Christian Leftist

ABC News just had a segment on the accusations levelled at the White House for having the Office of Budget Management “eviscerate” the substance of the CDC head’s report to Congress on the health effects of global warming.

ABC’s article
Reuters Article

A Dr. Something-Fox from the University of Mischigan examined the discrepancies between the 14-page final draft and the 6-page transcript of the final CDC speech to Congress, he saisd he found no factual basis for the removal of the excerpts because they were scientific facts.

Yes, this post is merely a link. Nearly. But I hadn’t noticed the article until Stephen Colbert mocked it.

Melting Ice Pack Displaces Alaska Walrus

There was a graph on CNN International the other day showing different ways to fight global warming as wedges in an incline, and that for each wedge we attack, the rate of global warming could decrease by the subtracted height of the wedge removed (that sounds complicated, but it’s really just stacking long, thin triangles on each other in the same direction and taking one away at a time).

I think it’s a great model for how significantly one thing, such as switching to electric cars, could do for the earth. Of course, any change we make now will probably be too late for the polar bears. Apparently, it’s getting a little hot for the walruses as well.

The definition of peace now includes the promotion of environments that avoid conflicts over land and natural resources. Al Gore and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will share the prize jointly. Al ore is going to donate his $1.5 million winnings to helping to counteract global warming.

CNN International did a great piece today on it, and was fair enough to refute the falsehoods of this one conservative commentator who tried to pass off the old lie that there isn’t a consensus on global warming. Good for CNN International. The regular CNN often lets guest commentators use it as a bully pulpit to spew biased propaganda, and I’m glad that the company at least knows that the global community doesn’t appreciate a program that lets anyone come on and say anything without substantiation.

Today is such a great day.

The issue came up at a meeting in Vienna for the European Society of Cardiology. Shocker, that. The Discovery web site has an article about it here.

What is shocking is that this wasn’t news during the massive heat wave of 2003, when 35,000 people died in Europe, many of them the sick, the elderly, or others with undiagnosed health problems. That number was well above the normal expected deaths from heatstroke and cardiovascular failure from heat exhaustion.

Once the North Pole reaches that tipping point - when the amount of dark warmer water is heating up the ice so much that there is no way to reverse the melting trend - it will cause a chain reaction of events that will result in all of the other nasty effects that scientists have warned the public about for years…with one notable exception.

It’s going to be a long, long, long, hot summer.

Just something to think about.

Normally I don’t just link to interesting articles without saying something of substance about them, but this is Nicholas Kristof, and the title says it all, really.

Michael Griffin stands out from your average chief of a program that relies on federal funding: he agreed to an interview on National Public Radio and spoke frankly when asked his opinion, which is more than one can ask of so many CEOs, CFOs, political appointees or representatives. That act in itself is commendable. Now comes the time when we cringe at exactly what those opinions are.

Here is an excerpt of his responses from an ABC news article on the implications:

“I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin told Inskeep. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.

“To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change,” Griffin said. “I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

You might remember the brouhaha last year over an elimination of the words “to understand and protect our home planet” from the NASA mission statement, or you might not.

Or perhaps the saga of the 2005 attempt to silence James Hansen, NASA’s senior climate scientist who works at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, slipped past your attention. Two years ago, Hansen warned the public that the earth was approaching a “tipping point” on global warming. The Bush appointee who had censured Hansen lost his job when word leaked out, but that result only came after national exposure of his incompetency.

These quiet uproars are the sort of AP briefs that fail to capture the attention of the major TV news networks. It is difficult to remember to save and document every incident of a political coup when it advances in inches, not feet, over the span of four decades.

Micheal Griffin doesn’t appear to be in danger of losing his job, yet. This raises the issue of what – or who – the word ’scientist’ represents.