“They both do it.”

No. They don’t.


While “journalists” play the “expectation game”.

Washington Post:

THE BIG IDEA: Many reporters have set the bar unfairly low for Donald Trump ahead of tonight’s presidential debate, raising the specter that pundits will declare him “the winner” even if he makes a series of factually inaccurate statements and struggles to show depth on the issues.


— Reviewing the coverage ahead of Trump’s 9 p.m. showdown with Hillary Clinton at Hofstra University makes it sound like all the GOP nominee really needs to do is not talk about how well-endowed he is…

A lot of people are going to look at Donald Trump and think, ‘Hey, if he can even get out a good sentence and show off his experience, then he’s doing well,’” New York Times correspondent Yamiche Alcindor said on “Morning Joe” last week, addressing the Clinton campaign’s complaints that she’s being subjected to a double standard.


“Clinton has the much tougher task tonight,” NPR declares in its curtain-raiser this morning. “She has the burden of high expectations. The former senator and secretary of state, who’s now been through two presidential campaigns, is an experienced debater who knows policy inside and out. But her job is very hard — Clinton has to convince voters who don’t want to vote for Trump but haven’t warmed up to her that she is likeable, honest and trustworthy. And she has to press her case that Trump is unqualified to be president without being overly aggressive or ‘harsh.’”

“I do think that the stakes are much higher in this debate and all the debates for Hillary Clinton,” CNN’s Dana Bash said on the air recently. “Because she is a seasoned politician. She is a seasoned debater. Yes, we saw Donald Trump in the primaries debate for the first time, but he is a first-time politician. So for lots of reasons—maybe it’s not fair, but it’s the way it is—the onus is on her.

Who are these people? What planet to they think they live on?

One of the most odious, rabid, brainworm-infected rotting zombie skunk-weasels in a nest full of diseased, vermin-encrusted  rabid, brainworm-infected rotting zombie skunk-weasels is Myron Ebell.

He now will head Donald Trump’s EPA “transition” team.

For those of you that think voting for a third party is a cute way to express your inner child, shake it off and get real. We are in the fight of our lives. These people want it all and will take it.

Story behind paywall for now. Will update.

UPDATE – Scientific American:

Ebell appears to relish criticism from the left.

In a biography submitted when he testified before Congress, he listed among his recognitions that he had been featured in a Greenpeace “Field Guide to Climate Criminals,” dubbed a “misleader” on global warming by Rolling Stone and was the subject of a motion to censure in the British House of Commons after Ebell criticized the United Kingdom’s chief scientific adviser for his views on global warming.

Read the rest of this entry »

Above, Candy Crowley of CNN, who moderated a Presidential debate in 2012, explains that she didn’t ask any questions about climate change, because, among other things, the price of gas.

Btw, “media people”, by “climate people”, did you mean the next 50,000 generations of human beings?

Greg Sargent in the Washington Post:

Donald Trump believes climate science is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to rob America blind, and he vows to try to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord immediately upon being elected president. Meanwhile, as Coral Davenport recently reported, world leaders have been trying to figure out if there is a way to lock in major countries behind the global deal before Trump can do that, because such an action could badly weaken the deal’s long term success.

In other words, international leaders are literally scrambling around to salvage the planet’s long-term prospects from Donald Trump. If he were to try to pull us out, it could not only deal a debilitating blow to the deal itself; one expert has warned it could also precipitate a diplomatic crisis.



If only there were an exceptionally high profile setting in which Trump might be pressed to detail his views on these matters.

Oh wait, there is. There are three presidential debates coming up, and the first one is expected to be watched by as many as 100 million people, an audience that may include viewers from all around the world.

As was widely noted at the time, the 2012 presidential debates featured zero discussion of climate change. But now, a confluence of new circumstances makes it substantially more pressing that the debate moderators and the candidates do discuss these issues this time around.

For one thing, the positions of the presidential candidates on climate issues could have vastly more real world significance than they might have four years ago. Take the Paris accord. It’s not clear yet whether Trump could succeed in withdrawing the U.S. from the deal in the short term, but even if he didn’t, there are other ways that Trump could frustrate its progress, simply by refusing to participate in international meetings about it or by refusing to submit reports documenting U.S. contributions to it.

Then there’s Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a rule that imposes targets on states for the reduction of carbon emissions from existing power plants. The plan is currently held up in the courts, but if it ends up proceeding, it will be key to long term efforts to reduce carbon pollution, and to meeting our commitments as part of the global deal. Trump has vowed to repeal the rule, along with untold other regulations, but that might be harder than it looks. Still, there are various ways he could undermine it.


Media Matters for America analyzed the 1,477 questions asked during the first 20 debates of this year’s primary season and found that only 22, or 1.5 percent, covered climate.

“That is really malfeasance on the part of our fourth estate,” says Shawn Otto, a cofounder of ScienceDebate, which pushes for more discussion of scientific issues from candidates.

Because so few moderators have chosen to ask about climate over the years, Grist turned the tables and asked moderators to answer for themselves. Most declined, including Crowley, but those who spoke up said a good debate question includes two elements:

  1. It exposes differences for undecided voters.
  2. It makes for dramatic TV.

“The exercise was always trying to draw out differences,” says Scott Spradling, a former anchor of New Hampshire’s WMUR, who participated in four 2008 primary debates. “Allow there to be opportunities to clearly state positions by the candidates, but to also draw distinctions so voters can be educated on where they differ.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus, who moderated primary debates in 2000 and 2008, said: “The second big goal, to put it as crassly as possible, is to produce a good television show.” Climate, apparently, gets poor ratings — a conclusion you can also draw from the scant amount of coverage it receives on the nightly network news.

Read the rest of this entry »

Just one more reason GOP drums up the hate.


Violeta Maya lives on the west side of Brooklyn, along a busy highway, in a neighborhood spare of trees and green spaces. Now 80, Maya emigrated from Puerto Rico when she was a child. In the intervening decades, she has watched pollution from cars and factories cloud the skies above her home.

“We have a lot of pollution, and this has caused a lot of asthma,” Maya, who suffers from asthma herself, said. “They bring more stuff into this community than they do into Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, anywhere else. We can’t breathe.”

For Maya, the hazards extend beyond the noxious fumes seeping from tailpipes and smokestacks. Planet-warming carbon pollution is fueling record-breaking heat around the country and in New York. She can feel it.

“The heat is so bad that my doctor said to me, ‘You cannot go out in the heat,’” she said. “I see older people with umbrellas. I see people who have to hold onto the gate for a while to catch their breath. This is climate change. It’s going to get worse.”


Maya isn’t alone. Poll after poll after poll after poll after poll finds Hispanics and Latinos are more likely to acknowledge the climate is changing, worry about the threat, and support policy to slow the rise in temperature — even though they are less likely to identify as environmentalists. Why?

One possibility is that Latinos tend to lean left and vote Democrat. But even among Democrats, people of color are more likely to believe climate change should be a top priority for policymakers.

Among Americans of color, Hispanics and Latinos stand out: Several polls — see here, here and here  — find they are more likely to support pro-climate policy than African Americans, even though they are less likely to identify as liberal or Democrat.


Sara Penryhn Jones was with us on the first Dark Snow Project Greenland trip in 2013.

She recently sent along a link to this piece – a meditation on climate impacts from the coast of Wales, to Greenland, to the South Pacific, includes interview footage with Jason Box and Alun Hubbard.  Sara is an ace with camera, and the piece is a master class on visual story telling.
Interviews with residents of Kiribati towards the end are particularly moving.

Jason Box and Sara Penrhyn Jones in Sisimiut, Greenland, 2013