>I, Too, Demand My Constitutional Right To A Syndicated Radio Show & Other Thoughts

>Constitutional scholar Sarah Palin tells Dr. Laura to not retreat, reload!

Which should make today a fun one on the internets.

Meanwhile, as the nation focuses on the circus sideshow, Nashville is preparing for a repeat of its floods of three and a half months ago. Hopefully we won’t be looking at our fourth 100-year flood in 40 years. Climate change, much? The New York Times connects the dots (although some of us did that a few months ago):

Dr. Meehl, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told me in an interview that the “fairly small” average warming in the earth’s temperature, about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the Industrial Revolution, can be expected to lead to “much more noticeable changes in the extremes” of heat and cold.

“Physically, you’d expect to see more record heat events and fewer record cold events,” he said. “That’s what we are seeing.”
For those intimidated by scientific papers, a simpler write-up on the issue can be found here. And Dr. Meehl is also on YouTube talking about the findings of his research.

Here’s the video:

Conservatives who deny climate change are a lot like Sarah Palin discussing the Constitution: they do it with very little real understanding of the subject matter, lots of false assumptions and politically-motivated finger pointing, and a hefty dose of oil industry backing. They don’t need to prove anything, just sow enough doubt in peoples’ minds that it undermines any real effort to change anything so we can keep sucking on the bones of dead dinosaurs.

Hmm … maybe the Constitution really does guarantee me a right to a nationally-syndicated radio show! In which case, my first program can be about climate change.

About these ads

4 Comments

Filed under climate change, Dr. laura, Nashville weather, Sarah Palin

4 responses to “>I, Too, Demand My Constitutional Right To A Syndicated Radio Show & Other Thoughts

  1. Jim

    >“Physically, you’d expect to see more record heat events and fewer record cold events,” he said. “That’s what we are seeing.”In July, the Neumayer III station, operated by Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute, has recorded the lowest temperature at their Antarctic location since the start of operations there 29 years ago. The mercury dropped to -50.2°C. Sydney recorded its coldest June morning this year since 1949, with temperatures diving to 4.3 degrees.2010 set record cold levels during the winter for several locations.I am not sure you can claim that we are seeing fewer record cold events as expected. Is the climate changing? Yes it is. Please point out a time period in the history of the Earth where the climate was not changing.

  2. >I wonder why denialists never ask themselves why climate changed in history and pre-history. Did the earth get warm during the Pliocene just cuz she wanted to wear a bikini? Did she get cool in the Pleistocene just on a whim? Were there mini ice ages hundreds of years ago because the earth was bored? Zeus having a fight with Aphrodite?No. There are reasons climate changes. It's not random. Such as, volcano eruptions and asteroids, which spew particulate matter and gases into the atmosphere, causing a reaction and changing weather and climate patterns. Of course, different substances cause different atmospheric reactions. What we're spewing into the air now is far different from, say, what Mt. Vesuvius spewed into the air. It simply defies common sense to think if the eruption of Mt. St. Helens could lower global temperatures by 0.1 C (which it did), then a much more massive spewing of gases higher into the atmosphere over a period of decades and spanning the entire globe wouldn't cause a more massive climate response.Sorry Jim. You are wrong. You are not sure and you are not a scientist. The scientists are sure. And I will listen to them over some oil industry-funded hacks like the Cato Institute and American Petroleum Institute who see nothing but dollar signs in the melting ice cap.

  3. >I have a simple approach to the question of Anthropogenic Climate Change.I believe that human activity can negatively affect the climate, and that we need to do something about it. If I'm wrong, then we will have instituted some needless regulation and unnecessarily restrained the economy. However, if the deniers are wrong about ACC, the stakes are quite a bit higher, aren't they?To me, it would seem that the conservative course of action would be to err on the side of safety.

  4. >I'd tune in, SoBeale.Bill McKibben was right.