Sarah Palin makes few friends among U.N. climate experts

October 7, 2008

Sarah Palin in her vice-presidential debate against Joe Biden U.S. Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is making few friends among U.N. climate experts with her view that natural swings, along with human activities, may explain global warming.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Climate Panel, says that evidence is mounting that human activities are the main cause of warming. The panel reported last year that it was at least 90 percent certain that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, were heating the planet.

He predicted in a telephone interview that Palin’s influence would be limited on climate change if Republican John McCain won the presidency.

“In the ultimate analysis I don’t think the vice president of the United States really matters in these subjects. I wouldn’t really worry too much about her,” he said.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N. Climate Panel (…even so, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, with Pachauri’s panel. Or did Gore only become a guru for greens after he left office?)

Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, also said when asked about Palin’s views that: “We have the science. The debate over the science is over.”

Many delegates at an International Union for Conservation of Nature congress I am attending in Barcelona also say they worry that Palin’s views make it sound as if the science of global warming is far less certain than it is.

So, at least from interviews I have been doing for a Reuters News environment summit, Palin is out in the cold.

Who’s right?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

I need to know and so does the world, some answers to some simple questions. It’s doubtful if anyone has this information, but it would settle some issues about the question of global warming.
1) Who was burning all of the fossil fuel thart caused all of the Glaciers to melt that covered most of North America? I know this is a tough question, but I’m certain you know who was responsible, GM, Ford, or someone like that.
2) This is an easier question and essential in assigning blame on CO2 as a cause. Who has actually accomplished a scientific test that verifies that an increase of .02% in volume of CO2 has a direct resultant in an increase in temperature. If you can find this actual test, not a supposition or theory, but an actual test, this will silence any and all critics as to mankinds impact on global warming. If this test has not been accomplished, there is no case for mankind’s responsibility, it’s just what nature does, the Earth cools and then it warms.

Posted by Brian Dani | Report as abusive

The latest development of Gravity Power Towers in USA can save 70% of energy in transportation in USA. That actually translates into energy equivalent to 8 m barrels of oil per day. SO using Gravity Power we can stop importing and burning that much of oil. That would reduce the CO2 emissions too. We will be having gravity powered rail, road and runways and the rail road will have no locomotives, nor any electrical traction, similarly cars will not have fossil fuel IC engines, but will be powered by the gravity power embedded roads!

Posted by Rajaram Bojji | Report as abusive

We know Ms. Palin denies a human role in climate change, she has even fought hard to keep the threatened polar bear off the endangered species list.

It’s simple self-interest motivating her: she distributes thousand-dollar-checks from state oil revenues each year to Alaskan voters. This is very popular in Alaska. She obviously wants to drill much more, and burn much more fossil fuel, to make those checks even fatter in coming years – this is how Ms. Palin plans to secure her re-election as Gov. in Alaska.

Is this difficult to understand? Is some tricky rocket science of politics involved here?

I think not – it’s the old story of a power-hungry politician serving the big Alaskan oil companies, and taking a cut of the proceeds for re-election expenses.

Sure, she will callously help burn the earth into oblivion – but by the time it happens, she’ll be retired from politics, so why should she care?

In fact, callousness seems to be a central characteristic of Ms. Palin. How else are we to explain why, as mayor of Wasilla, she forced female rape-victims reporting the crime to pay out of their own pocket for the forensic-kit and exam needed in the work-up (see NYT 9/26/08)?

Not that surprising, when she is also on public record in favor of requiring women who become pregnant as a result of r@pe to carry that pregnancy to full-term and birth!

Even her new “mavericky” promise to end the earmark-system of pork-barrel-politics rings hollow, when we know she has always been the QUEEN of PORK,
–to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars as Alaskan Gov., which included pocketing the many millions earmarked for the Bridge to Nowhere (flip-flopping for it before she was against it, and never against taking the earmarked money),
–and even to the tune of millions in US taxpayers’ money harvested in Washington by hiring a D.C. lobbying firm while she was the small-town mayor of Wasilla (population 7,000)!

Does anyone in the country think she has even one honest word to say about any topic of importance to the American people?

We can thank John McCain for the political bankruptcy she represents being boosted to second-in-command status.

But each one of us must take the time to vote, and make sure that John McCain can thank her for his defeat on November 4th!

Posted by fbla1805 | Report as abusive

Only an idiot or a greedy money-grubbing grant seeker still believes in human caused global warming. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and are now the same as in 1980. At the same time CO2 has been increasing. For those who are so blind they can not see, Polar bears have increased by 500% since the mid 60’s. They have survived many cold/warm cycles and do not depend on polar ice. Sen. Boxer pressured the government to clasify Polar bears as ”threatened” for the pure, blind, political goal of putting ANWR off limits. Thank God for Palin, one of the few to fully research a problem and not depend upon the current hysteria promoted by the liberal media, who are by definition ”too dumb to pass a science or math class”. Unfortuantely, she has to pull her punches because so many voters refuse to be educated.

Posted by Frank Lee | Report as abusive

THIS.. is “global warming”?? 530075.html According to NASA and NOAA data the earth stopped warming 10 years ago and we ARE in a cooling period – even while CO2 continues to increase. EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE MORON GOREBOTS? I’ll tell you, it’s because CO2 is a MINOR green house gas and it does NOT drive climate let alone the tiny amount we add to it. That’s just the truth. If you think it is not then SHOW PROOF that it drives climate! No proof has EVER been presented by ANYBODY!

Posted by Mike M | Report as abusive

So finally Alister reports on the Forum for the Future PR about climate refugees in Antarctica in 2050 but he refuses to interview me about my polar cities ideas for 2500? What’s up with that, alister, sir? ml

Posted by Danny Bloom | Report as abusive

Mr. Doyle says “The panel reported last year that it was at least 90 percent certain that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, were heating the planet.” WHAT? Al Gore said anthropogenic warming was unquestionably proven. So are they lying now, or was Al Gore lying then? So why are we still giving money to research if everyone is so sure of the connection? Or could it be that MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD, that some scientist promote as a way to get more research money? Do political groups, like the UN, promote this fraud to steal property rights, and push socialism?

Posted by Exton | Report as abusive

Global warming seems more like an economic adventure. There is all this hype about the North Pole melting, the Northern ice cap, and warmer winters in the Northern US. Interestingly enough the word “South” seems to be missing in the Global equation. I will not question climate change because it is obvious that the North is melting. But with the magnet pole shifting in the North it is also shifting in the South; and the Southern ice cap is growing. If you dig hard enough you can find scientific reports published on the subject. It seems there is about the same amount of ice, but the locations are different.

Global warming will get you new cars, air conditioners, fuel sources… and the consumer will have to pay for all of it because of it. This is not to say that change is not needed; the quality of air certainly needs to improve and there needs to be respect for the natural environment; but it seems in the future we will be made to believe we need to buy things we really don’t need to buy for the presumed cause of saving the world from global warming, but what we are really doing is saving the market place.

Posted by Paul | Report as abusive

So refreshing to hear some common sense on this issue by Paul, Exton, Mike, Frank, Brian, etc. We are usually so inundated by PC propaganda everywhere one turns.

Posted by Becky Covington | Report as abusive