The Biggest Failure of All
Years from now, as we look back in time, one glaring stance of the Bush administration will stand tall over the others. Bush's assault on the environment will forever be the worst that was done by his White House. As someone who went to college to study the earth and learn about its complexities, I believe the majority of men will not live through this century. The impact of global warming obviously goes far beyond shit just heatin up. We're already seeing very dangerous symptoms.
Global warming will hamper plants and animals ability to fight off infection and disease. Early warning signs are coming in the form of a massive bee die off, a massive bat die off, and an impending wheat fungus that is poised to sweep across the planet, possibly killing 80% of wheat crops.
Crop scientists fear the Ug99 fungus could wipe out more than 80% of worldwide wheat crops as it spreads from eastern Africa. It has already jumped the Red Sea and traveled as far as Iran. Experts say it is poised to enter the breadbasket of northern India and Pakistan, and the wind will inevitably carry it to Russia, China and even North America -- if it doesn't hitch a ride with people first.
"It's a time bomb," said Jim Peterson, a professor of wheat breeding and genetics at Oregon State University in Corvallis. "It moves in the air, it can move in clothing on an airplane. We know it's going to be here. It's a matter of how long it's going to take."
Bats, bees and plants are fragile, much more so than man. The threat of global warming does not come from man getting a little hotter; it comes from a breakdown in the food supply, floods, a lack of water and dying crops. All of those things are already happening. We are already dying, just very slowly.
The few global warming deniers are wrong and shockingly stupid. Even if they were right, their argument is to keep polluting, which makes them serious idiots. My father is one of them. He sends me email after email from his right wing leaders, who simply cherry pick data and pass it off as proof that global warming is not occurring. They believe carbon dioxide levels have been rising for the past ten years and temperatures have gone down. Whatever argument they can make, consistency be damned. As I said, they are idiots and they are wrong.
Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
The scary thing is that scientists are discovering their models are not at all what they predicted -- because as time passes, the results are turning out to be far worse.
The research, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and published this month in Journal of Climate, predicts a 90 percent probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise more than 9 degrees (F) by 2100, compared to a previous 2003 MIT study that forecast a rise of just more than 4 degrees.
Scientists are alarmed.
The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.
"The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously," Chris Field, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.
Field said "the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious" than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called "Climate Change 2007."
And the fear is now that a quick change will occur.
The worst-case scenarios on climate change envisaged by the UN two years ago are already being realized, say scientists at an international meeting.
In a statement in Copenhagen on their six key messages to political leaders, they say there is an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climate shifts.
This is, quite simply, far worse than the worst-case scenario. All the doom and gloom predictions were actually rosy predictions. The suffering humans will endure this century is unimaginable.
This week, the Obama administration released satellite photos that detail what we are dealing with. These photos were classified by the Bush administration. They are photos of disappearing ice. The only reason to classify them is because they are damaging evidence against global warming deniers. Enjoy the horror.
The Bush administration released the photos to scientists, but would not allow them to be released for public use. Maybe they thought terrorists would get a hold of the photos of less sea ice and make non-sea iceboats to attack Alaska. Or, maybe they just wanted to keep the lie of no global warming alive because they only served big business, not the people. Either way, this is very, very bad. Overall, 1,000 photos were released by Obama, who seems to actually believe in science.
The results of human created gases will be extreme. Our forests will die. The ice caps will melt, causing massive flooding. Larger storms will kill more people. Islands will disappear. Diseases will spread. Crops will fail. Large animals will die off. Allergies will worsen exponentially. Tropical insects will die off, while temperate insects will flourish. Water wars will be common. They've already begun.
And there is no stopping it. That time has passed.
Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."
Besides the war and destroying the world economy, George Bush will be known as the man who did nothing while the dam was breaking. Its his legacy. Its also the legacy of idiots who deny global warming, who cherry pick evidence to prove their lies while mankind slowly drives off a cliff.
Is there hope? I seriously doubt it. The only remote hope we have is that the the sun is cooling. So, you can hang your hat on that. But, I think were toast. We are parasites and we are being removed through the old classic: A fever. You are about to live through the most horrifying century man has ever known.
FearTheReaper is a writer, actor and stand up comedian. More from FearTheReaper can be found HERE. You may also enjoy his blog, Stop All Monsters.
Why Can't I Know What Bush and Gore Talked About? Not Fair!
Aw, look it's the elected President and the appointed President side by side. It's enough to give me douche-chills. Bush looks like he's trying to smile while shitting his pants and Gore looks as though he is pretending not to smell it.
The photo op happens every year in honor of the American Nobel Prize winners. Even though Bush and Cheney's friends over at Fox think that Al Gore should have given his Nobel Peace Prize to the troops, Bush was cordial to Mr. Gore. Bush was the one that called Gore and encouraged him to show up. He even changed the date so that Gore could attend. And then, King Bush granted Gore 30 minutes of his time for a private chat.
This begs the question. What the hell did those two talk about?
Of course, we talked about global warming the whole time, Mr. Gore said afterward, as he and his wife, Tipper, emerged onto Pennsylvania Avenue, where they were mobbed by reporters and photographers.
The New York Times continued:
No surprise there; Mr. Gore, whose documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award, is a staunch critic of the Bush administrations environmental policy.
Um, is it just me or doesn't that read like Gore was being totally sarcastic? "Oh yeah, we talked about global warming. Totally. I couldnt get W. to shut the fuck up about it. Global warming this, climate crisis that, and on and on."
Luckily, I have a friend on the inside and I present this secret transcript of what really went on behind closed doors between Bush and Gore last week.
BUSH: Heh. Heh. (Singing) Gore, Gore, Bo, Bore
Banana Fana Fo Fore--
GORE: Okay. (Forces laugh) Okay. Listen, we only have 28 minutes left so
BUSH: Oooh. You can tell time. You're a smarty pants. I'm just a dummy who got Cs at Yale. Is that what you mean?
GORE: No. I didnt mean it that way. It's just that well, the Kyoto--
BUSH: Hey, Cheney's at the doctor and I think I know where he hides the keys to his man-sized safe. Wanna look? You distract his assistant by farting and I'll--
GORE: No. No. Listen, George. We have 25 minutes. About the climate crisis--
BUSH: (Singing) Time is on my side, yes it is!
GORE: I'm just going to talk and you can keep singing if you want to, if that's how we have to do this.
BUSH: Hey, I saw you on "30 Rock". That was pretty funny. Condi explained the references to me. Then I got mad. Was that fun?
GORE: Actually, yeah. Yeah. I liked being on set.
BUSH: Yeah, I want to do that show. I dont think that Alec Baldwin likes me very much though.
GORE: Well, he didnt say anything about--listen, George. We're getting off track here. The Arctic is--
BUSH: Oh, look at that. Thirty minutes. Nice talking to you Al. Hey, is that short for Alan or Alexander? I never knew. Never mind, I'll just call you Gorey. Heh. Heh.
Mr. Bushs press secretary, Dana Perino, told reporters there was no bad blood between them.
This president does not harbor any resentments, Ms. Perino said. He never has.
Heart-warming. That is so big of the President. Imagine that? He has no hard feelings towards Gore for winning the popular election and then bowing to the Supreme Court in order to put Bush in office.
Here is what Gore told reporters about the meeting:
It was a private meeting, he said, and Im not going to say anything about it other than that it was very nice, very cordial. He was very gracious in setting up the meeting, and it was a very good and very substantive conversation. Thats all.
What's with all the secrecy? Maybe Gore will whisper the entire conversation in someone's ear at an auction a la Carly Simon when she revealed the subject of her song, "You're So Vain." Start saving your pennies if you want to be the lucky bidder. Until then...let's speculate!
Hungry? Let Them Eat Ethanol!
Is there anyone left who doesnt think its a good idea for America to use less oil?
You could be a dirty hippy whos just watched An Inconvenient Truth and has inspired your entire dorm to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or a hard-typing patriot who wants to reduce Americas dependence on oil imported from those Islamo-whatever places that hate us for our freedom, or an oil company executive who just wants to get in on the profitable ground floor of whatever the heck America is going to fuel our beloved SUVs with now that gasoline isnt hip with the kids anymore, but unless you get your kicks huffing gas fumes, the idea of replacing oil with something a little closer to home and a little less prone to cause Al Gore to load up PowerPoint seems to have caught on pretty much across the board.
The follow-up question is harder to answer: So, what do we replace oil with?
The biggest contenders for Americas Next Top Fuel Source have been biofuels. For those of you who arent big Willie Nelson fans, the basic concept behind biofuels is that rather than turning a finite supply of petroleum into gasoline, we take a renewable supply of plant crops such as corn, sugar cane or switchgrass and turn it into a gasoline substitute such as ethanol.
For the past 30 years or so, corn-based ethanol has been the big daddy of biofuels in the United States. The production of corn-based ethanol has been subsidized by the federal government and many state governments since the 1970s, and despite vocal protests from libertarian types and people who run companies that produce other types of alternative fuels, those subsidies have grown to around $5 billion dollars a year. This includes a rather steep tariff on ethanol imported from other countries as well as tax credits for the farmers that produce ethanol.
And when I say farmers, I mean Iowa caucus voters who make Presidential candidates change their minds about ethanol subsidies and agribusiness corporations like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), who as the largest producer of corn-based ethanol are the largest beneficiary of federal ethanol production subsidies and spend a lot of money lobbying Congress to keep that hot, buttery subsidy money flowing.
Most of the corn-based ethanol thats produced in the United States is blended with gasoline to make a 90% gasoline/10% ethanol blend that used to be called gasohol and is now called E10 because apparently you cant actually get drunk off of it. E10 can be used to fuel standard automobile engines, and new federal fuel standards have set a production benchmark of 7.6 billion gallons of biofuels such as ethanol by 2012, so if you hate the current ethanol subsidy, gird your loins to hate it even more over the next few years.
Some of you are probably saying Okay, fine, the government can turn corn into fake gasoline or something, but cant you, you know, eat corn? Arent there hungry people out there who might want to cut in line in front of your Hummer to get in on that whole corn is edible action?
According to a recent survey, 47% of Americans feel that increased production of corn-based ethanol has driven up food prices and thus increased the number of Americans who face going hungry.
Of course, this survey was sponsored by the Hormel Foods Corporation, a major producer of meat-based products (and since they make Spam, I use the phrase meat-based about as loosely as one can). Not to imply that just because ethanol demand has increased corn prices and thus the cost of animal feed that Hormel would have any economic motives for pointing out the downsides of corn-based ethanol.
Not all of the opposition to biofuels like corn-based ethanol is based on Spam or a subscription to Reason magazine. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, called the conversion of food crops like corn and sugar into biofuels a crime against humanity due to the impact it could have on the worlds food supply. Ziegler suggested a 5-year moratorium on turning edible crops into biofuels, during which scientists could develop or perfect ways to turn inedible agricultural waste into fuel.
Of course, since nobody loves a cranky dispute more than scientists, the ecological benefits of biofuels are being challenged as well.
Some scientific studies, primarily those conducted by David Pimental of Cornell University, suggest that the production of biofuels such as ethanol from food crops results in a net loss of energy, meaning that it takes more energy to make the biofuels than those fuels can produce. Several other studies contradict Pimentals findings, claiming that biofuel production is a net energy gain. The difference between the two results seems to hinge on how many factors are included in the cost of production.
Even if biofuel production does result in a net energy increase, they might wind up producing as much or even more greenhouse gasses than using gasoline. Growing crops such as the corn, canola and sugar cane used to make biofuels releases nitrous oxide (N2O) into the atmosphere, a process thats increased through the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers and other modern agricultural methods. More nitrous oxide is released when plant-based biofuel is burned. Nitrous oxide is one of the six greenhouse gasses covered by the Kyoto Protocol as a contributor to global climate change.
The question is if replacing fossil fuels with biofuels, and thus reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions while increasing nitrous oxide emissions, would show a net benefit to our atmosphere and help curb global warming. Most scientists, including the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say that switching to biofuels would reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40%. However, a recent study by chemist Paul Crutzen suggests that growing many biofuel crops actually releases up to twice as much nitrous oxide as originally estimated. This would mean replacing fossil fuels with biofuels derived from corn and canola (currently the two most popular biofuel crops in the U.S. and Europe), would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Using sugar cane, the ethanol source of choice in Brazil, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall, but by less than some previous estimates. Since Crutzens conclusions are based not on studying biofuel plants but on studying the atmosphere and ice core records, some of his fellow scientists are disputing his methodology.
So while corporations try and figure out what crops to invest in, and the disparity between the wealthy and the starving continues to grow, well wait for scientists to figure out what the fuck is going on and whats the least environmentally damaging liquid to pour into an automobile to make it go vroom. Im hoping itll turn out to be human blood, so I can help solve both global warming and overpopulation with my bitchin new vampire hot rod!
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement Has Some Good Points
Im pretty vocal about the fact that I dont want to procreate. Ive told everyone I know and almost everyone that I dont know; I dont want kids. Surprisingly, about half the people I know are turned off by my non-existent biological clock and more surprisingly, the other half have agreed with me a little too vehemently and told me to check out the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
I didnt ever bother to check the website until I decided that maybe Id write about it. The name turned me off and I thought it sounded stupid and almost violent. After all their mission statement is:
"May we live long and die out. Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense. We're really vehement."
My decision to not have kids is mostly based on a really simple fact -- I dont feel like it (and never have) and even if I did feel like it, cant afford it. I mean, not even close, not even with cutting out Starbucks like so many self-made millionaires suggest doing.
But this website is giving me some good ideas on how to comeback against my future-mother-in-law who is already disappointed in me:
Why Breed?
Reasons given:
Want to give our parents grandchildren.
Real reasons:
Still seeking parental approval.
Suggested alternatives:
Live your own life and encourage your parents to do the same.
Im an environmentalist (as much as a I can be) so its rather convenient that -- since Im dead inside and dont want to be a mother -- that actually my not making a little baby carbon footprint is sort of good for preserving the Earth. Im told by many that my biological urge will one day override my power of thinking and reason and Ill scramble to make a baby and silence that urge.
Ive always thought that ridiculous. What does the urge feel like? Is it like being horny? Thats the closest Ive gotten and some of those wacky extinction lovers put it this way:
Humans, like all creatures, have urges which lead to reproduction. Our biological urge is to have sex, not to make babies. Our "instinct to breed" is the same as a squirrel's instinct to plant trees: the urge is to store food, trees are a natural result. If sex is an urge to procreate, then hunger's an urge to defecate.
At my worst (usually when drunk) I can get self-righteous, getting mad at breeders who procreate even though their kids might not have a shot in hell at breathing clean air and Im the selfish one according to them?
But the VHEMT website makes a good point and calms my self-righteous urges:
Complaints of mothers and fathers being disrespected by others who care about planet Earth aren't entirely imaginary. A kick-butt mentality dominates our society: identify the enemy and kick its butt. Because breeding is the heaviest impact we can have on Nature, some see parents as enemies of the planet. But, if we all hop around in circles trying to kick each other's butts, all we'll get is pratfalls.
My apologies to all the new parents Ive alienated.
So contrary to what I believed before, this website or movement makes a lot of sense. Some of my friends are thinking about having their second kid so that their current child doesnt grow up alone. I mean, do we really have that luxury anymore? Were at our capacity. And I know the automobile and meat industries are highly responsible for global warming but it seems like its very taboo to talk about breeding and saving the Earth in the same breath.
For example, in terms of energy consumption, when a North American couple stops at two it's about the same as an average East Indian couple stopping at 60, or an Ethiopian couple stopping at more than 600. Two is better than four, and one is twice as good as two, but to purposely set out to create even one more of us today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship.
Although where the site started to lose me was their hope for an Earth that eventually has no human beings whatsoever. I cant wrap my mind around giving a shit about that. I am not really passionate about wiping out the human race entirely so that the Earth can heal but more so just letting the people who are being born have something of a chance in Hell, like I did and do, at least for now.
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly - Woody Allen
Hey, Brother, Could You Spare Some Rainfall?
From where I'm sitting right now on the steps of a building at a venerable institution of higher learning in North Carolina, USA, I see browned-out grass, parched shrubbery, and a fountain that he been turned off and covered over. Inside, you'll notice that bathroom fixtures have all been refitted to use less water, and in the dining hall, where I just purchased a smoothie, there are signs stating that the use of trays for carrying around your institutional supper has been discontinued because there's not the water to wash them.
If you're not in the southeastern United States right now, you might not know that we are experiencing the worst drought since 1894. In the Atlanta area, my parents are watching their precious landscaping work die away, as the primary water source, Lake Lanier, is predicted to hold only 90 more days' worth of drinking water. In their neighborhood, snitching on water-use violators is the norm, and I savor the idea of the douchebag neighbor down the street getting fined for washing his car.
But more than just affecting the day to day lives of people in the South, the historic drought is really drastically affecting the world we live in. Throughout North Carolina, farmers are giving up on their crops and selling their livestock because there isn't enough water to sustain them. The economy down here is losing billions of dollars.
"And its going to get worse before it gets better."
And because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is doing its duty to protect endangered species which rely upon our water to survive, the government of Georgia is attempting to suspend the Endangered Species Act in order to cover the asses of everybody who's cheated on the water restrictions this summer. And local, ahem, treasure Neal Boortz proposes that we should set the Georgia National Guard to seize control of the means to release water from Lake Lanier, screw the endangered critters. Oh, boy.
So I write to you from a parched wasteland, which prior to this drought was just a regular sort of wasteland, bless it.
Serves us right for trying to secede, huh?
Well, we won't be the only people taking a hit if this continues.
Drought conditions can be felt all over the country and locally as well. The drought is also impacting Tennessee, with no signs of letting up and its hitting businesses right where they make their living.
Jack Daniels water supply is running low and putting the century-plus whiskey business in jeopardy.
...
To the people who make Jack Daniels, all water is not created equal. It takes a special kind to make this whiskey and they say its only here in this cave. For that reason they have started conserving as much as they can. Using the water only for the whiskey and nothing else and even finding ways to cut back on the amount used in the process.
WBKO- Bowling Green
I don't know about y'all, but I need a drink.
Flux is certain that her beloved (and beloathed) Dixie will weather this weather, but she sure wishes it would rain.
Hippies Tell Americans To Go Green
We're all getting sick of these reports that warn of the apocalyptic scenarios that will most likely arise, if people in the industrialized world do not do something to curb the emission of greenhouse gases which are changing the world. All of these detailed and credible reports by such groups as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are pretty alarmist. All the eggheads who collated all the scientific data that show that rising sea levels, species extinction, hunger and drought are some of the effects of global warming, are all ivory tower hippies bent on killing our buzz. Why should we worry if we spew a few more tonnes of CO2 in the air, as we take those 30+ minute showers in the morning in preparation for that arduous 10 minute commute to work in our SUVs? Let somebody else clean up the mess. We want our MTV, right?
Well, another group of granola-chewing, Birkenstock-clad hippies released one more climate change report to add to the mounting pile of studies. It contains the usual prediction - rising sea levels, drought, pestilence, yada, yada, yada. What's the big difference here, you ask? Well, the bohemian beatniks behind this report are all ex-senior offices in the American military, including a former Chief of Staff of the Army and a former Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command. Unlike a lot of other reports on the subject of climate change, the 35-page document focuses on the future impact that climate change will have on American security interests. The future isn't bright, ladies and gentlemen.
The report warned that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicted.
"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are."
Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, Bush's former Middle East envoy, said in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."
The report was issued by the Alexandria, Va.-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They warned of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make already dicey areas such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa even worse.
"Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the report said. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations."
In a veiled rebuke of the Bush Administration's policy to require voluntary cutbacks to CO2 emmissions, instead of imposing mandatory reductions, the report concluded that the United States "must become a more constructive partner" with other nations in efforts to stem the progress of global climate change.
So let's see. Academia warning about climate change? Check. Oprah warning about climate change? Check. Military establishments warning about climate change? Check. That's almost everybody saying we all need to start getting our shit together and start doing something to save the world. I think it's time we start listening.
Ready to Die? First the Bees, Then the Humans..
"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man." - Albert Einstein
It sounds like a bad science fiction movie but it is what is now happening here on Earth. The bees are dying. It is happening all over the world, but the US bee population is by far the most devastated. Large percentages of bees have vanished in 22 states and no one knows why. It is being called "AIDS for the bee industry."
Bee numbers on parts of the east coast and in Texas have fallen by more than 70 percent, while California has seen colonies drop by 30 to 60 percent.
Manfred Hederer, the president of the German Beekeepers Association, almost simultaneously reported a 25 percent drop in bee populations throughout Germany. In isolated cases, says Hederer, declines of up to 80 percent have been reported.
Beekeepers are desperate and have called for some sort of government action. But what sort of action are they expecting from the current tools who hold office? This is the kind of problem that will have to play out. Its not a quick fix situation and with the current crop of retards who religiously deny that man is causing global warming, we wouldnt get a quick fix anyway.
This could be the natural disaster that greatly exposes our Republican problem. Im talking about the idiots who demand proof that any of these problems are caused by man. With volumes of evidence on global warming and 99% of scientists in agreement, they still ask for proof. It seems obvious that the proof they are asking for is the death of millions. Then they will act. Currently 84% of Republicans in Congress do not believe man causes global warming. They certainly wont believe the death of the bees is either until its too late. It may already be.
If you read the many news reports breaking, none of them know why the bees are dying. Its mysterious. Scientists are calling it colony collapse disorder because hives suddenly die, leaving behind few survivors. And the problem with these deaths is that the bees arent dying in the hive. This makes it more difficult to get that elusive proof. But the information from the bees they do find is disturbing.
The bees' death is accompanied by a set of symptoms "which does not seem to match anything in the literature."
Some had five or six infections at the same time and were infested with fungi -- a sign, experts say, that the insects' immune system may have collapsed.
Some scientists hypothesize that a new pesticide is at work, one that weakens the bees immune system. France lost a large percentage of its bee population in the 1990s because of just such a pesticide. But there could be a more frightening cause at work: Man's tinkering with nature.
Forty percent of cornfields in the US are now genetically modified to be insect resistant. A German study at the University of Jena revealed that healthy bees exposed to corn that was genetically modified with an insect toxin were not harmed. At least that was the healthy bees. But when a parasite was introduced there was a large decline in the number of bees.
The genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know."
Why dont they know? Because they didnt have funding to continue the study. You know, to get that proof. So, now the experiment is going on right outside your door and its not going so well.
Everyone Agrees Global Warming is Real. Even Bush.
Despite the fact that most people have realized it for quite some time, the scientific consensus is finally, officially in: global warming is happening. Even Bush is acknowledging it.
In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is unequivocal and that human activity is the main driver, very likely causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
But their report, released here on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said warming and its harmful consequences could be substantially blunted by prompt action.
[...]
Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet, he went on. The evidence is on the table.
The report is a compilation of published scientific studies performed from over the past several years. While there continue to be naysayers their motivation has lately come under suspicion and the report should signal an end to their scientific credibility.
Certainly the details as to how, specifically, human activities are contributing to changes in the environment, as well as how those changes continue to manifest themselves and what their long term repercussions will be will continue to be the subject of much scientific scrutiny and debate. But the ball has been thrown into the climate change deniers' court; enough evidence exists to indicate that climate change is real that if they want to continue calling it "fringe science" the burden of proof is now on their shoulders.
All of this remains academic, however, unless it also points the way towards changes in policy to slow down and eventually reverse the destruction we, as a civilization, continue to wreak on ourselves.
Some authors of the report said that no one could honestly point to any remaining uncertainties as justification for further delay.
Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have very high scientific confidence in this work this is real, this is real, this is real, said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Pennsylvania State University. So now act, the balls back in your court.
For literally decades opponents to environmentalist lobbies have made the claim that as a capitalist country we are forced to choose between economic growth and protection of the environment. Guess which side has been the victor? But it doesn't necessarily have to be that kind of choice. "Green" industries, that is, companies dedicated to combating environmental issues and helping existing companies reduce the footprint they leave on the ecosystem can effectively combine environmentalism and business interests to great effect.
In Silicon Valley, investment in clean technology from alternative energy products, like solar panels and hybrid cars, to the use of nanotechnology to solve environmental problems went from $34 million in the first quarter of 2006 to $290 million in the third quarter, according to an annual report released Sunday by Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, a research organization in San Jose, Calif.
Its the hottest area of investment right now, said Tom Werner, chief executive of SunPower, a solar technology company.
Russell Hancock, chief executive of Joint Venture, said the emerging need for clean technology is a good fit with the skills and companies already in the area. A new cluster is emerging in Silicon Valley that provides leadership around global climate change, Mr. Hancock said.
So get the with the program, pols. The time for denying climate change is over, as is the era of considering environmentalism the bane of businesspeople.
Save The Lightbulb, Save The World
Next week, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine will introduce a bill that could make California the first state to ban incandescent lightbulbs. Why is he so mad at lightbulbs, you ask? Because they are very, very, very, very, very, very slowly destroying the world. The initiative is designed to reduce energy use and therefore cut down on greenhouse gases.
Levine called the bill the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" because he is not funny. If passed, Californians will have to make the switch to fluorescent lightbulbs by 2012 or face a possible visit from the incandescent lightbulb death squad.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday. "Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
Fluorescent lightbulbs use only 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs. They were introduced in 1980 and make up 5 percent of the 2 billion lightbulbs sold in the US. A 20-watt fluorescent bulb gives off as much light as a 75-watt bulb, lasts 13 times longer and the average home will save $40 to $50 dollars a year if all bulbs are replaced.
A Global Warming Lobby?
Anyone who was fortunate enough to see the movie Thank You For Smoking probably believes that there are lobbyists in Washington for every nasty cause there is, and that they are the ones with the money and the wherewithal to influence lawmakers. The amount of money spent on influence peddling in DC is enough to make anyone believe the worst. But even the most jaded observer would probably find the idea of a lobby in favor of global warming to be somewhat farfetched, almost cartoonishly villainous. Apparently there is no limit to how long some will stoop to continue making money, as the American Enterprise Institute (which happens to have Lee Raymond, former CEO of ExxonMobil on its board) demonstrated by encouraging scientists to applaud the destruction of our planet's ecosystem.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
None of this should come as much surprise to anyone who read Robert Kennedy Jr.'s expose on ExxonMobil's efforts to fund a variety of alternative "think tanks" dedicated to sowing the seeds of doubt in the debate on climate change. It has been money well spent, with Americans continuing to doubt what for many elsewhere in the world (and in the scientific community) is rapidly becoming an acknowledged fact about the impact of humans on the health of the planet. The AEI's efforts are just one more, albeit more brazen than others, effort to steer public opinion in a direction that keeps people happily pumping away ExxonMobil gas to fill up their SUVs and away from any sort of government regulation demanding the kind of increased fuel economy that would cause a significant reduction in emissions. The proposed increase in CAFE standards would lower fuel consumption by 20% over 10 years, a reduction but just a start. And even that modest decrease is already facing the wrath of automakers who insist that any change of the manufacturing environment will cost jobs.
It is practically unthinkable that there would exist organizations dedicated to suppressing the knowledge that our own activities are killing us, and other species around the globe. Nevertheless, they do appear to exist, and it is unclear how many "scientists" may have succumbed to their bribes already in order to create the illusion of doubt in an ever increasing scientific consensus.
Gigantic Velvet Curtain Will Save Us
The Bush administration has come up with a genius idea to stop global warming: Block sunlight. The government is asking the worlds scientists to come up with some fun ideas that will stop sunlight. It is a brilliant plan because curbing emissions is expensive but stopping sunlight from reaching Earth would be really cheap.
The administration believes scientists should look into giant mirrors or reflective dust that could be pumped into the atmosphere. The government believes these techniques would be important insurance against global warming.
"Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."
Other possible sunlight blocking techniques include a giant velvet curtain, space elephants, an earth hat, bicycle reflectors, making school children hold up spoons, wrapping all crows in tinfoil, gravity-free cans, lots of sky writing, bubbles, glitter (not the movie), and hanging a disco ball from the moon.
The US would also really appreciate it if this new idea could be recommended by an upcoming UN report on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is preparing the UN report. The Bush administration is demanding that the report include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol and avoid targets on reducing emissions.
The US belief is backed by government officials and a senior climate negotiator from the State Department who believe that reflecting less than 1% of sunlight could compensate for global warming. But the IPCC disagrees, stating such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side effects"
The Bush administration has already read the IPCC report and they are upset because it is quite pessamistic.
"The report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change."
Yeah, what about all the positive stuff? Like
more water and Canada becoming the new breadbasket.
The US also wants more responsibilities placed on the developing world. So, step the fuck up, Mozambique! Quit polluting the world with your lemur methane and cooking fires.
Where the Fuck is Winter?
Season? What seasons?
As historically-high temperatures rocked the Northeast yesterday with the mercury climbing to a balmy 72 degrees Fahrenheit in New York City's Central Parkeven warmer than sunny Southern Californiathe muddy ski slopes are empty as people shed their winter clothes in favor of t-shirts and confused cherry blossom trees began to bloom while bewildered geese fly the wrong way.
Meanwhile, it was recently discovered via satellite images that a piece of the Canadian Arctic ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields broke off, and we haven't even reached "spring" yet.
Even the snowstorms that rocked the American Midwest over the last couple of weeks may be due to this warming trend, say scientists.
There has been "a fairly rapid rise of globally average temperatures, also temperatures in the United States, since about the mid-1970s," said David Easterling of the National Climate Data Center.
The records from the National Climate Data Center show that over the last 55 years, especially the last 20, the number of unusually warm days and warm nights has steadily increased.
The supercomputers that predicted all this decades ago have grown even more powerful. What do they project for the years immediately ahead, if greenhouse gas emissions are not drastically cut worldwide?
"Over the next two or three decades, we will see a trend of just more frequent warm spells and less frequent cold snaps," said Jerry Meehl, a climatologist.
I, for one, feel like a fucking asshole enjoying these warm temperatures while knowing in the back of my mind that there is a good chance they may lead to massive death and destruction within my lifetime. In fact, it gets me so bummed out I'm pretty certain I don't want to bring a child into this overheating world.
What can we do, though? It's no secret that America is a total slacker compared to the rest of the world when it comes to curbing the pollution and waste that cause these climate extremes. With 2007 set to be the hottest year to-date, we have to do something.
Liberal, conservative, whatever...This affects us all.
Please consider taking action now.
"Nonexistent" Environmental Problem Makes Island Nonexistent
Climate change, or as it is better known in the popular media, global warming, enjoys a position right alongside evolutionary theory that makes it unique. Almost everywhere else in the developed world both are accepted as scientific truth, yet in the US they are considered to be contentious scientific issues needing much more study before either can be confirmed. Well, strike an empirical blow for climate change. The theory predicts that temperature changes resulting from an increase in "greenhouse" gases like carbon dioxide will cause a rise in temperatures in the polar regions that will melt polar ice, causing sea levels to rise. Apparently that's exactly what is happening, as the former home of ten thousand people, the island of Lohachara in the Indian ocean, has been swallowed by the water.
Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.
[...]
Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.
This is not good news. People used to actually live on this island, and now they're gone because the rising sea levels have totally submerged it.
Are we going to have to waterski down Pennsylvania avenue before a president in office notices that this is a serious problem?
Watch Your Step! Attack of Frozen Poo!
If the heat won't kill you, the cold might. According to New Scientist, as ice thaws from global warming killer viruses trapped in the ice might make a return.
Evidence of flu viruses frozen in Siberian lakes has prompted researchers to examine the possibility that global warming may release microbes locked in glaciers for decades or even centuries.
Our hypothesis is that influenza can survive in ice over the winter and re-infect birds as they come back in spring, says Scott Rogers of Bowling Green State University, Ohio, US. He believes the frozen lakes act as "melting pots" for flu viruses, allowing viruses from one year to mix with those from previous years.
It is presumed likely that the frozen ice stores many viruses in the droppings left there by migratory animals. This means that as the ice melts, migrating birds can be infected by a whole host of preserved viruses.
Many of these glaciers are on the flight paths of migratory birds, which will deposit virus onto the ice in their droppings, where it freezes. Rogers believes there is a possibility that, as global warming melts glaciers, they will release the viruses, and perhaps other microbes such as bacteria and fungi that have otherwise disappeared from our environment.
Stoye says that whether or not the viruses are infectious depends largely on how the virus was frozen. Viruses frozen in water are likely to be inactivated by the waters relatively low pH. "But if the virus was in droppings, which presumably is how it was deposited, there seems to be no reason why it should not freeze and survive at low temperatures."
Should birds become infected with these long dormant diseases it is plausible that the variety of viruses stored in the ice could be transferred to humans. If this were to happen humans would likely have no immunity to them, and a possible widespread epidemic could ensue. The huge variety of strains that may be reintroduced would also make it very difficult for scientists to combat many strains effectively.
We better hurry up with that Moon Station.
World Winning the War Against Phytoplankton
Scientists released the best news yet in mankind's ongoing war with Phytoplankton. According to NASA satellite data, when the worlds oceans warm, phytoplankton production drops. And humans cheer. Phytoplankton are the base of the marine food chain and therefore a great enemy to man.
Scientists, friend of phytoplankton and therefore species traders, are worried about the entire ocean population of marine creatures due to a possible break down in the food chain. The satellite data reveals that during El Nino, a phenomenon that warms ocean water in the Pacific near the equator, phytoplankton production is reduced. And humans become stronger.
For those of you who dont know our enemy, Phytoplankton are microscopic plants that are considered to be the grain crop of the oceans. They are like wheat, except the evil, wet version of wheat.
Study lead author Michael Behrenfeld, a biological oceanographer at Oregon State University, said Wednesday that the recent dramatic drop in phytoplankton production in much of the world's oceans is a "sneak peak of how ocean biology" will respond later in the century with global warming.
This reduction at the bottom of the food chain will have negative repercussions throughout marine life and hopefully kill off our larger, moist enemies. Another plus is that as phytoplankton are reduced, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase because phytoplankton use carbon dioxide when they make food. So, its a win-win.
Bush Being Investigated For Bitch Slapping Scientists
Inspectors in the Commerce Department and NASA are investigating the Bush administration in a coordinated effort over allegations that the White House attempted to stop scientists from speaking their mind about global warming. When it is finished, hopefully the report will be titled, No Shit. Democrats are hoping the investigation will expose widespread misconduct.
The White House responded to the accusations.
"We have in place the most transparent system of science reporting, and claims that the administration interfered with scientists are false. Our focus is on taking action and making real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The nearly $2 billion worth of climate science we publish annually leads the world and speaks for itself."
Totally. The administration has moved a lightening speed when responding to the threat of global warming. That is why people have come to know them as The beltway green boys. Its also why they black out and even rewrite government reports about global warming.
Earlier this year, it was revealed a Bush appointee at the NASA changed reports on global warming and the Big Bang. Yes, the Big Bang. Wouldnt want that secret to get out. He forced a Web designer to use the word theory whenever there was a mention of the Big Bang. The public affairs officer also tried to keep reporters from speaking to a NASA climate scientist, because the best way to take action on global warming is to muzzle the people who study it.
Meanwhile, over at the Commerce Departments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, administrators were blocking a report that linked the surge in hurricane strength to the greenhouse effect. Its much easier to tackle the subject of the environment when you just read that one book about Jesus.
Hurricanes and Global Warming? Nothing to See Here...
The Bush administration has been repeatedly accused of favoring politics over facts in its handling of scientific data. Whether it's preventing claims that condoms stop the spread of AIDS, pushing fallacious claims linking abortion and breast cancer or supressing stem cell experts when it comes time to make policy about them. Not surprisingly, the climate change debate has featured heavily in this discussion. While the scientific consensus grows stronger each year that human activity is having a measurable effect on the earth's climate (the ramifications of those effects are still being debated, however) the Bush administration has insisted on focusing on the arguments of a tiny minority of naysayers claiming that everything is OK while ignoring the vast majority who believe we're hurting ourselves and everyone around us. The plot continues to thicken, with Bush administration pressure stopping the release of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research report investigating the links between hurricanes and human-induced climate change.
In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration part of the
Commerce Department in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes.
According to Nature, a draft of the statement said that warming may be having an effect.
In May, when the report was expected to be released, panel chair Ants Leetmaa received an e-mail from a Commerce official saying the report needed to be made less technical and was not to be released, Nature reported.
Since Katrina the mention of the word "hurricane" has raised hackles on administration officials, haunted by Bush's endorsement of FEMA's work in New Orleans when the organization clearly had dropped the ball. Al Gore's movie "An Inconveient Truth," suggesting links between increased hurricane activity and human disruption of the ecosystem blames the Bush administration for not doing enough to stem the causes of violent hurricanes by pulling out of the Kyoto treaty and essentially ignoring carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in domestic policymaking. So the political links are there, and Democrats are clearly aware of them as a point of vulnerability for the Republicans.
The report drew a prompt response from Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), who charged that "the administration has effectively declared war on science and truth to advance its anti-environment agenda ... the Bush administration continues to censor scientists who have documented the current impacts of global warming."
A series of studies over the past year or so have shown an increase in the power of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a strengthening that many storm experts say is tied to rising sea-surface temperatures.
Just two weeks ago, researchers said that most of the increase in ocean temperature that feeds more intense hurricanes is a result of human-induced global warming, a study one researcher said "closes the loop" between climate change and powerful storms like Katrina.
Not all agree, however, with opponents arguing that many other factors affect storms, which can increase and decrease in cycles.
In truth, it's easy for both sides of this discussion to jump the gun - to directly place the blame for individual hurricanes at the feet of a single political administration is unfair, and ignores good science as much as minimizing human contributions to climate change does by naysayers who refuse to acknowledge its possibility. That the Bush administration could do significantly more to help reduce US greenhouse gas emissions is indisputable, however. But aside from slinging political arrows back and forth over this question, the real problem that Lautenberg and others highlight is the administration's willingness to treat scientific fact as mere opinion - as in, the (oddly ironic, considering the Manicheanism with which most other world issues are viewed by Republicans) notion that all scientific opinions of are equal validity and thus none deserve preferential treatment. This plays out as a way to squelch scientific reports that do not jibe with GOP politics. Unfortunately the natural world does not pay much attention to focus groups and polls, and tends to respond to the way things are rather than the way people wish they were.
Silencing scientists whose discoveries reflect poorly on political policies is an incredibly short term approach to governance. If these issues are ever going to be addressed in any meaningful way all available evidence needs to be on the table and ready for consideration.
Senator Inhofe Godwins Global Warming Debate
While the House of Representatives, with its hundreds of members, remains full of some rather interesting (to put it nicely) characters, one would hope that the Senate, which is limited to just two representatives per state, might hold its members to a higher standard of decency and intelligence than others in the world of government. Apparently not, as James Inhofe (R-OK) so eloquently demonstrated on Saturday, when he reduced his level of discourse to that of an internet forum troll by comparing environmentalists to Nazis. It is not known whether his comments included the verbal equivalent of multiple exclamation points following each statement with "1"s mixed in.
In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.
"It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie," Inhofe said.
"You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their strategy."
This is the sort of argument that one might expect to see handed in on a third grade essay, and returned with a giant, red "D-" on top, possibly with an accompanying note asking that the author "please see [the teacher] after class."
The delicious irony is that it's a tactic Inhofe himself seems to enjoy. Like when he defends prisoner abuses in Iraq, and says that things are just fine here, here, here , and here. I guess repetition isn't only used by advocates of climate change.
But methodology obviously isn't as important as substance, and Inhofe is full of it (interpret that as you will.)
[Inhofe] blames the media for handing over an unfair amount of air time and coverage to the side that pushes the claim that links man to climate change.
"I have asked several of them," Inhofe said: 'Name one time when an hour has been given to the other side of the issue.' "
While declining to watch either the Gore movie or the Brokaw documentary, the senator said he armed himself with the statements used in both.
"I know the text, and I know they are using old stuff that has been totally discredited," Inhofe said. "Everything on which they based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically."
He offered his point-by-point response to both.
They include such claims as that polar bear populations are shrinking along with their food supplies, and the glaciers in Glacier National Park are disappearing.
Inhofe insists that the number of polar bears is not dropping and that some of the glaciers in the national park are actually getting bigger.
As for the Kilimanjaro glacier, which reportedly is disappearing, Inhofe said the loss can be blamed on the cutting of trees, which once held the moisture.
"One by one, you can refute everything they are saying," Inhofe said.
Well done! Now there's a debate tactic to which even Cicero would pay deference; when your opponent makes a claim based on well researched facts, just flat out deny it! And if they respond with another fact, deny that one too! Clearly the world's scientists have met their collective intellectual match in the form of one James Inhofe, who by mere proclamation can alter the world as he sees fit.
Those who insist that climate change doesn't exist shouldn't be demanding an hour of media time for the airing of their views, they should be eternally grateful that their views are even acknowledged in the first place. In their ceaseless efforts to bend over backwards and disprove any "bias" in reporting, journalists would interview the Flat Earth Society in a piece detailing global circumnavigation just to show how "balanced" their reporting can be. Inhofe and his ilk fall squarely in the same category as flat earthers when it comes to this discussion, and no amount of stubborn denial or nazi-baiting is likely to change that.
GOP Acknowledging Global Warming?
Global warming, and its causes and subsequent effects, is a contentious issue. Well, contentious at least in Washington DC, where politicians seem to be determined to keep their heads in the sand about a scientific phenomenon that, pretty much everywhere else in the world, is an acknowledged fact. That this fact is inconvenient for the American lifestyle of gas guzzling SUVs, inefficient and ubiquitous air conditioning and cheap electrical power doesn't change the fact itself, as much as some wish that it would. To that end, Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), as chair of the House science committee, requested that the National Academy of Sciences review all avaiable evidence to determine what the scientific consensus was. Now that's come back with a definitive answer, his position is surprising.
The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers.
Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the panel wrote. It said the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia," though it was relatively warm around the year 1000 followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.
... it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.
In response to the findings, Boehlert responded remarkably sanely, for a Republican.
"This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change."
Wow. You mean someone in Congress, let alone a high ranking Republican, asked for scientific evidence, and when it was presented he drew his conclusions about the question at hand based on that evidence? And about as contested an issue as the human influence on global climate change? It's enough to make Al Gore smile.
Unfortunately, DailyKos has figured out how Boehlert is capable of maintaining such an iconoclastic position in a Republican Congress known for tolerating little dissent from party lines.
One wonders how long he's going to be able to keep his chairmanship, given this betrayal of the Rubber Stamp.
Update: And we have our answer. LarryInNYC reminds me that he has annouced [sic] his retirement. One more moderate Republican down the drain. They've become an endangered species, if you believe in such things.
So much for any sort of sea change in the party. Just one more thinking individual on his way out of Washington, where he will most likely be replaced by another talking point spewing automaton. Let's all take a second to enjoy this rare, and brief moment of lucidity, however.