ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Washington Post corrects itself: “Make no mistake, Arctic Sea ice is melting,” may be gone in summer by 2013, “renders climate studies and models seemingly obsolete”

The Washington Post famously let George Will make a variety of mistakes and misstatements in three recent op-eds (see “Post editors let George Will publish a third time global warming lies debunked on its own pages“).

Will’s misstatements on Arctic ice were so egregious that Post reporters took the unprecedented step of contradicting Will in a recent news article:

The new evidence … contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979.

But the Post has topped that stunner:  Today, the Post ran an editorial, “Arctic Ice Is Melting:  The 30-year decline is accelerating, new data show,” which begins:

MAKE NO mistake, Arctic Sea ice is melting. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the maximum extent of the winter sea ice cover for 2008-09 was the fifth-lowest on record. Underscoring their point, the agencies added, “The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-09).”

Global warming is doing a number on Arctic Sea ice.

“Make no mistake”?  How about make no mistakes twice? (see “Post lets George Will reassert all his climate falsehoods plus some new ones“)

When my father was the editorial page editor of a mid-sized newspaper, he wrote all of the editorials himself.  That almost certainly isn’t true of the Post, but it is inconceivable that its editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, didn’t okay every word in this piece — including the stinging rebuke to Will (and himself), “Make no mistake”!

So I’m going to have to give major props to the Post on this one.  Even if this editorial doesn’t mention Will by name, it is an amazing admission of its own mistakes.

And this is a terrific editorial.  The Post appears to have learned the single most important message from climate science in the past two years — the scientific consensus is wrong (see “Disputing the ‘consensus’ on global warming“).  Climate change is coming faster and harder than the IPCC “consensus” warned even 18 months ago (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm “¦ the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” “” 1000 ppm and AAAS: Climate change is coming much harder, much faster than predicted).  That’s why the deniers deserve no attention from the Post or NY Times:

The true debate is not between those who say global warming is a serious problem that deserves strong action and those who say it isn’t.  The debate is now between those who say global warming is a serious problem that deserves strong action and those who say global warming is the gravest threat to human civilization in history that demands we bear any burden, pay and price, to prevent.

Here is the rest of the editorial, which even goes a tad farther than I do (!):

Read more

Yglesias

One Solution to Polarization: Multiple-Member Constituencies

bipartisanship_1.jpg

Ed Kilgore’s interesting post on polarization in congress seems like a good opportunity to point out that there are some practical, structural steps we could take that would probably reduce polarization. One such move would be to shift from single-member constituencies, where a Congressional District has about 600,000 people and one member of congress, to multiple-member constituencies where larger units are represented by multiple reps elected via single transferable vote.

For example, New York City and its 8.3 million residents might be a single district with 13 Representatives. Odds are that there are enough Republicans in the city to make sure that one or two of those guys would be Republicans. That guy might be pretty right-wing. But he’d still want to stand up for the particularlist interests of the city—for more money for mass transit rather than highways, for example. So an informal group of House members organized to advocate for the interests of urban areas wouldn’t be exclusively Democratic. Applied across the country, it would mean in general that regionality wouldn’t correlate quite as much with ideology, and you’d have more bipartisan cross-cutting coalitions on issues where other kinds of interests trump the main left-right partisan axis.

Media

AP Wants Information to Be Caged

It’s really hard for me to understand how the AP’s new initiative is supposed to work. Their concern, they say, is that “a significant amount of AP news and news from AP members is used without permission or fair compensation.” This appears under a banner about “Protecting AP’s Intellectual Property.” But neither AP nor anyone else has intellectual property in news. Factual information isn’t subject to copyright.

Ellen Barry and The New York Times have some intellectual property in the specifics of her April 11 article “Protests Wane in Moldova as Vote Recount Is Announced” but the fact that protests are waning in Moldova as vote recount is announced is just out and about. Obviously, this has always posed something of a problem for the news business. Neither Barry nor the NYT can capture the full value of the reporting about Moldova. But this is genuinely intrinsic to the whole process. The point of having a reporter write about what’s happening in Moldova is for people to learn about what’s happening in Moldova. Those people, once they know, are free to pass that information on, verbally or in writing. The mitigating factor here is that producers of news content are also able to take advantage of this dynamic. Barry writes, for example, that “The authorities, as well as local and Russian news media, have cast the protests as an attempt to violently overthrow the government.”

Thus news has been taken from Moldovan and Russian circles and recycled to NYT readers without anyone paying a fee. How could this be stopped? Why would you want it to?

Politics

Palin trying to backtrack from her call for Begich to step down.

On April 2, the Alaska Republican Party sent out a press release saying that in light of the charges being dropped against Ted Stevens, “current Senator Mark Begich should resign his position to allow for a new, special election.” That same day, Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said, “I absolutely agree” when asked about the Alaska Republican Party’s request. However, yesterday in a press conference, Palin tried to backtrack:

“I didn’t call for Begich to step down, either,” Palin said. “I said I absolutely agree that Alaskans deserve a fair, untainted election for the United States senate seat. I’m not splitting hairs on how that happens. I’m saying wonderful, good. I want to see an election that is fair, that isn’t influenced unduly by some announcement that the sitting senator was facing a multi-felony count conviction. That’s what we were told. Now, come to find out, that wasn’t the case.”

However, if Palin supports a new special election, by state law, Begich “would have to step down.” That process would temporarily leave Alaska with just one active senator. Nevertheless, Palin yesterday insisted that she wasn’t “splitting hairs on how a new election should happen.”

Yglesias

Christianity on the Decline

Interesting Holy Week item from Gallup showing the slow-but-steady decline in the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Christian:

christians_1.png

The right way to think about the growing political mobilization of Christianity is that back when Christian self-identification was up in the nineties there was nothing to mobilize. But as the number of self-identified Christian goes down, its potential as a politically salient identity goes up.

Yglesias

The Lag Problem

I don’t know whether the people who are talking about an economic turnaround being around the corner are right, but I think it’s crucial to remember that even if things do turn around soon, that will probably entail things continuing to be bad for quite a long time. Why’s that? Well, one simplified way to look at it is provided by the chart below. It depicts an industry that produces a certain number of widgets each month:

inventory.png

In January, February, and March, all’s well. People are buying 100 widgets per month, so 100 widgets per month are getting made. Then in April, May, June, and July widget sales steadily decline, and production declines with them. But because production declines are slightly lagging the sales declines, an excess widget inventory is building up. Thus when sales start to pick up in the fall, production growth lags behind because inventory is still being worked off. By January, sales are above the old plateau thanks to population growth, but production is still slightly behind where it had been. And since the population has grown, the unemployment rate is still higher than it was during the recession.

Which is to say that even if you’re feeling optimistic, you shouldn’t feel too optimistic.

Climate Progress

How tweet it is: Climate Progress in on twitter

In tweetment?

I couldn’t settle on the right headline, but the bottom line is that no matter how it is spun, Climate Progress is now available on Twitter — click here.

Now you can get notification whenever a new post is up with the headline and a link.

Of course, you can still do it the “old”-fashioned way, with my RSS feed, where you get a bit more of each post delivered to you — click here.  Or visit the site a couple times a day.  Or, as at least one reader does it, make Climate Progress your homepage!

Ah, tweet mystery of life, at last I’ve found thee!
Ah! I know at last the secret of it all!

Newer

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

Sign Up