You may have heard about today's Washington Post op-ed by none other than the climate scientist hard-working Governor Sarah Palin. Titled "Copenhagen's political science", the piece suggests that President Obama not go to the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen because the science behind the conference isn't "trustworthy." While Mrs. Palin may know something about politicians leaving their jobs to other people, her science and understanding of the Swifthack email scandal leave something to be desired.

Today's chosen sport for many environmental writers, and defenders of quality journalism, has been to address the gaping holes in Palin's arguments and point out, once again, the Washington Post's lack of quality fact-checking for editorials (especially unfortunate considering WaPo's push for Obama to "lead on climate now").

Once such article was from Science Blogs writer Tim Lambert. He points out that not only are her facts off, but the links she included contradict her.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote a great piece annotating Palin's op-ed. Excerpt:

[Palin:]"With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point."

By "radical," Palin means the overwhelming scientific consensus; virtually every major science academy in the country; "tipping point" is a curious construction. It implies that there is momentum behind their cause. I gather Palin means to suggest the opposite.

What's especially poetic is the response from the Washington Post's own blogger, Joel Achenbach, dripping with sarcasm:

[Palin:] "The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue."

You understand, these aren't climate change experts she's talking about, these are "so-called" climate change experts. Never mind that studying climate change is what they've done their entire professional lives. They're a bunch of Salahis! Full-time posers.

Just because these scientists have been under constant assault for years and years because of their conclusions does not give them the right to be so dyspeptic in their e-mails. Just because they've reached conclusions that call into question the sanity of burning up all the fossil fuels on the planet and thus put them in the cross-hairs of trillion-dollar industries does not forgive their clubbiness and sense of embattlement. [Emphasis mine]

Different positions appearing on editorial pages is a good thing but, when discussing science, proper facts are essential. Rubber-stamping an op-ed by an "energy expert" who doesn't understand the fundamental difference between "climate" and "weather" doesn't fly.