Not a chance Sarah Palin will debate Al Gore about climate change

Yesterday I fantasized about Sarah Palin actually debating someone about climate change, rather than just be given these blank checks by the Washington Post to write whatever kind of unsubstantiated nonsense she can dream up.

Per Think Progress, I see Laura Ingraham is suggesting a debate between Al Gore and Sarah Palin might be fun.

INGRAHAM: Would you agree to a debate with Al Gore on this issue?

PALIN: Oh my goodness. You know, it depends on what the venue would be, what the forum. Because Laura, as you know, if it would be some kind of conventional, traditional debate with his friends setting it up or being the commentators I’ll get clobbered because, you know, they don’t want to listen to the facts. They don’t want to listen to some reasonable voices in this. And that was proven with the publication of this op-ed, where they kind of got all we-weed up about it and wanted to call me and others deniers of changing weather patterns and climate conditions. Trying to make the issue into something that it is not.

INGRAHAM: But what if it’s an Oxford-style, proper debate format. I mean, he’s going to chicken out. I mean, if you challenge him to a debate, do you actually think he would accept it?

PALIN: I don’t know, I don’t know. Oh, he wouldn’t want to lower himself, I think, to, you know, my level to debate little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla.

In other words; not a chance in hell.  But if there's a god in heaven....please.....please.....find a way to make this happen.

Comments

[sleepy]

I'm not sure I agree that I'd welcome this debate. There's an element to these kinds of grossly asymmetrical contests that can in a perverse way favor the least skilled contestant. Especially on this topic where it's easy to get in the weeds on the nuts and bolts of the science against someone who - while clearly outmatched in terms of knowledge - remains obviously skilled at avoiding substance. Could easily turn into a David v. Goliath PR victory for the know-nothings.

Take poker as an example. At the highest, professional levels there is near-universal knowledge of card theory, odds and percentages, rational play, optimal betting strategies, and other skills that serves to make game play more predictable because rationality is assumed. The most skillful players employ certain strategies of rational game play because they pay out over time.

Enter the complete novice (as we see every year now in the World Series), and you continually see some of the world's best pros completely flummoxed by irrational play that in one instance managed to work out for the amateur maniac -- e.g. badly timed all-in moves, betting out with bad cards at statistically inopportune times, etc. Certain thing pros would never do (due to the mathematical certainty of losing money as a result, over the long term) amateurs get away in the short term because of the luck involved.

A debate between Al Gore and Sarah Palin could be similar, with Palin spouting platitudes and jumping around incoherently from talking point to talking point, with and Al Gore getting frustrated having expected a debate about policy and the actual substance of the science, something Palin would be foolish to engage. One badly-timed sigh from Al and it's over.

[Wes]

I just realized that whenever I read Palin quotes to myself, I always have to do it in a northern accent...am I alone in this?

[Jay McDonough]

Sleepy,

I suppose that's right. It's also probably true that no one ends up changing any minds. Gore supporters would believe he kicked her butt with data and understanding of the issue. Palin supporters would believe she exposed Gore as a big bag of wind, an elite hypocrite.

Wes,

I can only speak for myself. I can't get through a complete Palin quote - by the time I'm halfway through I have no idea what she's talking about and I begin to think what Im gonna have for dinner.