ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Sarkozy’s Dangerous Flirtation With France’s Far-Right, Anti-Muslim Nationalists

Far-right French nationalist politician Marine Le Pen is currently in the midst of a contest to succeed her father, well-known inciter of racial hatred Jean-Marie Le Pen, the infamous perennial French presidential candidate, as the leader of the virulently anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Front National party. Some had speculated that the charismatic, blonde Marine Le Pen would offer a kinder, gentler, and less anti-Semitic face for a party that has long played a central role in stirring the always-simmering and occasionally-boiling pot of racial and religious tensions omnipresent in French society. That notion, however, was quickly dispelled by her recent comments to some party faithful which both stoked fears about the far-right’s pet notion of ‘creeping sharia’ and likened French Muslims who are forced to pray in the streets due to overcrowded Mosques to France’s Nazi occupiers during World War II:

For those who like to speak about the Second World War, here we can talk about occupation. […] Certainly there are no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it weighs heavily on local people.

Amid a recent spate of incidents, including the banning in June of a “wine and sausage” street party organized in response to Muslims praying in the street in Paris, France’s mainstream political parties quickly denounced Le Pen’s comments. The Socialist Party’s national secretary called them “shameful” and its spokesman added that “Marine Le Pen is just as dangerous as Jean-Marie Le Pen.” The education minister for the ruling Union for Popular Movement (UMP) said they were “unacceptable” and the party’s spokesman also disputed the idea that daughter Le Pen was any different from her father, calling them “interchangeable.” Le Pen pushed back against these critics and others who had suggested she committed a gaffe by saying “My comments were absolutely not a blunder, but a completely thought-out analysis.” She then went on to note that she was merely giving voice to what she claims everyone thinks privately. 
 
Le Pen has the nod of her father and is widely expected to contest the 2012 presidential election for the FN, with her comments clearly “meant to remind [FN party activists] that she has not abandoned the party’s ideas” ahead of the January 16th party vote. She is also currently polling nationally at 12-14 percent, which is relatively high for the far-right party in recent years, but shy of the nearly 17 percent her father took in the 2002 presidential election, in which he shocked the nation by beating the Socialist candidate, Lionel Jospin, to advance to the runoff with then-President Jacques Chirac. Her personal approval rating has risen to a shocking 33 percent.    
 
While both Le Pens’ inflammatory statements have come to be an expected — if extremely unfortunate — part of French political life, perhaps more disturbing is the increasingly rightward lurch that President Nicolas Sarkozy and his party have taken on issues relating to immigration and Islam’s place in French society and culture. Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement (née Union for a Presidential Majority, which was born of the merger of several center-right parties in order to stand united against Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 presidential runoff election) took the elder Le Pen’s success as a shot across the bow and has moved dramatically rightward in a largely failed effort to stem further electoral gains by the FN.
 
Though in 2004, he sought to liberalize France’s sacrosanct 1905 Law, the law that governs France’s strict separation of church and state, in order to allow state funding for the construction of mosques and other facilities to staunch the flow of funds from extremist sources abroad, Sarkozy has since moved far to the right.  He was widely criticized for remarks he made as Interior Minister in 2005, when he said the “scum or “rabble” of France’s notorious suburban ghettos, then in active revolt, needed to be “cleaned out” using a Kärcher, a type of high-pressure water hose.  More recently he has stoked anti-Muslim fears, already widespread in French society, by banning the wearing of burkas in public and initiating a government-sponsored national debate over French national identity.  The latter collapsed earlier this year after it degenerated into little more than “a forum for immigrant bashing.”

Though his party initially condemned the younger Le Pen’s comments as “unacceptable,” Sarkozy himself is now set to deliver a New Year’s Eve speech calling Muslim prayer in the streets “unacceptable.”  An aide to the French president noted that “people overreacted to Marine Le Pen’s comments” about overcrowded mosques overflowing into the streets and that “she is right: this phenomenon is unacceptable.”

In addition to the highly questionable moral implications of Sarkozy’s flirtation with the far right, it’s also unclear whether it represents a winning electoral strategy for the embattled French president.  The FN also robs votes from the far left and has recently posted strong showings in many economically devastated communities that were long bastions of the French Communist Party. France’s Muslim community is the largest in Europe (French law prohibits the government from collecting statistics about religion so an exact count is unavailable) and moving too far to the right could further boost the fortunes of the Socialists among Muslim voters. It could also empower more moderate forces on the center-right, including bitter Sarkozy rival Dominique de Villepin, who formed a new party earlier this year following the UMP’s disastrous results in the country’s regional elections.

Yglesias

Endgame

The world is full of stupid people:

— Dick Durbin hits the filibuster.

— David Keane explains that he kicked Citizens’ Council movement out of CPAC: “we kicked [them] out of CPAC because they are racists.”

— The conservative worldview.

— Jon Kyl says there’ll be no repeal of DADT repeal.

— The effect of falling home prices on small business borrowing.

Heading to Mexico tomorrow morning with my girlfriend, so here’s the Refreshments’ “Banditos”—a classic flee to Mexico + Star Trek references mid-nineties alt rock sensation.

Media

Media Withdraws From Covering Complex Afghan War

There were many remarkable things about the war in Afghanistan this year. It was the deadliest year by far for both U.S. troops and for the entire coalition, with 700 troops now killed since Jan. 1, 2010, up from a previous high of 591 last year. President Obama dismissed the general in charge of the war halfway through this year. WikiLeaks dumped 77,000 reports covering six years of the war. And just last week, the Obama administration released a much-anticipated strategy review.

Despite these developments, however, the media has devoted only four percent of its coverage this year to the war, according to a study by the Pew Research Center. The New York Times reports that low public interest in the war, along with the very complicated nature of the conflict, likely explains the dearth of coverage:

The same week that ABC News scheduled a series of segments titled “Afghanistan: Can We Win?,” Katie Couric of the “CBS Evening News” devoted six minutes to a special report, “Can This War Be Won?” A recent headline atop New York magazine repeated a question asked by dozens of opinion writers this year — and last year, and the year before — “Why Are We in Afghanistan?

The questions reflect the complex nature of the Afghan war, and of the news coverage. The grueling war there, where a day rarely goes by without an allied casualty, is like a faint heartbeat, accounting for just 4 percent of the nation’s news coverage in major outlets through early December, according to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, an arm of the Pew Research Center. That is down slightly from last year, when the war accounted for 5 percent.

It’s never passed the threshold to be a big story week in, week out for Americans,” said Mark Jurkowitz, the associate director of the project.

Journalists interviewed by the Times blamed, in part, news budgets that simply didn’t have the money for Afghanistan coverage. “There are like seven of us there,” remarked one correspondent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to call into question his network’s commitment to the war. Other journalists blamed a lack of public interest. Tony Maddox, who oversees international coverage for CNN, said that “[i]nside the United States, you’ve got audiences that are beginning to suffer from war fatigue.”

Voices from Afghanistan are notably absent from the minimal coverage that does exist. A recent poll conducted by the Washington Post, ABC News and others found that Afghans are more pessimistic about the direction of their country and less confident in the ability of the United States to provide security, and just as notable as these findings was the fact that any news outlet bothered to ask. Elizabeth Rubin, a contributing writer to the New York Times magazine, notes that most foreign correspondents do not speak Afghan languages and have little understanding of local cultures, which hampers their ability to assess the Afghan perspective. One reporter for Radio Free Europe, who does speak Pashto, Urdu, and several other regional languages, writes that there are “a series of issues where Afghans see Western media covering their country through the lens of their own national interests.”

A complex war is hardly a reason to draw back coverage — just the opposite. The war costs taxpayers $160 billion each year, and as noted, the costs in human life continue to mount. None other than Joe Scarborough recently wondered if the low levels of media coverage are damaging the public’s ability to evaluate the direction and necessity of the war. “For years, we have had journalists wringing their hands and editorialists lashing out at the profession for not asking the tough questions leading up to Iraq. Ten years from now, won’t we be saying the same thing about Afghanistan?” Scarborough asked Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign relations, during a recent show. Mr. Haass replied: “I think history’s going to be brutal on the questions that haven’t been asked.”

Security

Graham Claims Dems Pushed DREAM Act To Make Republicans ‘Look Bad With Hispanics’

This past Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) railed against Democrats for using the lame duck session simply to make Republicans “look bad.” More specifically, Graham announced on CBS’ Face the Nation that Democrats pushed the DREAM Act simply to hurt the GOP’s reputation amongst Latinos:

The last two weeks have been an absolutely excruciating exercise — Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — a controversial topic. Some say the civil rights issue of our generation, others say battlefield effectiveness was passed in the lame-duck session without one amendment being offered. The DREAM Act we’ve had two votes on the DREAM Act. Controversial immigration, there was no efforts to find a common ground there, passed without the ability to amend to try to make Republicans look bad with Hispanics.

Watch it:

It’s impossible to deny that some sort of political calculation was made by Democratic leadership when the DREAM Act was brought up for a vote. However, when it comes to Republicans looking bad with Latinos, that is largely the GOP’s own doing.

“I want to hear Republican leaders stand up and say, ‘The Republican Party absolutely loves the Hispanic-American community; we resonate with your values; we are the party for you,’” the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, recently told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “Instead, I’m just hearing xenophobia and racism. If they keep it up, all I can say is good luck in an increasingly diverse, multicultural America.”

Meg Whitman’s former lead spokesman Rob Stutzman similarly told the Los Angeles Times, “They [Republicans] sit around at cocktail parties and they [Latinos] listen on talk shows and hear their parents referred to as ‘illegals.’ And we wonder why these people [Latinos] don’t want to register as Republicans.”

Even if Democrats were out to merely tarnish the GOP’s reputation by bringing up the DREAM Act (which it doesn’t appear they were), Republicans eagerly took the bait. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) called the bill a “nightmare for the American people.” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) claimed it contained loopholes for terrorists. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) stated that it was “sacrilegious” and “disrespectful” to ask the Senate to vote on anything so close to Christmas.

Perhaps the most stinging remarks came from Graham himself. Minutes before the DREAM Act failed, Graham took the senate floor to tell all the young undocumented immigrants who visited his office that they were “wasting their time.”

Jose Delgado, op-ed contributor at the nation’s largest Spanish-language newspaper, has never shied away from attacking Democrats. Today, he wrote in La Opinión:

When Senator Harry Reid mentioned that not a single Hispanic should vote for the Republican Party, he did it for political reasons. And though Reid said that out of convenience, today, all Hispanics that hope for our community to become a vibrant element of American society should consider this possibility. [...]

Where is “compassionate conservatism,” where are the “family values?”

Yglesias

My Token Moment of Outreach to the Religious Right

Ross Douthat:

Christmas is hard for everyone. But it’s particularly hard for people who actually believe in it.

In a sense, of course, there’s no better time to be a Christian than the first 25 days of December. But this is also the season when American Christians can feel most embattled. Their piety is overshadowed by materialist ticky-tack. Their great feast is compromised by Christmukkwanzaa multiculturalism. And the once-a-year churchgoers crowding the pews beside them are a reminder of how many Americans regard religion as just another form of midwinter entertainment, wedged in between “The Nutcracker” and “Miracle on 34th Street.”

I don’t spend a lot of time agreeing with the Christian right about things, but the whining about the secularization of Christmas is a point I sympathize with. If Christmas were more properly religious, then I think people would have absolutely no trouble recognizing why a secular Jewish person might be not-so-excited about it. Then we could move on with our lives. But the transfiguration of Christmas into a largely secular observance has created a dynamic where lack of enthusiasm for the holiday presents itself as a character flaw—you’re a “grinch” who’s not participating in the “holiday fun” and “Christmas spirit”—in an awkward way. And yet to me no amount of tacky commercialization can really secularize a holiday that has “Christ” right in the name and that’s timed to commemorate the birth of Jesus.

Something they did at my high school that I actually thought was clever was gin up a fake late-December non-sectarian celebratory occasion called Candlelighting that happened on the day before the winter solstice. If I got to have my way about everything, we’d follow that lead. There’d be a big national secular holiday where the idea is to have fun and brighten the darkest day of the year with presents and whatnot. Then separately, Christian people who want to engage in a religious observe of Christ’s birth would do so. Jews could let Hanukkah sink back into obscurity and observe our real holidays.

Politics

Newly Elected Rep. Flores: ‘Republicans In The House As A Whole Want To Get The EPA [Regulations] Shut Down’

Fossil fuel-burning industries, particularly coal and oil companies, have pursued an aggressive political strategy to ensure that they do not have to pay for any of their pollution. For instance, these companies have funded a vast network of “libertarian” and “conservative” front groups to spread the lie that climate change is not real, that regulations on pollution destroy the economy, and other fraudulent arguments to pad the profits of polluters. In the 2010 midterm elections, oil and coal companies, like Peabody and Koch Industries, poured a record amount of campaign contributions into electing pro-polluter Republicans. Now, it appears that the new polluter-funded GOP majority will be repaying the favor. Last night on Tea Party Internet radio, Rep.-elect Bill Flores (R-TX) explained that Republicans “as a whole want to get the EPA shut down” on regulations:

FLORES: Absolutely, that’s one of the reasons I wanted to get on Natural Resources is it puts me in the position, not my full jurisdiction over the EPA but I do have some jurisdiction there. I can tell you the House as a whole, the Republicans in the House as a whole want to get the EPA shut down on these bunny trails that’s going down that are throwing people out of work — particularly the way it’s abusing Texas. And I think that Texas can count on getting some relief from the EPA within the first few months of this Congress because they really have gone overboard.

Listen here:

So far, polluter interests have attempted to stifle EPA regulations using a wave of litigation and astroturf lobbying. In Congress next year, polluters will flex their muscle and use their GOP cohorts to defund and attempt to eliminate the EPA.

Update

Our original title incorrectly transcribed Flores’ remarks. We’ve fixed the transcript and changed the title.

Economy

GOP Delays Confirmation Of Obama Nominee Because He Might Want To Help Underwater Homeowners

underwaterThe Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that the Obama administration has been trying to cajole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into writing down loan principal for troubled homeowners. Incoming House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), however, is not on-board with the effort. And he’s evidently not alone.

In fact, the GOP is so dead-set against helping borrowers who are underwater on their mortgages — meaning they owe more than their house is currently worth — that they are delaying confirmation of the administration’s nominee to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Fannie and Freddie’s chief regulator) because he might be sympathetic to loan write-downs:

Senate Republicans are pressing to delay the confirmation of Joseph A. Smith, the North Carolina banking commissioner, to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency. They are concerned he might allow Fannie and Freddie to participate in an Obama administration initiative to write down loan balances, say people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Smith first appeared to be headed for a quick confirmation. But he has become tripped up by a broader fight between the White House, which wants to use the firms to help heal housing markets, and GOP critics that say they shouldn’t be run as policy vehicles that create more losses.

The administration’s foreclosure prevention efforts have largely flopped, and the banking industry is on pace to foreclose on one million homes both this year and next. Allowing Fannie and Freddie to write-down loans could help put a dent in these huge numbers.

Republicans, however, are arguing that such a move is unfair, as Fannie and Freddie would be forced to eat losses while helping only specific homeowners. Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) said that write-downs amount to “redistribution from taxpayers in general to certain classes of home owners.”

But this basically ignores the wider negative effects foreclosures, which drag down home values for everyone. As The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz explained:

[Republicans have a] rather short-sighted approach, given that Fannie and Freddie are already propping up almost the entire housing market, and that the costs of both foreclosure and consumer debt overhang are a drag on the broader economy. Foreclosure is everyone’s problem, especially when many of these borrowers are underwater not because of their own irresponsibility but because of dramatic drops in the price of housing.

According to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner there “is a pretty good economic case for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to participate in those programs.” FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has also called for principal write-downs, saying that they “could help reduce defaults, keep people in their homes, avoid costly foreclosures, and enhance the value of these loans.” But the GOP has stood in the way of every effort to help troubled borrowers, and this is no exception.

Alyssa

Cryptonomicon Book Club, Part II: The Begats

Part I of the book club appeared here. Usual rules apply. Spoilers up to, but not including or past, the section entitled “Lizard” below the jump.

One of the things I like most about this novel is that I have absolutely no idea where the story is going. I’ve resisted an urge I sometimes give into to check things on Wikipedia, and am requiring myself to remember names, and plot points. But that’s only part of it. I genuinely can’t predict what’s coming next. I assume that Bobby Shaftoe and Lawrence Waterhouse win World War II, but I can’t be sure, because Japan is Nippon now, apparently, and so something happened along the way to throw the world at least very slightly and perhaps considerably off-kilter.

And this gets to perhaps what is my favorite part of the experience of reading Cryptonomicon: Bobby Shaftoe and Lawrence Waterhouse might be important because they win World War II. But it might just be that they matter because they survive to produce Amy Shaftoe and Randy Waterhouse.

There’s something almost Biblical in Cryptonomicon‘s concern with ancestry. Every time I hear certain names now, there are begats ringing out in my ears. We’re working with a smaller number of generations, but there’s a certain grandeur to the execution. And it functions well as a narrative device. There are an enormous number of movies in particular that begin with the entrance of the older version of one of the characters, arriving to narrate their own story:

It’s a frame device that is an inherent spoiler. Once an aged narrator appears, we know that the character will survive everything they’re about to tell us about.

Stephenson’s decision to use lineage functions more subtly. The appearance of Amy and Randy suggests that Bobby and Lawrence survive for a while, but we don’t know for how long. We don’t know who their partners necessarily are, and it’s not even clear how many generations removed from Lawrence and Bobby Randy and Amy are. The mere existence of Amy and Randy gives me fragile hope for Bobby’s survival, for Lawrence forging a genuine and curious connection with someone that lasts long enough for a child to bear his name.

In terms of characterization, Stephenson clearly believes to a certain extent that lineage is destiny. Early in his description of Avi, he writes:

His father’s people had just barely gotten out of Prague. As Central European Jews went, they were fairly typical. The only thing about them that was really anomalous was that they were still alive. But his mother’s people were unbelievably peculiar New Mexican crypto-Jews who had been living on mesas, dodging Jesuits, shooting rattlesnakes and eating jimson weed for three hundred years; they looked like Indians and talked like cowboys. In his relations with other people, therefore, Avi dithered. Most of the time he was courtly and correct in a way that was deeply impressive to businesspeople—Nipponese ones expecially—but there were these eruptions, from time to time, as if he’d been dipping into the loco weed.

The first couple of sentences read like a Michael Chabon novel, a stark and emotionally blunt description of escape, but then Stephenson swerves in a way I think is distinctive, translating the old West to contemporary business in a way that’s strikingly original. He’s a great juxtapositive describer in his writing. The “looked like Indians and talked like cowboys,” line is one of my favorites in the book, based on a simple repurposing of a basic phrase, infused with meaning. But he’s also found a way to make the Holocaust, the old West, and contemporary global business seem like a clear progression in a single paragraph, and in a single person.

He does something similar in describing how Bobby’s Uncle Jack landed in Manila that for me, conjures up a moment in Tony Kushner’s short play “Reverse Transcription,” when one of the characters describes the land in a Martha’s Vineyard cemetery as “Forefatherly. Originary.”:

Nimrod…decided that he liked the pluck of these Filipino men, in order to kill whom a whole new class of ridiculously powerful sidearm (the Colt .45) had had to be invented. Not only that, he liked hte looks of their women. Promptly discharged from the service, he found that full disability pay would go a long way on the local economy. He set up an export business along the Pasig riverfront, married a half-Spanish woman, and sired a son (Jack) and two daughters. The daughters ended up in the States, back in the Tennessee mountains that have been the ancestral wellspring of all Shaftoes ever since they broke out of the indentured servitude racket back in the 1700s. Jack stayed in Manila and inherited Nimrod’s business, but never married.

The idea that ancestral land can pull you back from halfway across the world, even if you were born abroad, is an almost old-fashioned notion, one we associate with nostalgics and Zionists. But Stephenson isn’t afraid of the scope of the lineages he’s conjuring up. It’s a long story he’s telling, and a long game he’s playing.

But even as he’s asking us to accept a rather grand notion of ancestry, Stephenson still directly acknowledges a very modern contradiction: an insistence that we, rather than genetics and ancestry, determine who we are and the shape of our lives, while at the same time the fact that we’re forced to acknowledge that sometimes our families understand us better than anyone else. Bobby Shaftoe learns this when he comes home after being wounded:

The family has been scrupulous about holding on to the ancestral twang, and to certain other traditions such as military service….Bobby’s not the first to have won a Silver Star, though he is the first to have won the Navy Cross….Sometimes he goes out into the yard and plays catch with his kid brothers. He helps Dad fix up a rotten dock. Guys and gals from his high school keep coming round to visit, and Bobby soon learns the trick that his father and his uncles and granduncles all knew, which is that you never talk about the specifics of what happened over there….The only person he can stand to be around his his great-grandfather Shaftoe….He never talks about it, of course, just as Bobby Shaftoe never talks about the lizard.

I’ll be curious to see more of what the characters know about their own ancestry, and about how these various lineages cross over. The only real sense we’ve gotten of those interactions is in the story that Amy tells Randy about her father (a side note relevant to this discussion, I thought corvus’s comment in our first discussion in response to the allegation that Amy is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, is a wise one: I think she is really just meant to be the complete opposite of Charlene, and the obvious female descendant of her father and grandfather. However, that doesn’t mean she is not just a wish fulfillment object for the male protagonist involved, instead of a character in her own right.”), who shoved a man we’ll later meet, who is one of the architects of the Vietnam War, off a ski lift.


 What I really want to know is whether Lawrence Waterhouse and Bobby Shaftoe met, or whether they passed each other like a code and interpretation that never quite meet up, and if they met, what they meant to each other, and consequently, what all of these families mean to each other. It’s as if there’s some sort of underlying pattern to the universe. But Lawrence Waterhouse can’t see it yet. And so far, neither can I.

Yglesias

Barbour Has a History of Citizens’ Council Trouble

An opposition research professional sent me this Nexis clip from Haley Barbour’s first gubernatorial campaign:

BYLINE: By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, Associated Press Writer

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 645 words

DATELINE: JACKSON, Miss.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Haley Barbour says he will not ask for his picture to be removed from the national Web site of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

The site for the St. Louis-based group features Confederate flags and has links to articles such as “In defense of racism” and offers books on why the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. doesn’t deserve a national holiday and why Germany should be cleared of the “blood libel of the ‘Holocaust.”‘

Barbour said in an interview Thursday that white supremacist and anti-Semitic views on the CCC site are “indefensible,” but he does not want to tell any group it cannot use his picture or statements.

“Once you start down the slippery slope of saying ‘That person can’t be for me,’ then where do you stop?” Barbour said. “Old segregationists? Former Ku Klux Klan like (Sen.) Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)? You know?

I think the interesting point here is that Barbour wasn’t just stumbling blindly into subject matter he didn’t understand. He knew perfectly well that these groups were controversial, but he chose to praise their constructive influence on the his hometown anyway.

It’s worth noting that it would actually be surprising if Teenage Haley Barbour hadn’t been a white supremacist in the early 1960s. In January of 1964, Gallup found that the Civil Rights Act had a 71% approval rating among non-southern whites but just a 20% approval rating among white southerners. I wouldn’t condemn anyone for just kind of picking up the local conventional wisdom. But 40-50 years later, it’d be nice for him to show some understanding of what was happening.

Climate Progress

Polar bear, Arctic sea ice all-but doomed: Misleading Nature cover story misleads the media, public

Last week Nature published a study, “Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence” (subs. req’d).  The journal had a pretty sensational cover, with a polar bear and the compelling headline, “Staying Alive:  Cut greenhouse-gas emissions now we can still save the polar bear.”

If you missed Nature, you probably saw the headlines:

I really wish any of that were realistic, not so much because the polar bear is a critical linchpin species, but because the loss of Arctic ice in the summer may well trigger even more rapid warming (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss” and below).  But in fact a much more reasonable AFP headline would be “Arctic ice cap on verge of runaway melting:  study.”  The NSF release should read, “Polar bear extinction now likely.”

I understand that journalists typically don’t read studies closely, but Nature ought to know better.    Perhaps, as we will see, it is just a matter of climate scientists of being utterly divorced from the reality of our energy and political systems.   Still, in reading the study and its supplementary information, I am puzzled why Nature published the article as written and especially why it chose to sensationalize it on the cover.

Let’s set aside, for now, the fact that the study focuses on sea ice area, not volume.  This is key figure in the paper:

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up