One of America’s most respected newspapers has come under fire for printing a recent op-ed by Sarah Palin urging President Obama to boycott the Copenhagen summit. The Washington Post has — in the words of one its top editors — been “ripped” over the piece, which critics maintain distorts well-established scientific facts on climate change, including ones the Post itself has reported. Even more humiliating, they say, Palin’s opinion piece was just a warmed-over version of a recent Facebook posting provoked by the Climategate scandal. Did the Post lower its standards — or is this just another case of the GOP star’s remarkable power to rile up her political opponents? (Watch an NBC report about Sarah Palin's climate change comments)
What was The Washington Post thinking? "George Will's fabrications" on Climategate in the Post are bad enough, says Tim Lambert in ScienceBlogs, but in publishing this wildly inaccurate hit job from "climate expert Sarah Palin," the once-great newspaper is proving it "simply does not care about the accuracy of the columns it publishes." Doesn't the Post realise its own reporting "directly contradicts" what she's written? This newspaper "can't go out of business fast enough."
"The Washington Post can't go out of business fast enough"
Unlike her critics, Palin knows energy policy: The anger at the Post is just more proof that "scribblers and bloggers" hold Palin to "a ridiculous standard," says Matthew Continetti in The Weekly Standard. Look, "best-selling authors write op-eds. That's what they do" these days. And besides, unlike "noted climate expert Marc Ambinder," Palin actually has "an extensive background in energy issues."
"Annals of Palinoia, climate change edition"
The Post is doing us a service: "The Post was absolutely right to print" Sarah Palin's Climategate "malarky," says Jacob Heilbrunn in The Huffington Post. Palin is a "major voice" in the Republican Party, and very possibly its 2012 presidential candidate. By airing her "wacky views" about a scheming "cabal of radical scientists," the Post is alerting its readers "to what the radical right intends to accomplish if it's returned to office."
"Why the Washington Post was right to publish Sarah Palin"
Sarah Palin vs. Sarah Palin: Palin didn't always think global warming was "junk science," says Ben Smith in Politico. As late as July 2008, when then-Gov. Palin created an Alaska office on climate change, she said Alaskans should "reduce their greenhouse gas emissions" and shrink their "carbon footprint." The "dramatic shift in her own tone" shows just "how sharply partisan" the issue has become.
"Palin's climate change"
SEE THE WEEK'S LATEST ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
• Copenhagen climate wars: A battle guide
• Did Russian spies engineer 'Climategate'?
• Does ‘Climategate’ kill Copenhagen?
• Obama vs 'Climategate'
• Climate change: Time to eat Fido?
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- 10 things you need to know today: September 1, 2014
- Fall movie guide: All the films you should see in September
- Why the West should let Russia have eastern Ukraine
- Hey, grammar nerds! Stop freaking out about 'alot.'
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- Why you should stop believing in evolution
- 7 things the world's happiest people do every day
- Scottish independence is another financial crisis waiting to happen
- 11 scientific studies that will restore your faith in humanity
Subscribe to the Week