Sarah Palin, World Famous Climatologist

Wonkette has someone who monitors Sarah Palin’s online TV channel (talk about your shitty jobs) and they highlight some recent comments the Sage of Wasila made recently comparing climate change to eugenics and saying that there’s no evidence at all to support it.

There’s no convincing scientific evidence for manmade climate change. The climate has always been changing. Climate change is to this century what eugenics was to the last century. It’s hysteria, and a lot of it’s junk science. And when it’s as discredited as eugenics, y’know a lot of people are going to look foolish and heartless.

Well if anyone knows anything about looking foolish, it’s Sarah Palin. Far be it for me to suggest that perhaps she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. I mean, I’m sure that while she’s waiting in the back of a limo while her drunk children engage in a violent brawl, she’s pouring over the latest research in the Journal of Meteorology and Climatology. Seriously, you could fit everything Sarah Palin knows about this subject into a thimble, with room left over for her dignity. But she never lets that stop her from spouting off her ignorant opinions.

httpv://youtu.be/mMF-0DKSmK4

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • eric

    And when it’s as discredited as eugenics, y’know a lot of people are going to look foolish and heartless.

    Heartless? Because please, won’t some environmentalists think of the corporations!

  • anubisprime

    Just doing her bit for the Oil barons, well someone has to!And

  • anubisprime

    And that is all it amounts to!

  • Michael Heath

    Sarah Palin provides a perfect illustration of psychological projection:

    a lot of people are going to look foolish and heartless.

  • busterggi

    Wait no, she is actually admitting climate change is happening – this is a tremendous advance for someone who denied it was happening and I’ve heard other Rethugs also admit it as of late. Maybe we should play the not-too-old recordings of these folks denying climate change completely in a montage with them now saying it is happening and see if any of their sheeple can see any difference.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Don’t blame Sarah Palin for this. She didn’t even write that. She couldn’t have. It’s too coherent. Seriously, the words form phrases and sentences and everything!

  • joyfulatheist

    “Watched Sarah Palin’s online channel constantly, resisted urge to laugh and vomit at the same time.”

    Seriously, how would you put that on a résumé? More importantly, how would you prevent the inevitable side effects of nightmares and dissociative episodes?

  • Crimson Clupeidae

    Hysterics? If there’s one thing the right wingers know about, it’s hysterics.

    Of course, that’s just more projecting on their part, but it’s amusing in its blatant obliviousness.

  • Reginald Selkirk
  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    The comparison to eugenics is bizarre. Eugenics isn’t wrong so much as it’s immoral. Last I checked, no one seriously thinks that genes have no influence on phenotype.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

    Who wants to be that she doesn’t even know what the word “eugenics” means.

  • Larry

    Which scientific papers on AGW do you regularly read, Sarah?

    Sarah: [deer-in-headlight-stare] All of them?

  • blf

    Who wants to be[t] that she doesn’t even know what the word “eugenics” means.

    Well, in order to have a possible, albeit remote, chance of getting an answer to the request “Please tell me what ‘eugenics’ is”, you’d first have to get her attention, then explain the meanings of the words “please”, “tell”, “me”, “what”, “eugenics”, “is”, using single-syllable words of no more than two letters. But that’s still nine words longer then any known previous incident of successfully explaining anything to her. And don’t worry that you gave her to the answer, she’d never notice. Not even if you wrote in down in crayon on the palm of her hand.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Reginald Selkirk@9:

    We can always hope.

  • colnago80

    I’m sure that the blogs resident climate change denier, Sir Lancelot, thinks that ole Sarah is the can’s meow.

  • scienceavenger

    @5 It’s not really that much of a change, because they don’t analyze the data and work forward. They start with the conclusion they want – no change to our current energy structure and lifestyle – and work their way backwards as far as the obvious evidence will let them. So they “progress” like this:

    It’s not happening, so we should do nothing

    It’s happening, but we aren’t responsible, so we should do nothing

    It’s happening, and we are responsible, but we can’t do anything to stop it, so we should do nothing

    It’s happening, and we are responsible, and we could do something to stop it, but that would be worse than doing nothing, so we should do nothing.

    As long as those last 5 words are there, they are happy.

  • mudpuddles

    Oh my God, she is a fuckwit.

  • Chiroptera

    And when it’s as discredited as eugenics, y’know a lot of people are going to look foolish and heartless.

    Yeah, trying to get people to use light bulbs that are more efficient and will even save the buyer money. The monsters!

  • mudpuddles

    @busterggi, #5 and @scienceavenger, #16

    She’s not really admitting that climate change is happening, she is simply claiming that the climate is changing because it has always changed (“based on the cyclical patterns of climate and weather”). In other words, I reckon she’s not admitting that what scientists refer to as climate change in the contemporary context (a warming trend superimposed on natural background variation) is happening. Its all just cyclical, in her view. Like the little wheels of stupid revolving in her head. Just going round and round and round.

  • pixiedust

    Isn’t she saying that the people who say that there was a eugenics movement in the 20th century are mistaken? She is denying that there was a eugenics movement?

    Weird, weird, weird.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    mudpuddles, she’s at Stage 2 (helpfully listed by scienceavenger in comment #16).

  • scienceavenger

    Yeah, and most of the deniers have moved on to stage 4. Leave it to Sarah to be behind the intellectual curve even among morons.

  • colnago80

    Re scienceavenger @ #16

    This is known as the Racehorse Haynes argument, named after famed Texas trial lawyer Richard “racehorse” Haynes.

  • davek23

    “Poring over”. Not “pouring over”, unless you’re spilling liquid on a document.

     

    Of course, that may have been what you meant to imply…

  • howardhershey

    “Seriously, you could fit everything Sarah Palin knows about this subject into a thimble, with room left over for her dignity.”

    To be fair, her dignity would not take up that much room.

  • John Pieret

    mudpuddles @ 19:

    Oh my God, she is a fuckwit.

    You’re half right … and the right part ain’t “wit.”

  • imback

    There even exists a stage 5 of denial:

    It’s happening, and we are responsible, and we could have done something to stop it, and it would have worked too, but now it’s too late, so we should do nothing.

  • dhall

    Does anyone know how many subscribers she has–not counting those who have the foul luck to subscribe in order to report her idiocy–or how to find out? I’m curious to know if her show is drawing in a lot of viewers, if they’ve dwindled or grown since the launch, etc.