Palin v Global Warming - Redux

I discussed this before and I'm still confused by what Sarah Palin is trying to do with this topic. Is global warming caused by a) natural cycles of cooling and warming, or b) by human behavior? If you select the second option, then it appears fairly clear what you might do to reverse g.w. But, if you select the first option, what on earth can you do about it? In that last post of mine I sarcastically suggested several policy solutions, such as building giant sea walls, etc. I assumed that the campaign wonks would consult with Ms. Palin and refine her position in case she was asked this again. Here's the latest from an interview this week:



Identical response. Obviously, she is attempting to take on the persona of practicality and go-do-itness, which is admirable and a great political tack. But, how on earth can you continue to present such illogic? Palin says: we don't know if human activities have a small or large part to play in causing g.w., but it's clear we need to do something, like reducing pollution, etc.

My question: Why? If humans are only causing 1% of the phenom, then clearly it's not worth worrying about (unless you're a tree hugger elitist).

Unless...her position is that it's probably a natural thing, but, we still need to something about it. In that case, and I'm being serious here, the only options left are along the lines of sea walls or mass evacuations from the coast.

My advice is to pick one option and stick with it. Nuance doesn't serve you well here. Full disclosure: I don't particularly care about the global warming issue except in some distant academic way. It's the illogical statements about it that drive me batty.