Category Archives: climate

Probably you’ve already seen this disturbing story by Andrew Revkin in the NYTimes about a huge study demonstrating the existence of a "tropical Arctic" fifty million years ago, with waters at the North Pole as warm as Florida, about 74 degrees. As a short item in the Nature newswire put it: Not only did theContinue reading “74 Degrees at the North Pole”

This blogger is a big believer in listening to voices from outside the mainstream, even if–especially if–they challenge beliefs which may have outlived their usefulness. Here are some of the latest examples of contrarianism, with a link and sample from each: On one of numerous blogs at a movie site called Movie City News, editorContinue reading “Contrarian Rodeo”

About six months ago I had the bright idea of pulling together resources on climate change for students, who despite a generational interest in the issue, often are daunted by the vastness of the subject. But it turns out that Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, along with the paper’s Learning Network and theContinue reading “The Sound of the Northern Ice”

Most right-wing commentators (such as George Will) still refuse to face the facts on our changing climate, so it’s worth pointing out an exception to the rule. Andrew Sullivan also happens to be my favorite right-wing commentator, partly for his relative open-mindedness, but mostly for his sheer ability to write. The cold fury with whichContinue reading “Andrew Sullivan Stops Scoffing”

These days on science sites, such as the ever-worthy Prometheus, brainy commentators of all stripes split the hairs of the politics of climate change with astounding, microscopic precision. The admirable host Roger Pielke, Jr., for example, supports reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases, but points to building and development in the wrong places–such as onContinue reading “Strange Days”

A week ago, in a column in the LATimes, a careless young faux-conservative named Jonah Goldberg mocked the idea that we need to fear climate change. Here was one of his big "gotchas":

For example, Gore blames the disappearing snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro on global warming, but a 2003 study in Nature identified the clear-cutting of surrounding moisture-rich forests as the culprit.

Ah, well, thank God for that!

But, of course, it’s not that simple. I almost wish it was.

Here’s the full story on Kilimanjaro; its vanishing glaciers, its diminishing forests, the drought, and its vanishing rains, via Salon and a journalism program at the University of California at Berkeley. It’s written by Kate Cheney Davidson. It’s also available as a radio program at Living on Earth.

Personally, I prefer the secure retrieval and searchability of text, and will take the liberty of posting the story below the fold.

You’ll note nowhere in the story anyone sneeing at what is happening today on the mountain, unlike distant, oblivious, know-it-all Goldberg.

Had the interesting experience last week of being interviewed by a good journalist (and friend) named Nomi Morris, formerly a bureau chief in Jerusalem for Knight-Ridder, and in Berlin for Time. Somehow she was able to get accurate and telling quotes out of me with just a few scrawls on a notebook. I’m envious, Nomi!

She writes a column for the Santa-Barbara News-Press. I’d link to it, but they’ve put up a firewall for all but subscribers, so it wouldn’t do you much good. It’s posted below the fold: Please read!

Here’s a taste:

A new survey in the National Journal showed that only 23 percent of Republicans in Congress believe humans are causing global warming. But Time’s poll found that 85 percent of Americans believe the mainstream science and want controls enacted. This means that by 2008, whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House, environmental policy will change. 

That’s in part a reference to this study, brought up by Roger Pielke, Jr at Prometheus.

Also in the piece is a glancing reference to an important story in The Washington Monthly called "The  Emerging Environmental Majority." The piece says that the reason a bill designed to sell off public lands brought forward in the present-giving season last year by Richard Pombo and his slimy cohorts failed was that duck hunters and other "hook and bullet" users of the wilderness no longer disliked environmentalists as much as they feared far-right anti-environmental zealots. True, I think, and I hope Christina Larson is right when she argues that global warming will provide a new working consensus for the movement…although to write a brief history of the environmental movement and not mention John Muir and his inspiring presence? Mystifying.

Hinted at but not discussed in Nomi’s piece is the aspect of climate change that is most alarming and least understood: The possibility of big climactic swings. Here’s a good discussion from earlier this month in Scientific American. As the piece mentions at one point, "a conservative interpretation of the data [from the Cretaceous period] is worrisome enough," and adds:

In short, CO2 seems to pack a bigger punch than expected, perhaps because the warming becomes self-reinforcing.

The journey of a thousand miles…begins with a single consensus.

Remarkably, despite the opposition of the White House, a consensus on the need to reduce the rising levels of CO2 emissions right here in the U.S. appears to be forming.

Here’s a news story from Bloomberg, quoting numerous Republicans, including moderates (Christine Todd Whitman, former chief of the EPA in Bush’s first term), conservatives (such as Lindsay Graham from South Carolina), and likely presidential candidates, such as John McCain, on the need for legislation now.

The change is palpable in the Senate. Graham, who has said in the past that he was “on the fence” about climate-change legislation, became a stronger advocate for taking action after a trip to Alaska in August with McCain and Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat. They heard from Native Alaskans who are experiencing melting permafrost, coastal erosion and other effects of climate change.

"Seeing is believing,” says Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop. Bishop says Graham believes global warming is a problem that must be addressed, while declining to say if Graham would support specific legislation such as the McCain-Lieberman measure.

"When you have the overwhelming evidence from eminent scientists on one side, and a few skeptics on the other, we are guided by the thoughts of the overwhelming, not the few,” says Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York, who heads the House Science Committee.

Below the fold I’m posting a much deeper story by Amanda Griscom Little, on the particulars of the bills coming up for action. A vigorous debate among enviros has broken out about the bills being brought forward, by the likes of Dianne Feinstein, Jeff Bingaman, and John McCain and Joe Lieberman, among others. For those who think the movement isn’t going far enough, here’s a thought from the story:

"Even if climate advocates defy the odds and manage to break through the congressional impasse, it’s all but inevitable that Bush is going to veto whatever they manage to push through," says Sierra Club analyst Brendal Bell.

[Little adds]:

If that’s the case, why not push the debate in a greener direction and try to build support for the kind of legislation that could make a difference?

The day after winning the Pulitzer Prize, Nicholas Kristof of the NYTimes (sorry, it’s behind a firewall) resorts to horror movie scenarios to awaken law-makers to the risks of climate change. It’s a dark and stormy night, and deep within the ocean the muddy bottom begins to stir. Giant squids flee in horror as reservoirsContinue reading “The Big Burp”

From Tom Rees, via the useful-for-talking-to-deniers-site A Few Things Ill Considered: