8 in 10 Americans believe in climate change.

Courtesy of USA Today: 

Eight out of 10 Americans now believe the climate is changing, according to a new survey conducted for Munich Re America, the world's largest reinsurance firm. 

"Our survey findings indicate that national sentiment over whether or not climatic changes are occurring has finally reached a tipping point," said Tony Kuczinski, president of Munich Re America.

Of course believing that the climate is changing is only part of the battle,  WHY do they think it is changing? 

The main survey question — "In your opinion, do you believe that climate change is occurring?" — did not specify whether the changes were due to man-made or natural causes, according to Peter Hoeppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research. 

Hoeppe said that about 60% of people say the climate is changing due to man-made causes.

Well that's encouraging.

Now what do these respondents think we should to about it?  

The survey found that 71% of respondents believed greater use of alternative energy sources, such as solar or wind power, would be the most effective in the battle against climate change.

Well there you go then.

Now if only we can get some of this 71% elected to Congress we might actually be able to do something to fight this problem before we all need to start growing gills in order to survive.

New plan for the newly elected Republican majority in Washington same as the old. Stop Obama at every turn!

Sen Jim Inhofe.

Courtesy of The Hill:  

The GOP is preparing to mount a full-scale assault on President Obama’s regulatory agenda, using the party’s strengthened hand in Congress to delay, soften or block contentious administration rules at every turn. 

As long as Obama sits atop the executive branch, Republicans’ power to derail scores of rulemaking efforts now under way is limited. But control of both the House and Senate in the next Congress will enable GOP lawmakers to ratchet up their attacks on what they view as overzealous regulation. 

“So long as we have this president the federal agencies can go around Congress," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) "But we can make it very, very difficult for them." 

Inhofe, who is poised to become chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is certain to take a leading role in the GOP push against regulations at the center of Obama’s climate action plan. 

 Critics of Obama’s regulatory policies are likely to look to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows lawmakers to disapprove of regulations that have already been finalized and stop them from going into effect. 

Inhofe, for instance, says he intends to push such a measure against the EPA’s newly proposed ozone rules, which manufacturers say could cost industry $270 billion in compliance costs during its first year alone. However, the president would have to approve such a measure, which is highly unlikely. 

In a nutshell the President is pushing policies that will save lives, while the Republicans main concern is to save money for their benefactors.

Oh and by the way this last October was the hottest on record. 

You know I try and I try to explain to people the importance of voting in these midterm elections, but so many simply do not understand how much ground we lose when the Republican gain power. 

It is critical right now to continue moving forward to explore green energy alternatives and move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and these asshole Republicans simply refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Perhaps the most important episode of The Newsroom that too many people did not see.

This was on the Newsroom last Sunday. Now the appropriate response to this segment is to sit stunned in front of your television and hope that this was all done for dramatic effect.

However as Mother Jones reported it is mostly all fact, and only a smattering of drama:

All of these things are predicted by the IPCC—I mean, not the permanent darkness thing, I don't think that's meant to be scientific. But yes, as we reported in May this year, Europe faces freshwater shortages; Asia can expect more severe flooding from extreme storms; North America will see increased heat waves and wildfires, which can cause death and damage to ecosystems and property. Especially in poor countries, diminished crop yields will likely lead to increased malnutrition, which already affects nearly 900 million people worldwide.

I know, scary right? Well good you should be scared.

The question is why is it taking us so long to recognize the monster lurking under our beds?

And a big part of that answer is that there has been a well funded concerted effort to make sure that we NEVER see that monster until it is much too late. Well according to evidence before us it is now much too late.

If the Newsroom took some dramatic liberties and  we do indeed still have time then we MUST do everything we can to keep those predictions from coming true right now.

And a big part of doing something is to keep oil company purchased Republican politicians out of positions of power. And after this last election that have more power than they have had in six years.

A fact that is bad for everybody who lives on this planet. Which let me remind you, is all of us.

Another fact to keep in mind is that the planet itself will survive our mistakes, It has in fact survived worse.

However we have already lost half of our wildlife in just the last 40 years. And there is no doubt that if we continue on in this way, that we are next.

Ken Ham tells us that Creationists DO believe in climate change. However no need to worry as it is just the earth "settling down" after Noah's flood. Oooookay.

Okay so on Saturday Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum and the worst thing to happen to children's brains since lead based paint, wrote a post explaining how everybody is wrong to assume that Creationists do not like science.

In fact they LOVE science. Just not the science that scientists understand.

Confused? Me too.

But here let Ham explain it to you:

You see, there are two different kinds of science. Observational science works in the present and is testable, repeatable, and observable. Historical science deals with the past (origins) and is not directly testable, repeatable, or observable. With historical science, the worldview you approach the evidence with is going to determine how you interpret the evidence. Secular scientists start from the perspective that man is the ultimate authority and determines truth, but we start from the view that the Bible is God’s Word and provides the true history of the universe. So we both reach different conclusions when we look at the evidence.

Okay so now do you get it?

The "science" that scientists study is the kind that relies on ridiculous things like facts, reliable testing procedures, and peer review. That kind is much more accessible for really smart people, and makes the brains of less intelligent people hurt like crazy.

However the much easier to understand "historical science" (Which is a term that apparently Ken Ham pulled out of his ass.) simply means that you rely on your faith in the Bible to explain how things work.  See? No brain pain.

Ham then goes on to explain that using his "scientific method" puts the whole global warming thing into perspective, and renders it not nearly so frightening:

I want to emphasize that we do not deny climate change. Even Bill Nye continues to spread the false charge against us that we supposedly deny climate change! What we do deny are the worldview-based assumptions behind the interpretations of what causes climate change. Climate change is observational science (we can observe it by recording measurements), but it needs to be interpreted as to why it’s happening—and your starting point determines your interpretation. Starting from the Bible, we know that there was a global Flood a few thousand years ago that completely changed Earth’s surface and climate, and that the earth is still settling down from this catastrophe. So we should expect there to be some variations in climate change, but this is not alarming and is not the direct result of modern human activity. 

See that kids? 

Sure the earth IS experiencing climate change. However there is no need to worry your ignorant little heads over it because it's really just due to the earth getting its act together after a huge global flood for which there is absolutely NO evidence.

But what am I thinking? What I mean is that there is no "observable science" which proves the existence of Noah's flood. But if you get your information straight from the "historic science" of the Bible, well then everything makes perfect sense.

So don't worry about switching to renewable energy sources, or having to buy an electric car, because God would never allow humans to break the planet he gave us.

And if the oceans do rise, no problem. Because surely God will simply wave his magic wand and give us all gills to help us survive underwater.

Wow, religion really IS the opiate of the masses.

President Obama convinces China to agree to a first time ever commitment to curb carbon emissions.

Courtesy of the New York Times:

China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases. 

The landmark agreement, jointly announced here by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030. 

Administration officials said the agreement, which was worked out quietly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach, could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate agreement by 2015. 

It was the signature achievement of an unexpectedly productive two days of meetings between the leaders. Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi also agreed to a military accord designed to avert clashes between Chinese and American planes and warships in the tense waters off the Chinese coast, as well as an understanding to cut tariffs for technology products.

I can see the Fox News reporting on this already, "President Obama sends another secret letter to  enemy of America."

Even after years of political and personal attacks from the Right Wing, and after losing the Senate to Republicans, the man continues to be a thorn in the conservative's side simply by doing his damn job.

I guess the Chinese did not get the word that this was the least effective President in the history of America. Perhaps they don;t get Breitbart News.

By the way if ANYBODY needs to curb carbon emissions it's China.

I don't know how these people get through the day breathing this crap.

New study finds that the political solution to climate change has everything to do with whether Republicans believe in it or not.

Courtesy of Duke Today:

There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime. 

A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists. 

“Logically, the proposed solution to a problem, such as an increase in government regulation or an extension of the free market, should not influence one’s belief in the problem. However, we find it does,” said co-author Troy Campbell, a Ph.D. candidate at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. “The cure can be more immediately threatening than the problem.” 

The researchers conducted three experiments (with samples ranging from 120 to 188 participants) on three different issues -- climate change, air pollution that harms lungs, and crime. 

“The goal was to test, in a scientifically controlled manner, the question: Does the desirability of a solution affect beliefs in the existence of the associated problem? In other words, does what we call 'solution aversion' exist?" Campbell said. 

"We found the answer is yes. And we found it occurs in response to some of the most common solutions for popularly discussed problems." 

Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming. 

When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read. 

But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. 

For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.

So to be clear we cannot do anything about protecting future generations from the ravages of man made climate change on this planet, because the Republicans don't like big government.

What a great thing to have etched onto the headstones of all of the people who will die of famine, disease, or drought in the years to come.

We could have saved you but we did not like the politics of those offering solutions.

And again, who is it that votes for these people? And what in the hell is wrong with them?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that unrestricted use of fossil fuels must be phased out by 2100 to save planet.

Courtesy of the BBC: 

The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in a stark report that most of the world's electricity can - and must - be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050. 

If not, the world faces "severe, pervasive and irreversible" damage. 

The UN said inaction would cost "much more" than taking the necessary action. 

"Science has spoken," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.

I can see the conservative response now: "Oh, well that gives us a free pass for at least three more decades."

I feel that the only way that we as Americans will have any hope of meeting this timetable is to never elect another Republican again. Of course that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Just in case we forgot why we mocked Sarah Palin before the drunken brawl, Wonkette has some video of her comparing climate change to eugenics to remind us.

Palin starts off making fun of the computer models the climate scientists use to make predictions concerning global warming, and calls their concerns about our warming planet a "con job.'" Which considering she lives in Alaska is especially egregious.

But don't worry she is no climate science denier (Except of course she is.):

"Look I'm not a denier, I don't doubt that climate change exists. I live in an arctic state as Governor traveling around the coastline, especially up in the arctic you can see changes based on the cyclical pattern of climate and weather, always changing. We can see the effects of changing weather patterns, not only on the coast line, elsewhere on land, but no one has proven that these changes are caused by anything done by human beings, via greenhouse gasses. There’s no convincing scientific evidence for manmade climate change. The climate has always been changing. Climate change is to this century what eugenics was to the last century. It’s hysteria, and a lot of it’s junk science. And when it’s as discredited as eugenics, y’know a lot of people are going to look very foolish and heartless. Why heartless? Because this global warming, climate change hysteria hurts the poorest among us. We hear all the time about how liberals care supposedly more for the poor than conservatives do. But for the sake of climate change? Liberals hold back the poorest parts of the world from the kind of development that we have in America."

Holy crap! Is it even possible to be this  disconnected from reality?

She lives in a state where the effects of climate change are negatively impacting its residents every day and entire communities have had to leave villages they established hundreds of years ago in order to keep from being washed out to sea.

But then what can you expect from the woman who did nothing while Alaskan natives nearly froze to death and starved in their homes on her watch?

So yes Sarah Palin is one of the most mockable people on the planet, and that was BEFORE audio was released which demonstrated to the world that she and her family are a bunch of drunken Wasilla-billies.

And thank you Wonkette for reminding us of that fact.