Bush kills Bambi again.

These are troubled times for the eco-political crowd. Today's Seattle Post intelligencer tells us that former Clinton Secretary of the Interior Bruce "Fidel" Babbitt is pushing his new book: "Cities in the Wilderness." His take on recent reviews of failing environmental laws is that all is not lost. Yes, the Endangered Species Act will be modified (watered down, no pun intended) and the National Environmental Protection Act will also be changed to be more human/animal/vegetable neutral. But don't fret, eco-terrorists, Babbitt sees lots of silver on those storm clouds.

He says that a few hundred mayors are pushing for global warming legislation. Babbitt feels that this is proof that the "people" favor more, not fewer restrictions on land use and transportation choices. For others, a few hundred miserably failing mayors really bring nothing to the debate. These are the guys who sit while schools fail more than half their students. These are the guys that can't fill potholes, much less understand climate science.

Speaking of climate science, today's N Y Times writes in an editorial that more pressure is on the horizon to force President Bush to control and limit carbon dioxide. The NY Times editorial goes as far as to cite a recent multi-day article that tells us we have "already lost the North Pole." What will Santa do? He'll have to move to Tahiti, where rumors of icebergs and forming glaciers are spreading. Or was it flooding? I can't remember which "Best Available Science" story is now mainstream "settled science."

Worse is that the same "scientists" say that Greenland's multi-mile deep ice cap is soon to be lost too. I've read a few of these "studies" which say that melting near shore is increasing. They feel that's the case due to measured glacial water off flow at one site in Easter Greenland. Yet those pesky satellites tell us otherwise. They say that the cap is actually growing faster than melting. In fact, today's cap is the deepest every measured. We can all debate why more water is flowing off Greenland at one location, but connecting that single dot to global warming is not very scientific.

Yet, Greenland and the Arctic are two of the handfull of "proven scientific bricks" in the global warming foundation. Settled science follows the media repeating feelings and opinions until the people believe it to be the truth. I think it's a propaganda principle to repeat a half or totally untruth several times until those listening begin to accept it as fact. Global warming, global warming, global warming! Why don't I get it?




.