US Politics Mega-thread - Page 294

On June 21 2013 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Good point, but shouldn't that be accounted for in the models? Less CO2, less heat?

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.

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.

On June 21 2013 07:37 renoB wrote:
Link



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....

On June 21 2013 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

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?

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.


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.

On June 21 2013 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

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?

On June 21 2013 09:11 sunprince wrote:


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?

On June 21 2013 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

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.

On June 21 2013 09:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:



It was defeated because Conservatives wanted more cuts and those proposed didn't go far enough.

On June 21 2013 10:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

More Dems than Reps voted against the bill. So there's more to it than that.

On June 21 2013 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


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 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.

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.

On June 22 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Link

About time.

Some Disabled Workers Paid Just Pennies an Hour

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. ...