Latest Articles

It’s

Oh, dear. This video is HIGH-larious. And at the same time utterly, utterly depressing.

Without further ado: "What We Call the News."

The latest on this earth-shattering story

This past Friday, I was once again invited to be on FOX’s Hannity & Colmes. Last time, you’ll recall, I was to discuss the grave and momentous subject of Al Gore’s hypocrisy. This time, the subject was even graver and momentouser: John Travolta‘s hypocrisy. (Last time I got bumped for Daryl Hannah. This time I […]

Right before my very eyes: Ethiopia

The vista of Ethiopia's ancient Rift Valley, speckled with shimmering lakes, stretches before me as our motorized caravan heads south from Lake Langano, part of a study tour on population-health-environment issues organized by the Packard Foundation. Sadly, the country's unrelenting poverty and insecurity are as breathtaking as the view -- Ethiopia currently ranks 170 out of 177 countries on the UN Development Programme's Human Development Index.

Where to find green news

Lately I’ve been feeling guilty about the fact that I frequently fail to cite where I find the links and articles I blog about. (Adding a "via so and so" or "hat tip: such and such" is good blog etiquette.) It’s not deliberate, it’s just that by the time I get around to blogging on […]

Good one, Google

I’ll admit it. Google’s Gmail Paper April Fools Day gag got me late last night when I was all tired and groggy and indignant: “Everyone loves Gmail. But not everyone loves email, or the digital era. What ever happened to stamps, filing cabinets, and the mailman? Well, you asked for it, and it’s here. We’re […]

Rich countries aren’t helping poor countries prepare

This article in the NYT should give reason for pause. The rich countries are preparing themselves to adapt to climate change, and doing very little to help the poor nations, which are the most vulnerable. I think environmentalists should take this issue very seriously since completely preventing climate change is unlikely to happen.

April Fools joke?

With the Bush administration, you never can tell: The White House has renominated three people for top jobs affecting the environment who were previously blocked in Congress because of their pro-industry views. According to industry lobbyists and Republican aides in Congress, Bush intends to skirt the Senate approval process if necessary by making recess appointments […]

Helpful hints for global warming deniers

Many global warming deniers have moved on from denying the existence or human causes of global warming to denying it's worthwhile to do anything to mitigate it. "Burn all the fossil fuels you want", they suggest, "and adapt to the changes. Doing anything to reduce global warming is too expensive."

In a spirit of reconciliation, I thought I'd put forward some specific proposals to implement their approach.

On a planet with unchecked greenhouse warming, we would have a less predictable climate, warmer on average, but with unpredictable frosts and snowstorms -- some of them in places we currently don't get snow. Drought would alternate with floods. Insects would flourish on a warmer planet, and pests of all types would migrate. And of course storms would be worse than at present, as the average wind speed increased.

If a single new result clashes with the consensus, it’s wise to doubt it

Science is a collective, multi-layered process consisting of three steps. First is the individual scientist testing hypotheses according to the norms of their field. Second, the results of the individual scientist undergo peer-review and are published for the community to evaluate. At this point a result may be considered preliminary, but not proven.

Third, important claims are then re-tested in the "crucible of science" -- they are either reproduced by independent scientific groups or they have their implications tested to insure consistency with the existing body of scientific knowledge. After enough tests/reproductions, a consensus emerges that the idea is correct.

Global warming is a hot potato

Last week I reported on the wide and growing partisan divide in U.S. public opinion over global warming: self-identified Democrats are 39 percentage points more likely than their Republican counterparts to rate climate change a serious problem.

But what puzzled me most was the 13-point drop in concern among Republicans since 1999. Call me naïve, but with all the scientific evidence that's been piling up on the issue -- accompanied by increasing media attention -- I guess I expected slow (though perhaps reluctant) increases in concern all across the political spectrum. Years of rising global temperatures, melting sea ice, and solidifying scientific consensus ought to have converted at least some honest skeptics, right?

A big report released last week by Pew, charting two decades of American political values and core attitudes, provides some clues about what's going on.

Typical Republicans, circa 1999, haven't necessarily found their belief in global warming shaken over the years. Instead, for whatever combination of reasons, people who believe in global warming are drifting away from the Party.