The lady is for U-turning?

I have some, if not much, sympathy for pols.

Pretty much every aspect of what they do, or say, falls in to 'damned if you do; damned if you don't'.

And one thing more than any other epitomises this: changing your mind.

Now it can be an evolution, a mitigation or even a total 180, but sure as eggs as eggs the very media hounding you for having a view will then show its gratitude to you coming round more to their way of thinking by serving it up as a less than complimentay 'U-turn'.

I pondered this as I glanced across at the latest Gaurdain take on their less than favourite potential US VP.

From this on the home page:

Palin makes climate change U-turn Republican vice-presidential nominee agrees human activity contributes to rising global temperatures

to this:

Palin reverses position on climate change After years of questioning the scientific consensus, the vice-presidential nominee has agreed that human activity contributes to rising global temperatures

I have noted the BBC is also very good at such subtle shifts betwixt the home page splash and the actual article it links to.

Now, Mrs. Palin is one I have yet to get much of a serious view upon, swept along as I am by the guff that all 'sides' are still throwing around.

However, I took a few moments to read this through, bearing in mind the context it was billed.

After years of questioning the scientific consensus, Sarah Palin switched her position yesterday on the origins of climate change, agreeing that human activity contributes to rising global temperatures. "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change," Palin told ABC news,

That, frankly, is pretty much where I am, and hardly the words of an eco-antichrist.

Palin had previously cast doubt on the cause of rapid Arctic sea ice melting in her home state of Alaska. One day before she joined the Republican ticket in August, she told conservative website NewsMax: "I'm not one … who would attribute [climate change] to being man-made

Still not quite seeing much more than a fairly common, and none too aggressive, view here.

But the Alaska governor also expressed sympathy with fellow conservatives who continue to believe – in the face of broad scientific consensus – that observed climate change is a natural variation unrelated to human activity.

As opposed to... what? Staking a claim on an extreme view that can only serve to alienate a lot of folk? Irrespective of her being allowed her beliefs, this would make little political sense these day.

"Whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet, the warming and the cooling trends – regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we've got to do something about it," Palin said.

I'm really sorry, but that sounds downright reasonable.

She also challenged ABC anchor Charles Gibson to produce proof of her prior denial of the origins of climate change: "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change."
Sounds like he didn't.. or couldn't. But even the article author's helpful fisking manages only this:

"I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity". And before her 2006 election as governor, her spokesman said Palin believed "the jury is still out" on the origins of climate change.

I am again sorry, but that doesn't make anything like the connection attempted.

Now, many other aspects of this candidate's record , statements and future intentions need looking at carefully, along with the others, to see how she stacks up.

However, if this is the level of jounalism we can expect from the Gaurdian to try and put whatever 'case' they embrace forward, they need to be downright ashamed of their sorry selves.

For balance? Pit-bull Palin, enemy of the greens, could be McCain's Achilles heel