Need a distraction? Here’s the baby penguin live cam

By Holly Richmond, Grist

Bored at work? Play peeping Tom with these fuzzy baby penguins. We won’t tell:

 

Live streaming video by Ustream

The two penguin chicks were born at The Aquarium of the Pacific in June to undoubtedly nervous first-time parents Floyd and Roxy. Isn’t it a little strange that we don’t know the kids’ names? I mean, they live at the aquarium, so they’ve gotta get used to the celebrity lifestyle (see: a certain royal baby human). Floyd and Roxy sound pretty rock ‘n’ roll, so how about Debbie and The Fonz? (Just give me a cut of their first single.)

 

MNN has the deets:

The chicks are being raised separately from their parents because one of the eggs was abandoned, a common occurrence in the wild. When the second chick hatched, the first was already twice its size, so biologists raised it by hand to ensure its survival …

Magellanic penguins are native to Argentina and Chile, and it takes 38 to 43 days of incubation for a chick to hatch. The chicks are able open their eyes within a week, but it takes about 90 days for them to fledge, or replace their downy newborn feathers with water-tight adult feathers.

The live cam will be up until August, when Debbie and The Fonz join Floyd and Roxy in a family rock band the aquarium’s June Keyes Penguin Habitat.

Steve King insults climate scientists and religious Americans simultaneously

By Lisa Hymas, Grist

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has, shall we say, a vivid oratorical style.

Last month, he noted that not all of the young immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act are star students. “For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” he said.

This week, he turned his eloquence to the topic of climate change. Here’s what he said on Tuesday at an event sponsored by the Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity, as reported by The Messenger of Fort Dodge, Iowa:

King said efforts to fight global warming are both economically harmful and unnecessary.

“It is not proven, it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science,” he said.

Which kinda sounds like a slam not just on people who believe in climate change but on people who believe in God. As Daily Kos put it, “So to recap, global warming is bullshit, like religion.”

It’s not the first time King has made the religion comparison. He said something similar in 2010, and added that concern about climate change “might be the modern version of the rain dance.”

After his religion comment on Tuesday, King got all science-y:

He said that even if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm, environmentalists only look at the bad from that, not the good.

“Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in (environmentalists’) analysis,” he said. “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer. … And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.”

He said sea level is not a precise measurement.

“We don’t know where sea level is even, let alone be able to say that it’s going to come up an inch globally because some polar ice caps might melt because there’s CO2 suspended in the atmosphere,” he said.

Because King is unable to distinguish science from religion, he may be unaware that we do, in fact, know where sea level is. Scientists have “instruments” that “measure” it. Spoiler: It is rising.

Mother Earth’s Slow Burn: Climate Change Indicators Climbing, Says NOAA

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

The signs of climate change—rising oceans, melting Arctic ice and increasing greenhouse gases among them—are continuing inexorably, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a report issued on Tuesday August 6.

Culling data from 384 scientists hailing from 52 countries, NOAA said in its report, 2012 State of the Climate, that globally 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record. However temperature was just the tip of the melting iceberg.

“Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate—carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place,” said Acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan in a statement summarizing the peer-reviewed report.

Arctic changes, including temperature increases and increased ice melt, were the most marked exhibitors of climate change and were highlighted in the federal study, released online by the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

“Conditions in the Arctic were a major story of 2012, with the region experiencing unprecedented change and breaking several records,” NOAA said in its statement. “Sea ice shrank to its smallest summer-minimum extent since satellite records began 34 years ago. In addition, more than 97 percent of the Greenland ice sheet showed some form of melt during the summer, four times greater than the 1981-2010 average melt extent.”

Oceans’ heat content stayed at its record high in the upper half-mile of depth, with marked temperature increases below that, at 2,300 to 6,600 feet, NOAA said. Although temperatures per se have not warmed significantly over the past 10 years, there have been “remarkable changes in key climate indicators” such as dramatically rising ocean heat content, record summer Arctic sea ice melt and the melting of nearly the entire top layer of Greenland’s ice sheet last summer, said Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, to the Associated Press. Sea level was also at record highs.

“It’s critically important to compile a big picture,” Karl told the news wire. “The signs that we see are of a warming world.”

These conditions and trends played out most strongly in the Arctic, which is manifesting the most dramatic symptoms of climate change, NOAA said.

Polarity in the saline content of water was also noted, with high-evaporation areas containing saltier waters and low-evaporation regions showing more fresh water, NOAA said. This suggests that “precipitation is increasing in already rainy areas and evaporation is intensifying in drier locations,” NOAA said.

Although La Niña helped keep ocean levels down during the first half of 2011, NOAA reported, they “rebounded to reach record highs in 2012,” with global sea levels increasing on average 3.2 millimeters per year over the past two decades.

Likewise, greenhouse gas concentrations, the main ones being carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, continued their increase in 2012, NOAA said. The global economic downturn actually reduced manmade emissions slightly, NOAA said, but 2011 emissions were at a record high, with CO2 in particular surpassing the 400 parts per million mark in at monitoring stations in the Arctic.

RELATED: Global CO2 Concentrations Reaching High of 400 ppm for First Time in Human History

NOAA officials emphasized that they were not interpreting the data, merely passing it on, letting the facts speak for themselves.

“This report does not try to explain why we are seeing what we are seeing,” Karl told The Wall Street Journal. “The report is focused only on what the observations are telling us.”

 

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/07/mother-earths-slow-burn-climate-change-indicators-climbing-says-noaa-150788

WSU study finds no more genetically modified wheat

Credit: Getty ImagesWheat Field
Credit: Getty Images
Wheat Field
August 7, 2013
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS — Associated Press

 

PULLMAN, WASH. — A study by Washington State University has found no additional sign of the genetically modified wheat discovered at one Oregon farm this spring.

The tests involved dozens of wheat varieties developed at Washington State, the University of Idaho and Oregon State University, plus varieties from Westbred/Monsanto and Limagrain Cereal Seeds, WSU said this week.

The time-consuming study included checking more than 20,000 individual plots, Washington State University said.

“WSU undertook its own investigation as part of its commitment to serving Northwest farmers,” said James Moyer, director of WSU’s Agricultural Research Center.

The study’s collaboration with the other universities and the commercial seed companies was unprecedented, and reflected the common goal of trying to determine if the genetically modified wheat discovered in Oregon was an isolated case or if the industry had a larger problem, Moyer said.

WSU’s data clearly suggests this was an isolated case, Moyer said.

The tests involved growing seed, spraying infant plants with the herbicide glyphosate and conducting molecular testing. None of the plants showed the glyphosate resistance found in the fields of an as-yet-unnamed Oregon farmer, WSU said.

Last month, the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service also said grain tests and interviews with several hundred farmers found no other instances of herbicide-resistant crops beyond that one Oregon farm.

The modified wheat was discovered in May when field workers at an eastern Oregon farm were clearing acres for the bare offseason and came across a patch of wheat that didn’t belong. The workers sprayed it, but the wheat wouldn’t die, so the farmer sent a sample to Oregon State University to test.

A few weeks later, Oregon State wheat scientists discovered that the wheat was genetically modified. They contacted the USDA, which ran more tests and confirmed the discovery.

Agriculture Department officials have said the modified wheat discovered in the Oregon field is the same strain as a genetically modified wheat that was designed to be herbicide-resistant and was legally tested by seed giant Monsanto a decade ago but never approved.

Most of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States are already modified, or genetically altered to include certain traits, often resistance to herbicides or pesticides. But the country’s wheat crop is not, as many wheat farmers have shown reluctance to use genetically engineered seeds since their product is usually consumed directly. Much of the corn and soybean crop is used as feed.

The USDA has said the wheat would be safe to eat if consumed. But American consumers, like many consumers in Europe and Asia, have shown an increasing interest in avoiding genetically modified foods.

The vast majority of Washington’s wheat is exported.

Firefighters make fast work of Omak wildfire

 

A plane drops water on the edge of a fire near Omak Lake east of Okanogan Tuesday afternoon. World photo/Don Seabrook
A plane drops water on the edge of a fire near Omak Lake east of Okanogan Tuesday afternoon. World photo/Don Seabrook
by Don Seabrook
 Aug. 7, 2013, 9:53
 
 

OMAK — No lightning storms had passed over the Okanogan Valley since Sunday.

 

But a 200-acre fire on Tuesday afternoon was ignited by that storm. It’s called a holdover fire, and fire officials on the Colville Indian Reservation are expecting more will show themselves in the next day or two, said Ike Cawston, fire management officer for the Colville Tribes’ Mt. Tolman Fire Center.

 

Firefighters from the Colville Confederated Tribes, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Fire District 8 responded, along with air support from the state Department of Natural Resources.

 

With help from the air, firefighters surrounded the grass and sagebrush fire, Cawston said. But that was largely due to the fire’s close proximity to Omak Lake. “Being able to scoop water out of the lake with such a short turn-around really helped,” he added.

 

Cawston said close to 6,000 lightning strikes hit the reservation, and despite the heavy rain that came with it, fire can smolder for days while light fuels dry out, and then ignite a fire.

 

“Initially, as it passed over the reservation, our greater concern was three or four days out,” he said.

 

During Tuesday’s fire, officials were worried about one home in the area, but no structures were lost and no one was injured.

2012 Broke Climate Records, New Report Says

 

Surface temperatures in 2012 compared with the 1981 to 2010 average.Credit: NOAA map by Dan Pisut, NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab
Surface temperatures in 2012 compared with the 1981 to 2010 average.
Credit: NOAA map by Dan Pisut, NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab

by Becky Oskin, OurAmazingPlanet Staff Writer   |   August 06, 2013 04:17pm ET

2012 was a year of climate records, from temperatures to ice melt to sea level rise, a newly released report on the state of the global climate says.

 

Even though natural climate cycles have slowed the planet’s rising temperature, 2012 was one of the 10 hottest years since 1880, according to the report released today (Aug. 6) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

One reason the world’s warming is slower in recent years is because of recent La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean, which cause atmospheric and ocean temperatures to cool, said Tom Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center during a news teleconference.”There are a number of factors that cause climate to vary from year to year, but when you look back at long-term trends, temperatures have been increasing consistently,” he said.

 

But in the Arctic, surface temperatures rose twice as fast in the past decade as lower latitudes, said Jackie Richter-Menge, a report co-author and research civil engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “The Arctic continues to be a region where we have some of the most compelling evidence of the fact that global temperatures are warming,” she said.

 

Difference from average annual snow cover since 1971, compared with the 1966 to 2010 average. Snow cover has largely been below average since the late 1980s.Credit: NOAA
Difference from average annual snow cover since 1971, compared with the 1966 to 2010 average. Snow cover has largely been below average since the late 1980s.
Credit: NOAA

A strong and persistent southerly airflow in spring 2012 contributed to the Arctic’s record warmth, Richter-Menge said. The effects included a record-low summer ice pack extent in the Arctic Ocean, and surface melting across 97 percent of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Richter-Menge said researchers are also seeing long-term changes, such as more coastal vegetation growing in the Arctic tundra and rising permafrost temperatures.

 

“The near records being reported from year to year are no longer anomalies or exceptions,” Richter-Menge said. “They have become the norm for us and what we expect to see in the near future.” [5 Ways Rapid Warming is Changing the Arctic]

 

Ice melt from Greenland and glaciers elsewhere are contributing to sea level rise, according to the climate report. In the past year, sea level rose a record 1.4 inches (35 millimeters) above the 1983 to 2010 average, said Jessica Blunden, a climatologist at NOAA’s Climatic Data Center and lead editor of the report. “It appears ice melt is contributing more than twice as much as warming waters,” she said during the teleconference. As the ocean warms, water expands, contributing to sea level rise.

 

The annual State of the Climate report compiles climate and weather data from around the world and is reviewed by more than 380 climate scientists from 52 countries. The report can be viewed online.

 

The planet hit several records or near records in 2012, the report said. These include:

 

  • Record ice loss from melting glaciers. 2012 will be the 22nd year in a row of ice loss.
  • Near-record ocean heat content, a measure of heat stored in the oceans. When the ocean holds more heat than it releases, its heat content increases.
  • Record sea level rise of 1.4 inches above average.
  • Record-low June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. The June snow cover has declined 17 percent per decade since 1979, outpacing the shrinking summer Arctic sea ice extent by 4 percent.
  • Record-low summer Arctic sea ice extent. Sea ice shrank to its smallest summer minimum since record-keeping began 34 years ago.
  • Record-high winter Antarctic sea ice extent of 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers) in September.
  • Record-high man-made greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. In 2012, for the first time, global average carbon dioxide concentrations hit 392 parts per million and exceeded 400 ppm at some observation sites. The number means there were 400 carbon dioxide molecules per 1 million air molecules.

Email Becky Oskin or follow her @beckyoskin. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.

Guards with Automatic Weapons Are Back to Intimidate in Mining Country

Mary Annette Pember, ICTMN

Bulletproof Securities, the company whose paramilitary guards were pulled from the Gogebic Taconite (GTAC) proposed iron ore mine site in the Penokee Hills is now licensed to operate in the state of Wisconsin according to a story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on August 5.

A spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services announced that the company is now licensed in the state and will not face any charges for operating without a license in Wisconsin.

Bob Seitz, spokesman for GTAC told WiscNews.com that the company plans to use Bulletproof Securities to guard mine sites in the future but would not divulge a date.

“They’re one of the options we have and we’ll use. The violent protesters didn’t announce to me their plans and I’m not going to announce to them mine,” Sietz said.

Bulletproof’s paramilitary style guards were hired by GTAC after a June 11 incident in which several masked protesters verbally threatened mine workers and damaged property. One female protester wrestled a cell phone away from a female mineworker.  Katie Kloth of Stevens Point was charged with felony robbery by force, misdemeanor theft and two misdemeanor counts of damage to property in the incident.

RELATED: Automatic Weapons & Guards in Camo: Welcome to Mining Country, Wis.

GTAC was criticized for using out-of-state guards armed with automatic rifles as a means to intimidate mining opponents like the occupants of the Penokee Hills Harvest Camp. The Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe tribe created the Harvest Camp to draw attention to the natural resources under threat from the mine as well as underscore Ojibwe treaty rights in the area.

RELATED: Fighting Mines in Wisconsin: A Radical New Way to Be Radical

Sen. Bob Jauch, (D-Poplar) and Rep. Janet Bewley, D-Ashland publicly criticized GTAC for using the guards and wrote a letter to the company requesting that they withdraw them. Both voted against changing mining regulations that have allowed GTAC to begin mining efforts in the Penokees.

RELATED: Wisconsin Disregarded Science in Rewriting Mining Laws, Scientists Say

Paul DeMain, spokesman for the Penokee Harvest Camp decried GTAC’s decision to reinstate the BulletProof guards describing it as a “third world response to citizen actions.”

He further noted that the decision does not change discussions that need to take place about the land, treaty harvest, the quality or cleanliness of the resources or the future of Iron County vis-à-vis the Chippewa tribes.

Mining opponents remain concerned about the environmental danger presented by the proposed GTAC mine and disapprove of the dearth of information provided by the mining company regarding its plans and the chemical composition of the rocks in the area.

Joseph Skulan, a research professor at Arizona State University who works out of Wisconsin, says that GTAC is circulating deceptive information about both the content of the minerals at the site as well as their plans for mining.

Skulan currently conducts medical research in geochemistry and biology and has done postdoctoral work on iron chemistry.

GTAC representatives maintain that the proposed mining operation would not release sulphuric acid because most of the taconite they seek is contained within the region’s Ironwood Formation that contains little pyrite. Pyrite, (iron disulfide) creates sulfuric acid when exposed to water and air. Skulan, however, maintains that much of the proposed mine is actually located under the Tyler Slate, a pyrite bearing rock unit.

There is serious potential for acid rock drainage to reduce water quality and leach toxic metals from mining waste rock. The overburden would be dumped into huge piles and could generate acid-rock drainage directly into the Bad River watershed. Sedimentation-filling and hydrological disruption of streams and wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the mine may have indirect effects on wild rice and fish. The massive dewatering process associated with open-pit mining could lower the water table around the mine, seriously affecting the fragile wild rice beds of the Bad River slough, according to Bad River Tribal chairman Mike Wiggins Jr.

Similar mining operations in Minnesota’s Mesabi Iron Range have created high levels of mercury and sulfate levels downstream in the St. Louis River and resulted in fish-consumption advisories.

RELATED: Wisconsin Mining War

 

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/08/06/automatic-weapons-guards-camo-return-mining-country-wis-150758

Would you eat a burger grown in a laboratory?

A Dutch scientist has created ‘meat’ from stem cells – and wants Heston Blumenthal to cook the first batch. Steve Connor reports on the ultimate in culinary experimentation

Steve Connor, The Independent

The world’s first hamburger made with a synthetic meat protein derived from bovine stem cells will be publicly consumed this October after being prepared by a celebrity chef, according to the inventor of the artificial mince.

Heston Blumenthal is the favourite to be asked to cook the €250,000 (£207,000) hamburger, which will be made from 3,000 strips of synthetic meat protein grown in fermentation vats. Dr Mark Post, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, said the anonymous backer of his research project had not yet decided who would get to eat the world’s most expensive hamburger, which will unveiled at a ceremony in Maastricht.

Dr Post told the American Association for the Advancement of Science that a hamburger made from artificial beef protein was a milestone in the development of novel ways to meet the global demand for meat, which is expected to double by 2050.

“In October we’re going to provide a ‘proof of concept’ showing that with in vitro culture methods that are pretty classical we can make a product out of stem cells that looks like, and hopefully taste like, meat,” Dr Post said.

“The target goal is to make a hamburger and for that we need to grow 3,000 pieces of this muscle and a couple of hundred pieces of fat tissue. As long as it’s a patty the size of a regular hamburger, I’m happy with it,” he said.

A handful of researchers has been working for the past six years on the technical problem of extracting stem cells from bovine muscle, culturing them in the laboratory and turning them into strips of muscle fibres that can be minced together with synthetic fat cells into an edible product.

The technical challenges have included giving the meat a pinkish colour and the right texture for cooking and eating, as well as ensuring that it feels and tastes like real meat.

Dr Post admitted to being nervous about the final result. “I am a little worried, but seeing and tasting is believing,” he said.

Although some animals still have to be slaughtered to provide the bovine stem cells, scientists estimate that a million times more meat could be made from the carcass of a single cow, compared with conventional cattle rearing. As well as reducing the number of beef cattle, it would save the land, water and oil currently need to raise cattle for the meat trade, Dr Post said.

“Eventually, my vision is that you have a limited herd of donor animals that you keep in stock in the world. You basically kill animals and take all the stem cells from them, so you would still need animals for this technology.”

One of the economic incentives behind the research is the increasing cost of the grain used to feed much of the world’s cattle. This is helping to drive up the cost of meat.

“It comes down to the fact that animals are very inefficient at converting vegetable protein [either grass or grain] into animal protein. Yet meat demand is also going to double in the next 40 years,” he said.

“Right now we are using about 70 per cent of all our agricultural capacity to grow meat through livestock. You are going to need alternatives. If we don’t do anything, meat will become a luxury food and will become very expensive.

“Livestock also contribute a lot to greenhouse gas emissions, more so than our entire transport system. Livestock produces 39 per cent of the methane, 5 per cent of CO2 and 40 per cent of all the nitrous oxide. Eventually we’ll have an ‘eco-tax’ on meat.”

Growing meat in fermentation vats might be better for the environment. And it might be more acceptable to vegetarians and people concerned about the welfare of domestic livestock, Dr Post said. “There are many reasons why people are vegetarian. I’ve talked to the Dutch vegetarian society, which has said that probably half of its members will eat this meat if it has cost fewer animal lives and requires less intensive farming,” Dr Post said. Growing artificial meat would also allow greater control over its makeup. It will be possible, for example, to alter the fat content, or the amount of polyunsaturated fats vs saturated fats, according to Dr Post.

“You can probably make meat healthier,” he said. “You can probably trigger these cells to make more polyunsaturated fatty acids, just like grass-fed beef has more polyunsaturates than grain-fed beef. You could make any type of meat, you could make mixed meats. I’m pretty sure you could even make panda meat.”

Dr Post declined to reveal who his backer was, except to say that he was well known but not a celebrity – and not British. “It’s a very reputable source of money,” he said. “He’s an individual. There may be two reasons why he wants to remain anonymous: as soon as his name is associated with this technology he will draw the attention to himself and he doesn’t really want to do that.”

Dr Post added: “And the second reason is that he has the image of whatever he does turns into gold and he is not sure that may be the case here so he doesn’t want to be associated with a potential failure.”

LAB-GROWN MEAT THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST

Pros

– Billions of animals would be spared from suffering in factory farms and slaughterhouses

– Would reduce the environmental impacts of livestock production, which the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates account for 18 per cent of greenhouse-gas emissions

– Could reduce by 90 per cent the land- and water-use footprint of meat production, according to Oxford University research, freeing those resources for more efficient forms of food production

– Would provide a more sustainable way to meet demand from China and India, whose growing appetite for meat is expected to double global meat consumption by 2040

– Lab-grown meat could be healthier – free of hormones, antibiotics, bacteria such as salmonella and E.coli, and engineered to contain a lower fat content

– Would reduce the threat of swine and avian flu outbreaks associated with factory farming

Cons

– Consumers may find the notion of lab-grown meat creepy or unnatural – a “Frankenstein food” reminiscent of the Soylent Green at the heart of the 1973 sci-fi film of the same name

– For some vegetarians, in vitro meat will be unsatisfactory as it perpetuates “meat addiction” – rather than focusing on promoting non-meat alternatives, and changing our meat-heavy diet

– Although the fat content can be tinkered with, other risks of eating red meat, such as an increased threat of bowel cancer, remain

– It’s not cruelty-free – animals will still have to be slaughtered to provide the bovine stem cells

– There could be unforeseen health consequences to eating lab-grown meat

– As a highly processed, “unnatural” foodstuff, lab-grown meat is a step in the wrong direction for “slow-food” advocates, and others who believe the problems in our food system have their origins in the distance between food production and the consumer

Watching Fox News makes you distrust climate scientists

ff-20110127-globalwarming630pix
Media Matters/Fox News

By Chris Mooney, Grist

In the past several years, a number of polls have documented the huge gap between liberals and conservatives when it comes to their acceptance of the science of climate change. Naturally, then, researchers have increasingly turned their attention to trying to explain this dramatic divide over what is factually true. And it wasn’t long before they homed in on the role of conservative media in particular — thus, a number of studies (e.g., here [PDF]) show that watching Fox News increases your risk of holding incorrect beliefs about the science of climate change.

Now, a new paper [PDF] just out in the journal Public Understanding of Science takes this line of inquiry further, beginning to unpack precisely how conservative media work to undermine the public’s acceptance of science. The paper shows that a distrust of climate scientists is a significant factor underlying the modern denial of global warming, and moreover, that watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh both increase one’s level of distrust of these scientific experts. Or as the paper puts it, “[C]onservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening.”

The study, conducted by Jay Hmielowski of the University of Arizona and colleagues at several other universities, relied on a large polling sample of Americans in two phases: 2,497 individuals were interviewed in 2008, and then a smaller sample of 1,036 were reinterviewed in 2011. The respondents were asked about what kind of media they consumed — conservative choices included Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show; “non-conservative” media outlets included CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, and network news — as well as about how much they trusted or distrusted climate scientists. They were also asked about their belief that global warming is happening. (The study controlled for variables like political ideology, religiosity, and other demographic factors.)

The results showed that conservative media consumption led to less trust in climate scientists, even as consuming nonconservative media had the opposite effect (leading to an increased trust in climate scientists). Between people who said they don’t consume any conservative media and people who said they consume a large amount, “we see a 13 percent difference in the amount of trust in scientists,” according to study coauthor Lauren Feldman of American University.

The authors then proposed that distrust of scientists is a key link in the chain between watching Fox (or listening to Rush) and coming to doubt climate science. The idea is that because most people don’t know a great deal about the science of global warming, they rely on “heuristics” — or mental shortcuts — to make up their minds about what to believe. “Trust” (or the lack thereof) is a classic shortcut, allowing one to quickly determine who’s right and who’s wrong in a seemingly complex and data-laden debate. Or as the paper put it: “The public’s low level of knowledge and the media’s conflicting, often value-laden messages about global warming lead people to use heuristics to make sense of this complex issue.”

Evidence of Fox and Rush Limbaugh raising doubts about climate scientists — in a way that could generate distrust — isn’t hard to come by. Limbaugh includes scientists in his “four corners of deceit … government, academia, science, and the media.” As for Fox, there are myriad examples of coverage that could be said to cast doubt on climate science. For instance, there’s the 2009 memo, exposed by Media Matters, in which Fox Washington editor Bill Sammon instructed staff to cast doubt on climate research in their coverage.

It seems unlikely, however, that conservative media alone can account for the distrust of science on the right. In a major 2012 study [PDF], the sociologist Gordon Gauchat showed that conservatives have lost trust in scientists across the board over a period of many decades, dating all the way back to 1974. Fox News only launched in 1996, however; Rush Limbaugh started national broadcasts in 1988.

Clearly, then, other factors must be involved in sowing distrust as well — including a long history of left-right policy fights in which scientists seemed to be on the “liberal” side, with a canonical example being the battle over Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” program in the 1980s.

As a result of these conflicts, politically attuned conservatives today are well aware that scientists and academics rarely seem to come out on their side. Perhaps Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show are, in the end, simply the media reflection of that long-standing conservative perception.

This story was produced as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Chris Mooney is host of the Point of Inquiry podcast and the author of four books, including The Republican War on Science and The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality.

Every Forest Once a Food Forest

By Billy Frank Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

OLYMPIA – Folks up in Seattle are developing a “food forest” on Beacon Hill. Right there, near the heart of the city, a place where anyone can come along and pick fruit, vegetables, herbs, berries and more. The first harvests from the forest are expected this fall.

It’s a great idea. Sharing food and community are two things that I care a lot about. Most of my life has been centered on food and the rights of tribes to be able to harvest their own food.

For us Indian people, all of western Washington was once a food forest.

The trouble is that it’s getting harder and harder for these forests, rivers and beaches to provide us with much food because they’ve been treated so poorly. For us, the U.S. v. Washington ruling that upheld our treaty fishing, hunting and gathering rights came too late.

Since almost the first day that Judge George Boldt’s decision became law, we’ve had to cut back on our fishing because of declining runs. This ongoing decline is being driven by habitat loss and damage, and it isn’t getting better.

Shellfish was always a dependable source of food for Indian people. But pollution from stormwater runoff, failing septic systems and agricultural impacts threaten that vital food source

Wildlife habitat in our forests continues to shrink. More and more animals are being forced into smaller and smaller areas.

We’re losing our mountain huckleberries to busloads of commercial harvesters who come in with rakes and other tools to strip the bushes clean, often causing damage to the plants and reducing future yields.

Salmon, shellfish, wildlife and huckleberries are all important, traditional and treaty-protected foods. Our ancestors knew their importance. That’s why they reserved the right to access and harvest them  in treaties with the U.S. government.

Projects like the edible food forest in Seattle are important. I hope they make an effort to include native forest plants that were once up on Beacon Hill before the city came along.

We need to bring our rivers back to life, clean up and protect our beaches, and bring food back to the forests all around us.