Let's Talk About the Weather

"Hey, so much for global warming -- look at all this snow! and so much for global globalness, look how flat it is out there!" — Stephen Colbert on Twitter.

TV's funny people are doing a pretty good job of mocking the moronic global warming deniers who point to snow falling in D.C. and say global warming is a crazy liberal myth:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Unusually Large Snowstorm
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

However, between jokes and interviews with random celebrities, could somebody in the media please put some scientists on? Because what really needs to be made clear is that the early warning signs of global warming include downpours, heavy snowfalls, and flooding:

An increase in global temperatures will lead to an intensification of the hydrological cycle. This is because an increase in surface air temperature causes an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. In addition, a warmer atmosphere is capable of holding more water vapor. The excess water vapor will in turn lead to more frequent heavy precipitation when atmospheric instability is sufficient to trigger precipitation events. Intense precipitation can result in flooding, soil erosion, landslides, and damage to structures and crops.

Parallel to the likely increase in heavy precipitation events in winter, increased temperatures will also amplify the drying out of soils and vegetation due to increased evaporation in the summer. This is likely to result in more severe and widespread droughts where and when atmospheric conditions do not favor precipitation (see Droughts and Wildfires).

These predictions are consistent with current U.S. weather phenomena. Notice I said "weather" and not "climate"? Weather is not climate. A single weather event does not tell us much about global climate. Just as the above Daily Show video lampooned the debate, both sides tend to make this same mistake.

But it's no wonder the conversation is muddled. We have energy industry lobbyists writing EPA amendments, astroturf groups funded by ExxonMobil, and some pretty janky logic from global warming deniers.

The deniers must know they won't win the argument on scientific merits, so they prefer a faith-based argument. The dumbest one goes something like "it is the height of hubris and arrogance to say that man's pitiful technology could affect the world."

Luckily, the reality-based community remembers a whole slew of man-made eco-disasters: rainforest destruction, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Chernobyl, the Bhopal pesticide factory leak, the Love Canal toxic landfill, the Pacific garbage patch, herbicidal warfare in Vietnam, the shrinking Aral Sea, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What thinking person could seriously claim we don't impact our environment?

But Republicans and Fox News pundits don't need science and logic. Like rabid Punxsutawney Phils, they stick their heads out, see it's snowing, scream some shit about Al Gore, and then stick their little heads right back up their asses. We can laugh now, but our future generations will suffer.

Politics First

Or is it cosmetics first? Maybe it's politics, cosmetics, then country? I know it's not country first -- that's for sure.

Today the Republican party is feigning outrage over Barack Obama's use of a tired old folksy saying: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Here is the complete unadulterated quote from Obama:

OBAMA: Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except --- and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's just calling some --- the same thing, something different. But you know, you can --- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.

What's wrong with that? Well, John McCain's new campaign video (which has since been pulled from YouTube due to a copyright claim by CBS) takes the comment out of context and makes it look like Obama is calling Palin a pig. Never mind the fact that Obama is obviously not referring to Sarah Palin! That doesn't stop the mainstream media from taking the bait.

The irony, of course, is that Obama was making a point about exactly these tactics. Instead of talking about economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, or foreign policy, the conversation has been reduced to this frivolous bullshit.

Any media outlet that runs this story, should also, if they have any credibility at all, show this video of McCain using the exact same phrase regarding Hillary Clinton's health-care policy:



Funny, I don't think McCain ever offered an apology to Hillary Clinton, and I don't think she ever asked for one either.

Anyway, now that the sad and desperate McCain campaign has gone from "straight talk" to "trash talk," let's get back to something substantive.

McCain and Palin recently wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal titled We'll Protect Taxpayers From More Bailouts. Here is the punchline of their piece:

Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists succeeded and Congress failed. Under our administration this will not happen again.

Why do I find this so tragically funny? McCain's campaign is full of lobbyists! Including a few -- Rick Davis, Aquiles Suarez, and Carlos Bonilla -- who have lobbied for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac!

I'll believe that McCain is the "maverick" when lipstick-wearing pigs can fly.