Futurama really is ending. I felt like Futurama, within its first season, surpassed The Simpsons in its brilliance as both parody and satire. The last three episodes are airing through August 10. Oh that it were not so. Futurama, tonight I weep for thee.

Newsmax really sucks. For reasons I don't recall, I was searching articles on "scientific consensus on global warming" the other day, and a Newsmax article -- titled "The Fake Consensus on 'Global Warming'" (published July 2001) -- was high on the results. I've always recoiled from Newsmax, but I coudn't remember why. Now I know exactly why. This was just a terrible article. I can't even tell if this was intended as a news piece or an editorial. First, I'm going to repeat some quotes from the Newsmax article. Second, I'm going to list a few bullet points from the American Geophysical Union consisting of facts which they consider well-established. 1. The Newsmax bullshit, by Jarret Wollstein:

Contrary to the insistence of the mainstream press and career bureaucrats, there is no scientific consensus on "global warming" or that – if it exists at all – it is caused by human activity... There is no unanimity or even general agreement among scientists that global warming is even taking place. ...the entire modern process of "scientific consensus building” repeatedly cited by the establishment press is a fraud concocted by political hacks, to bamboozle the public and unsympathetic politicians - while stifling dissenting scientific voices. According to the free-market environment organization PERC (Political Economy Research Center) in Bozeman, Mont., a majority of climate scientists have never endorsed the notion that human activity is causing global warming or that warming is a crisis that requires immediate urgent action, such as that demanded by the Kyoto Protocol. [link]

The last claim is an extreme accusation. Upon what evidence does it rest? Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on global warming -- one report, according to Wollstein -- in which several prominent scientists were "named." These scientists, however, "were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release." According to Wollstein, at least one of those scientists "disagrees with most claims about global warming." Of course no claims about global warming are ever specifically listed in the article. There is no distinction between those which are contested and those which are very well-supported. The whole notion of "global warming," along with all associated issues, is discarded by Wollstein on the grounds of some scientists not having read some report. Great fucking article. I hope somebody out there has a better argument for why not to worry over global warming. 2. Now, the FACTS. Rather than talk about "global warming" as some indivisible body of beliefs (like the Republican platform), scientists prefer to enumerate the specific facts that they have determined. They usually like to report their level of certainty concerning those facts (and in science, unlike the contemporary conservative agenda, every fact is to some degree perishable). This information is from 1994, and is quite basic. I have been looking for several years, but have not yet seen any credible scientific argument which disputes or even directly addresses these findings. The following facts are Consensus Conclusions from the American Geophysical Union: [link]

• Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which includes the wavelengths of radiation emitted by atmospheric gases and clouds and by the Earth's land and oceans.
• Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases have increased significantly above preindustrial levels, and the increase is due to anthropogenic activities. Carbon dioxide: The observed atmospheric concentration is 30% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores and direct measurements, and the level continues to increase. The measured anthropogenic sources are significantly larger than the anthropogenic sinks. Fossil fuel consumption and land-use change contribute to increased concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Methane: The observed atmospheric concentration is more than 100% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores, and the concentration has increased over recent decades. Estimated changes in anthropogenic sources are consistent with measured increases in atmospheric concentrations and are large compared to anthropogenic sinks or anthropogenically induced reductions in emissions.
• Because of their infrared absorption, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases exert a global warming influence. The magnitude and timing of the resulting warming is less certain.
• The drawdown of the augmented CO2 concentration to near its preindustrial level would take centuries, even if emissions were substantially reduced in the near future.
• Anthropogenic aerosols have increased significantly in source regions. Sulfate aerosols, both from volcanic injections and from fossil fuel combustion, exert a cooling influence on the climate.
• Globally, average surface air temperatures are about 0.5 °C (1° F) higher than average temperatures in the 19th century. This change cannot yet be unambiguously ascribed to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The report concludes with several possible scenarios, listed in order of probability. We see way too many snickering faces in response to global warming. Scientists argue about long-term uncertainties and disagree on a variety of points. But the facts seem indisputable: human activity has caused dramatic change in the gas composition of our atmosphere. These changes won't undo themselves for at least several generations, and we don't know what the consequences will be during that period. Obnoxious incredulity -- from under-educated politicians, journalists, think-tankers, Bush, or whomever -- does us all a disservice. Global climate change is a very serious issue, and there is substantial agreement on its fundamental points. Over the past decade, the conservative response to climate change has gone from dismissive to puerile. As someone trained in science, how can I review these "arguments" against "global warming" and see anything other than idiocy among the conservative camp?

The House today voted to block the new FCC regulation which would allow a single company to acquire television stations covering 45% of US viewers. A bunch of folks from places like Viacom and Fox showed up to "testify" before the Appropriations Committee. Rupert Murdoch was there, as well as FCC chairman Michael Powell. This is the face that they make when they "ponder questions" asked by the committee: This pensive-looking non-expression is really en vogue in politics right now. It doesn't seem, to me at least, like a very natural expression to make. I wonder if they practice in front of the mirror. These photos reminded me of another photo from earlier in the year. This one shows Putin and Chirac at some Iraq-related meeting: