From Sunlen Miller and Jon Garcia Goodbye to gas-guzzling fleet vehicles like the ubiquitous big brown UPS trucks? President Obama hopes so, saying it’s not only good for the environment, it’s good for business. “From gas-guzzlers to hybrids, … there’s…
Political Punch
And those 60% are the vanguard of the death of the free West.
I don’t believe in burning the Qur’an. I believe in reading and understanding the Qur’an. But Terry Jones is not responsible by any rational measure for the murders in Afghanistan. Provocations are provocations, but we are in control of our reactions to those provocations. If someone called a freedom fighter an Islamophobic racist, the freedom fighter could try to reason with him — or he could kill him, or kill someone else — would then the person making the charge be responsible for the murders that the freedom fighter committed? Of course not. And Terry Jones is not responsible if Muslims choose to react with irrational violence over his burning of the Qur’an.
Western governments, meanwhile, should in the face of this irrational violence be defending the freedom of expression and explaining its importance. Instead, they will probably kowtow. Like the 60% of Britons voting for dhimmitude and self-censorship in this Guardian poll. Slaves choosing slavery.
A newly formed group called WAVE is asking Gov. Rick Snyder to halt construction of a new nickel sulfide mine in the Upper Peninsula to prevent environmental damage that the mine will cause.
The mine is owned by Kennecott Minerals, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, and it has been extremely controversial not only because of the environmental threats but also because it exists on the site called Eagle Rock that is considered sacred by local Native American tribes.
WAVE wants Snyder to take action, saying in a press release:
Representatives of WAVE, a new grassroots environmental coalition, met today with Greg Andrews, Governor Snyder’s Upper Peninsula representative. They brought a letter to the governor, calling for an immediate halt to construction of the Eagle Mine on the Yellow Dog Plains.
WAVE asks that EPA mining experts prepare an impact study that encompasses all aspects of the Eagle Project, including mining, transport, and milling of ore. WAVE contends that the environmental impact statement funded and prepared by Kennecott Minerals did not meet the requirements of the new law regulating nonferrous metallic sulfide mining in Michigan.
Accompanying the letter were petitions signed by over 15,000 persons, including doctors and health care professionals who oppose development of the mine because of the risks posed to the region’s water resources and to the health of people dependent upon it…
Parker explained that the choice facing the Governor—whether to halt the mine’s development or allow the portal to be blasted—will impact the health of people in the Upper Great Lakes Region. She continued, “This is Governor Snyder’s opportunity to take a long term view of what is best for Michigan’s citizens and not jump at the fast money and short term economic gain represented by the Eagle Mine’s development.”
Two of Snyder’s closest advisers, Bill Rustem and Dennis Muchmore, have ties to the Kennecott mine. Rustem’s firm lobbied for the project and Muchmore’s wife Deb does PR work for the company.
Kennecott is facing a lawsuit in Wisconsin over water pollution from a closed mine they own there.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Chris Wragge interviewed former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and questioned President Obama's Libya policy: "…on Monday, the President said it would be a mistake to send U.S. troops to push out Qadhafi, saying quote, 'We went down that road in Iraq'…taking a shot at you and President Bush….Isn't the President being a bit hypocritical?"
Even Rumsfeld was unwilling to seize on Wragge's characterization: "Oh, I'm not sure I'd use that word." However, he went on to call for greater clarity from the administration on removing Qadhafi: "…the continued ambiguity by the President and the administration about whether or not Qadhafi will ultimately be gone is harmful….as long as the people on the ground are ambiguous as to whether or not Qadhafi's going to stay or leave, more people will be killed."
Wragge's surprising criticism of Obama came in the wake of fellow co-host Erica Hill's rather soft Tuesday interview with the President. As NewsBusters' Brent Baker, reported earlier, Hill was not alone.
Following up with Rumsfeld, Wragge worried: "So right now, if you could scale this on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is this for the U.S.? Should Qadhafi stay in power?" Rumsfeld replied: "Oh, imagine if you were in Libya and you were part of the Qadhafi regime in the military and you were debating whether to defect and help the rebels. As long as we keep saying he may or may not leave, they're harmful. It's very harmful."
In his final question to Rumsfeld, Wragge asked: "What do you think the President should have said on Monday night that would have lended more clarity to the message of the end game here?" Rumsfeld argued: "I think at some point the United States and the coalition has to say to the people on the ground in Libya, that Qadhafi will not stay….the signal from U.S. behavior in Libya will be read in Syria and places like that, that the United States does have clarity of purpose, that the coalition does have clarity, and that these leaders who are so vicious and so harmful to our interests in the region are not – that they're mortal. That they can be gone, like Saddam can be gone."
Here is a full transcript of the March 30 interview:
7:08AM ET
CHRIS WRAGGE: In his Libya speech on Monday, the President said it would be a mistake to send U.S. troops to push out Qadhafi, saying quote, 'We went down that road in Iraq.' Joining us from Washington is someone highly qualified to discuss that, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, author of the recent memoir 'Known and Unknown.' Mr. Secretary, good morning.
DONALD RUMSFELD: Good morning.
WRAGGE: The President wants Qadhafi out, does not advocate regime change. Like I mentioned, on Monday night he went so far as to taking a shot at you and President Bush, saying, 'We've been down this road before.' Isn't the President being a bit hypocritical?
RUMSFELD: Oh, I'm not sure I'd use that word. I think the important thing we know is that we have U.S. military forces engaged and we have to hope that they're successful. And second, I would say is that the continued ambiguity by the President and the administration about whether or not Qadhafi will ultimately be gone is harmful. This is supposed to be a humanitarian effort. I can – there's no doubt but that as long as the people on the ground are ambiguous as to whether or not Qadhafi's going to stay or leave, more people will be killed.
And second, what's really important, of course, in that part of the world are Iran and Syria and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And the signals that we're ambivalent about whether or not Qadhafi should go once we're in there, it seems to me that ambivalence is harmful also in Syria. Where there are riots and there are demonstrations and where you have a regime, that working with Iran, is damaging American interests in Afghanistan, it's damaging American interests in Iraq, it's very harmful, what they're doing.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Rumsfeld's View; Former Defense Secretary on Libya, Middle East Unrest]
WRAGGE: So right now, if you could scale this on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is this for the U.S.? Should Qadhafi stay in power?
RUMSFELD: Oh, imagine if you were in Libya and you were part of the Qadhafi regime in the military and you were debating whether to defect and help the rebels. As long as we keep saying he may or may not leave, they're harmful. It's very harmful.
WRAGGE: But-
RUMSFELD: And – go ahead.
WRAGGE: And let me ask you this, about the rebels that you just talked about, in regards to arming the rebels, and the President has said, quote, yesterday, 'I won't rule it in, but I'm not ruling it out.' Rebels right now are being beaten back by Qadhafi's forces, who are continuing to fight, even though we are, you know, engaged in these air strikes. Is that what needs to be done, do these rebels need to be armed and then do they, in turn, need to be trained?
RUMSFELD: Well, you know, if your on the outside you know there's a lot you don't know about what's actually taking place. In life, there's public diplomacy, private diplomacy, there's overt action and there's covert action, and those of us on the outside don't know what's taking place. I do know that the signal being sent that the United States of America is still unclear about whether or not Qadhafi will leave or stay is harmful.
WRAGGE: What do you think the President should have said on Monday night that would have lended more clarity to the message of the end game here?
RUMSFELD: I think at some point the United States and the coalition has to say to the people on the ground in Libya, that Qadhafi will not stay. Once that happens, all the forces will start moving away from Qadhafi, they'll start moving towards the rebels. And there is at least the prospect that the signal from U.S. behavior in Libya will be read in Syria and places like that, that the United States does have clarity of purpose, that the coalition does have clarity, and that these leaders who are so vicious and so harmful to our interests in the region are not – that they're mortal. That they can be gone, like Saddam can be gone. And I think that's an important message for people who are looking for freer political systems and freer economic systems, to have that confidence that those people are not going to be there forever.
WRAGGE: Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, thank you very much for talking with us this morning. Good to speak with you.
RUMSFELD: Thank you.
— Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

The broadcast evening news anchors all got ten minutes with President Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon in New York City to press him about contradictions in his Libya policy, ceding authority for foreign entities and how he’s a hypocrite after his criticism of President Bush for unilateral actions and not getting congressional approval, but instead they simply prodded him to provide arms to the rebels and pushed him to take action in Syria.
But ABC’s Diane Sawyer stood out for her obsequiousness as the Kentucky native ended by giddily bringing up the college basketball tournament: “How much do you think Kentucky will win by?” Before that, she cued him up to agree he’s as burdened as Abraham Lincoln:
What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”?
Obama assured her: “I do a lot of praying.”
Following the interview except, Sawyer personalized her “beleaguered President” theme:
By the way, on that avalanche of crises the President faces every day – from Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan to nuclear crises in Japan – the President goes home every day to talk to his daughters about his day. I ask him what does he say to them about days like this? And you can see that at ABCNews.com/World News.
She had teased World News: “One on One: I ask the President about cutting a deal with Moammar Gadhafi and does he ever say ‘what's going on with this avalanche of world crises’?”
Brian Williams teased the NBC Nightly News: “‘Not ruling it out.’ Tonight, in our conversation with President Obama, he leaves the door open to arming those rebels in Libya.”
For CBS, Erica Hill landed the sit-down with Obama, which she teased: “Tonight, keeping up the pressure on Gadafi. The new air strikes and a diplomatic push. We talk to the President.”
Hill posed about the toughest question, which shows just how soft the sessions were: “The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies?”
Diane Sawyer’s questions to Obama as aired on the Tuesday, March 29 ABC World News:
– In my interview with the President I started by asking about Gadhafi and those reports he is trying to make a deal. [To Obama:] As of this moment, any sign Gadhafi wants out?
– If Gadhafi ends up in a villa someplace in Zimbabwe with no war crimes trial, is that okay with you?
– Have you made, or would you make any calls to say “take him”?
– We are hearing tonight, it’s fierce fighting, the U.S. must send munitions. How long would it take to get there?
– Can we say that we could have it [arms] in there in a day, in two days?
– I want to try to clarify what you’re saying today to the people of Syria. [Sawyer narration: We specifically asked the President, is he saying to the protesters in Syria that if they meet the five criteria he laid out last night] Are you saying to them we will be there for you as we were there in Libya?
– Even if these paper criteria are met?
– What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”? [Obama: “I do a lot of praying.”]
– Just a final question: How much do you think Kentucky will win by?
Erica Hill’s questions to Obama as excerpted on the CBS Evening News:
– Earlier today I spoke with President Obama here in New York. He has made it clear, from the beginning, he wants Gaddafi out. But what if he doesn’t go?
– Are there also discussions and even perhaps meetings at all with people in Muammar Gaddafi's camp?
– The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies?
– Can you give us an idea of what some of those goals are [for the Libyan rebels]? Beyond just removing Qaddafi from power?
– You mentioned the region. There's obviously so much focus on the region at this point. From everything we've seen over the last couple of months, there is renewed focus, though, on Syria. What would it take, what circumstances in particular would lead to direct involvement from the U.S. in Syria?
The questions from Williams to Obama run on the NBC Nightly News:
– The moment your speech ended last night the Associated Press put out an item that read: “President Obama’s speech was about defending the first war launched on his watch.” How does it end?
– What if it doesn’t work? What if the rebels find themselves bogged down, this becomes protracted?
– How do you not offer the rebels direct assistance of some sort?
– Due respect, Mr. President, watching the reportings of our two correspondents in Libya, what it appears the rebels need is military equipment. Some of their equipment dates back to World War II. Are you ruling out U.S. military hardware assistance?
– Three weeks from now, if a member of your circle makes an impassioned case to do the same in Syria, to finally de-couple it from Iran, what do you do?
– So when people hear words like “values” and “interests” and your phrase “the flow of commerce” – which some people couldn’t help but substitute oil – they shouldn’t think that there is any blanket policy, this may be an ad-hoc business if this so-called Arab Spring turns into Arab Summer and we keep at this, watching countries change?
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

The broadcast evening news anchors all got ten minutes with President Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon in New York City to press him about contradictions in his Libya policy, ceding authority for foreign entities and how he’s a hypocrite after his criticism of President Bush for unilateral actions and not getting congressional approval, but instead they simply prodded him to provide arms to the rebels and pushed him to take action in Syria.
But ABC’s Diane Sawyer stood out for her obsequiousness as the Kentucky native ended by giddily bringing up the college basketball tournament: “How much do you think Kentucky will win by?” Before that, she cued him up to agree he’s as burdened as Abraham Lincoln:
What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”?
Obama assured her: “I do a lot of praying.”
Following the interview except, Sawyer personalized her “beleaguered President” theme:
By the way, on that avalanche of crises the President faces every day – from Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan to nuclear crises in Japan – the President goes home every day to talk to his daughters about his day. I ask him what does he say to them about days like this? And you can see that at ABCNews.com/World News.
She had teased World News: “One on One: I ask the President about cutting a deal with Moammar Gadhafi and does he ever say ‘what's going on with this avalanche of world crises’?”
Brian Williams teased the NBC Nightly News: “‘Not ruling it out.’ Tonight, in our conversation with President Obama, he leaves the door open to arming those rebels in Libya.”
For CBS, Erica Hill landed the sit-down with Obama, which she teased: “Tonight, keeping up the pressure on Gadafi. The new air strikes and a diplomatic push. We talk to the President.”
Hill posed about the toughest question, which shows just how soft the sessions were: “The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies?”
Diane Sawyer’s questions to Obama as aired on the Tuesday, March 29 ABC World News:
– In my interview with the President I started by asking about Gadhafi and those reports he is trying to make a deal. [To Obama:] As of this moment, any sign Gadhafi wants out?
– If Gadhafi ends up in a villa someplace in Zimbabwe with no war crimes trial, is that okay with you?
– Have you made, or would you make any calls to say “take him”?
– We are hearing tonight, it’s fierce fighting, the U.S. must send munitions. How long would it take to get there?
– Can we say that we could have it [arms] in there in a day, in two days?
– I want to try to clarify what you’re saying today to the people of Syria. [Sawyer narration: We specifically asked the President, is he saying to the protesters in Syria that if they meet the five criteria he laid out last night] Are you saying to them we will be there for you as we were there in Libya?
– Even if these paper criteria are met?
– What about the famous quote from another beleaguered President, Abraham Lincoln, who said he had been driven many times to his knees because his own wisdom and that around him “was insufficient for the day”? [Obama: “I do a lot of praying.”]
– Just a final question: How much do you think Kentucky will win by?
Erica Hill’s questions to Obama as excerpted on the CBS Evening News:
– Earlier today I spoke with President Obama here in New York. He has made it clear, from the beginning, he wants Gaddafi out. But what if he doesn’t go?
– Are there also discussions and even perhaps meetings at all with people in Muammar Gaddafi's camp?
– The supreme allied commander for NATO said today that there are flickers of al Qaeda and Hezbollah amongst these rebels. How do we know what their end goal is? And how do we know they won't, in fact, turn on the U.S. and on our allies?
– Can you give us an idea of what some of those goals are [for the Libyan rebels]? Beyond just removing Qaddafi from power?
– You mentioned the region. There's obviously so much focus on the region at this point. From everything we've seen over the last couple of months, there is renewed focus, though, on Syria. What would it take, what circumstances in particular would lead to direct involvement from the U.S. in Syria?
The questions from Williams to Obama run on the NBC Nightly News:
– The moment your speech ended last night the Associated Press put out an item that read: “President Obama’s speech was about defending the first war launched on his watch.” How does it end?
– What if it doesn’t work? What if the rebels find themselves bogged down, this becomes protracted?
– How do you not offer the rebels direct assistance of some sort?
– Due respect, Mr. President, watching the reportings of our two correspondents in Libya, what it appears the rebels need is military equipment. Some of their equipment dates back to World War II. Are you ruling out U.S. military hardware assistance?
– Three weeks from now, if a member of your circle makes an impassioned case to do the same in Syria, to finally de-couple it from Iran, what do you do?
– So when people hear words like “values” and “interests” and your phrase “the flow of commerce” – which some people couldn’t help but substitute oil – they shouldn’t think that there is any blanket policy, this may be an ad-hoc business if this so-called Arab Spring turns into Arab Summer and we keep at this, watching countries change?
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
The country’s leading climatologist has a fascinating analysis on “Perceptions of Climate Change: Can people recognize changing climate?” Hansen had predicted as part of his famous 1988 testimony “that the perceptive person would notice that climate was changing by the early 21st century.” He revisits that subject in this paper with his coauthor, Makiko Sato.
They also make a number of noteworthy predictions. That the 2010s will be the warmest decade on record may be a surprise to the deniers and confusionists — like the discredited Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, who is testifying Thursday in front of the House Science committee (more on that later). But it is obvious to anyone who follows the science. Hansen and Sato also predict:
… we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Nino starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.
They don’t say so here, but that would very likely make 2012 the hottest year on record, one that is every bit as overwhelmed by extreme weather as 2010 was.
This entire analysis of how climate change is recognized by the public, especially the American public, is quite important, so I will excerpt their piece at length below:
This past winter, for the second year in a row, seemed pretty extreme in both Europe and the United States. So this is a good time to check quantitatively how seasonal climate change is stacking up against expectations.
People’s perception of climate change may be the most important factor determining their willingness to accept the scientific conclusion that humans are causing global warming (or global climate disruption, as you please). It is hard to persuade people that they have lying eyes.
In the paper attached to my congressional testimony in 1988 (1) we asserted that the perceptive person would notice that climate was changing by the early 21st century. I used colored dice to illustrate how the frequency of unusually warm seasons was expected to change.
We considered three scenarios for future greenhouse gas amounts. Figure 1 shows that the real world so far is close to scenario B.
Fig. 1. Update of Fig. 2 of Reference 1, scenarios A, B and C being climate forcings of greenhouse gases used in climate model simulations. The real world (red curve) has closely followed scenario B.
“There are two main reasons that greenhouse gas growth moved off the track of scenario A onto scenario B in the early 1990s, Hansen and Sato explain, “the growth of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) was greatly diminished by successive tightenings of the Montreal Protocol, (2) the growth of methane slowed sharply.”
Temporary aside: there are two main reasons that greenhouse gas growth moved off the track of scenario A onto scenario B in the early 1990s, as shown in Figure 2: (1) the growth of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) was greatly diminished by successive tightenings of the Montreal Protocol, (2) the growth of methane slowed sharply.
PERCEPTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Let’s start with this past winter, compare it with the last few winters, and then check whether the odds of warm seasons have changed as expected. Figure 3 shows the temperature anomaly for each of the past three months and the seasonal (Dec-Jan-Feb) mean anomaly.
Fig. 3. Surface temperature anomalies in Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-2011 relative to 1951-1980 mean.
Hansen and Sato explain:
December was very warm in northeast Canada, about 10°C (about 15-20°F) warmer than baby-boomers’ climatology (1951-1980 mean). It was unusually cold in the eastern United States and especially in northern Eurasia. Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay (between Canada and Greenland) were essentially ice-free, the first recorded time that ice-free conditions lasted so long. Ice-free water is a huge potential source of heat to the atmosphere. When the water is ice-covered the air above the ice can sink to 10 or 20°C below zero, but ice-free water warms the air above. I speculated in a prior post that this energy source may have contributed to causing the long-wave patterns that pushed cold Arctic air into northern Eurasia. But before getting carried away with regional climate prediction, let’s compare the last few winters and summers.
Figure 4 shows the seasonal mean temperature anomalies for the prior three Northern Hemisphere winters and the mean for the past decade. Note that the Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly pattern in 2010 (Dec 2009, Jan-Feb 2010) was very similar to 2011, including the unusually warm Hudson Bay region. The similarity occurred despite the opposite phases of the Southern Oscillation in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, 2010 having an El Niño and 2011 having a La Niña. But the strong patterns are averaged out in the mean anomaly for the first decade of this century. The decadal mean has widespread warming of about 1°C, but greater warming in the Arctic and less warming in the southern and western United States.
Fig. 4. Surface temperature anomalies in the prior three Northern Hemisphere winters and the mean anomaly for the past decade.
For more on the Hudson Bay warming, see Canada sees staggering mildness as planet’s high-pressure record is “obliterated.”
Figure 5 shows seasonal temperature anomalies for the last three Northern Hemisphere summers and the mean anomaly for the past decade. The United States was about half a degree Celsius (about 1°F) warmer in summers of the past decade compared to 1951-1980. Europe was 1-2°C warmer, in what seems to be downwind extension of large warming in northern Africa.
Fig. 5. Surface temperature anomalies in the last three Northern Hemisphere summers and the mean anomaly for the past decade.
THE ARCTIC OSCILLATION
There is one crucial thing that must be examined that affects northern hemisphere winters, the “Arctic oscillation,” which, as Wikipedia explain, “is an index (which varies over time with no particular periodicity) of the dominant pattern of non-seasonal sea-level pressure variations north of 20N latitude, and it is characterized by pressure anomalies of one sign in the Arctic with the opposite anomalies centered about 37-45N.”
Before betting any money on seasonal predictions, let’s look at one more piece of data. Figure 6 shows the Arctic oscillation index for Dec-Jan-Feb and Jun-Jul-Aug. When the AO index is negative Arctic surface pressure is high, which tends to cause cold air outbreaks, pushing Arctic air into middle latitudes. The AO index has high correlation (62%) with European winter temperature, and weaker but significant correlations for the United States (41%) and Japan (37%). The correlations are much weaker in the summer, as expected given the weaker latitudinal temperature gradient.
Fig. 6. Arctic oscillation index (top row) for Dec-Jan-Feb and Jun-Jul-Aug, and corresponding seasonal mean temperature anomalies in the United States, Europe and Japan.
Both the United States and Europe were colder than the 1951-1980 mean during each of the last two winters. But note that, despite all the belly-aching that we heard from Europe, it was only a bit colder than climatology. There were many winters that were much colder in 1951-1980, and even a few in the 1980s. Memories seem to be short. Of the last 10 winters 8 of 10 have been warmer than the 1951-1980 mean in the United States, 8 of 10 in Japan, and 6 of 10 in Europe. In the summer it is 8 of 10 in the United States, 8 of 10 in Japan, and 10 of 10 in Europe. But let’s still hold off on any betting until we check on our climate dice of the 1980s.
In reference (1), in approximation of categories used by the then United States Weather Service, we defined the 10 warmest summers of the 30 in 1951-1980 as “hot”, the 10 coolest as “cold”, and the middle 10 as “normal”. Our climate simulations indicated that for greenhouse gas scenario B the frequency of “hot” summers would increase to about 60% in the first decade of the 21st century and 70% in the second decade. In other words, instead of two sides of the die being red, it was expected to become four red sides at about the present time.
EXTREME EVENTS
Now we can check the degree to which the real world has lived up to this expectation. The answer will vary from one place to another, so let’s make a global map for this past winter. Each gridbox will be colored red, white or blue, depending on how the local temperature this past winter compared with the categories established by the 1951-1980 climatology.
Figure 7 shows the result for the last four winters (summers in the Southern Hemisphere).
Fig. 7. Dec-Jan-Feb “hot” and “cold” areas during the past four years, with hot and cold defined by the 1951-1980 climatology. Dark blue and black are areas of extreme cold and heat, extremes of a magnitude that occurred 2-3% of the time in the period of climatology
The extreme cases are important because those are the ones that have greatest practical implications, especially for nature. Species are adapted to climate of the past, so a change to more extreme climates can be detrimental, especially if it occurs so rapidly that species cannot migrate to stay within tolerable climatic conditions.
It also appears to be the case that people notice the extreme cases the most.
The numbers on the top of the maps are the percent of the area falling in the five categories: very cold, cold, normal, hot, very hot. In the period of climatology those numbers averaged 2%, 31%, 33%, 31%, 2%, rounded to the nearest percent.
Figure 7 reveals, for example, that the past two winters in Northern Europe both fell in the category of “cold” winters, but not extreme cold. The area hot or very hot (51-73%) far exceeded the area with cold or very cold conditions in all four years (14-27%).
Figure 8 shows results for Jun-Jul-Aug for each of the past four years. In both Jun-Jul-Aug and Dec-Jan-Feb it is apparent that the area falling in either the hot or very hot category totals 64-78% in agreement with our 1988 climate simulations.
Fig. 8. Jun-Jul-Aug “hot” and “cold” areas during the past four years, with hot and cold defined by the 1951-1980 climatology. Dark blue and black are areas of extreme cold and heat, extremes of a magnitude that occurred 2-3% of the time in the period of climatology.
The perceptive person who is old enough should be able to recognize that the frequency of unusually mild winters is now much greater than it was in the period 1951-1980. But mild winters may not have much practical impact. So a return to one or two colder than average winters may affect the public’s perception of climate change. On the other hand, the huge increase in the area with extremely hot summers, from 2-3% in 1951-1980 to as much as 30-40 percent in recent years and most of the land area in 2010. If people cannot recognize that summers are becoming more extreme they may need to have their senses examined or their memories. Perhaps the people who do not recognize climate change are living in air conditioned environments, which are restricted mainly to one species.
Or perhaps they watch FoxNews (see “Greater exposure” to Fox News will lead to “increased misinformation” on policy issues, especially climate science).
BETS AND PREDICTIONS
O.K., now let’s see what bets we can make, starting with next winter: are Europe and the United States going to be unusually cold again? Sea ice cover is very low now, as low as it has been in the period of satellite data. If low sea ice cover has caused the climate disruption of recent winters, as some scientists have asserted, that should hold again next winter, right? And I suggested that the ice-free Hudson and Baffin Bays were related to cold Europe. But were the long waves (the jet stream waggles) where they were because Hudson Bay was ice-free, or was Hudson Bay ice-free because the chaotic jet stream waggles happened to be where they were, causing southerly winds over Hudson Bay? Given the high degree of chaos in the AO index (see Fig. 15 in reference 3), I would not bet anything on Europe or United States winter temperature. On the long run the tendency, as verified by Figure 6 above, is toward winters that are warmer than climatology, so that is the direction I would lean, but I usually only bet on sure things, or on almost sure things that people find surprising.
One sure bet is that this decade will be the warmest in [recorded] history. Yes, some scientists assert that there is decadal variability and the next decade or two could be cooler. How do we know they are wrong? Because, as we show in reference 4, the planet is now out of balance by about ¾ of a watt per square meter of Earth’s surface averaged over the solar cycle. It may not sound like much, but that is a lot of energy (in an interesting unit suggested in a colleague’s paper, Sarah Purkey and Greg Johnson?), the ¾ W/m2 corresponds, assuming a global populations of 7 billion, to every man, woman, and child on the planet running simultaneously 40 industrial strength 1400 watt hair dryers 24 hours a day 365 days a year). This energy is enough to cause the ocean to slowly warm and ice to melt all over the planet.
UPDATE: In response to a query, Hansen emails me “I usually think of history as recorded human history — I believe most people do.” As for volcanoes nulifying the “sure bet,” he writes me “A Pinatubo or Krakatau would not do it, so don’t worry about that.”
Sometimes it is interesting to make a bet that looks like it is high risk, but really isn’t. Such a bet can be offered at this point. The NOAA web pages giving weekly ENSO updates (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ products/ analysis_monitoring/ lanina/ enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf) predict a return to ENSO-neutral conditions by mid-summer with some models suggesting a modest El Nino to follow. We have been checking these forecasts weekly for the past several years, and have noted that the models almost invariably are biased toward weak changes. Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Ninos, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Nino starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.
Finally, we can mention one other high probability bet, relevant to a Congressional hearing later this week. Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania will testify about climate change to a committee of the House of Representatives. Armstrong, we are told, has made a bet that a prediction of no temperature change over a 10-year period starting in 2007 will prove more accurate than predictions of global warming. Observations (Figure 21 of Reference 3) show a linear warming rate over the past 50 years of 0.17°C per decade. Our climate model slows this down to about 0.15°C for the near future because of the change in GHG growth shown in Figure 2(b) above. That bet, warming of 0.15°C/decade would have a high probability of winning over a bet of no temperature change.
I’ll discuss the Thursday hearing tomorrow, not so much because of Armstrong, who’s unscientific bet makes no sense, but because the great fabricator, Berkeley’s Richard Muller will be there.
Earlier this month, The Newspaper Guild-CWA (TNG-CWA), called on the unpaid writers at The Huffington Post to withhold their work in support of a strike launched by Visual Art Source in response to the company’s practice of using unpaid labor.
In an open letter today to publisher Arianna Huffington, TNG President Bernie Lunzer wrote that when Huffington Post spokesman Mario Ruiz was asked about TNG’s action, he said, “We stand squarely behind The Newspaper Guild’s mission of ensuring that media professionals receive fair compensation.”
We invite you to demonstrate this commitment by sitting down with the Guild to begin a dialog about the future of journalism. We would like to discuss the values that we share, and build upon them to meet the rapid changes and demands taking place in the industry. Like you, we believe that for journalism to survive it must adapt to the digital age.
New technology should not make a worker’s paycheck obsolete.
You have championed the plight of workers in this country, which is why we are calling on you to demonstrate that commitment by meeting with us.
Click here for the full letter and here for background on the dispute from TNG. Click here to visit the Facebook “Hey Arianna, Can You Spare a Dime” by Guild Freelancers/ California Media Workers Guild.
[National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon speaking] […] Fourth, the circumstances arose with the passage of the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, the night before a congressional recess. So he did, even with that, call Congress, those who remained in town on Friday and those who are out of town, on the phone to consult with them. – David Dayen
If the President of the United States thinks a “While You Were Out” letter of military actions against Libya passes the smell test, then it’s obvious Obama thinks everyone is really dumb, especially Congress. Tina Brown’s Newsweek proves he may have a point.
Newsweek recently queried people to take their “citizenship test.” It’s not shocking that 38% failed. You can take the poll here. A couple of weeks ago Tina Brown’s newsweekly asked who was the most admired woman? The answer was Oprah Winfrey.
The most admired woman in the United States is Oprah Winfrey. One-quarter say Oprah Winfrey is the most admired woman, 17 percent say Hillary Clinton, 12 percent say Michelle Obama and 10 percent say Condoleezza Rice. Nine percent say Laura Bush, 7 percent say Diane Sawyer and 6 percent say Sarah Palin. – Newsweek Survey: Oprah, Clinton Most Admired Women in America
Did you know Oprah Winfrey helped George W. Bush sell preemptive war in Iraq? Considered the “national anchor” by some, it mattered. This was an exchange that was featured on Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War,” which can be seen in the snippet below (h/t corrente).
Audience member: “I hope it doesn’t offend you… I just don’t know what to believe with the media.”
Oprah: “We’re not trying to propagandize, show you propaganda. We’re just showing you what is.”
Audience member: “I understand that, I’m saying —”
Oprah cuts her off.
Oprah: “OK, but, OK, you have a right to your opinion.”
from Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War”
Obviously, Ms. Winfrey wasn’t the only one on the Iraq war bandwagon, but her impact has also never been discussed. Though when the war went south and she flipped to be against it, she was lauded, while no one logged she was late and had been wrong.
For whatever reason Oprah always gets a pass.
Who can forget the huge moment in the ‘08 primaries when Oprah said Barack Obama is “the one”? From CNN:
“I’ve never taken this kind of risk before nor felt compelled to stand up and speak out before because there wasn’t anyone to to stand up and speak up for,” Winfrey told thousands of people in Cedar Rapids Saturday evening.
“We need a president who can bring us all together,” she said. “I know [Barack Obama] is the one.”
Earlier in Des Moines, she focused on world affairs. “These are dangerous times, you can feel it. We need a leader who shows us how to hope again in America as a force for peace,” Winfrey told the enthusiastic crowd.
“I believe Barack Obama will bring statesmanship to the White House,” she said. “He’s a man who knows who we are and knows who we can be.”
Ms. Winfrey’s euphoria is the same type that followed Barack Obama throughout his campaign, which also landed him the Nobel Peace prize.
If anyone knows how dumb we are it’s Oprah Winfrey. She’s been cashing in on it for 25 years.
Though she’s done important shows, including on females in the military, and many others, that’s not what the overwhelming bulk of her shows covered or how she stayed on top. She never intended to follow in Phil Donahue’s shoes, instead going tabloid to beat him in the ratings and never turning away from one trash show after another. Her specialty was always her victim-apalooza shows. Oprah spawned Sally and every other trash TV show after her.
Over her astounding 25-year television career, Ms. Winfrey has also accomplished what no other woman has done before. Not only is she staggeringly wealthy, but someone who got that way through breaking the television trash TV barrier onto daytime long before Jerry Springer’s wild escapades hit. It’s an amazing accomplishment for any entertainment business person, but especially an African American woman raised in the segregated south and she deserves all the credit due for her achievements, including her incredible charitable giving. Her “O” network is a venture I hope will succeed where men have before, but where women have never before ventured.
Oprah has done for women what sports does for men. Make people believe in the financial mountaintop, sometimes through hocus pocus like “The Secret,” but she inspires the sight of dancing dollar bills in her fans’ dreams.
Of course, it’s one of the core problems of this country. Wealth over working to earn it, which Oprah Winfrey would be the first to tell you she worked hard for what she achieved.
So, with women admiring Oprah more than any other woman in America, as our culture also obsesses over Charlie Sheen, and as we blunder yet again into another undeclared military excursion, how can we be surprised that 38% of Americans can’t pass a citizenship test?
But how dumb are we?
Money and fame are our guide.
We don’t gravitate to information or education, though we talk a lot about it. Just look at who represents us and how they do their jobs.
We are suckered by celebrities telling us things made out of cotton candy rhetoric often with no foundational facts available at all.
Oprah’s a blockbuster shopper, hailing “my favorite things,” which makes companies and thrills the women in her audience. Her historic TV show’s tabloid tales reach across the globe. Her spirituality shows have helped rehabilitate her smarmy programming, which cashed in on victimhood as if it were the holy grail of goodness.
I find her historic success on television laudable for the sheer financial power she’s accumulated, but her television show is virtually unwatchable for the most part. I taped her last season for a while, but haven’t been able to watch most episodes. I do admit to enjoying Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford, as well as McGraw and O’Neil, but there’s only so much fluff I can take that doesn’t make me laugh.
Kitty Kelly’s biography, “Oprah,” was so feared by “O” that the media virtually banned her book due to Ms. Winfrey’s power to muzzle Kelly. “Oprah” is an eye-popping page turner of unending revelations compiled in one volume where Kelly constructs a picture of an insecure, binge-eating, control freak who obviously hasn’t taken her spirituality to heart. That Oprah’s fans didn’t read it isn’t surprising, but the complicit nature of the blackout on Kelly’s book is rather historic.
I can’t vouch for anything in the book except to say I’ve read it, but also that Kelly has never been successfully sued and “Oprah” is no exception. Mrs. Kelly is a methodically anal researcher with a gift for getting people on the record, while Oprah refused any contact at all, which is understandable. So there is quite a bit of the book that’s taken from other publications, long before Oprah earned her power. Kelly is an author who is compelled to strip the media story away from her subject then re-compile it slowly, episode by episode.
When Kelly’s book first came out Huffington Post gave her a full airing, as did USA Today and other papers, but television appearances were few and far between.
In America, we like our icons pristine. It’s more important than anything, including information about them that reveals them as imperfect humans. Americans abhor legend busting. On the whole we simply don’t want the facts. To paraphrase a legendary Jack Nicholson character, we simply can’t handle the truth.
Take the experience recounted by Kelly of prizewinning columnist for New Orleans’s Times-Picayune, Chris Rose, who wrote about the traumatic reaction he had after Hurricane Katrina. After 10-hours of “revisiting the emotional wreckage of the hurricane,” here’s a very brief synopsis of what happened when Rose refused to sign one of Oprah’s notorious nondisclosure/confidentiality agreements:
“‘If you don’t sign, we don’t run the segment,’” the producer said.
[…] “I had stuck my hand into a hornet’s next of anti-Oprah sentiment on the Internet that pushed my book from number eleven thousand on Amazon to number eighteen by the end of the day and then on to The New York Times bestseller list. … .. […] I had no idea there were negative feelings about her and her confidentiality agreements out there, but I received calls and emails from writers all over the country saying they were going to buy my book that day to send her a message.”
Any society afraid of truth is in trouble. That’s us.
One year ago when Ms. Kelly’s book was released it caused a firestorm due to the personal revelations revealed by Oprah’s relatives, which is the stuff of stunning tabloid juiciness. It rivals anything in “Game Change,” which is going to be an HBO movie. Your heart breaks for Winfrey, as revelations of being a prostitute are discussed for her memoir that never was done and all sorts of sordid contested details are unloaded. The saddest part of the saga is that for all Oprah’s public religiosity the picture portrayed by Kelly is one of paranoid megalomaniac. However, what wafts from the pages of Kelly’s book helps you understand why Oprah chose the path she did on daytime, churning the swamp of human indignities for ratings and financial reward’s sake.
It’s likely no one in this country could explain how dumb we are better than Winfrey.
The worship of Oprah seems even weirder when you juxtapose Oprah with what’s happening with women around the world, especially as the women of the Middle East rise up to change their countries that includes a place for them in their country’s future.
Perhaps it’s the privilege of women in America that makes Oprah’s fans worship her, without caring about the underlying reality that doesn’t match the legendary “O” marketing.
For whatever reason, Oprah has never gotten the national scrutiny for how she’s impacted our culture, but also the dumb factor in our country. Over 25 years of daytime programming on “Oprah” represents why we’re dumb.
Of course, Oprah’s not the only one to blame or maybe she’s not to blame at all. After all you can change the channel. However, when it’s seen as blasphemy to ask the same questions of Oprah that were asked of Geraldo Rivera there’s a willful ignorance being applied, especially where women are concerned.
So, if you want to know how dumb are we, ask Oprah. She’s become the richest woman in America, rivaling men around the world, by betting on American ignorance.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst, writer and commentator on national politics. A veteran national politics writer, Taylor’s been writing on the web since 1996. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her blog.
Fox News |
NFL Asks Court to Wait for Labor Board's Ruling
New York Times The NFL responded in court documents Monday to players' attempt to gain an injunction to lift the lockout, claiming that courts are barred from issuing injunctions in labor disputes and that no decision on the injunction should be made … NFL urges judge to wait for resolution of NLRB case Court motions keep NFL from business of free agency NFL claims there are no legal grounds for forcing continuation of football … |
Fox News |
NFL Asks Court to Wait for Labor Board's Ruling
New York Times The NFL responded in court documents Monday to players' attempt to gain an injunction to lift the lockout, claiming that courts are barred from issuing injunctions in labor disputes and that no decision on the injunction should be made … NFL urges judge to wait for resolution of NLRB case Court motions keep NFL from business of free agency NFL claims there are no legal grounds for forcing continuation of football … |
Globe and Mail |
League asks judge to wait on ruling
FOXSports.com Alex Marvez is a Senior NFL Writer for FOXSports.com. He has covered the NFL for the past 16 seasons as a beat writer and is the former president of the Pro Football Writers of America. The NFL's legal jousting with the NFL Players Association … Dolphins owner: Labor unions are cause of financial trouble for business NFL Owners Oppose Player Bid to Block Lockout During Bargaining Talks SBD: NFL's Jeff Pash offers lockout update from owners' perspective |
Here’s an incredibly powerful statement of conviction about what goes on, still, in most classrooms and what educating is all about. I’d love to have him compose a similarly-toned response for me and other local electeds when we’re getting abused for reminding people about the finite nature of resources and the short and long-term consequences of making decisions for a municipality based purely on politics, or a for-profit business model. This video has been around since 2006, apparently, but if you have never seen it, you should and if you have before, consider how apt it is now.
Click here to view the embedded video.
You can read more about the guy in the video here.
There is a growing number of conservatives asking what is the mission in Libya.
Now Speaker John Boehner is among the group asking Obama to clarify what our role is in Libya.
It didn’t take long for others in the world to see the intervention in Libya as an opportunity to plead their own case:
Bahrain’s opposition asked for U.N. and American intervention in the government crackdown on the Shiite protests trying to loosen the monarchy’s grip, in a brief protest Sunday in the capital that disbanded before police could arrive to break it up.
The 18 opposition legislators protesting Sunday at the U.N. offices in Manama resigned last month to protest the crackdown on the monthlong revolt, inspired by the pro-democracy uprisings across the Arab world. Bahrain’s king declared martial law last week, and a Saudi-led military force from other Gulf nations is in the country to back the Sunni monarchy.
In the five-minute protest, the lawmakers appealed to the U.N. to stop the violence against protesters and mediate talks between the opposition and the monarchy; they asked the U.S. to pressure the Gulf force to leave.
Not at all likely to happen, of course, but it does lead one to wonder why the world is willing to look the other way in Baharain, but not in Libya.