Washington Post allows Sarah Palin to stomp on their journalistic principles with her Naughty Monkey pumps.

The Washington Post, the very same paper that exposed Watergate to a grateful nation, has allowed Sarah Palin, and her box of crayons, to "write" an op-ed and publish it as if it was factually based. You can just imagine Woodward and Bernstein banging their heads against the wall in frustration.

As this is just a rehash of Palin's Facebook post, which I dealt with earlier, beating this deceased pony anymore is not necessary. So instead I will turn my attention to the Washington Post.

Let's see, how can I put this diplomatically?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!!

Look I know that the Post is not the "liberal rag" of yore, but at least they usually have op-eds from people who have SOME journalistic ability or reptilian intelligence. In this case they simply allowed a ghostwritten Facebook rant, to be re-printed as a more expansive ghostwritten Washington Post op-ed rant. There is a REASON that most of Sarah's crap flows from Facebook. It is because that it where junior high school girl's are SUPPOSED to bitch about how unfair the world is to them. That is why Facebook exists, and that is why Sarah Palin feels so at home amongst her peers.

Like I said I am not going to dismantle the entire article (again), but I DID want to point how Palin's ghostwriter cherry picks from articles by the Washington Post (Yes the very SAME Washington Post, which published this very opinion piece) to make a point.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

If you click on the, real consensus, link it takes you to an article which, while asking the question "Is the science of global warming messier than they have admitted?", also makes the following points quite definitively:

Leaked just before international climate talks begin in Copenhagen -- the culmination of years of work by scientists to raise alarms about greenhouse-gas emissions -- the e-mails have cast those scientists in a political light and given new energy to others who think the issue of climate change is all overblown.

The e-mails don't say that: They don't provide proof that human-caused climate change is a lie or a swindle.

Also in the article:

"Our collective understanding of how the Earth is warming . . . rests on a wealth of scientific information that is very diverse and comes from multiple sources and multiple groups," said Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Regardless of what happened in one place, it doesn't undermine the totality of what we know."

And this little tidbit:

"To me, it's unambiguous . . . humans are altering the climate system," said Roger Pielke Sr., a research scientist at the University of Colorado. "It's just that, it's much more than CO2."

As if that wasn't enough Palin also links to another Washington Post article, that came out after we first learned of the hacked e-mails, and contains the following summation: Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said in a telephone interview from Paris that skeptics are "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious."

So essentially the Washington Post, in their desperate attempt to attract crazed Palin supporters to their paper, has allowed not one, but two of their articles to be misrepresented in her op-ed and used to smear the very idea of man's complicity when it come to climate change.

Sarah Palin has an agenda. And that is to secure her place in the hearts and minds of the "science denying", "love the unborn at the expense of the living", "Fox News viewing", radicalized base that is now frantically searching for a leader. And the Washington Post has given her a platform that provides a sense of authority to statements that are factually inaccurate and designed to destroy the public's opinion of science in favor of a faith based world view.