"With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point,'' Palin writes in an Op-ed essay appearing in Wednesday's Washington Post. "Policy decisions require real science and real solutions," Palin argued on Facebook, "not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public's worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a 'sin' against the planet." 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."  Wednesday's edition of the Washington Post features an op-ed by Sarah Palin, who reprises her call -- first made in a Facebook post last week -- for President Obama to "boycott" the major climate talks in Copenhagen due to the "Climate-gate" controversy (actually a non-controversy).
– The Washington Post's decision to run an op-ed piece by Sarah Palin on the "Climategate" emails is attracting almost as much derision as Palin's call for President Obama to boycott the Copenhagen conference, the Huffington Post notes. Here's an attitude roundup: Palin was "looking for a way to inject herself into this and found it," writes Marc Ambinder, who dissects the piece paragraph by paragraph in a highly critical "annotated" version at the Atlantic. Scientific consensus on climate change now appears to represent "the radical environmental movement" to Palin, writes Mark Silva at the Chicago Tribune, noting that she was singing a different tune on the campaign trail last year. "What use is the Washington Post?" asks Tim Lambert at Science Blogs, complaining that even the links embedded in Palin's piece contradict her claim that there is no consensus on global warming. "If they are not going to do even the most perfunctory fact checking on the stuff they publish, what value do they add?"