If anything could make the scientists at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University feel worse than they already do about their irresponsible and dumb e-mailing, it would have to be handing the likes of Sarah Palin a bully pulpit from which to posture. But one has to snort at Palin's characterization of these scientists as "a highly politicized scientific circle." I'm as upset as anyone at the evidence of scientists attempting to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, but let's not forget the larger context here. For decades climate researchers have been assaulted by political attacks funded by the energy industry and right-wing think tanks who care nothing at all about the science -- their sole goal has been to shield "free" markets from the consequences of their actions. If you or I faced this kind of daily barrage, we'd probably do stupid things too.

The heart of Sarah Palin's argument isn't really about the science.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at their highest point in 15 million years. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the current decade is the warmest on record, and the current year is the fifth warmest ever -- observations that are supported by data collected by multiple climate research centers. Evidence of global warming comes from many reinforcing points -- melting polar ice, rising sea levels, changes in plant and animal ecology across the globe. Palin's assertion that we can't "say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes" is far more highly politicized than anything that comes out of the Climate Research Unit. It is fundamentally anti-science.

Sarah Palin and James Inhofe and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Exxon and all the rest can hold their breath and turn blue in the face and argue as long as they want that the hacked e-mails from East Anglia undermine and refute the work done by thousands of scientists across the world for decades. And in all likelihood, they and their allies will probably succeed in postponing and delaying any prudent action that might have a chance at ameliorating the effects of hotter temperatures in our lifetimes. The problem is hard. Coordinating the actions of governments across the globe on such a complex challenge is near impossible.

I don't think future generations will remember the Inhofes and Palins fondly, but the great thing about science is that it will continue marching on, whatever they do. If there was significant manipulation of data at the Climate Research Unit -- and the evidence of real smoking guns proving fraud is mighty thin -- hardworking scientists will correct it and move forward. That's how science works. That's how we've unlocked the mysteries of the atom and the human genome. That's how we've built computers and space ships and cancer drugs.

The great irony and tragedy of ClimateGate is that decades of anti-science pressure from special interests pushed some scientists over the edge and made them act in ways that are not very scientific. But whether or not that imbroglio scuppers an agreement at Copenhagen or prevents a climate change bill from passing during the current administration, we will continue to accumulate more data and understand better what is happening to our planet as time goes on. And Sarah Palin's malign and conscious stupidity will only grow more historically transcendent.

UPDATE: Mark Ambinder blasts away at Palin's Op-Ed in the Atlantic.

Likewise, third-party candidacies are something that all presidential candidates who enjoy fervent national bases of support and face establishment hostility get asked about. Howard Dean was asked; so was Ron Paul. The strategic -- and hence, standard -- thing to do in this scenario is to say no. Entertaining the idea of running as an independent is generally lethal to a candidate's chances within his or her own party, and third-party candidacies themselves rarely get too far. There's a reason that Dean and Paul both refused to run as independents.

Last Friday, Sarah Palin gave an interview to conservative radio host Lars Larson, and he popped the question. Her response? "That depends on how things go in the next couple of years." Larson, perhaps a bit surprised, said, "That sounds like a yes." Palin elaborated, "If the Republican party gets back to that [conservative] base, I think our party is going to be stronger and there's not going to be a need for a third party, but I'll play that by ear in these coming months, coming years."

(Tip of the hat to Taegan Goddard.)

The 19-month-old has accompanied Palin on her book tour and is rarely out of the spotlight. He can be seen resting on her hip as she addresses a crowd or carried by an aide while Palin signs books. Adoring fans have showed up with handmade signs that trumpet things like, "We Love Trig." Jason Recher, a campaign aide who came along for the book tour, told Politico: "There’s a lot of people who come through the line to see Trig instead of to see her." It makes me think of the way believers the world over flock to see children who are deemed to be the reincarnation of a particular deity. Trig is being treated as the movement's blessed icon, a martyr because of what could have happened to him: abortion.

He's also being used as a straw man baby against pro-choice activists. "Palin's allies [suggest] that antipathy to her is based on the belief that she should have had an abortion rather than bearing her son," Smith explains. He quotes two conservatives bloggers who argue that this is part of a "broader societal bias against disability." This is just another iteration of the "pro-choicers hate babies" argument. Thankfully, Smith injects some reportorial balance: "Those people are, in fact, rather hard to find."

That doesn't stop Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List, from offering a sneering representation of the liberal point-of-view: "She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family." Who, exactly, in the mainstream reproductive rights camp is offended by her choice? Dannenfelser dishonestly recasts disagreements with the way Trig is being used to further the anti-choice agenda with an objection to his actual existence and the fact that his family adores him. It isn't Palin's choice that we care about -- it's her disregard for other women's right to make their own choice, whatever that may be.

Remarkably, the article ends with a relatively inoffensive sentiment from Dannenfelser: She celebrates Palin for providing an example that will influence some women confronted with a similar situation. I think it's wonderful for there to be a public example of a family happily raising a baby with Down syndrome; women should be exposed to a whole range of role models for the various paths that are possible in life. But, again, it comes down to the issue of, hello, choice. Even Palin writes in her book that she considered abortion "for a split second" when she found out about Trig's condition. She considered it because she had a choice.

Palin did an interview with conservative radio talker Rusty Humphries on Thursday. During their conversation, Humphries brought up a question apparently submitted by one of his readers: "Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?"

The meaning of "the birth certificate" was clear. Humphries was asking about Obama's birth certificate, and the various myths about it: That he hasn't released a copy, that the copy he did release is a forgery and on and on. (If you missed it a few months back, my full debunking of the Birthers' theories is here.)

This is the exchange that ensued:

HUMPHRIES: Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?

PALIN: Um, I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think enough members of the electorate still want answers.

HUMPHRIES: Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?

PALIN: I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game. You know, I gotta tell you, too, I think our campaign, the McCain-Palin campaign, didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters, to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing made manifest in the administration.

HUMPHRIES: I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama's past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?

PALIN: Hey, you know, that's a great point. That weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about, that Trig isn't my real son, a lot of people say, "Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid," which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we should reverse that and use the same type of thinking on the other one.

(Video of the interview is at the bottom of this post, with a hat-tip to HotAir's Allahpundit on Twitter; the relevant portion begins at roughly 7:45.)

Palin is, of course, wrong to say that the public is still "rightfully" bringing up the issue -- it's been answered again and again at this point, and there's no doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. But she is right about a couple of things: For one, whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012, they won't "have to bother to make it an issue." It already will be, if not one discussed explicitly by the campaign and its surrogates, because so many Republicans already have doubts about the president's birthplace. The fact that Palin and other mainstream figures, like Lou Dobbs and Tom DeLay, have indulged the Birthers doesn't help matters.

Palin's also right to draw a parallel between the conspiracy theories that surround Obama's birth and the one about her son. The two are equally nutty. You'd hope, however, that going through that experience would teach her that it's an awful thing to happen to anyone, regardless of political party. Instead, her attitude seems to be that the two wrongs somehow make a right.

Update: Palin's now taken to Facebook -- where else? -- to do a walkback of sorts of her comments. In a post titled "Stupid Conspiracies," she writes:

Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask ... which they have repeatedly. But at no point -- not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews -- have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

Of course, Palin's original remarks went further than this. And "conspiracy-minded reporters and voters" have asked about Obama's birth certificate too. The questions have been answered. As Hot Air's Ed Morrisey observed after Palin posted this, "It’s the same thing as Truthers saying that all they’re doing is 'asking questions.' The answers have already been provided; they just reject them because they’re married to their conspiracies.