The large burden of sulfate aerosols injected into the stratosphere by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 cooled Earth and enhanced the destruction of polar ozone in the subsequent few years. The continuous injection of sulfur into the stratosphere has been suggested as a “geoengineering” scheme to counteract global warming. We use an empirical relationship between ozone depletion and chlorine activation to estimate how this approach might influence polar ozone. An injection of sulfur large enough to compensate for surface warming caused by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 would strongly increase the extent of Arctic ozone depletion during the present century for cold winters and would cause a considerable delay, between 30 and 70 years, in the expected recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.
Of course, this geo-engineering scheme has lots of other problem. An earlier study noted:
A common conservative talking point against Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill is that it would reduce reenlistment rates by 16 percent, citing a recent CBO report. But the report also states that there will be a 16 percent increase in recruits. Slate explores the numbers and finds that the military would in fact see several times as many new recruits as drop-outs:
The problem is, the “16 percents” aren’t necessarily equal. You need to know the underlying numbers of recruits and re-enlistments. … The CBO estimate concluded that the 16 percent increase in recruitment would add an additional 30,000 recruits annually, while a 16 percent decline in re-enlistment would result in 7,000 fewer re-enlistments annually. In other words, new recruits would greatly outnumber soldiers who decline to re-enlist.
McCain has put out a climate policy that, like Bush’s, wouldn’t help the climate (see McCain speech, Part 2: Relying on offsets = Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic). Wednesday he announced he won’t even bother showing up to vote on his friend Joe Lieberman’s climate bill because of insufficient subsides (read “pork”) for nuclear power (see here) three weeks after saying he supported it (see here).
Now will the media finally stop idolizing this Bush clone who has mastered W’s art of saying one thing, to get favorable media coverage, and then doing the exact opposite, either to please his base or because that’s what he really believes?
Let’s see if the traditional media start to change their coverage from the nonsense peddled in stories like “On Policy, Obama Breaks Little New Ground,” a frothy front-page McCain press release article by the Washington Post. That article claims the Illinois Senator has supposedly “dismissed the importance of policy proposals” — even though he actually has a detailed climate plan that would actually save the climate (see“Obama’s excellent energy and climate plan”). The Post then actually claims
Today at a townhall meeting in Wisconsin, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to claim that President Bush’s policies in Iraq are “succeeding,” by pointing to the “quiet” in Mosul and other cities:
So I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it’s succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet and it’s long and it’s hard and it’s tough and there will be setbacks.
Watch it:
Mosul, however, is not quiet. In fact, today AP reported, “Another suicide bomber driving a police vehicle struck Iraqi commandos earlier Thursday in Mosul, killing three of them and wounding nine other people, according to battalion commander Capt. Aziz Latif.”
During his “Today” show appearance this morning with host Meredith Viera, former press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed that President Bush himself had authorized the leak of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq:
MCCLELLAN: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.
VIERA: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?
MCCLELLAN: Actually, I did. I talk about the conversation we had. … And I told the President that that’s what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said “yeah, I did.” And I was kinda taken aback.
Marcy Wheeler writes, “Thus far, though, we only had Dick Cheney’s word that he had actually asked Bush to declassify this information. We didn’t have Bush’s confirmation that he had actually declassified the information. … But now we’ve got George Bush, confirming that he, the President of the United States, authorized the leaks of ‘this information.’”
On Tuesday night, former Bush adviser Karl Rove responded to former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s explosive memoir by saying he “sounds like a left-wing blogger.” During an interview on right-wing talker Mike Gallagher’s radio show today, Politico’s Mike Allen echoed Rove’s dismissive response, claiming that McClellan had adopted “the vocabulary, rhetoric of the left wing haters.”
I don’t see what J Street is complaining about here:
Well, no, okay I understand perfectly well what J Street is complaining about. Joe Lieberman’s just so utterly committed to the higher good of endless war in the Middle East that he doesn’t really care.
The right wing is trotting out a variety of counter-attacks to deal with the explosive allegations found in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s new book. Yesterday, defenders repeated they were “puzzled” by the book, “as if,” the New York Times noted, “Mr. McClellan had undergone some kind of emotional breakdown.” By afternoon, attacks were more charged, with White House officials calling McClellan a “traitor” and “Benedict.” By last night and into this morning, Fox News pundits were insisting the book is the work of a nefarious, left-wing publisher.
Now several prominent conservatives are dismissing the book by insisting that no one outside of “people who follow Washington issues” really even cares about McClellan’s allegations:
Ari Fleischer: This is a very Washington and people who follow Washington issue, and people tend to read these types of books. What is interesting, Bill, is TV shows, for example, millions watch the news at night, a great selling book only sells about 100,000, so it’s kinda gonna be a self-contained story.
Bill O’Reilly: McClellan says Mr. Bush did not handle Katrina very well. Gee, I’m stunned. He says the president used propaganda to justify Iraq. Again, is that a bulletin? … McClellan also believes that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby conspired in the Valerie Plame case. Forgive me if I’m bored.
Newt Gingrich: No. I don’t want to shock you, Alan, but I actually don’t care. … I mean my lack of interest in Scott McClellan’s personal odyssey of self-discovery is a negative. I’m more concerned about American Idol than I am about Scott McClellan.
Mary Matalin: I don’t care, like Newt, I don’t really care to analyze this kind of betrayal.
Watch a compilation:
Despite what these pundits suggest, Americans are paying attention. McClellan’s book rose rapidly yesterday to become Amazon’s number one bestseller. McClellan’s story has dominated the airwaves, with threemajorappearances today and at least three more — including a stint on the Daily Show — in the next few days.
The public is sure to pay particular attention to McClellan’s charges about manipulating Iraq intelligence. A poll from Februrary showed that a majority — 53 percent — of Americans believe the White House “deliberately misled” the public about the existence of WMD in Iraq.
In his new book, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan charges that the Bush administration manipulated information in a “propaganda” campaign before the Iraq war, making the faulty claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Asked about the book today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended the administration’s actions in the run-up to the war, suggesting there was no manipulation involved. McCain claimed “every intelligence agency in the world” thought Hussein had WMD:
I have not seen the book or the comments. But I know why I supported it [the war] because I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction as did every intelligence agency in the world and every assessment.
Watch it:
McCain’s blanket statement is wildly off the mark. The Bush administration did set up its own intelligence shops to disseminate faulty intelligence about Iraq’s alleged WMD. But “every” agency in the “world” did not buy the spin — several U.S. agencies were highly skeptical:
State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR): Concluded that the “activities we have detected do not add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [the INR] would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.”
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): On March 7, 2003, IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei reported there was “no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them.”
Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapon’s inspector: In Jan. 2003, Blix told the U.N. Security Council that his inspection teams had not found any “smoking guns” after visiting some 125 Iraqi sites.
When under pressure, McCain has a habit of making sweeping blanket statements. Criticized for his stance on the 21st Century GI Bill last week, McCain falsely claimed he “received the highest award from literally every veteran’s organization in America.” In December, McCain made the blatantly false assertion that the he is “the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.”
NASA’s James Hansen has posted a “summary of recent attempts to provide information and interact with governors re actions needed to stem climate change” here. As he explains in the accompanying e-mail:
This Sunday evening (June 1) I will give a talk at Cary Hall in Lexington, Massachusetts a few hundred yards from where the first shots of the American Revolution were fired. Perhaps there is an analogy between the gap that developed between the best interests of the American people and policies of despotic King George and the gap that has developed between the best interests of the public (and nature) and the policies (mainly those related to energy) that we now live under.
A different sort of revolution, within the democratic framework, is needed, but it won’t be easy. What makes it a hair-raising drama, with an outcome far from assured, is the combination of climate system inertia and resulting planetary energy imbalance, energy system inertia, and climate system tipping points.
The event referred to above (7:30 PM, June 1) is hosted by the Lexington Global Warming Action Coalition (info at www.lexgwac.org). It starts with a short talk by Mark Bowen, author of Censoring Science, followed by my talk on the science, and then open discussion. There is a $5 admission. I have no financial interest in the book or event (but I probably get in free).
Needless to say, if you live in the Boston area, this is a must see.
There is one policy area where I pretty strongly disagree with Hansen. He calls for:
