Global Warming

Mike the Mad Biologist

Category archives for Global Warming

There’s a really interesting article in last week’s NY Times magazine about global warming and the spread of weeds. There was, however, one jarring note, and it had to do with an incorrect definition of natural selection (italics mine):

If Republicans claim that oil pipelines are good for caribou, I wonder what they’ll make of the blackfly outbreak in Maine. About the first half of the previous sentence–that’s not hyperbole. Really (by way of Digby):

More from the dog bites man files: political interference in a Smithsonian exhibit–about climate change. Having viewed the exhibit, I’m not entirely sure what to make of this Washington Post story (italics mine):

A New and Improved Automobile Engine?

A while ago, I stumbled across this amazing article about a car mechanic, who never even graduated high school, and who has developed a diesel engine that is cleaner (biodiesel based), more fuel efficient, and more powerful than the standard engine produced by car companies (italics mine):

I know: who could possibly think that the Bush administration would censor a report on the effects of global warming? From the Washington Post:

Dingell Hurts the Democratic Party

Once again, Michigan congressman John Dingell has decided to side with Detroit automakers who continue to resist entering the 21st century. The House has scrapped legislation that would raise fuel efficiency standards…to those less than Europe and Japan:

It isn’t always the message, sometimes it’s the medium. Or the media actually. Framing only goes so far. Often, getting your message out there comes down to schmoozing, intimidation, and hard work. This applies to politics and science. The Daily Howler rebuts neuroscientist Drew Westen’s take on the Bush-Gore debates of 2000 in Westen’s book,…

Our Benevolent Seed Overlords have published an article by ScienceBlogling Chris Mooney about the need to reframe the global warming debate in language that non-scientists are more likely to respond to positively. While I don’t disagree (who would argue that scientists should intentionally alienate people?), I wonder if that’s the real problem. I would argue…

Tristero makes an excellent point about Republican rhetoric, and I think it partially explains why so many scientists are opposed to the Bush Administration. Tristero compares the Niger ‘evidence’ for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq with the rhetoric opposing the HPV vaccination (italics mine):

Senator Obama on Detroit

Senator Obama earned a lot of points in my book today because he took the leadership of the U.S. auto companies to task for being such retrograde, anti-progress morons. From the NY Times (italics mine):