while it has slowed in recent years due to complex factors like unforced variability in the south pacific, climate change and global warming are still under way and will be for years even if we stop all CO2 emissions and other positive forcings right now.
There's a lot of good debunking here.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
I also disagree that the current trend in America towards a security state should be answered by turning the country over to a de facto aristocracy. The answer is more involvement by US citizens not less as the Kochs and other like them almost certainly want.
Don't fall into the trap.
Warming has not slowed by any means when the entire global heat distribution system is taken into consideration.
For some of the details
Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
Posted on 10 December 2013 by dana1981
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-fast-forward-trenberth.html
New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades. They conclude that while the rate of increase of average global surface temperatures has slowed since 1998, melting of Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and warming oceans have continued apace.
The widespread mainstream media focus on the slowed global surface warming has led some climate scientists like Trenberth and Fasullo to investigate its causes and how much various factors have contributed to the so-called 'pause' or 'hiatus.' However, the authors note that while the increase in global temperatures has slowed, the oceans have taken up heat at a faster rate since the turn of the century. Over 90 percent of the overall extra heat goes into the oceans, with only about 2 percent heating the Earth's atmosphere. The myth of the 'pause' is based on ignoring 98 percent of global warming and focusing exclusively on the one bit that's slowed.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Warming of the atmosphere is much more variable as its thermal capacity is so much lower than the oceans, by a factor of 1,000 I think.
The loss of Arctic sea ice alone is going to significantly alter the pace of change as methane clathrates are released from warming polar deposits and instead of reflecting most incoming solar radiation from the pack ice, the open sea water of the Arctic Ocean will absorb most of the sunlight during summer.
Well also contextually that depends on if CC is even a Democrat.
started Democrat
Did a lot of volunteering for that WWII Air Force Bomber pilot who ran for President in 1972.
Went unaffiliated . . .
Returned to Democrat a few elections back so that I could participate in the Caucus process and become a delegate at the state convention…
related to my No Village At Wolf Creek advocacy :cheese:
http://no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com
{Which incidentally, is about to hit the fan again}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry but, seems to me, there is a substantive difference between Dems and Reps political machines.
I'd like to see examples of the Democrats having anything near what the Republican machine has achieved with it's network of Global Warming Denial Think-Tanks, churning out material for that right wing (read Murdoch et al.) world media outlets and the ruthless misrepresentation of the science including consistent out and out lying about basic unassailable facts.
If you want an example of how twisted the democratic system has become you just have to look at the 1972 race and how the Republicans used every dirty trick they could to win. McGovern was a decorated war hero and did a complete tour in B-24s out of Italy and yet he was a coward according to Nixon's camp. Nixon on the other hand served as a glorified military travel agent during the war.
The reason that the system is so messed up in the US and other places is that people like Nixon(and Harper here) are allowed to hijack the democratic process and impose agendas most people don't understand let alone want. The far right seems much more intent on and skilled at doing this. The latest drive is the program to limit voter fraud in the US which hits mostly Democratic supporters.
... The latest drive is the program to limit voter fraud in the US which hits mostly Democratic supporters.
Tell me about it. We just had a primary in Texas with the newly installed picture ID requirement. There have been problems for women, who due to marriage or divorce, have a name that does not exactly match their voter registration. They can't straight-up vote. They have to sign an affidavit and who knows when or if their vote will actually be counted. And forget about disabled people or people too poor to have a car and thus need a driver's license. There are ways around this but may not always be easy for such persons to acquire an accepted picture ID. (BTW, a concealed (gun) carry license is accepted.)
At least, we can rest easy that the rampant (by that I mean virtually non-existent) problem of voter fraud is solved.
My resentment of the GOP machine rests on a few points:
The Reaganomics notion that Greed is Good
The Reaganomics notion that Regulations are Bad
The Reaganomics notion that Growth can be Endless
The Reaganomics notion that short term gain is more important that long term planning and preparation
CC,
When Regan took office he took the reports from the government departments and had people who ran larger U.S. companies review these reports. His findings were that the numbers and data from the U.S. department or congress data was misleading or wrong, that is if he could even get the reports at all in a timely manner. Regan ended up having the reports vented by none governmental sources before he could use them.
If Regan was alive today he would tell you that you don’t understand Reganomics.
Instead of pointing fingers and assigning blame, Regan concentrated on fixing the problems the best he could. And instead of fighting with Russia, he made friends.
Maybe that what we should do here.
Maybe we should not trust the government departments who have a history of misleading the data for financial reasons without venting them first.
The ruthless attack on and suppression of sound scientific facts are what's pathetic, and as we are starting to see, quite counterproductive.
The carbon is without question. We need to work on that.
Global Warming is in question. The numbers that were given to us by the scientist of what we were to expect over the next several decades is turning out to be wrong. That is a big red flag. If we ignore the red flags, then we are acting out of popular movement and not out of scientific reasoning.
Now I understand that the carbon in the air is supposed to cause the Global Warming. But if the carbon in the air is not matching the increase in temperature that was told to us by the scientist. Then maybe the scientist need to retest the theory.
Check out some of the stories being written today.
Feb 24-14 Forbes. “The Period of No Global Warming will soon be longer than the period of Actual Global Warming". http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/
No global warming for 17 years and 5 months.
After the winter of 49’ the spring storm that killed hundreds of thousands of animals in the western United States. Six to ten feet of snow where there had never been over two feet at that time of year in history. The scientist were all talking about the earth headed into an Ice Age.
The big push is being done politically. You better follow the money on the “Carbon Tax Credits" to see who is behind this political movement. I do agree that we need to reduce the carbon, but both parties should be in agreement on what is good for the earth. If you are under the notion that the coal owners don’t have the ability to move into wind or solar, you are wrong. We will just have an excess of coal that will be shipped outside of the United States and burnt in other countries while we use the more expensive energy sources here.
... The latest drive is the program to limit voter fraud in the US which hits mostly Democratic supporters.
Tell me about it. We just had a primary in Texas with the newly installed picture ID requirement. There have been problems for women, who due to marriage or divorce, have a name that does not exactly match their voter registration. They can't straight-up vote. They have to sign an affidavit and who knows when or if their vote will actually be counted. And forget about disabled people or people too poor to have a car and thus need a driver's license. There are ways around this but may not always be easy for such persons to acquire an accepted picture ID. (BTW, a concealed (gun) carry license is accepted.)
At least, we can rest easy that the rampant (by that I mean virtually non-existent) problem of voter fraud is solved.
From what I know about it up to 20 million Americans may be affected, most from the less affluent part of the country and who are much less likely to support the Republicans. All this for something like 80 cases of identified voter fraud in the 2008 election.
Meanwhile people like the Kochs can effectively buy elections and put people like Scott Walker into office to basically do their bidding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/scott-walker-buffalo-beast-phone-prank_n_827058.html
If Regan was alive today he would tell you that you don’t understand Reganomics.
Snippets from Wikipedia after a quick search:
Since 1980, U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has increased 67%, while median(Median!!) household income has only increased by 15%
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%.
Yes, most people didn't understand Reaganomics...until it was too late.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%.
I want to live in a country that has an upper rich class of people in a nation with high GNP and exports. A rich class is something you don’t want to see in poorer nations.
To me that is a sign that the economic systems of the country are working.
Take away corporate taxes, rework the corporate laws of ownership and liabilities. Start the Flat Tax system and we could see the wealth spreading more evenly to more people.
Take away corporate taxes, rework the corporate laws of ownership and liabilities. Start the Flat Tax system and we could see the wealth spreading more evenly to more people.
I get it. Like a trickle down effect.
That makes sense to me now.
We should get rid of the minimum wage too. That enslaves people and doesn't allow free-market economies to set realistic
values on worth, capital and labor.
As I’ve said before, I can go with a flat tax if we do away with ALL deductions and tax ALL income equally including overseas, dividends, etc. Include an examption of the first $100,000 (maybe only $50,000) as the Minimum Living Income. Set the tax on everything above this at, say, 50 or 60%. That would do much more to equalize our population’s financial worth than any trickle down trickery.
And I’d like to see the minimum wage for each worker set at, say, 20% of the average compensation of the top five members of the company.
Occam
I would like to bring up item I learned a long time ago. Large companies have no power other than what the workers allow them to have. The companies are nothing without the work force. When the companies get to out of balance with the labor funds the scales can be tipped back in favor of the workers. The Unions help protect the management from popular (unexpected) worker movements that could ruin the company or dislodge the management.
Point to be made.
In the last several years I could see the same powers exist in Libya and Egypt in the country’s political force.
Unfortunately, that’s not quite correct. First, the higher the unemployment is in the area, the less power the workers have and the more power the company has. Second, if the company has multiple or multinational facilities, the worker power is severely degraded. Third, the companies have lobbied successfully for laws to restrict union power more and more ever since the Taft-Hartley law, which is why union membership has decreased dramatically over the last half century.
One of the main rules of negotiation is that both parties have approximately the same level of power. This can be the case between a union and a company. It is definitely not the case between one or a few employees and the company. They can be laid off without causing any problem for the company, but only a few can’t effectively strike.
Occam
If you want an example of how twisted the democratic system has become you just have to look at the 1972 race and how the Republicans used every dirty trick they could to win. McGovern was a decorated war hero and did a complete tour in B-24s out of Italy and yet he was a coward according to Nixon's camp. Nixon on the other hand served as a glorified military travel agent during the war.
Its even worse than that. Nixon, with his ideas of starting the EPA, funding alternative energy research, and many other things, would be considered a "filthy hippie" by most Republicans today. Heck, even Jeb Bush has said that were his father to run today, he'd be considered "too liberal" to stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination. As a kid growing up, I heard stories about Goldwater wanting to nuke Vietnam and now I read the kinds of things that he said and wish that he was still around and a force in politics.
High unemployment does not always fit the supply and demand for labor. Just look at the hospital strikes in the early 80’s. High unemployment yet the labor market could not fill the demand for skilled hospital labor.
The large companies having multinational operations are better equipped for union strikes, like the auto makers for example. But the largest number of large employers in the United States are the government and utilities.
The Taff-Hartley Act itself proves the power is with the workers. The law is to reduce the union power and that was my point, the union is there to protect the management. But most people don’t realize that fact.
What has been going on in Europe and has been rapidly expanding here in the States in the last thirty years is labor leasing. The big aircraft manufacturers for example use more lease labor than direct labor today. Leased labor is none union labor. The big unions, mostly government, have been able to keep the leased labor out of the work force. But that getting close to changing. When that happens the balance of power will be with the companies. What the worker has on his side is the labor laws. So maybe the system will not be too much out of balance.
Point being.
I do not like minimal wages. But for these reason I would have to vote for minimal wages.
The Taff-Hartley Act itself proves the power is with the workers. The law is to reduce the union power and that was my point, the union is there to protect the management. But most people don’t realize that fact.
What are NSA bankers?
If that stands for what I think it does then that's ridiculous.
They are bankers who are part of and control the government so the government favors and protects their interests--to the detriment of everyone else. They represent the wizard behind the green curtain.
Lois
Mike, Did you mean to say "minimal" wages? or did you actually mean to say "minimum" wages? (in the last line of post #52)
Yes, I did. Thanks.
My spelling is so bad that I don't know the difference and it is one of those words that spell check does not pick up.
Still use the dictionary on many words that I am not sure of.
Can't wait until the next group of computers and computer software. Typing will become a thing of the past. Verbal input will become the norm.
Should be a lot faster too.
The Taff-Hartley Act itself proves the power is with the workers. The law is to reduce the union power and that was my point, the union is there to protect the management. But most people don’t realize that fact.
Fascinating.
Ya, some states outlawed unions in the past. The workers in the railroad and mining went on strike without a union. The State sent troops in and claimed they had to kill striking miners. When workers go on strike, their wife and children also went on strike. When the State kills women and children it can be very unpopular with the people. After the strikers took up arms and started fighting back the State and company owners decided unions were much better to work with and offered them a level of protection from individual workers with arms.
Sometime after that the States voted on the how powerful the unions (workers) could be with a company by the Right To Work laws. But what is interesting to me about these laws are the health care workers (hospitals). They were mostly a women work force. The same for agricultural workers that were mostly men. And in most states they were not covered by the laws. And yet today are not covered in overtime and other laws in many of the States. I should note that Federal wage laws do cover the health care in the States that do not.
Management is none union in most companies. Companies write individual contracts with management. Companies have an unwritten rule that you don't tell your wage. Companies take steps to make sure that information is not kept in open files. That would be impossible to do with the production work force.
It's always been managements job to organize the workforce of a company for production, safety, hours of work, job advancement, sick and holiday pay and other items. Isn't most unions helping management in these areas?
What is fascinating to me, that many people are unaware of is the Federal Governments involvement in labor management. The Federal Gov. implemented "Equal pay laws". They are still in effect today.
The Feds said that all jobs classifications will be written down in a book and then the Federal pay will be controlled by the job description. The States would have to follow the pay if there was any Federal money involved in a contract. A department was formed by federal employment personnel professionals with the highest degrees. A new book was printed every year and sent to the public libraries for the public to use. This book was much bigger than a dictionary. The problem was that many job classifications were very hard for the Federal workers to describe. So each year they would delete a large number of job classifications that were required by law under the original Equal Pay Laws.
Over the years one thing became quite obvious, the book stayed the same size, there were less and less job classifications covered each year. But the classification for "Personnel Office" jobs kept getting bigger and bigger till over one third of the book was covering the "Personnel Office" employee classifications.
I bring this up because there is so much talk about the globalization of the work force. Yet, there are only 13 countries that we have treaties with that cover working(loosely used) in those countries. Our companies are for the most part on their own when it comes to international work force.
If you want an example of how twisted the democratic system has become you just have to look at the 1972 race and how the Republicans used every dirty trick they could to win. McGovern was a decorated war hero and did a complete tour in B-24s out of Italy and yet he was a coward according to Nixon's camp. Nixon on the other hand served as a glorified military travel agent during the war.
Its even worse than that. Nixon, with his ideas of starting the EPA, funding alternative energy research, and many other things, would be considered a "filthy hippie" by most Republicans today. Heck, even Jeb Bush has said that were his father to run today, he'd be considered "too liberal" to stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination. As a kid growing up, I heard stories about Goldwater wanting to nuke Vietnam and now I read the kinds of things that he said and wish that he was still around and a force in politics.
Johnson did do a real number on Goldwater in 1964, Nixon wasn't the only one who could play dirty pool.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%.
I want to live in a country that has an upper rich class of people in a nation with high GNP and exports. A rich class is something you don’t want to see in poorer nations.
To me that is a sign that the economic systems of the country are working.
Take away corporate taxes, rework the corporate laws of ownership and liabilities. Start the Flat Tax system and we could see the wealth spreading more evenly to more people.
Which is exactly what the "conservatives" would never allow. They'd rather have a banana republic.
Lois