It always amazes me how many climate bloggers don’t know the scientific literature and don’t use Google to check key facts.

And so, in the annals of phony attacks on climate realists, such as International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol (and me), we now have the most inane. Our bunny friend Eli Rabbet has a brilliant post nibbling on the know-nothings who foisted this inanity on the blogosphere (click here, reposted below).

But the story is so entertainingly informative (informatively entertaining?) as to how the blogosphere fabricates attacks on people that I’ll run through the key elements. On Friday, May 24, I published a piece headlined “IEA: Global CO2 Emissions Hit New Record In 2011, Keeping World On Track For ‘Devastating’ 11°F Warming.”

I have written literally dozens and dozens of posts explaining that this is what the IEA (and others) now says is possible by 2100. Here, for instance, is an M.I.T. figure I use a lot:

Humanity’s Choice (via M.I.T.): Inaction (“No Policy”) eliminates most of the uncertainty about whether or not future warming will be catastrophic.  Aggressive emissions reductions dramatically improves humanity’s chances. Note that this is 2091-2100 surface warming compared to 1981-2000 — and the mean warming during that time is 5.17°C [See Table 4], which means from preindustrial times to 2100, the total warming would likely exceed 5.7°C.

I confess I thought this was so obvious that it slipped my mind to actually put in the phrase “by 2100.” But the original Reuters story (here) did have an obvious mistake:

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters.

Again, I thought the mistake, “(by 2050),” was so obviously one the reporter foisted on Birol with the parenthetical comment that I simply omitted it in my post:

“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius [11°F], which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

I (too) cleverly took out the obviously incorrect parenthetical comment by the reporter and replaced it with  Fahrenheit conversion. I had intended when I was writing the article to mention that Reuters made a mistake but it slipped my mind by the time I finished.

Note to self: Always do things when you think of them and don’t expect to remember them at some later time!

When a commenter went to the original Reuters piece and pointed out that 2050 “makes no sense,” I noted in the comments “I meant to post that 2050 is obviously a mistake by the reporter.”

What I didn’t know — because I have stopped reading the blogs of the disinformers and confusionists since their traffic and their impact hit a brick wall a long while ago — is that some easily and/or willfully confused bloggers spun up a phony attack on Birol (and me) because they assumed, nonsensically:

1. That Birol made the mistake, not the reporter.
2. That I agreed with the mistake — even though I had never posted it and in fact had obviously omitted it from my post!

Now what makes this exemplary of the kind of nonsense the disinformers and confusionists push on a regular basis is that anybody who actually had a moment’s doubt about the timeframe over which IEA believes the warming will occur could  find out the answer in under 30 seconds on Google!

Just Google “IEA 6C Warming” and the second hit is this UK Guardian piece from April 24 of this year, “Governments failing to avert catastrophic climate change, IEA warns,” about IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven:

On current form, she warns, the world is on track for warming of 6C by the end of the century – a level that would create catastrophe, wiping out agriculture in many areas and rendering swathes of the globe uninhabitable, as well as raising sea levels and causing mass migration, according to scientists.

And just in case there was any confusion, the article quotes her directly two paragraphs later:

“Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs, and under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would be likely to send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century.”

Talk about much ado about nothing. Or is that much ado from know nothings?

I should add that whether the 11F warming is from preindustrial levels or just the warming this century or it doesn’t happen until say 2125 is beyond irrelevant. The first 4C (7F) of warming is going to destroy a livable climate, possibly for centuries, and what comes after that is, well, beyond imagining. Still, the planet would almost certainly keep warming past 2100 if we were on the high emission scenario:

• Science stunner — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter:  Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”

Steve Easterbrook’s post “A first glimpse at model results for the next IPCC assessment” shows that for the scenario where there is (5°C) 9°F warming by 2100 (from preindustrial levels), you get another 7°F warming by 2300.  Of course, folks that aren’t motivated to avoid the civilization-destroying 9°F by 2100 won’t be moved by whatever happens after that.

I’ll end my post with Birol’s great quote from late last year, World on Pace for 11°F Warming, “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.” If only school children blogged more!

Finally, I’ll let our hopping mad friend Eli Rabett explain the full story.

What follows is a repost from Rabett Run. I’m not indenting it for reasons that should become clear. I do caution folks not to read any further without a very good head vise.

Axe Grinding

By Eli Rabett

In his veto message, LePage claimed that improving the quality of teachers required “a larger more coordinated statewide solution,” before lashing out at the teacher’s union, which would partially fund the certification program. The governor said the union requires teachers to pay dues “which are squandered on a host of activities not even remotely related to professional development” and singled out its position on marriage equality:

“The MEA announced its endorsement recently of the same-sex marriage proposal on the November ballot,” LePage said in a press release Tuesday. “This announcement is an example of what the union is choosing to focus on rather than expanding and enhancing opportunities for teacher development.”

LePage had lashed out at the teacher’s union after members unanimously voted in favor of marriage equality on Sunday. “Too often, however, union bosses worry about a wide variety of efforts — political campaigns, lobbying, protecting bad teachers, insurances sales, and providing golf and skiing discounts — which are not related to furthering the education of our children,” he claimed, dismissing science which has shown that legal and social inequalities undermine LGBT families and their children. Research has also shown that schools that discuss gay and lesbian people are safer for LGBT youth than schools that don’t.

Unfortunately, the governor has a long history of opposing equal rights. In 2010, he claimed that “there is no place for transgendered students in the state’s primary schools” and that the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, needed to be reformed.

It is possible, if extremely unlikely, that the justices will use this opportunity to fix the error they committed in Citizens United. Even if one of the five conservatives responsible for the explosion of money in politics does reconsider his mistake, however, the Supreme Court’s calendar makes it all but certain that Citizens United will remain in effect until after the 2012 election:

The Supreme Court will consider the major sequel to its controversial ruling on campaign finance at the Justices’ private Conference on June 14, the Court’s electronic docket showed Tuesday. The case is American Tradition Partnership, et al., v. Bullock (11-1179). The Court will be considering a request to overturn, without briefing or argument, a Montana Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law curbing the campaign spending of corporations in that state — a ruling that is said to conflict directly with the Justices’ 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing such spending.

If the Justices choose not to reverse that state decision summarily, they are likely to grant review and put the case over to the new Term starting October 1, with a decision likely after this year’s election. The state court ruling, in the meantime, is on hold, thus allowing corporations to spend freely in Montana in this year’s election cycle.

Republican interest groups plan to spend about $1 billion to buy Mitt Romney a new house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue between now and the end of this cycle.

It is, of course, possible that the justices will decide that removing the taint of corruption Citizens United imposes on American democracy is so urgent that they should hear the case during a special summer session, but this is a highly irregular procedure that only occurs when the justices believe it is unusually important that the case be decided quickly — such as when the Court’s five conservatives decided to shackle our democracy with Citizens United in the first place.

But ahead of tomorrow’s vote on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), a bill that would ban physicians from performing abortions based on the fetus’ sex, anti-choice organizations have clumsily attempted to co-opt the “war on women” meme. Even though it is a measure that addresses a non-existing problem, the groups are warning members of Congress to support it:

– “Planned Parenthood is out of control, waging a ruthless war against young women and their (female) babies.” [Traditional Values Coalition email]

– “This is a real war on women. And it is wrong when we turn a blind eye to women being eliminated in the womb simply for being a member of the female sex.” [Americans United for Life letter]

– “Members who recently have embraced contrived political rhetoric asserting they are resisting a ‘war on women’ must reflect on whether they wish to be recorded as being defenders of the escalating war on baby girls.” [National Right to Life Committee letter]

And during floor debate today about PRENDA, GOP House members claimed the sex-selective abortion ban was part of the “war on women” as well:

– “This is the ultimate war on women. If we don’t allow women to be born, we cannot talk about any other rights.” [Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY)]

“Sex selection is violence against women and it is the truest kind of war against women.” [Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)]

Republicans may echo the anti-abortion advocates and try to claim PRENDA would stop a “war on women,” but it is a discriminatory bill that does not address equal rights for women. Rather than addressing inequality, PRENDA simply would exacerbate sex and race discrimination by targeting women of color from communities associated with sex selection whom doctors might suspect of wanting to have a prohibited abortion.

JC Penney's new Fathers' Day ad

JCPenney has just launched a Fathers’ Day advertisement featuring a gay couple with their children, noting that the ad portrays “real-life dads Todd Koch and Cooper Smith with their children, Claire and Mason.”

The copy reads:

First Pals: What makes Dad so cool? He’s the swim coach, tent maker, best friend, bike fixer and hug giver — all rolled into one. Or two.

The ad builds on the department store’s recent decisions to stand with the LGBT community. In February, when JCPenney came under fire from the anti-gay group One Million Moms for bringing on the openly-gay comedian Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson, the store stood behind its partnership with Ellen. JCPenney’s CEO said that “Ellen represents the values of our company” — and with this kind of pro-equality advertising, JCPenney is continuing to reinforce its progressive values.

So, I came up with a few internal rules and I moved to Canada that first year to co-showrun the show (with the fab Mr. Peter Mohan) partly just to help institute them:

1. sexual orientation is not discussed, and never an issue;

2. no slut shaming – Bo is allowed to have sex outside of relationships

3. Bo’s male and female partners are equally viable;

4. Bo is capable of monogamy, when desired;

5. both genders are to be (adoringly!) objectified — equal opportunity eye candy FTW…

Bo has lots of sex, with men, women, humans, Fae, threesomes… and she’s still our hero, still a good person worthy (and capable) of love, and that’s a rare portrayal of female sexuality. Also, a show built around a bisexual lead doesn’t have to BE about her bisexuality — orientation can just be an interesting element of a story, and not the story itself, and that’s the central spirit of our show. I consider that “I’m here, I’m queer, and it’s no big deal” approach to a main character still fairly rare and wonderful, at least in North America. It’s also rare to have a female lead who is so honestly sexual, without judgment…I think the single element I will remain proudest of is just that we’ve been able to create and put out into the world a sex positive universe where a person’s sexual orientation is unapologetically present and yet neither defines them as a character, nor the show as a whole.

I would really like to see this sort of thing tacked up in a lot of writers’ rooms. And the fact that a show that starts with the intention of doing something better needs these as reminders is an illustration of how pervasive our default assumptions about women and non-straight people and sexuality are. Getting your head right is a constant struggle.

Now, housing advocates are alleging that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is doing the same thing, diverting $75 million meant to help homeowners into the Garden State’s general fund:

Affordable housing advocacy groups today said Gov. Chris Christie is misusing $75 million from a foreclosure settlement, calling his budget plan “reckless” and “a shell game.”

Christie is putting that money into the budget general fund, advocates said at a Statehouse press conference this morning, instead of specifically earmarking it to fund help for people who have been foreclosed on.

Several governors, the first of whom was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), have used the settlement money to simply bolster their general funds, patching over budget problems that they’ve created. Progressives in New Jersey have been concerned that Christie would follow suit, and those concerns now seem to be justified. Previously, New Jersey’s attorney general had declined to confirm whether or not the state would use the settlement funding for foreclosure aid.

But not all homeowners are quietly accepting losing out on the funding. In Arizona, a group of homeowners have sued the state, saying that the diversion of settlement funds is illegal.

“I’m not participating in [the birther] debate,” Hoekstra added. “I think that this issue has been settled.” He also said that he saw “no connection at all” between this proposal and his racist ad depicting a Chinese worker mockingly thanking Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Romney also made another blunder: By using the town of Craig has an example of a “hurting” community in coal country, his speech was based on a fabricated story. After the speech, town residents completely contradicted Romney’s talking points in interviews with the New York Times:

The city’s finance director, Bruce Nelson, said that tax revenue had bounced back strongly since last late year. “We are holding our own,” he said.

Terry Carwile, the mayor of Craig and a retired coal miner, went further, saying that the economy was “getting better” in the town of 9,500 as oil speculation intensified. He played down the suggestion that federal regulations had wounded the local coal industry.

“The policies of the federal government really aren’t that impactful to us so far,” he said. He acknowledged that they were “a concern,” though, and that residents were ever wary of government meddling in their biggest industry.

That was not the message from Mr. Romney, who spoke to about 1,000 residents in a park near the town’s center.

Romney also ignored another inconvenient fact: Coal production and jobs are both up in Colorado.

“I’m not going to forget Craig, Colorado,” Romney said in yesterday’s speech. “I’m not going to forget communities like this across the country that are hurting right now under this president.”

However, unemployment in the county is down from 11 percent last year to 8.3 percent this year. And state-wide, coal production was up 10.4 percent in 2011 after seven years of decline. According to the Denver Post, the industry is planning four new mines.

The story is similar in West Virginia, where coal mining employment has grown by 1,500 since 2009 — a two-decade high. Coal generation may be down 19 percent nationally, but this is largely due to the low price of natural gas, not regulation.

Peabody Energy bused 148 miners to Romney’s speech and compensated the miners for their time.

Former Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan at a think tank conference

But today, during a conference at an Israeli think tank closely associated with the country’s security establishment, Dagan further explained his opposition to a strike. He told the audience there — in line with previous U.S., U.N. and Israeli estimates that Iran has not yet made a decision to produce a weapon — that attacking Iran would spur the Islamic Republic into accelerating its nuclear program and push for a bomb. Dagan said:

A strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb. An attack isn’t enough to stop the project. …

We would provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes.

In a sign of a consensus emerging among former top Israeli security officials, Dagan shares the newly expressed view — that attacking Iran would give the Islamic Republic every reason to boot out U.N. nuclear inspectors, make a “dash” for a weapon, and rally its population to that goal — with other former security chiefs. Former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence head Shlomo Gazit and former internal security chief Yuval Diskin have expressed nearly identical sentiments. In addition, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Thomas Pickering has expressed such views as well.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike — not least the one raised by Dagan today — have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis. Perhaps Dagan’s latest comments will lead to a broader discussion about the possible consequences of an attack on Iran.

Abdul Awkal with his attorney David Singleton

Awkal, who was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, believes that he advises the CIA on “Islamic religion and culture,” and he’s spent more than a decade writing letters to former CIA directors and to President Obama offering advice on the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although he was sentenced to die for a double murder, Awkal says that he is going to be killed because the “CIA wanted him dead.”. He has a long history of hallucinations and mental breakdowns and was once ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Singleton tells ThinkProgress that he will ask Kasich to reconsider his decision, and that Awkal’s legal team will also seek relief in state and, if necessary, federal court. Awkal could have a strong case. The Supreme Court held in Panetti v. Quarterman that it is unconstitutional to execute a person who is unable to “‘comprehen[d] the reasons’” for his punishment” or who is “unaware of … why [he is] to suffer it.” If Awkal truly believes that he is being executed because the CIA wants him dead, rather than because he committed a serious crime, than he is constitutionally beyond the reach of Ohio’s death chamber.

Ultimately, however, the fact that Awkal’s attorneys need to prove exactly how insane he is in order to save his life highlights the absurdity of America’s rules for state-sponsored killings. The Supreme Court has already recognized that the Constitution forbids executions of juvenile offenders or the mentally retarded because diminished mental capacity makes it harder for an offender “to understand and process information, to learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, or to control impulses—that also make it less likely that they can process the information of the possibility of execution as a penalty and, as a result, control their conduct based upon that information.” The same logic also applies to a severely mentally ill man such as Abdul Awkal.

Geek and Sundry, the Felicia Day-branded channel meant to build off the success of her web show The Guild, has attracted a proportionally huge amount of media coverage and buzz. But it was only the 16th-most watched channel on the site last week, netting 728,453 views (it was 13th previously). The most-watched channel, Sourcefed, which quickly wraps up viral news stories, was number one for the second week running with 5,607,921 views, a number that would have any actual network other than NBC feeling chest pains. The numbers drop off quickly after that: the channel with the number two slot has 3.8 million views, and only the top 11 channels netted over a million clicks on the play button. These are sobering numbers for folks who’d like to see network and cable television get outcompeted by the web. And they’re a cautionary tale for those who’d like to see their favorite shows, like Community, slip the yoke of a conventional production company and be supported by viewers: it’s a reminder that the core audience for any given show who would follow it off their televisions, much less support it with their dollars is not actually equivalent to its Nielsen rating.

Perhaps these numbers will improve. I continue to think that bundling web series together makes a lot of sense so people can find a number of things they might like at once, and so shows like The Guild, Husbands, or The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl with comparatively large followings can be used to launch new efforts. This is a medium is barely in its infancy, it’s really still in gestation, and the vast majority of consumers haven’t even thought about seeking out new original programming online much less figured out where to find what they like.

But I still think this illustrates a point I made in On The Media this weekend. I really think the networks would be smart to start using web television as a farm system. A season of web television usually adds up to about the length of a pilot. If a motivated web audience finds a show and proves willing to keep coming back for the bits and the pieces of a pilot over a period of time, that might be a good indicator that a core audience exists for a show that a network can build on, rewarding legacy viewers with higher production values, and putting a promising concept in front of an audience that didn’t even know it was out there to hunt for. If the networks were smart, they’d be excited about the idea of all these people shooting test pilots for them for free and developing audiences for them before they have to spend a penny of their advertising budgets, even if they don’t care about good ideas. And as much as I like the idea of the networks having more competition, it’s not time to give up on conquering from within either.

Fox News produced its own 4 minute attack video disguised as a retrospective of President Obama’s first term in office and aired it as a “Fox & Friends Presents” special. The ad opens with images of cheering voters during the 2008 election, before devolving into a wildly misleading juxtaposition of then-candidate Barack Obama promising change with rising unemployment rates and national debt. Watch it:

At the conclusion of the video, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy thanked one of the show’s producers for editing together the segment “for weeks.” But it only took hours for network brass to perhaps recognize the implications of Fox News producing and airing its own attack ads, because they quickly pulled from the Fox News website with no explanation. Even conservative sites balked at the idea of Fox News producing its own political attack ads.

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has long defended his network from charges of bias, explaining–incorrectly–that only the network’s primetime hosts are explicitly partisan. But as this ad clearly demonstrates, the network’s collusion with the Republican party runs much deeper than the 5pm to 10 pm time slots.

A new study released today by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that in three regions, homes sited close to national wildlife refuges have a higher value than those that are further away.

The study, “Amenity Values of Proximity to National Wildlife Refuges,” provides even more evidence that protected public lands are good for local economies and communities, despite what some opponents in Congress and their industry allies might claim.

The Fish and Wildlife Service called this report “the first national study to analyze national wildlife refuges’ impact on land values.” It finds:

On average, being in close proximity to a [national wildlife refuge] increases the value of homes in urbanized areas, all else equal. Specifically, we find that homes located within 0.5 miles of a [refuge] within 8 miles of an urban center are valued:

-  4% – 5% higher in the Northeast region;

-  7% – 9% higher in the Southeast region; and

-  3% – 6% higher in California/Nevada region.

Census data was used to focus on the 93 refuges in the lower 48 states within two miles of an urban area. Additionally, they found that total capitalized value of a specific refuge can be anywhere between $1 million and $40 million.

In addition to raising home values, the Department of the Interior found that national wildlife refuges contributed $4 billion to the economy and supported 32,000 jobs in 2010.

Despite their extraordinarily valuable contributions to local economies, some Republicans in Congress have sought to roll back protections for national wildlife refuges and limit the ability to designate new ones.

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), introduced the National Wildlife Refuge Review Act (H.R. 3009) which would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from establishing new wildlife refuges and turn over that authority to Congress, which has not passed any meaningful land conservation bills since John Boehner (R-OH) has been Speaker of the House.

And the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act (H.R. 4089), introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), would roll back a number of important environmental laws for national wildlife refuges.

Despite the partisan attacks on our public lands, evidence continues to mount showing that protecting them offers a range of economic benefits. For example, a report from Headwaters Economics earlier this month determined that over 40 years jobs increased by 300% in rural Western counties with more than 30% protected lands.

– Jessica Goad is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Has Been Pushing A 'Great Green Fleet'

So in theory, Congress should have no problem passing legislation to provide the funds to make this a reality. However, there are a few hurdles standing in the way: Republicans. The House GOP included a measure in the defense authorization bill this month prohibiting the Defense Department from buying alternative fuels if they cost more than “traditional fossil fuel.” And the Senate Armed Services Committee last week followed suit with an “even tougher” provision mirroring the House version but also exempts DOD from clean energy standards.

Why are the Republicans doing this? VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz pointed out yesterday that they get a lot of money from the oil and gas industry:

In short, Republicans would be forcing the military to go back to using the same fuels that hampered it from doing its job — and the same fuels that have resulted in the deaths of so many Americans.

Why? That’s the question that must be asked. And the answer is pretty simple. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Oil and Gas interests have donated 88 percent of their political contributions to Republicans this cycle — nearly $18 million. That’s the highest percentage they’ve given to Republicans since at least 1990.

And, boy, are Republicans delivering for them. Even if it means forcing the Pentagon to stop developing programs that could make our military more effective. Even if it means banning programs that would save the lives of our troops. There is nothing, it seems, that they value more than delivering for their dirty oil campaign donors.

Two Senate Democrats, Jim Webb (VA) and Joe Manchin (WV) joined the Armed Services Committee Republicans in voting for the measure. However, the amendment may have failed had Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted against a similar amendment, been present for the vote. The Hill reported last week that “[a] Collins spokesman said she had to miss the vote to speak with the commander of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine after the USS Miami fire. He said Collins would support biofuels if the issue comes up on the Senate floor.”

“While we all love the environment and want to be good stewards of the earth,” Soltz added, “the military isn’t on some kind of ecological mission when it comes to renewables. They’re trying to help ensure men and women come home to their loved ones.”