Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Poll: Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
Those Americans should move to Alaska.
Here's the poll, and there are a lot of surprising findings inside it. Only two years ago, 86% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 62% of Republicans "saw solid evidence of global warming." Now, those numbers are 75, 53, and 35. It's a head-scratcher... what has changed in two years?
Part of it could be the phasing -- "solid evidence" may not exist everywhere in the country. It's appropriate for people not to conflate weather with climate, and so it makes sense if folks look around the place where they live and, whether it's warm or cold, not make the assumption that whatever they see is evidence (or not) of a warming planet. But that was the case two years ago too. It doesn't answer the question why opinions changed.
My guess is that (a) the question has become increasingly politicized, and (b) global-warming skeptics are getting their message across. The town hall debate might have been dominated by "An Inconvenient Truth" two years ago, and now the hall has more voices. And if the question is politicized, that means some people will want there to be a particular answer, regardless of objective data. All you have to do is wait for a day that's unseasonably cool, point outside and say "See, Al Gore's all wrong," and you've got another convert.
There are only a few places where you can really look outside and be fairly confident that you're seeing "solid evidence" of global warming, and Alaska's Arctic coast is one of them. The ice is melting, and fast. Today, the Obama administration (following the footsteps of the Bush administration) designated 200,000 miles of Alaska's northern coast as "critical habitat" for polar bears. It's a start. But it won't do much for the poll numbers.
Here's the poll, and there are a lot of surprising findings inside it. Only two years ago, 86% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 62% of Republicans "saw solid evidence of global warming." Now, those numbers are 75, 53, and 35. It's a head-scratcher... what has changed in two years?
Part of it could be the phasing -- "solid evidence" may not exist everywhere in the country. It's appropriate for people not to conflate weather with climate, and so it makes sense if folks look around the place where they live and, whether it's warm or cold, not make the assumption that whatever they see is evidence (or not) of a warming planet. But that was the case two years ago too. It doesn't answer the question why opinions changed.
My guess is that (a) the question has become increasingly politicized, and (b) global-warming skeptics are getting their message across. The town hall debate might have been dominated by "An Inconvenient Truth" two years ago, and now the hall has more voices. And if the question is politicized, that means some people will want there to be a particular answer, regardless of objective data. All you have to do is wait for a day that's unseasonably cool, point outside and say "See, Al Gore's all wrong," and you've got another convert.
There are only a few places where you can really look outside and be fairly confident that you're seeing "solid evidence" of global warming, and Alaska's Arctic coast is one of them. The ice is melting, and fast. Today, the Obama administration (following the footsteps of the Bush administration) designated 200,000 miles of Alaska's northern coast as "critical habitat" for polar bears. It's a start. But it won't do much for the poll numbers.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
This email received no response
From: David McGee
To: kbolton@ktbytv.com; nelmore@ktbytv.com; smartin@ktbytv.com; kkeller@ktbytv.com; mdoyle@ktbytv.com
Sent: Sun, October 18, 2009 1:05:06 PM
Subject: NFL Sunday failure
Dear FOX 4,
All week long, and still as I type this, your TV schedule has indicated that you would show the Arizona-Seattle football game today. I depended on the information that you provided, and made my Sunday plans accordingly. Yet for some reason you have switched games, instead showing an earlier game and not showing the SEA-AZ game. It seems like it's not too much to ask that FOX know in advance which game it intends to show, and that it competently convey that information to its viewers. Now I can only conclude that your listings are wholly unreliable, and the fact that you list a certain game during the week -- and on gameday itself -- is not actually predictive of any future performance on your part. In fact, I suppose the only predictable outcome is that the game listed will not be shown, so that does narrow things down a little.
Tonight on FOX apparently your schedule indicates that you will be showing The Simpsons and Family Guy. I can't wait for your broadcast instead of America's Funniest Home Videos, or whatever else you decide to show without telling your viewers first.
Yes, I'm irritated, and it makes me feel better to write this.
Sincerely,
Dave McGee
To: kbolton@ktbytv.com; nelmore@ktbytv.com; smartin@ktbytv.com; kkeller@ktbytv.com; mdoyle@ktbytv.com
Sent: Sun, October 18, 2009 1:05:06 PM
Subject: NFL Sunday failure
Dear FOX 4,
All week long, and still as I type this, your TV schedule has indicated that you would show the Arizona-Seattle football game today. I depended on the information that you provided, and made my Sunday plans accordingly. Yet for some reason you have switched games, instead showing an earlier game and not showing the SEA-AZ game. It seems like it's not too much to ask that FOX know in advance which game it intends to show, and that it competently convey that information to its viewers. Now I can only conclude that your listings are wholly unreliable, and the fact that you list a certain game during the week -- and on gameday itself -- is not actually predictive of any future performance on your part. In fact, I suppose the only predictable outcome is that the game listed will not be shown, so that does narrow things down a little.
Tonight on FOX apparently your schedule indicates that you will be showing The Simpsons and Family Guy. I can't wait for your broadcast instead of America's Funniest Home Videos, or whatever else you decide to show without telling your viewers first.
Yes, I'm irritated, and it makes me feel better to write this.
Sincerely,
Dave McGee
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Free Speech and the Free Market
Rush Limbaugh has been dropped by a group of prospective owners seeking to buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams. The response, by Limbaugh and others on the right, has been to call the affair the doings of "thought police," and a violation of free speech. It couldn't be farther from the truth.
Rush Limbaugh is a living, breathing example of the strength and importance of the First Amendment right to free speech. He has made millions of dollars exercising that right by engaging in intentionally controversial speech, and the First Amendment protects him from being muzzled by the government. But now he is also an example of what the First Amendment doesn't do: it doesn't protect the speaker from the natural repercussions of provocative speech. And this is where the free market takes over -- your speech can earn you money, and it can cost you money. There's nothing more American than that.
The NFL is not a political entity. It doesn't care about right/left, conservative/liberal. It only cares about dollars... bones, or clams, or whatever you call them. It knows that Limbaugh is a divisive figure, reviled by a large section of the American public. (The cable news and blogosphere debate has devolved into whether Limbaugh is a racist, which isn't really the point. The point is that he engages in divisive speech -- although yes, sometimes racially divisive.) Divisive speech, while protected from government action, has its consequences. The NFL correctly perceives a risk that Limbaugh's involvement may hit it where it hurts: in the wallet. It's a risk the NFL's not willing to take on.
This is how it works. Limbaugh can play the victim now if he wants (because really, it will only make him more popular with his audience), but he shouldn't be surprised.
No one is telling him to stop saying what he says. But speech has consequences, good and bad. It's the American way.
UPDATE: In a predictable next step, Limbaugh relishes his martyrdom in this WSJ piece, of course never mentioning that it simply makes economic sense for a business to avoid involvement with such a controversial figure.
Rush Limbaugh is a living, breathing example of the strength and importance of the First Amendment right to free speech. He has made millions of dollars exercising that right by engaging in intentionally controversial speech, and the First Amendment protects him from being muzzled by the government. But now he is also an example of what the First Amendment doesn't do: it doesn't protect the speaker from the natural repercussions of provocative speech. And this is where the free market takes over -- your speech can earn you money, and it can cost you money. There's nothing more American than that.
The NFL is not a political entity. It doesn't care about right/left, conservative/liberal. It only cares about dollars... bones, or clams, or whatever you call them. It knows that Limbaugh is a divisive figure, reviled by a large section of the American public. (The cable news and blogosphere debate has devolved into whether Limbaugh is a racist, which isn't really the point. The point is that he engages in divisive speech -- although yes, sometimes racially divisive.) Divisive speech, while protected from government action, has its consequences. The NFL correctly perceives a risk that Limbaugh's involvement may hit it where it hurts: in the wallet. It's a risk the NFL's not willing to take on.
This is how it works. Limbaugh can play the victim now if he wants (because really, it will only make him more popular with his audience), but he shouldn't be surprised.
No one is telling him to stop saying what he says. But speech has consequences, good and bad. It's the American way.
UPDATE: In a predictable next step, Limbaugh relishes his martyrdom in this WSJ piece, of course never mentioning that it simply makes economic sense for a business to avoid involvement with such a controversial figure.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Still more environmental news about destructive bears
Fairbanks is apparently plagued by enormous sports-hating, rampaging bears. This one has a pickaxe.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Extra Autumn
Fall usually lasts just a few weeks, and the snow usually can't wait to get here. We thought we we'd be getting snow in town soon, but unseasonably warm weather has extended our fall into mid October. It's 50 degrees outside, and the snow in the Chugach mountains has mostly all melted. Which is great -- I wasn't ready for snow yet, and in the meantime we're having a real midwest-style fall. Leaves everywhere, crisp mornings, drizzle, sunbreaks... good stuff.
Some scenes of fall from a recent hike to Eklutna Lake just outside Anchorage (including the photo at the top of the page):
Some scenes of fall from a recent hike to Eklutna Lake just outside Anchorage (including the photo at the top of the page):
Bad weekend for the wager
I took a beating this weekend in my wager with Florida Frank, with Michigan and Stanford both losing winnable games, and Florida winning a losable game. Could be a critical turn of events.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
More Alaskan weirdness
As noted by Katy in the comments below... this is a headline in the ADN today: Mystery carcass found on roof of Midtown office building.
Police responding to a report of a mutilated body with a severed head Wednesday afternoon were left wondering how the carcass of an ungulate landed itself on the roof of a Midtown office building.As usual, random wildlife disposal is your problem:
The carcass consisted of a severed spinal column and some ribs that likely belonged to a moose, police Lt. Dave Parker said.
The building maintenance personnel would be responsible for clearing it away, Parker said.So the lesson this year: if in self defense you kill a bear that wants to eat you, or if you find mysterious skinned ungulate spinal parts on the roof of your office building, the cleanup is yours. It's just part of our cost of living.
Your daily reminder that Alaska is weird
Down on the Kenai Peninsula:
UPDATE: Follow-up on the story is interesting... state officials think everything was fine, but the hunters have been cited by the federal Fish & Game Department.
For hours Saturday, passers-by had been stopping to watch a grizzlyI... uh... hmm.
casually going about its business along the Sterling Highway near Cooper
Landing. A pair of troopers stopped by to direct traffic. Then two hunters
arrived in camouflage clothing and, after the bear crossed the road into a legal
hunting zone, shot and killed it.
UPDATE: Follow-up on the story is interesting... state officials think everything was fine, but the hunters have been cited by the federal Fish & Game Department.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Thursday, October 01, 2009
In other environmental news
If you want to visit Anchorage, you might want to do it soon... because apparently we have been targeted by enormous intergalactic space bears.
The walrus and melting ice
In case the connection between melting sea ice and its harm to walruses is unclear, here's one example of the real world effects of global warming: trampling. Walruses like to hang out on sea ice during the summer, but with the ice increasingly melted, they are forced to congregate in large numbers on the shore. If they get spooked by a polar bear or hunter, young walruses get trampled. Baby walruses, people!
UPDATE: The ADN article on the walrus deaths now features a quote from the troublemaking roommate. She's everywhere.
UPDATE: The ADN article on the walrus deaths now features a quote from the troublemaking roommate. She's everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
