buy her one. They didn't have on-line degrees to buy back then. Really puzzling.

"My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for our freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that life is short so they choose to not waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than self... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and not this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we all learn from them!" [emphasis added]

This is a kicker. Her decision was fortified by visiting the troops because they don't give up so she comes home and quits! Yeah. That makes sense.

Then, after Shannon appears on MSNBC Sarah tweets on her Twitter account the next day a link to a letter written by her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, which, by the way, states on page 3 that "this is to provide notice to Ms. Moore..." and also references the New York Times, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post as they reported on the story, that they have defamed Sarah Palin and this is actionable. Pretty big, fancy words, don't you think?

What is even more interesting, is that this letter was not sent to Shannyn Moore. It was forwarded to her. It was actually emailed by Meghan Stapleton, head of SarahPac, to her entire email media list. hmmmm. I guess Sarah really did need a way to knock Jacko off the front page after all.

But as a true fan of the Constitution and especially the 1st Amendment, I love the fact that some attorneys will do anything for money. Including writing letters for clients that include threatening lawsuits that they know will never be filed, or if filed, laughed out of court. What's in it for Mr. Van Flein? National media attention of course. I'm sure Mr. Van Flein has GOP stars in his eyes. Or maybe FOX News legal analyst stars in his eyes - after all, how did Greta Van Susteran get started? Remember OJ?

Of course, good attorneys will actually give you good advise. They'll tell you when something you want to do is a really bad idea. But, Sarah Palin has probably had reasonably good luck in Wasilla sending out threatening letters to people who probably don't make very much money and depend on someone in her circle of friends for their job, so her threats have probably worked very well in the past. Maybe as governor, with all her high school buddies as department heads and cabinet members, they've worked pretty well, too. The only problem for Sarah Palin, is that it just won't work anymore and it certainly won't work in the rest of the country.

Sarah is a government official, still. It is totally inappropriate as a government official, especially as a governor (heaven forbid she ever made it to VP or President) to attack your constituents. Their complaints are part of the job. People aren't going to like you. They aren't going to like everything you do. They're going to disagree. They're going to write letters to the editor, and blog. The other party is going to campaign against you and opinion writers are going to write editorials opposing you and your policies.

Tabloids are going to be out looking for dirt, and sleazy journalists are going to make stuff up - sort of like, oh, "hanging out with terrorists" kind of stuff, or, "not really an American" or "secretly a Muslim or a Fascist" kind of thing that is kind of inflammatory. Or, like your buddy Joe the Plumber said 2 weeks ago referring to Senator Dodd, "How come nobody has strung him up yet?" He actually said that 3 times in one speech, and funnily enough, nobody said a word against him. I sort of thought it sounded like inciting violence - or even assassination - against a government official - but then, that's just me. Sometimes speech is a crime - inciting violence, shouting "Fire" in a movie theater - but frequently, it's only enforced against certain people.

Sarah Palin wants her free speech rights enforced and people like Shannyn Moore sued to protect her rights, not understanding that freedom of speech is designed to protect journalists (Shannon, the New York Times, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, et al), from government (Sarah Palin), not the other way around. You can't defame (or libel) a public figure unless you what you are saying is false (Shannyon was reporting rumors). By the way, has anyone watched Glenn Beck? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? Any of Sarah Palin's campaign speeches? Want to try that libel part again?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

WaPo Facilitates Push Polling, Again.

Well. Can't get the American people off the subject of torture? Build a strawman. Instead of discussing whether or not Bush/Cheney were correct in their tactics, argue about who knew what, when (specifically, Speaker Pelosi). Don't like the results of the polls that say most of the American people want prosecution of those who tortured and those who approved the torture? Change the polls.

Resurgent Republic who I don't want to link to, just add the dot com yourself, has established itself as a new player in the Washington polling game. Building on the success of push polling in the 2000 election cycle, they are a group of hardcore Republicans including Hayley Barbour, Mary Matalin, and others, who seek to reframe the torture debate by returning to the use of 'enhanced interrogation' and once again providing stenography services to the mainstream media. Chris Cilliza at the Washington Post The Fix disappointingly wrote extensively of these latest poll results - claiming 53% overall felt such tactics were justified compared to 34% - without bothering to discuss the actual poll itself.

Remember, poll results are useless unless you know 1) who was polled, 2) how many were polled, and 3) the questions asked.

Consider this question.

"Congressman A says America should never use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, because they are torture. Those techniques undermine our values, hurt our standing in the world, endanger American troops who might be taken prisoner, and yield little or no useful information that could not be obtained by other means."

"Congressman B says that, while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11."

The first part includes the word torture. The question uses inflammatory, negative terms - undermine, hurt, endanger troops, and then goes on to tell us that they 'yield little or not useful information.'

The second part does not use the word torture. It uses words that are not inflammatory but uses words meant to make us feel good - exceptional, protect, justified, innocent, and then appeals to our emotions by referencing the lives lost on 9/11.

This is called push-polling. You are presented with 2 choices - good or bad, right or wrong that appeal to your emotions. The question is framed so that there is only one possible "right" answer if you are not a monster. Neither address the issue at hand, that being: various elected officials including Dick Cheney have acknowledged that the used of torture, sometimes called enhanced interrogation to make us feel better about it, was used. Do you believe that investigations should occur into who is responsible? Or, something along those lines.

The group at Resurgent Republican are long-term Washington insiders, experienced campaigners and experienced pollsters. They know how to write a poll to get the results they want, knowing full well that people tend to follow the polls. People don't like to take a stand on their own. If they think most of the country believes in something, they are more likely to believe that as well. If they've been uncertain, a well-designed push-poll will push them write over the edge. The above question is one used in the poll Cilliza cites and is the least toxic.

A 'good' polling question is a simple statement, usually based on something in the news that the subject is likely to know about, and is written in a way that does not appeal to the subject's emotions. Loaded words are never used in a properly prepared poll unless - as in Cheney's use of enhanced interrogation - you have a pre-determined result to achieve and must design a poll to elicit the answers that you seek.

The media, again, is not doing its job when it simply reports the results of a poll like this without questioning the methodology. The only information Cilliza included in his article is that the poll included "critically independent" voters. But how many people were polled? Where were they from? How were they selected? What stratification process (if any) was used? Remember - percentages are meaningless numbers if you don't know how large a sample was used. Sixty percent of 5 people is still 3.

Once again, the mainstream media perpetuating the serial stupidity of our fellow citizens as they swallow unquestioningly what the Republican Party wants fed to them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k