Latest Articles

No.

Today, when asked whether he would see Gore's new movie, Bush said, "doubt it." I doubt it too. Who needs truth when you've got truthiness?

But Bush also said something more insidious:

... in my judgment, we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and, at the same time, protect the environment.

Should we "set aside" the question of whether human activity is driving climate change? I think not.

A while back, I wrote a post on this subject. I never put it up -- I was thinking of making it into an op-ed or something, but I never got around to it. Anyway, it's relevant to this question. So I've put it below the fold.

CEI and the bounds of the socially acceptable

Speaking of the CEI ads, I've been giving them some thought.

I worry that they will be a flash in the media pan, and quickly fade from memory. That would be a lost opportunity.

Here's a suggestion for a group that has the money and will to organize (maybe MoveOn): Don't let this drop. Find out every single corporate sponsor of CEI, contact them, and ask them if they agree with the content of the ads. If they agree, publicize the hell out of it. If they don't agree -- as Ford claims not to -- ask them why they're supporting an organization that's muddying the waters on this vital issue. If they refuse to respond, publicize the hell out of that.

Our development director questioned me about the Ford post. He said (paraphrasing), surely Ford shouldn't be held accountable for everything CEI does. After all, organizations that fund Grist don't necessarily agree with everything in our pages.

On most issues, I would agree. If Ford had disagreements with CEI over, say, accounting regulations, but supported their other work, fine. Reasonable people differ about accounting regulations.

Scientist cited in CEI ad repudiates misuse of his work

ThinkProgress brings news that the scientist who authored one of the studies shown briefly in the second CEI ad has issued a statement blasting CEI for using his work to "confuse and mislead the public." Good for him.

The recipe for twins (sorry, vegans)

Attention female vegans (and no, I'm not soliciting romance, thanks): If you're dreaming of birthing twins, you may want to read this.

Women who eat a vegan diet -- a strict vegetarian diet that excludes all animal products including milk -- are one-fifth as likely as other women to have twins, a U.S. researcher reported on Saturday.

But despite what some headline-writers suggest ("Vegan diet lowers odds of having twins" and "Meat-Eaters More Likely to Have Twins?"), neither meat-eating nor even necessarily veganness seem to be the key.

The reason [for the vegan twin-birth difference] may be hormones given to cattle to boost their milk and meat production, said Dr. Gary Steinman, an obstetrician specializing in multiple-birth pregnancies at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, New York.

So if you vegans want to increase the likelihood of twins without disrupting your diet, seems you could maybe skip the dairy and just go right for the growth hormones. Yum.

Save South Central Farm

Over at Daryl Hannah's vlog, dh love life, she's posted an "emergency episode" about the plight of the South Central Farm that Dave blogged about recently.

Watch it now. (Damn, those fruits and veggies look good!)

Americans and Climate Change: From science to values I

"Americans and Climate Change: Closing the Gap Between Science and Action" (PDF) is a report synthesizing the insights of 110 leading thinkers on how to educate and motivate the American public on the subject of global warming. Background on the report here. I'll be posting a series of excerpts (citations have been removed; see original report). If you'd like to be involved in implementing the report's recommendations, or learn more, visit the Yale Project on Climate Change website.

Below the fold is the beginning of the report's second chapter, which is about transitioning the climate-change debate away from science talk and toward values talk. The first part focuses on the role that religious communities could or do play. I must admit I found some of it irksome -- evangelical leaders said openly that their members are more likely to trust business leaders, don't want to hear about gloom and doom, and don't want to hear that they will have to sacrifice. Um ... these are not exactly praiseworthy biases. Perhaps instead of asking everyone else to cater to them, evangelicals should change them. But don't let me skew your perceptions -- read it and let me know what you think.

John Suttles, Southern environmental lawyer, answers questions

John Suttles. What work do you do? I’m a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. How does it relate to the environment? For the past 20 years, the Southern Environmental Law Center — the biggest environmental organization headquartered in the Southeast — has used the full power of the […]

How to talk about global warming, by Bill C.

Reuters reports some talking points on global warming from former prez Clinton:

Going With the Flow

Underwater turbines to be tested in New York river Avoiding the bickering over wind power and biofuels, a Virginia-based company is seeking clean energy in the watery deep. Within a few weeks, Verdant Power will submerge turbines in New York’s East River to draw energy from the tides. The first phase of the project will […]

Fly by Nitrogen

Threatened California butterfly hurt by cars and helped by cows The bay checkerspot butterfly population on Northern California’s Coyote Ridge is threatened with “drive-by extinction,” according to conservation biologist Stuart Weiss. Car commuters to Silicon Valley and other sources of pollution deposit up to 20 pounds of nitrogen per acre on the ridge every year, […]