It's not just a matter of adding a few degrees here and there—it's about dramatic shifts in the earth's patterns of weather and oceanic currents. And it's happening exponentially.

It's hard to know if the "skeptics" are misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation (as the tobacco companies did for years—trotting out mercenary "experts" claiming that cigs don't cause cancer, and that they don't deliberately manipulate the levels of nicotine in order to boost addiction in their customer).

And it can be tough to pinpoint Climate Change as the cause of a specific event, but the Midwest Floods of 2008 certainly fit into the pattern (predicted way back in the 1980s) of increases in "extreme weather events" (I hate that phrase lol) like flooding, drought (+ wildfires), hurricanes and tornadoes...

So is corn-based ethanol the solution? Well, it beats invading Iraq for oil, but it comes with its own drawbacks.

There's a huge "dead zone" in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico caused in large part by all the nitrogen (fertilizer) and synthetic chemicals that flow into it through the Mississippi River. Many of these are from farming.

In fact, these latest floods are washing tons and tons of pollution downstream, and scientist estimate that this will dramatically increase the size of the oceanic "dead zone."

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080621/NEWS02/901984186

The eath's oceans provide the vast majority of our oxygen through photosynthesis (well, marine plants do), a process that changes greenhouse gases (CO2) into into oxygen (O2).

Increasing the dead zone is not a good trend. It speeds up the process.

So when people talk about climate change building exponentially, and about the dangers of "tipping points," they're not necessarily being alarmists.

Interesting article. I wonder to what extent pollsters for various media outlets leave their fingers on the scales, so to speak.

Also, Bush's approval rating is, what?, in the twenties. And yet considerably more people would vote for McCain.

Is this because a lot of people would vote against Obama no matter what? (and if so, is it his policies, his persona, the efforts to convince people that he's a Muslim—he's not—etc?)

Or do they think McCain is different enough from Bush that they can throw out the Bush administration but still vote Republican? (this seems like wishful thinking to me)

Has anyone seen polls/theories about this?

Even if I don't agree with his solution, he does a pretty fine analysis of the problem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JId_kGKowfI&NR=1

Maybe he cares about the country and really isn't all caught up in this "black guy" biz...?

Just an idea.

Cause you got heart and musical words.

Thanks for the feedback. I'd probably disagree with you about an awful lot (as my letter history would demonstrate), but I appreciate your response and your civil tone.

I'm pretty progressive meself, but do have an appreciation for Libertarians and even some classically conservative ideas. I think McCain has pretty much jumped onto the NeoCon ship, though, and this ain't good for the country or the Constitution—power tends to corrupt; checks and balances and presumption of innocence aren't mere idealistic luxuries, but important safegaurds against the inevitables abuses of unchecked power.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "This bill will attack citizens at the pump" and "increase job losses."

Gee, do ya suppose bombing Iran might cause oil prices to rise rather quickly?

since this was predicted in the 80s, hasn't the pattern sped up?

i mean, clearly the anecdotal evidence suggests this. when's the last time there wasn't a flood in a major american city, drought, wildfires, and above average number of tornadoes?

but does someone know the data on this? i know a saw an article around the new year...

Saying that while we should definitely keep the big picture in perspective, it is important to have civil dialogues about the importance of preserving some of the pillars of our country: the presumption of innocence before the law and the idea that neither government nor corporate "citizens" are above the law.

In focusing only on this image the propogandists have sought to create (and not the mad spectacle of the progagandists themselves or the fearful reality that many people buy in), it implicitly validates the idea that image is truth.

Some see it as understated satire, some as potentially ambiguous, and others, unfortunately, as a ready-made attack ad.

To make sense of this phenom, it helps me to make a distinction between

1) the Clintons being racists (which I don't think they are)

and

2) the Clintons being willing to use racist appeals (and/or to capitalize on damage done to Obama by Republican smear campaigns). it's not ancient history, and it's on the record.

Clinton's not a racist "as far as I know." Lots of voters probably figure all's fair in love and politics, but others found it unacceptable for the Clintons of all people (I recall Bill playing sax on Arsenio) to roll around in the stuff.

i didn't take the time to listen to this commentary.

(sometimes I appreciate seeing and hearing the writer's face/voice/inflections, but sometimes i'm skimming, y'know?)

i wonder if Salon.com would consider posting a link with the text of the commentary, too?