In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ...
The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.
Good read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue.
It's not that surprising that the warming trend should have slowed in the last few years when increases in carbon emissions slowed due to global recession. The author doesn't even mention this as a possibility, so I think it's pretty safe to say that he is not even making a good faith effort to be honest.
Good point, but shouldn't that be accounted for in the models? Less CO2, less heat?
The world economy only shrank for one year and that wasn't by a huge amount, i doubt 1 year of decline would affect carbon emissions very much especially not to affect this warming data.
I thought there was lag in global temperature response to CO2 anyways. A slowdown in warming now would have to be a response in CO2 emissions 5-20 years ago. This is why there is urgency to solve it NOW as opposed to when the problem gets bad, since even if we curb emissions by 80% temperatures are predicted to rise for the next decade or 2.
It's also possible we're running into counter-warming effects as well. Ice and snow has recently been shown to be melting more rapidly (despite these findings that warming is slowing). This would have a dampening effect on warming until much of the "stored" snow and ice is gone.
On June 21 2013 06:15 aksfjh wrote: I thought there was lag in global temperature response to CO2 anyways. A slowdown in warming now would have to be a response in CO2 emissions 5-20 years ago. This is why there is urgency to solve it NOW as opposed to when the problem gets bad, since even if we curb emissions by 80% temperatures are predicted to rise for the next decade or 2.
It's also possible we're running into counter-warming effects as well. Ice and snow has recently been shown to be melting more rapidly (despite these findings that warming is slowing). This would have a dampening effect on warming until much of the "stored" snow and ice is gone.
Exactly. The effect of the economic crisis is relatively small.
The crisis is crashing the CO2-markets completely, but since the CO2-market is an artificial market regulation to make it more valuable to reduce energy consumption it is not worth much anyway! Most of all the CO2-market is just delaying the problems. Removing coal, oil and, later, natural gas from energy production is the way to go.
All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.
This is a good article explaining why these "15 year" arguments are bunk. I don't think there's any real reason to speculate on the economic slow's effect on CO2 emissions because that's a difficult thing to measure and I haven't seen any real data on it. I wish people could just put politics aside when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and just go with scientific consensus.
I agree that we need to remove burning coal and oil to meet our energy needs at some point, but right now they're the only thing giving us the energy to develop the technologies that can help curb future emissions. I suggest nuclear... but I know some people are afraid for whatever reasons....
I'm also big on removing the arcane restrictions on nuclear power, and stop pandering to the anti-nuke groups, but for different reasons. It's cheap, there's plentiful fuel (Include Thorium 232 etc), and its clean. Compared to the legitimate alternatives to provide enough power, it's the cleanest thing available. I'll know the green lobby is serious about reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption when they sign onto nuclear in big numbers.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has rejected a five year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.
The vote was 234-195 against the bill. Sixty-two Republicans voted no, while 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
Members of both parties had signaled opposition to the food stamp cuts in the bill.
Many Republicans say the cuts are not enough; the food stamp program has doubled in cost over the last five years to almost $80 billion a year and now helps to feed 1 in 7 Americans.
Liberals oppose any reductions in food stamps, contending that the House plan could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls.
It's about time. Call it a farm bill but make 80% of it food stamps? Increase subsidies to wealthy farmers? The whole thing was a disaster and its demise I celebrate.
All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.
This is a good article explaining why these "15 year" arguments are bunk. I don't think there's any real reason to speculate on the economic slow's effect on CO2 emissions because that's a difficult thing to measure and I haven't seen any real data on it. I wish people could just put politics aside when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and just go with scientific consensus.
I agree that we need to remove burning coal and oil to meet our energy needs at some point, but right now they're the only thing giving us the energy to develop the technologies that can help curb future emissions. I suggest nuclear... but I know some people are afraid for whatever reasons....
But what do you do when the consensus is in flux? Do you bounce from one consensus to another or do you moderate your reaction until the consensus matures?
All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.
This is a good article explaining why these "15 year" arguments are bunk. I don't think there's any real reason to speculate on the economic slow's effect on CO2 emissions because that's a difficult thing to measure and I haven't seen any real data on it. I wish people could just put politics aside when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and just go with scientific consensus.
I agree that we need to remove burning coal and oil to meet our energy needs at some point, but right now they're the only thing giving us the energy to develop the technologies that can help curb future emissions. I suggest nuclear... but I know some people are afraid for whatever reasons....
But what do you do when the consensus is in flux? Do you bounce from one consensus to another or do you moderate your reaction until the consensus matures?
The consensus people talk about is that global warming is real and it's caused (in large part) by CO2 emissions. There isn't as much consensus on the future rate of warming. Last time I checked, there were 2 main postulations, that the counter-effects (increased cloud cover, ice melting, and so on) would be enough to keep the temperature from spiraling. The other claim is that those counter-effects won't be enough to curb the increase in temperature, and we'll actually get into a position where warming picks up pace.
On June 21 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote: I'm also big on removing the arcane restrictions on nuclear power, and stop pandering to the anti-nuke groups, but for different reasons. It's cheap, there's plentiful fuel (Include Thorium 232 etc), and its clean. Compared to the legitimate alternatives to provide enough power, it's the cleanest thing available. I'll know the green lobby is serious about reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption when they sign onto nuclear in big numbers.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has rejected a five year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.
The vote was 234-195 against the bill. Sixty-two Republicans voted no, while 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
Members of both parties had signaled opposition to the food stamp cuts in the bill.
Many Republicans say the cuts are not enough; the food stamp program has doubled in cost over the last five years to almost $80 billion a year and now helps to feed 1 in 7 Americans.
Liberals oppose any reductions in food stamps, contending that the House plan could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls.
It's about time. Call it a farm bill but make 80% of it food stamps? Increase subsidies to wealthy farmers? The whole thing was a disaster and its demise I celebrate.
It was defeated because Conservatives wanted more cuts and those proposed didn't go far enough.
All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.
This is a good article explaining why these "15 year" arguments are bunk. I don't think there's any real reason to speculate on the economic slow's effect on CO2 emissions because that's a difficult thing to measure and I haven't seen any real data on it. I wish people could just put politics aside when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and just go with scientific consensus.
I agree that we need to remove burning coal and oil to meet our energy needs at some point, but right now they're the only thing giving us the energy to develop the technologies that can help curb future emissions. I suggest nuclear... but I know some people are afraid for whatever reasons....
But what do you do when the consensus is in flux? Do you bounce from one consensus to another or do you moderate your reaction until the consensus matures?
Well, if the consensus is in flux, then that means there is no consensus. You do indeed wait for a consensus when there does not appear to be one.
However, your response implies that there is no consensus on the issue of global warming. Given that the national science academies of all major industrialized nations agree that anthropogenic global warming is happening, how can you argue there is no consensus? Or are you simply disagreeing on some individual details on that?
All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.
This is a good article explaining why these "15 year" arguments are bunk. I don't think there's any real reason to speculate on the economic slow's effect on CO2 emissions because that's a difficult thing to measure and I haven't seen any real data on it. I wish people could just put politics aside when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and just go with scientific consensus.
I agree that we need to remove burning coal and oil to meet our energy needs at some point, but right now they're the only thing giving us the energy to develop the technologies that can help curb future emissions. I suggest nuclear... but I know some people are afraid for whatever reasons....
But what do you do when the consensus is in flux? Do you bounce from one consensus to another or do you moderate your reaction until the consensus matures?
Well, if the consensus is in flux, then that means there is no consensus. You do indeed wait for a consensus when there does not appear to be one.
However, your response implies that there is no consensus on the issue of global warming. Given that the national science academies of all major industrialized nations agree that anthropogenic global warming is happening, how can you argue there is no consensus? Or are you simply disagreeing on some individual details on that?
To be clear, I'm not, nor is the article I liked to, arguing that anthropogenic global warming isn't occurring.
The argument is that the science is immature - there are too many unknowns leading to inaccurate projections. Therefore, public policy discussions should treat the projections with a great deal of skepticism.
All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims. They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.
This is a good article explaining why these "15 year" arguments are bunk. I don't think there's any real reason to speculate on the economic slow's effect on CO2 emissions because that's a difficult thing to measure and I haven't seen any real data on it. I wish people could just put politics aside when it comes to anthropogenic global warming and just go with scientific consensus.
I agree that we need to remove burning coal and oil to meet our energy needs at some point, but right now they're the only thing giving us the energy to develop the technologies that can help curb future emissions. I suggest nuclear... but I know some people are afraid for whatever reasons....
But what do you do when the consensus is in flux? Do you bounce from one consensus to another or do you moderate your reaction until the consensus matures?
Well, if the consensus is in flux, then that means there is no consensus. You do indeed wait for a consensus when there does not appear to be one.
However, your response implies that there is no consensus on the issue of global warming. Given that the national science academies of all major industrialized nations agree that anthropogenic global warming is happening, how can you argue there is no consensus? Or are you simply disagreeing on some individual details on that?
To be clear, I'm not, nor is the article I liked to, arguing that anthropogenic global warming isn't occurring.
The argument is that the science is immature - there are too many unknowns leading to inaccurate projections. Therefore, public policy discussions should treat the projections with a great deal of skepticism.
The question is, what is "immature" and what steps need to be taken to make it "mature"? It's a lot like the Missing Link argument...it's not actually an argument, just a shifting goal post.
Nah, arguing about the science is a red herring because we always have to work with imperfect and very temporary information.
And even without climate change, I don't think it's controversial to say we should always be trying to improve efficiency and reduce pollution.
The difficult question is the mass psychology of changing people's behavior to be less wasteful and more efficient. In general, the biggest hurdle for environmentalists has always been persuading people to do something they don't want to do. People who love cars aren't going to give up driving for the sake of the environment, for example.
On June 21 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote: I'm also big on removing the arcane restrictions on nuclear power, and stop pandering to the anti-nuke groups, but for different reasons. It's cheap, there's plentiful fuel (Include Thorium 232 etc), and its clean. Compared to the legitimate alternatives to provide enough power, it's the cleanest thing available. I'll know the green lobby is serious about reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption when they sign onto nuclear in big numbers.
On June 21 2013 03:32 farvacola wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has rejected a five year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.
The vote was 234-195 against the bill. Sixty-two Republicans voted no, while 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
Members of both parties had signaled opposition to the food stamp cuts in the bill.
Many Republicans say the cuts are not enough; the food stamp program has doubled in cost over the last five years to almost $80 billion a year and now helps to feed 1 in 7 Americans.
Liberals oppose any reductions in food stamps, contending that the House plan could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls.
It's about time. Call it a farm bill but make 80% of it food stamps? Increase subsidies to wealthy farmers? The whole thing was a disaster and its demise I celebrate.
It was defeated because Conservatives wanted more cuts and those proposed didn't go far enough.
More Dems than Reps voted against the bill. So there's more to it than that.
On June 21 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote: I'm also big on removing the arcane restrictions on nuclear power, and stop pandering to the anti-nuke groups, but for different reasons. It's cheap, there's plentiful fuel (Include Thorium 232 etc), and its clean. Compared to the legitimate alternatives to provide enough power, it's the cleanest thing available. I'll know the green lobby is serious about reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption when they sign onto nuclear in big numbers.
On June 21 2013 03:32 farvacola wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has rejected a five year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.
The vote was 234-195 against the bill. Sixty-two Republicans voted no, while 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
Members of both parties had signaled opposition to the food stamp cuts in the bill.
Many Republicans say the cuts are not enough; the food stamp program has doubled in cost over the last five years to almost $80 billion a year and now helps to feed 1 in 7 Americans.
Liberals oppose any reductions in food stamps, contending that the House plan could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls.
It's about time. Call it a farm bill but make 80% of it food stamps? Increase subsidies to wealthy farmers? The whole thing was a disaster and its demise I celebrate.
It was defeated because Conservatives wanted more cuts and those proposed didn't go far enough.
More Dems than Reps voted against the bill. So there's more to it than that.
Yes because Cantor added the food stamps amendment thus killing any chance of an actual functioning house. Nevermind the fact that this was a terrible bill but the Republicans have more than enough votes to pass even the amended bill to pass. Which they could't because a quarter of their caucus wouldn't vote Yes.
On June 21 2013 08:08 Danglars wrote: I'm also big on removing the arcane restrictions on nuclear power, and stop pandering to the anti-nuke groups, but for different reasons. It's cheap, there's plentiful fuel (Include Thorium 232 etc), and its clean. Compared to the legitimate alternatives to provide enough power, it's the cleanest thing available. I'll know the green lobby is serious about reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption when they sign onto nuclear in big numbers.
On June 21 2013 03:32 farvacola wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has rejected a five year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.
The vote was 234-195 against the bill. Sixty-two Republicans voted no, while 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
Members of both parties had signaled opposition to the food stamp cuts in the bill.
Many Republicans say the cuts are not enough; the food stamp program has doubled in cost over the last five years to almost $80 billion a year and now helps to feed 1 in 7 Americans.
Liberals oppose any reductions in food stamps, contending that the House plan could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls.
It's about time. Call it a farm bill but make 80% of it food stamps? Increase subsidies to wealthy farmers? The whole thing was a disaster and its demise I celebrate.
It was defeated because Conservatives wanted more cuts and those proposed didn't go far enough.
More Dems than Reps voted against the bill. So there's more to it than that.
Yes because Cantor added the food stamps amendment thus killing any chance of an actual functioning house. Nevermind the fact that this was a terrible bill but the Republicans have more than enough votes to pass even the amended bill to pass. Which they could't because a quarter of their caucus wouldn't vote Yes.
But isn't that funny. Oh look we can get half of what we are aiming for, well look folks that isn't enough so I'm not going to get anything that I want. Also, I'm helping the democrats get what they want. Where is the obstructionism in the house?
On June 21 2013 10:02 coverpunch wrote: Nah, arguing about the science is a red herring because we always have to work with imperfect and very temporary information.
And even without climate change, I don't think it's controversial to say we should always be trying to improve efficiency and reduce pollution.
The difficult question is the mass psychology of changing people's behavior to be less wasteful and more efficient. In general, the biggest hurdle for environmentalists has always been persuading people to do something they don't want to do. People who love cars aren't going to give up driving for the sake of the environment, for example.
This is true in a technical sense but not a very meaningful one. We can work with near perfect and long term information to make very accurate predictions. Arguing that science is flawed because our information is not perfect is rather silly. And it's setting an unrealistically high standard of proof for an empirical field.
Government to start major investigation of “patent trolls”
Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is expected to announce that it will open an investigation into "patent trolls," a derogatory term for companies that engage in no business activities aside from suing over patents. The investigation will be announced at a conference by FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez, according to a report this morning in The New York Times. The investigation into trolls, which the FTC calls "patent assertion entities" or PAEs, will complement other anti-troll government actions this year, like President Obama's report on patent issues and the five anti-patent-troll bills introduced so far in Congress this year. ...
Recent studies have shown that around 60 percent of patent lawsuits are now filed by trolls, with such suits costing the economy $29 billion annually in direct legal costs.
Government to start major investigation of “patent trolls”
Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is expected to announce that it will open an investigation into "patent trolls," a derogatory term for companies that engage in no business activities aside from suing over patents. The investigation will be announced at a conference by FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez, according to a report this morning in The New York Times. The investigation into trolls, which the FTC calls "patent assertion entities" or PAEs, will complement other anti-troll government actions this year, like President Obama's report on patent issues and the five anti-patent-troll bills introduced so far in Congress this year. ...
Recent studies have shown that around 60 percent of patent lawsuits are now filed by trolls, with such suits costing the economy $29 billion annually in direct legal costs.
One of the nation's best-known charities is paying disabled workers as little as 22 cents an hour, thanks to a 75-year-old legal loophole that critics say needs to be closed.
Goodwill Industries, a multibillion-dollar company whose executives make six-figure salaries, is among the nonprofit groups permitted to pay thousands of disabled workers far less than minimum wage because of a federal law known as Section 14 (c). Labor Department records show that some Goodwill workers in Pennsylvania earned wages as low as 22, 38 and 41 cents per hour in 2011.
"If they really do pay the CEO of Goodwill three-quarters of a million dollars, they certainly can pay me more than they're paying," said Harold Leigland, who is legally blind and hangs clothes at a Goodwill in Great Falls, Montana for less than minimum wage.
"It's a question of civil rights," added his wife, Sheila, blind from birth, who quit her job at the same Goodwill store when her already low wage was cut further. "I feel like a second-class citizen. And I hate it."
Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was passed in 1938, allows employers to obtain special minimum wage certificates from the Department of Labor. The certificates give employers the right to pay disabled workers according to their abilities, with no bottom limit to the wage.
Most, but not all, special wage certificates are held by nonprofit organizations like Goodwill that then set up their own so-called "sheltered workshops" for disabled employees, where employees typically perform manual tasks like hanging clothes. ...
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130330_STC334_1.png)
