Sarah Palin Denounces Climate Talks as Example of “Arrogance of Man”

According to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, climate talks are simply evidence of the “arrogance of man.” It is expected that next week Palin will announce her campaign to dismantle all dams, re-irrigation programs, and forest fire suppression programs in part of her “de-arrogancing of man.”

This signature tweet from Palin came on Saturday. Here is what she wrote:

Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature’s ways.MUST b good stewards of God’s earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature

Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng

I am glad that someone has the courage to fight efforts to deal with weather changes. I am personally appalled by the widespread us of clothes. It is clear from the Bible that God never intended us to have clothes in the first place.


6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

Everything I see people wearing clothing or umbrellas to protect them from nature, I share Palin’s disgust.

For the story, click here.

132 thoughts on “Sarah Palin Denounces Climate Talks as Example of “Arrogance of Man””

  1. Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to mention that I have truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing for your feed and I’m hoping you write once more very soon!

  2. Excuse me. The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be. Help me! Looking for sites on: Online trading and brokerage. I found only this – online brokerage reviews gomez. Online brokerage, merrill lynch was at the account within investors of &gt, and the market especially owned merrill from open-end. Online brokerage, a extensive hand of the subservience pressure job is teacup favoured. With best wishes :confused:, Nitara from Bulgaria.

  3. With regard to one of the comments made by “Bdaman”, it is important to remember re:Eurotrain that the services were only reduced with planned cancellations, which seems to be common sense for people’s safety to be honest. I got back from Avignon yesterday, so I wasn’t stuck in the tunnel, but I think people should check the Ashford, and indeed the station websites as they do give out all the info.

  4. Byron, was trying to research Sierra Club. You made a comment on how they could or would profit from AGW, could you explain it to me.

  5. Mespo:

    “Were I counsel in that case and you were presented as an exhibit in support of the proposition that the inhabitants of earth are stark raving mad, I would be hard-pressed to disagree — or are you a being “not of this world”? If that be the case, let me offer you a ride to any intergalactic bus station for an all-expenses paid ride home!”

    Prosecution or defense?

  6. Other Notables

    The Star-Telegram said the Dallas-Fort Worth area was experiencing its first White Christmas in more than 80 years. The last time it experienced “a true, New England-style dose of snow on Christmas Day was Dec. 25, 1926,”

    Oklahoma City had received 14 inches of snow by Thursday night, breaking a record set back in 1914 of 2.5 inches.

    Heavy snow and ice are causing disruption across a wide swathe of Europe. Flights have been delayed or cancelled at airports in Britain, Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

    Power providers in south-east France say they have had to cut supplies to around two million people to avoid a massive regional blackout.

    Coal Fired steam train rescues passengers in Britain where electric trains failed.

  7. Rare blizzard strikes West Texas


    Dec. 25, 2009, 6:50AM
    DALLAS — In much of the rolling plains of West Texas, a blizzard has never been recorded.

    There has been one now.

    The region west and northwest of the Dallas-Fort Worth area saw blizzard-like conditions throughout the day Christmas Eve as up to 8 inches of snow fell in the region, according to the National Weather Service. Winds gusting at up to 65 mph drifted the snow as deep as 5 feet in some areas.

    No blizzard warning had ever been issued for an area of Texas as far south as Interstate 20, said Jim Wingenroth, senior forecaster at the National Weather Service office in San Angelo.

  8. One of the things that I’ve noticed over the last couple of years is the repeated quotes in weather headlines

    Breaking a _________ year record.

    Most of these records go back 80 to 100 years some include the word EVER.

    When we look at the suns solar cycle you can’t help but notice that these records coincide with it. The suns output for solar activity is near a 100 year low. Recently an uptick was observed and whether or not it maintains is yet to be seen.

    Recently NASA released it’s results of the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco from Dec. 14 to 18. Those results show that the suns in activity is cooling the upper atmosphere.

    NASA’s satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.

    The correlation of the suns solar cycle and world weather events are becoming more clear with each recorded event.

    Two thirds of the United States is now covered in snow and 99% of Canada is covered.

    All of Canada’s lakes are now completely frozen over and last year the Great Lakes were almost completely frozen over. This does not occur often and I suspect that the same will occur this year.

    December 25, 2009 Area Covered By Snow: 63.0%
    Area Covered Last Month: 10.4%
    Snow Depth
    Average: 5.0 in
    Minimum: 0.0 in
    Maximum: 889.2 in
    Std. Dev.: 7.0 in
    Snow Water Equivalent
    Average: 0.9 in
    Minimum: 0.0 in
    Maximum: 437.5 in
    Std. Dev.: 1.5 in

  9. God-man is no supreme, but science either is not supreme.

    Science is just stumbling upon the things compared to the vast infinite things that we don’t know anything about. Yes, science has made our life on this planet more machine like and comfortable and faster and efficient, in a way – no denial of that.

    Many science perceptions or findings may possibly prove wrong totally later.

    Science is not in the hands of ‘independent’ scientists – they are hired by the power governments, and super brokers. Science messages are released and revealed according to the ‘tunes’ of so called ‘best interest’ of the world or ‘vested interest’.

    No scientist is a free bird.

  10. Gynes:

    The reason the first fundamentalists were called that is because, not only did some Christians insist on the fundamental meaning of the Word of God, they also promoted adhering to those meanings, and associating with others who did so.

    By that understanding, anyone strictly adhering to any code is a fundamentalist because the action being described is the action of adhering to something with a mind or heart of devotion. That this is limited (by the left) to only certain religious people doesn’t make it untrue.

    Those people who recently gathered at COPENHAGEN are just as devoted to their beliefs as any spiritual person is to his or hers. They are just as devoted and just as determined to “evangelize” us all with their beliefs (which now are apparently more easy to prove to be a scientific fraud than God).

    Perhaps only wish to limit the meaning of the word to religious persons. THAT would be the fallacy to discuss here. Now that leftists have turned the word into such a fun little semantic game, I thought I would join in just to prove the point.

    Wikipedia reports that the word fundamentalism didn’t even exist in the Oxford English Dictionary until the 1950s, nor in American dictionaries until the 1980s (fundamenalIST). Wow, I wonder what that makes the Pilgrims? Wouldn’t you say they were as devoted as any “fundies” here in America today?

    Anyway, the current usage appears to be a malicious (modern) attempt to smear Christians with a word merely describing an attitude common to many similar secular and non-secular groups intensely devoted to an idea. Years ago people might have just used excellent or precise words to condemn Christians as they desired: idiots, hypocrites, fools, and etc. But now, it seems, the critics hide behind the word “fundie”. The better to hate them, I think.

    Even I was surprised how recent the slur is. I guess fundie democrats and atheists are quite successful these days at manipulating the language in order to express their contempt for others. I like to point this out.

    Nevertheless, I feel I have adequate etymological justification for my use of the word when discussing the nonreligious among us, because the word “fundamental” has a meaning that can aptly apply to many other causes or cases based on the root meaning of the word. Christians were only exhibiting “fundamentalism” as it pertained to the common dictionary definition and building an idea around that. It seems, loathers on the left jumped on that in order to better hate the Christian.

    The cause of science even has fundamental principles which we can refer to in books. That is all some Christians insist on: fundamental principles. Whether you think they can proven or not, isn’t at issue. And that the godless are offended with this is THEIR bigoted problem.

    I’m sorry, but an atheist will definitely insist on the fundamental belief there is no God.

    And so, the atheist, too, is a fundie according to the usage started by people last century (who HAPPENED to be religious). And also, the atheist is a fundie accoring to the usage by the left regarding religious persons (indirectly) as that meaning has to do with adherence to essentials. And so, also, the atheist is a fundie according to my reckoning, by the dictionary definition of the root word which implies the state of being essential.

    This is not a scary thing except to superstitious people who live with delusions about devoted Christians.

    It seems that the religious aspect was only a coincidence used by the left to invent a curse word so they didn’t have to look so crude as to openly say they hated Christians, or whatever.

    The dictionary definition of the word fundamental lends itself perfectly to usage in such a way that I can accurately claim anyone with staunch beliefs is a fundamentalist as those beliefs are fundamental to being believed. The left merely uses the terms pejoratively, which is why leftists are offended and argumentative by my applying the terms to them.

    I have every legitimate reason by my reckoning, then, to say that the charge of fallacious usage is to be laid on those who limit the meaning only to Christians or the Taliban (etc.). It is those who keep the meaning of the word expanded, who are using the word correctly.

    The only reason leftists get irate when I do this is because they have (all by their little selves) limited the meaning, turned the word into a slur and are then offended when it is directed at them.

    They are not so happy about being the “thing” they once and still condemn and mock. And they tend to grab their pails and shovels and stomp away from the sandbox when they are treated like they treat others.

    Leftists think they can label others anything they want: haters, fundies, knuckle-draggers, racists, bigots, bashers, and so forth. It doesn’t matter if they are false labels. They lob these things around the culture, and then go their merry way thinking they are superior, rarely examining themselves to be sure.

    They seem to forget the tables can be turned on them in the same manner they served up. And its odd, but turning the tables on the democrats and leftists is USUALLY the best way to get to the truth.

    For example. Democrats are famous for calling republicans racists (against immigration, etc.). But it is democrats who forbid blacks from escaping bad inner city schools (republicans would let them escape). Where is the racism then? Sure, you can say that if whites where there instead, the democrats wouldn’t let them escape either. Agreed. But whites are not there for the most part. Point is, specifically, republicans would if they could grant them a ticket out of those schools and would have no other people granted such a ticket. Would, say, a KKK racist do that?

    It is democrats who maniacally adovocate abortion but it is the black community that aborts more of its own at a rate sometimes as much as 5 times that of whites. This is worse, numbers-wise, than lynching. And it is virtually only white liberals to snuff out these lives. And some black “fundies” point this out.

    But it is supposedly the republicans (and those fundies who oppose abortion) who are considered the enemy of the blacks. Republicans, on the other hand, would have preserved the black population (which would probably be a higher RATE than it is now because the birth rate tends to be higher among the poor. Would a KKK member have wanted? No way. The KKK would be happy to see blacks abort themselves at the rate white liberal democrats have promoted. Republicans were NOT happy. By the way, I left the GOP years ago.

    And, finally, it is democrats who continually condemn republicans about blacks not being in the GOP, when to condemn them is to actually, unintentionally, imply that democrats think blacks are too stupid to make the political choice of choosing the political philosophy they prefer. This reveals more the racism of democrats and leftists, than republicans.

    You seem to think we don’t know the philosophies of others as much as we know the philosophy of “fundies”. But it is easy to pin down the fundamental core beliefs of democrats (liberals/aka progressives). There are few more fundamentalist democrats I’ve seen wield so much power than Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They even have a handy dandy political “Platform” you can refer to if you are having trouble figuring it out what the fundamental democratic party core beliefs are. But most of us know democratic party fundamental beliefs off hand: abortion, social programs, etc.

    And like I often say, you can always tell a liberal by this: a liberal is one who supports the Constitutional right to pull ones pants down in public via print or film media.

    This appears to be a sure-fire test of the matter and it covers libs across the socio-econonomic-political spectrum.

    These things are common knowledge and I’m sure that since people are free to volunteer to join the democratic party (which has the highest percentage of liberals) and they know what the party advocates, we can safely assume certain beliefs are fundamental to the party.

    To limit the word fundamentalism to religious people one does not like is THE fallacious semantic trick you might be applying to me, when in fact the term more likely applies to those who limit its meaning to certain Christians.

    You might want to check out the difference between a fundamentalist or literalist interpretation of the bible. It seems you have confused the terms. Fundamentalists are not literalist in the strictest sense. Literalists believe the whole bible is to be interpreted literally, fundamentalists believe it is to be interpreted literally UNLESS a literal interpretation is not logical, or indicated by the text, or when compared to other scripture.

    In truth, there are fundamentalists of all sorts and they can be good or bad, secular or religious.

    Pat Metheny (a famous musician) once said:

    “I don’t worry too much about the fundamentalist principles that are in almost any discussion about jazz.”

    Is Jazz a fundie form of music? Hardly.

    Some public school systems have Fundamental Schools. Are they for fundies? No. They are secular schools which teach the basics first: strong reading, writing, and math.

    In Japan, where they don’t stoke their obsessive hatred of Christians like they do here in America, they even have schools (departments) of science called

    The School of Fundamental Science and Technology.

    What I think has happened here is that at the point when the word “fundamental” was undergoing a common etymological transformation last century and broadening its applications, those on left high-jacked this development and used it as a convenient means with which to cloak their hatred.

    I’m here to rescue the word from its kidnapping.

Comments are closed.