The Big Question: Should Pres. Obama boycott Copenhagen?

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Do you agree with Sarah Palin's call for President Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate talks? Does Sarah Palin's position on Copenhagen bolster her chances in 2012?

Aaron Keyak, Communications Director for the National Jewish Democratic Council, said:

No. I don’t agree with Sarah Palin’s call for President Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate talks. In fact, I can barely find a single individual in the Jewish community who agrees with Palin on almost any issue (besides our common distaste for Levi Johnston). Palin’s characterization of evidence supporting climate change as “junk science” reminds us that Palin is just another Republican leader who has fully paid her “membership dues to the anti-science, flat-earth society.”

The importance of discussions in Copenhagen and the seriousness of global warming is clearly something that Palin does not fully appreciate – even as carbon emissions have “already thawed permafrost, melted sea ice, and shrunk glaciers in Alaska.” But I guess Palin’s concern for Alaska is now behind her.

It is dangerous when GOP leaders continue to label the scientific evidence behind global warming as "just plain old politics."

Actually, there is one more issue on which Palin and I can apparently find common ground – we both want to restore “science to its rightful place” in our political discourse.  

But boycotting Copenhagen is exactly the wrong way to achieve that goal.

Hal Lewis, physicist and professor at U.C. Santa Barbara, said:

No, he should go and in his speech make it clear to them that until they clean their house of the corruption clearly and unambiguously revealed by ClimateGate, and dump that clown Pachauri as chairman, they’ll get no more attention or money from the U.S. Boy, that’s a pipe dream, isn’t it?

Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said:

Agreeing is not the issue. Obama can't boycott Copenhagen without alienating his base and more.  However, Palin's call could prove politically advantageous if 1) Copenhagen comes to be associated with economically harmful policies, and/or 2) the science of global warming comes to be discredited.  The likelihood of one or both of these occurring is much higher than the participants in Copenhagen seem to realize.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

It was a good suggestion made by Sarah Palin in this morning’s Washington Post, but it would make for a radical departure and would not be most effective at this point. But her points were valid. Obama should take advantage of the moment in a different way. So far, he had not been making policy. He has been allowing policy and its agents and avatars to make him. He is continuing existing agenda from the Clinton era instead of putting his own mark on policy. He is only a pawn here in Al Gore’s utopian game. He should realize by now that this is exploitative and he is being used. He could call for a fresh start and a realistic new approach to business and global warming. He should recognize that China and other strong forces in the world will manipulate the occasion to seek advantage in the west which seems remarkably easy to do, and that this conference – like Kyoto – has propaganda and public relations aspects more valuable to each rising nation than global warming. He needs to get away from his handlers and manipulators and think it through himself from the beginning. Or they will ruin him.

In my mind, the only question now is who Palin will pick for a running mate, Mitt Romney or Rick Perry.

Dr. Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics, said:

Let’s not assume Palin is running for president in 2012; she may, or she may not. Palin has one central task at the moment: To sell a book. And she’s doing fabulously at that. Any stand that causes base activists to cheer for her will increase the crowds at her book-signings and the book purchases on Amazon.com. Palin is setting herself and her family up for life, financially. First things first.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

Sarah Palin is correct in calling for President Obama to stay away from the Copenhagen event. Its foregone conclusion that carbon dioxide produced by humans is leading to a planetary catastrophe cannot be substantiated by good science. More than 31,000 real scientists have disputed the claims of Al Gore and his coterie of doomsayers. The revelations coming out of the e-mails from East Anglia University indicate that the global warming enthusiasts will stop at virtually nothing to promote their flawed theory. If allowed to enforce the conclusions Copenhagen will surely produce, the gathering in Denmark will lead to truly draconian reductions in the United States economy while speeding our nation into world government. As for Sarah Palin's chances for political office in 2012, it is far too early to speculate about them.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said::

Now that the "data" and "computer models" and "expert consensus" that drove the sense of urgency and certainty have been called into question by the released e-mails showing data faking and doctored computer models and enforced "peer consensus" it makes sense for Barack Obama and anyone else asked to make decisions based on "garbage in" to demand that all data be released to the public and all computer models be open to inspection by the world.

There is no shame in being lied to. There is no virtue in basing a religious intolerance on those lies.

Let's see the facts, the raw data that "proves" the world is warming due to man.  Let everyone have access to the original data and models -- not just the high priests of this global cooling/warming/climate change cult.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director for Antiwar.com, said:

The Cophenhagen meeting is primarily a religious gathering, during which the acolytes of the climate-warming faith are assembling to worship at the feet of the god they worship, which is the State. The well-established principle of the separation of church and state, it seems to me, would preclude American participation in this event.

As for Sarah Palin: she is irrelevent. Along these lines, I have a question of my own: why is she being pushed so strenuously, not by her supporters, but by her supposed enemies? Why is she being thrust upon us, every day, every hour? Will we never be rid of her? She has no chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, she is  ill-informed, and clearly not qualified for office -- ANY office, anywhere -- so why the constant drum-beat?

Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, said:

Sarah Palin's position on the Copenhagen conference is irrelevant. It neither enhances nor hinders her 2012 aspirations. What is important surrounds the conference itself. Will a theory of global warming, about which there is much conjecture, serve as a catalyst for the redistribution of global resources? Will there be pressure on the United States to take the lead in reducing carbon emissions and, if so, will this turn out to be an economic disadvantage for the U.S. and an advantage for China and India, nations that refuse to adopt such standards? At the very least, the leaders at Copenhagen should consider the effort on the part of global warming proponents to silence the stance of "deniers." If global warming is incontrovertibly valid, what harm can there be in considering contrary positions?