In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Earth v. Bush

Jill

I would just like to take a minute and thank the President for the fact that I wore a summer dress to school today, and had a pleasant walk home, as it was 60 degrees despite the fact that the sun had gone down hours before. I know this isn’t exactly his doing, but he is certainly putting forth an effort to make sure that those of us who are used to having snow during the winter will be able to enjoy more 70-degree December days. Let’s hope that activist judges don’t blow it for him.

44 thoughts on Earth v. Bush

  1. Don’t forget to pick up your beachfront property on the north Arctic Coast. By the time you want to retire to a sunny beach, those may be expensive, but now you can buy for a song.

  3. In western Oregon, we’re coming off three days of very cold with snow. Now, y’know, it is against the rules! for there to be snow here in November. Our snow falls in January. Way not fair!

    And of course, we’re wondering, does this mean a longer and colder winter, or does it mean that we’ve had our snow and that’s all we’re gonna get?

  4. I’m in northern new england and it was 65 today. I noticed some plants are beginning to grow buds again. If there is no snow and if the weather turns and the ground freezes quickly it will be hell for crops for next year and also for sap running in the spring.

    If its this warm now and doesn’t get significantly colder I’m fearful for what next summer will bring. Already the ground and air are full of humidity from rain that should have been snow, which of course returns to the atmosphere when temps are as high as they were today.

    Most people I have spoken to agree that this is beyond creepy; its downright scary.

  5. Yeah I just started college in the Boston area, and today I looked up the weather on weather.com I was so weirded out. 66 degrees. I was out without even a jacket. It was too hot to wear a coat, and I get cold ridiculously easily. It’s crazy. Meanwhile back in New York every time I go back it’s colder than it is up here.

  6. Only the Bush government could admit that well, maybe global warming does exist but it would be infringing on our rights as Americans to do anything about it. Still, I’m more inclined to see a government that doesn’t have a clue about how to tackle a problem if there isn’t a clear, simple way to do it that won’t lose votes.

  7. Strangely enough, climatologists don’t actually make predictive models on global warming by aggregating blog comments about the weather. And if they did, the Administration wouldn’t listen anyway unless it was the Arctic Circle Chapter of the Free Republic.

  8. Today in Ottawa, Canada it was pouring rain and extremely warm. It’s supposed to be nasty and cold soon, with tonnes of freezing rain, but still…. November 30th? rain? Warm? in OTTAWA!? I think it was nearly 14C today…

  10. I noticed it too, however, I’m not so sure we can completely blame George for this one. I recall the winter of 1998 being very similar, and that was during the Clinton administration. I was leaving college for winter break, and didn’t need a coat, or a long sleeve, in Missouri.

  11. Also, is it really likely that the climate can completely change in 6 years? Not that i don’t blame our government’s policies, but I don’t believe it all could have started with Bush. Climate change takes around 25 years I think (have to look it up), so perhaps Reagan, or Bush I?

  12. I am sweating. In my dorm. While sitting down. I’ve got my window open and it’s December. There’s something wrong with that.

  14. If Scalia lets The Court get passed the issue of standing (which might not happen, Kennedy will decide that), then the court is going to issue a split decision: EPA has the ability to regulate Carbon Dioxide under the CAA, but 12 states cannot force their own policy upon the executive branch. Bush thinks Carbon Dioxide is good for you, therefore it is not a pollutant, therefore it does not need to be regulated under the CAA . . .

    My prediction.

  15. Here in Gainesville, FL it was a humid 84 degrees. Then again, I don’t remember a single winter in my life that didn’t have plenty of warm days, as this is Florida. I just wish I didn’t have to sit in class all day so I could enjoy this weather.

  16. Here in the Pacific Northwest, it’s been the opposite. We might actually hit the low 40s today, which is about right for this time of year, but we’re coming off a few days of colder-than-normal temperatures, snow, and ice, and that is very unusual for November.

    Speaking generally about climate change, I’ve heard arguments to the effect that it’s a good thing (we’ll have longer growing seasons in the Dakotas! Never mind that the southern third or so of the country would likely be a scorching desert.). I’ve also heard an actual economics Ph.D. say, flat out, “maybe nature is something we’re going to have to do without”.

    Seriously.

  17. Normally this time of year in Phoenix, AZ the weather starts to get cold come the beginning of November (cold for us being in the 50s). Instead, the whole month of November was 80 degree days with lows in the high 60s low 70s. It is just now finally hitting the 50s as the high and 30s as the low, but by next week we are supposed to be back in the low 70s for the high.

    Very strange indeed.

  18. There is no reason, none at all, that I should be a sweaty mess on December 1 in New York while wearing linen. NONE.

  19. Since we keep mis-interpreting each other’s humor, please tell me Jill, are you really blaming Bush for the weather?

    If you are, it’s ironic that you chose November 30 to say something, as that’s the last day of this year’s hurricane season.

    And the total number of hurricanes to hit the US this year, a year predicted by the National Weather Service as “more active than usual”? Zero.

    People who bet in the new hurricane damage futures market lost their shirts/skirts.

    While I’m not going to totally discount global warming, over the centuries there’s been plenty of global climate change, and none of it has been credibly linked to human activities. So I’m finding it hard to believe Bush’s choice in judges should make a difference. (That’s not to say I’m happy with his choices either)

    I mean, what if the say, our sun is getting a bit warmer?

    Past climate-change Wikipedia linkfest, I’ve already done here.

    [Disclaimer: this comment contains humor, of a variety that you may not fully understand]

  20. Weird as it is, there’s some freak warm snap just about every year. And also unseasonable cold, too – Buffalo got hit by two feet of snow in early October.

    It doesn’t prove anything – the danger of global warming is more subtle than this. An average temperature differnce of 3 or 4 degrees is going to have severe effects. There’s no climate-change explanation to a week that’s 30 degrees above normal. It’s just an unusual thing.

  21. I do remember getting the occasional 50 degree day in February when I was a kid in the 1970’s, so I don’t think that the warm weather we’ve been having up in the northeast is that unusual. That said, I remember a 95-degree day we had several years ago when I was living in Boston, which happened to be on my birthday. Which is in the end of March.

  22. Since we keep mis-interpreting each other’s humor, please tell me Jill, are you really blaming Bush for the weather?

    Perhaps the post itself will answer your question:

    I know this isn’t exactly his doing, but he is certainly putting forth an effort to make sure that those of us who are used to having snow during the winter will be able to enjoy more 70-degree December days

    Point, for those who missed it: Of course George Bush didn’t single-handedly cause climate change, and he didn’t even do anything that’s caused this winter to be so odd. However, he refuses to recognize that climate change is a major problem, and is taking steps to continue harming the environment.

  23. And the total number of hurricanes to hit the US this year, a year predicted by the National Weather Service as “more active than usual”? Zero.

    Isn’t that unusual in itself?

  24. Thank you, KnifeGhost. My thoughts exactly.

    As a lifelong resident of Minnesota, I can tell you that 80 degree days in October followed two days later by 40+ degree days are in fact unusual. As is a November that didn’t cool down to below freezing during the day until *December*. As are 70 degree December days, and humidity in the summer approaching tropical levels. And a distinct LACK of thunder storms and tornados in the summer, as well.

    The weather started getting wonky here less than a decade ago. (I remember this happening, since I’ve been living here since, well, for a long time. 🙂 While one strange year is a conversation starter out here, several years in a row seems to constitute a trend. Something is making this happen. We can’t *prove* that humans are causing global warming — there was a similar trend earlier in recorded history, in the early medieval ages, I think, that was then followed by a mini-ice age. However, we can’t *dis*prove the connection, either, and it seems to me that being a little paranoid about the causes of global warming and making changes accordingly may prove to be the prudent thing.

    Mainly, I’m irritated because it doesn’t seem to get cold enough to encourage the whiney non-natives from leaving my state. “No, I’m sorry, 20 degrees ABOVE zero in January is actually quite nice for Minnesota. So put on your long underwear and deal with it!” Sigh….

  25. KnifeGhost Says:

    Isn’t that unusual in itself?

    It is indeed unusual, and if I wasn’t told last year by the fringe wackos that all the hurricanes were a direct result of global warming, and the weather was about to spiral out of control with more intense hurricanes and ice-caps melting and death and destruction I might even buy a bit of the argument that global warming is causing more variance in the weather. Assuming you had data to back it up. Good data.

    The court case in question seems to be whether or not CO2 is a pollutant. Well, co2 is in people’s breath. It’s exhaled by livestock too. Yeast, used to make bread and beer release it also.

    Slate:

    Section 202 of the Clean Air Act empowers the federal government to regulate “any air pollutant” that may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

    If co2 is a pollutant, because it reasonably is a threat, than the EPA can regulate any emission, reasonable or not. On this issue, I don’t have much to say because I think every EPA regulation ought to be properly passed by the Legislative branch, you know, just like it says in the Constitution. I also wince whenever a judge tries to squeeze out of a requested ruling by citing “standing”. What utter crap standing is.

    I don’t know about the specifics of this case, but when I hear this:

    Slate:

    “there is no injury if there is no global warming.”

    …It makes me wonder if the scheme is just to allow the states and cites who are partners in the suit to go ahead with tobacco type lawsuits against the auto manufactures. Need more data.

    Jill:

    …However, he refuses to recognize that climate change is a major problem, and is taking steps to continue harming the environment.

    Yea, somehow you’re trying to sorta create a casual link between Bush and “Indian Summer”, and I’m not buying it.

    My line of reasoning is this: Climate change is a major problem. The Sun is burning brighter than ever in recorded history, and is affecting the climate. Emissions by human activity is also contributing to climate change. No one creditable has yet to say “according to this data we need to cut co2 emissions by exactlythis much to counteract all factors.

    Give me the amount of co2 we need to reduce and a credible plan on how we’re gonna pull it off without us all going back to substinence farming and riding around on donkeys and elephants instead of cars. I want to see the data too.

    Bonus points for figuring out that any substantial cut in co2 emissions without drastically affecting everyones quality of life is gonna have to involve a nuclear power plant in just about everyone’s backyard. I hope you can deal with that.

  26. Laurie:

    Something is making this happen. We can’t *prove* that humans are causing global warming — there was a similar trend earlier in recorded history, in the early medieval ages, I think, that was then followed by a mini-ice age. However, we can’t *dis*prove the connection, either, and it seems to me that being a little paranoid about the causes of global warming and making changes accordingly may prove to be the prudent thing.

    A lot of people support this argument, This is why I don’t buy it:

    Let’s say I’ve gone all these years without making any plans for my retirement. Suddenly I’m worried about it, but I have no idea what to do about it. I know nothing about stocks, or bonds or 401k plans. Al Gore comes up to me and says he’s got a plan. He doesn’t know exactly how much the plan is gonna cost, or even if the plan is going to work, but he argues that I’m not getting any younger and I need to do something.

    Should I jump on the bandwagon and write that blank check or should I do some more research? I mean my money could be earning compound interest this very minute. Why delay, it’s just going to get worse, right?

    Now please do me a favor and read the Wikipedia entry about climate change back in 1816:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_A_Summer

    Besides being interesting (a volcano eruption caused world-wide crop failures and spurned western expansion, who knew?) maybe some one can come up with a pie-in-the-sky idea to counteract global warming from it. I mean, you admit that perhaps we don’t understand everything yet, right? If we are getting major climate change from increased solar output, cutting our hydrocarbon emissions back to the level occurring during the ice age^H^H^H^H stone age might not be enough to solve the worldwide problem.

    And speaking of that ice age, you do know that we’re due for one, right? Any minute or millenia now, actually. Should we be spending money to counteract that potential threat? Or should we, you know, try to figure out what caused them first?

  27. Standard Mischief:
    How about we admit that belching mass quantities of pollutants into the air and pissing toxic chemicals into the water AND earth can’t be a *good* thing, and do something to stop it? Yeah, we aren’t doing it at the same level as the Victorian Industrialists were individually doing it, but there are more of us DOING it. There are very few absolute answers in science — I’m inclined to be relatively conservative (or bleeding heart liberal, as the case may be) when it comes to environmental protection.

    There isn’t going to be ONE solution to cutting back on emissions and cleaning up our act without returning to subsistence farming and riding donkeys; there are going to be a lot of little ones. The sooner we start experimenting with them, the sooner we’ll figure out how to live decently on the planet without buggering it up much further. And if the warming trend is indeed caused mostly by increased solar output, at least we won’t be contributing as much.

    Now please do ME a favor and don’t assume that I am clueless based on a casual comment on a blog. (Hint: anyone can update the Wikipedia. I generally take it with a *large* grain of salt. And yes, I have heard of that particular phenomena.)

  28. The court case in question seems to be whether or not CO2 is a pollutant. Well, co2 is in people’s breath. It’s exhaled by livestock too. Yeast, used to make bread and beer release it also.

    And trees, too. Don’t forget the trees.

    Let me guess. You’re a Reaganite, aren’t you?

  31. Laurie Says:

    How about we admit that belching mass quantities of pollutants into the air and pissing toxic chemicals into the water AND earth can’t be a *good* thing…

    Yup, because I won’t automatically swallow all the global warming gloom & doom, it means I think polluting is A-okay, right. Try again please.

    zuzu Says:

    …Let me guess. You’re a Reaganite, aren’t you?

    and:

    You know, I love the “It’s natural!” argument.
    Arsenic is natural, too.

    Actually the main point was that if the EPA can regulate automobile CO2 emissions, than they could theoretically regulate any industry that emits co2. I didn’t make that point clearly enough. I’m not sure I’m happy about handing over a bunch of regulatory power to an agency with an appointed head and a bunch of bureaucrats. I’d much rather leave the lawmaking to a bunch of congress-critter who, when they don’t vote for smaller government or restore rights and they DO pass crap like the perpetual patriot act, the DMCA, or they spend their time legislating exactly when the government feels that a fetus feels pain, then we can vote their asses out.

    I hear you people complain about the FDA over their actions on RU-482, Plan-B, and the cervical cancer vaccine, so I know you share some feelings about bureaucrats.

    And for the record, I’m a small (l), libertarian-leaning, independent who (apparently) has some unique theories about governments role in regulating corporate personhood things and limited liability companies. I question frequently whether government ought to really have their fingers in some things (example: Federal regulations about what should be in the school lunch program, shouldn’t states or (gasp) local schools be able to handle that task?) and I’m a big believer in equal protection under the law, even when it means that men (or sometimes women) get hosed because of it.

  32. You guys all need to stop bragging! You’re gonna jinx it! We just came off a week-long cold snap of -37 Celsius, and we haven’t seen an above-freezing temperature in over a week and probably won’t for a while. It’s been about -7 to -12 the past few days and people have been commenting on how balmy it is, in comparison to the end-times cold we had recently.

    Of course that’s not *unheard* of in Calgary in the winter, but not this early, and not while it’s so warm everywhere else apparently. (At least we’re not burning wood to stay warm like some poor folks were in Vancouver, which sort of *is* unheard of.)

    The newspaper keeps promising me a chinook and it keeps not coming.

  33. Last winter on the Canadian prairies was six degrees above average. Yes, there’s variation from year to year, but six degrees is a lot. On the other hand, it’s -20C right now in my hometown.

    Even if you don’t buy into the idea that emissions cause global warming and climate change, air pollution is having an effect on children; we see more asthma than in the past, especially in cities.

    Doesn’t anyone care about the children?!!

  34. Actually, the trees (and other green, growing things) help clean the excess carbon dioxide out of the air, and release oxygen. The fact that we are *still* destroying forests by the hundreds of acres is not helpful in maintaining the natural balance. There was a decent article in National Geographic on the CO2 exchange a while back; unfortunately, I’m not sure of the publication date.

  35. While I’m not going to totally discount global warming, over the centuries there’s been plenty of global climate change, and none of it has been credibly linked to human activities.

    Gee, I wonder why that is?

    Could it be, possibly, that prior to the 20th Century, there just wasn’t that much human activity that was throwing the kinds of pollutants and particulate matter into the air that could change the climate?

    I question frequently whether government ought to really have their fingers in some things (example: Federal regulations about what should be in the school lunch program, shouldn’t states or (gasp) local schools be able to handle that task?)

    And local schools would get the power to set standards for labeling and additives and, say, how much shit gets mixed in with hamburger meat from where, exactly?

    You do understand that schools aren’t getting locally-produced food for the most part?

  36. SM:

    While I’m not going to totally discount global warming, over the centuries there’s been plenty of global climate change, and none of it has been credibly linked to human activities.

    zuzu Says:

    Gee, I wonder why that is?
    Could it be, possibly, that prior to the 20th Century, there just wasn’t that much human activity that was throwing the kinds of pollutants and particulate matter into the air that could change the climate?

    But, gee zuzu, that was exactly my point. Humans didn’t cause the Medieval climate optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or Eighteen hundred and froze to death, or the Holocene climatic optimum. Yet all of those were examples of dramatic climate change. No one was screaming than we need to do something now or the planet will death spiral out of control, and no one was holding up something like the Katrina disaster as evidence that we’ve fucked up the planet.

    So, dramatic climate change has happened in the past, and it more than likely will happen in the future, regardless of human intervention.

    To me, that’s not a license to pollute, or a reason not to be worried about co2 emissions, but it does mean that I don’t wanna sign up to strictly and expensively limit co2 emissions when no one can creditably show me what the impact on the environment is going to be. It does mean that I do support projects like Cape Wind and pebble bed nuclear reactors.

    zuzu Says:

    And local schools would get the power to set standards for labeling and additives and, say, how much shit gets mixed in with hamburger meat from where, exactly?

    Local control of what gets served for school lunch is a waypoint toward the eventual goal of elimination of public school for everyone and replacing them with vouchers. I think the private schools could do it better and cheaper and this would give parents choice.

    And no, I don’t think that limited liability companies ought to get the right to lie on food labels. The federal government created these entities and I have no problem with the government forcing them to not lie. I generally think that corporate entities ought to have less rights than humans, rather than more.

    Laurie Says:

    (Hint: anyone can update the Wikipedia. I generally take it with a *large* grain of salt. And yes, I have heard of that particular phenomena.)

    Yea, actually I know this, in fact, I wrote a blog post about it. Because it’s somewhat related, I’ll cover it briefly. Last April, I noticed a bunch of sockpuppets-like proxies being used to remove a few inconvenient truths about the origins of Earth Day. Because of the history feature, I was able to identify the changes and narrow it down to a brief flurry of activity just before Earth Day, 2006. My blog post is here, and all the comments I wrote into Wikipedia are located on the talk page. There was a brief edit war that was interesting to watch.

    If your ever worried about an article changing, you can always link to a specific version, although I’m usually too lazy.

  37. Humans didn’t cause the Medieval climate optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or Eighteen hundred and froze to death, or the Holocene climatic optimum.

    And neither of those were caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases. You’re familiar with ice-core studies?

    Local control of what gets served for school lunch is a waypoint toward the eventual goal of elimination of public school for everyone and replacing them with vouchers. I think the private schools could do it better and cheaper and this would give parents choice.

    Where are you getting the idea that the school lunch menu is dictated from Washington? The school lunch program provides ingredients, which are heavy on the meat and cheese given who heads up the agriculture lobby.

    Maybe you’re trying to be funny here, but the key to being funny is being funny. You’re just being weird and annoying.

  38. Where are you getting the idea that the school lunch menu is dictated from Washington?

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf (PDF)
    or,
    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5Posna_r29kJ:www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf (Google html cache)

    Generally, public or nonprofit private schools of high school grade or under and public or nonprofit private residential child care institutions may participate in the school lunch program. School districts and independent schools that choose to take part in the lunch program get cash subsidies and donated commodities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lunches that meet Federal requirements, and they must offer free or reduced price lunches to eligible children. School food authorities can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age 18 in afterschool educational or enrichment programs.

    (emphasis mine)

    So yea, we’re both right. The government buys crap from the farmers to keep the price high, and then donates that stuff to schools as long as they follow federal guidelines. See any waste we can trim out? Of course cutting the fat means bloat-o-crats would actually lose their jobs, but some new ones in the private sector or the state level would likely open up. Meanwhile, I’m enjoying a can of soda sweetened by High Fructose Corn Syrup because the corn lobby has managed to have protective tariffs imposed on imported cane sugar. They’ve also managed to force their way into every single tank of gas I buy. Pretty slick, eh? I mean we could buy ethanol on the open international market for cheaper than we could make it from local corn but there’s a 49 cent tax on imported ethanol.

    Private industry supports NAFTA, but only where free trade would benefit domestic corporations, not citizens (a government of, by, and for the people). If free trade is good, isn’t it good for everyone? Or should free trade exist for the benefit of corporations, and we should be happy with any crumbs that trickle down?

  39. And neither of those were caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases. You’re familiar with ice-core studies?

    (*sigh*) This is getting circular. To show that we have had climate change in the past that did not turn into a death spiral apocalypse, I point out prehistoric climate variations. Then I state that it’s entirely possibly that this warming trend is not entirely person-made, and to make that premise more understandable, I provided web-links that claim the sun is getting hotter, thinking perhaps that’s part of the current warming trend. Then I state that if it’s partly because of factors beyond human control, we could stop all heavy industry, consumption of fossil fuels, etc, yet it’s possible that the planet would still be getting warmer. I remind people about those ice ages, the ones where we still have no idea why and how they occurred and the fact that we’re about due for another one. I know about the ice-core studies, that’s how we know about those ice-ages. I’m pretty sure we had no thermometers back then.

  40. Shorter S.M.: Because we don’t know whether warming trends are 100% caused by human activity, let’s proceed as if they’re not caused by human activity at all.

  41. Standard Mischief Says:

    To me, that’s not a license to pollute, or a reason not to be worried about co2 emissions, but it does mean that I don’t wanna sign up to strictly and expensively limit co2 emissions when no one can creditably show me what the impact on the environment is going to be. It does mean that I do support projects like Cape Wind and pebble bed nuclear reactors.

  42. I don’t for minute doubt the validity of the global-warming hypothesis. But people need to remember that weather is enormously variable from year to year. I remember a winter when, as a child, I went out without a coat to try out my Christmas bicycle. And another when it snowed on my birthday (end of May). Both in Portland Oregon.

    And I recall that in January of 1975, I was visiting my daughter in Portland, sitting on her porch, looking at the trees budding out vigorously, and thinking, “Oh you poor little buds, it’s only January, you’d better go back in for a while.”

    That said, of course what people do will contribute to the situation. You can look at this continent and see how much deforestation has taken place in how short a time. Of course we have an effect, and even if we didn’t, it would only make sense to see if we could have an effect for the better, now that we can clearly see how things are going. You don’t try to fix things only if you broke them.

  44. To whoever mentioned the winter of 1998: That year we had a backyard barbeque (in the Chicago area, no less) the day after Christmas. And I can also remember, that same winter, wading through hip-deep snow at 2 am to deliver newspapers (yes, I still had a paper route then) before the “major snow” hit. In April.

Comments are currently closed.