Calvin & Hobbes for when you're stressed out with work

Because sometimes, productivity is overrated:

Although to be honest, I'm not sure if this is uplifting or depressing. "Childhood is short and maturity is forever." Is there still room for acting like a child once you hit forever?

RELATED POSTS

Calvin & Hobbes on how to solve the climate crisis

What do Superfreaks and Calvin & Hobbes have in common?

Calvin & Hobbes and Democratic proposals to scale back health reform

Watts vs. Bolt: Who's the Dumbest Denier?

You have to see this to believe it. Anthony Watts, perhaps the most influential global warming denier, just cited an article from 1989 to prove there's no global warming. You read that right: 1989. Check it out:

Here’s a blast from the past. Dr. James Hansen’s view in 1989 seemed a lot more temperate than it does today. Back then, he’s ready to accede to a study that says something counter to what his theory predicts, saying “I have no quarrel with it”. Today, he uses labels like “deniers” (see here) when such contradictory essays and facts are made public. What a difference 20 years makes...

Well yes, Anthony, actually it does, because over those 20 years, scientists have been accumulating data, and temperatures have been increasing. That's sort of how you become more sure of something: by collecting evidence over time. The fact that Hansen was "temperate" back in 1989, when the evidence for global warming was less unequivocal, would seem to prove that his current views are based on accumulated evidence rather than conspiracy.

Here's the beginning of the NYT article Watts cites:

January 26, 1989
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

...

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

So Watts's logic is that 22 years of additional data should not allow James Hansen to become more certain of his conclusions?

This bit of boorishness follows right on the heels of another denier, Andrew Dolt Bolt of Australia, making the bizarre accusation that Apple is behind a new "answers to global warming skeptics" iPhone app. Here was his Twitter post:

Breaking News: Al Gore is funding iPhone apps to create secret new world order. First to be sent to the chambers - me. He must be stopped.

Even many of Bolt's commenters were able to squint through the fog and realize that Apple hosts, not develops, iPhone apps. No one's stopping skeptics from developing their own app.

So I propose a vote. What's dumber: Anthony Watts insinuating that a 21-year-old New York Times article disproves global warming, or Andrew Bolt claiming that Apple is nefariously developing global warming iPhone apps? I report, you decide.

Don't believe that government regulations are good for business? Ask the auto industry

Even as Sen. Lisa Murkowski plans to torpedo the EPA's authority to regulate CO2 emissions, on the grounds that regulations will be costly for industry, opposition to Murkowski's plan is being launched by... the US auto industry. Check it out:

They may not be the most natural of environmental campaigners, but in a surprise reversal US car firms could prove crucial in the fight to stop Republicans stripping the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its right to legislate carbon emissions.

Republican senator Lisa Murkowski is widely expected to move forward next week with her controversial plan to seek a motion of disapproval in Congress that would, in effect, reverse the EPA's recent ruling that carbon emissions constitute a health risk and can therefore be regulated under the existing Clean Air Act.

However, despite having secured support from a number of business groups, the move could face opposition from the auto industry after it emerged that the motion could reignite a long-running row over national vehicle emission standards, raising the prospect of different fuel-efficiency rules in different states.

According to a letter sent to Democrat senator Diane Feinstein by the Department of Transportation, overturning the EPA's ruling on carbon emissions would stop the agency from implementing the National Fuel-Efficiency standards that were announced by President Obama last year.

The letter – from O. Kevin Vincent, chief counsel at the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), the department responsible for fuel economy standards – warned that if the agency were forced to proceed on its own without the EPA's involvement, many of the benefits of national standards would "substantially erode".

He added that stripping the EPA of its powers would also likely drive California and 13 other states to revive their plan to enforce their own tougher emissions standards, which had been dropped following Obama’s announcement of more demanding national standards. Vincent said the move would create confusion, encourage renewed litigation, and drive up the cost of compliance for automobile manufacturers and motorists.

The letter mirrors one sent earlier this week by EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to a group of eight senators, which warned that Murkowski's proposals would "undo a historic agreement among states, automakers, the Federal government and other stakeholders".

Back in September, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers also sent a joint letter to senator Feinstein, signalling their opposition to an earlier effort by Murkowski to challenge the EPA’s ruling.

The move marks something of a reversal for the auto industry, which has consistently lobbied against more demanding fuel economy standards, but is even more fiercely opposed to the prospect of a patchwork of numerous vehicle emissions targets being adopted by different states.

The move came in the same week as opposition to Murkowski’s proposal (which could come to a vote as early as next week) heated up, with nine environmental commissioners from states that had agreed to originally adopt California’s vehicle emissions standards writing to Senate leaders to warn that the resolution would disrupt the rollout of standards that have "been widely praised by the automobile industry, environmental organisations, labour unions, states, the Obama administration, and many members of Congress".

Business leaders oppose supposedly "pro-business" efforts to gut environmental regulations? Yes, the narrative of "low taxes and low regulation = good for business" continues to crumble. Though the GOP would have you believe that regulation always increases costs and always hurts business, the truth is just not so simple. In this case, federal regulations give auto makers much-needed consistency and predictability in their manufacturing operations, allowing them to benefit from scale nationwide instead of having to adapt to a patchwork of state mandates.

Indeed, if you look at the historical relationship between the auto industry and fuel economy regulations, Detroit's financial bosses opposed the initial Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. However, once imposed, Detroit's engineers had little trouble rising to meet the new requirements:

[Link to original graphic: http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/fuel_efficiency_1945_2005.png]

Thanks to government regulation, we spend half as much on gas today as we otherwise would. Had Detroit willingly accepted the federal government's challenge to improve its cars, instead of fighting tooth and nail against change, maybe the Japanese wouldn't have eaten the Big Three alive.

The auto industry is finally waking up to the fact that it makes better business sense to innovate new technologies for meeting federal regulations, rather than fighting against change. Now if only GOP ideology could catch up to the business leaders whose interests the party ostensibly understands, they'd realize that their anti-regulation stance is just blowing smoke.

RELATED POSTS

Yes, government creates jobs

Filet-o-Fish

I saw an ad for McDonald's Filet-o-Fish on the bus this evening on my way home from work. The ad depicted the famous singing fish from the TV spot, with a big speech bubble reading:

Don't even think about it!

Is McDonald's sending a subtle message about the nameless contents of its Filet-o-Mystery-Fish? "Dear consumer: we know that you don't know what kind of fish our white-square sandwich is made from. And we want you to know that we know you don't know. Our advice: don't even think about it. You know it still tastes good."

Which got me thinking about a conversation I had recently on the near indestructibility of McDonald's fries. Most foods, if they were to fall under the seat of your car, would rot in a matter of days. But a McDonald's fry will still be in nearly the same shape one month hence. Disgusting! you may shudder. What manner of chemicals must they inject into the starchy grease sliver to insulate it from the natural processes biodegrading and decay?  So manufactured and unnatural!

But 100 years ago, you may have marveled at the same feat - that food could be protected and preserved for months on end to be eaten when calories were scarce. That food could be scientifically subdued and controlled to taste consistent no matter where it was purchased, and priced at 40 minutes of minimum wage earnings. A miracle!

So Filet-o-Fish: monstrosity of mechanical food manufacturing, or modern technological marvel? My advice: don't even think about it.

Health care reform in three sentences

The Economist explains President Obama's health insurance plan in three sentences:

Under Barack Obama’s plan, which is bogged down in Congress, the private-insurance market would expand dramatically—but so would regulation. The proposal would require all Americans to buy cover. To make it affordable, the government would regulate products and prices and offer subsidies for the poor.

The above quote is from a special report in last week's Economist on health insurance around the world, which situates the President's reform proposals in the context of how other countries treat health insurance. It's the shortest explanation of the reform bill I've yet seen (though I think my own is still the best).

The article also contained this bombshell graphic, which shows that the US health care system is hardly free of the hand of government, even relative to other countries:

Seen in this light, and explained so succinctly, the President's plan sounds like the moderate, common sense approach that it is. In contrast with its reporting on US politics, the Economist's international and business reporting is still quite good.

Since the Economist is now behind a pay wall, here's the full context of the quote:

In countries where state-financed health care is not available to all, some governments are worried that too few of their citizens have sufficient cover. They want private insurance to be expanded to cover everyone. The most prominent effort is under way in America, where about 47m people lack health insurance of any kind. Under Barack Obama’s plan, which is bogged down in Congress, the private-insurance market would expand dramatically—but so would regulation. The proposal would require all Americans to buy cover. To make it affordable, the government would regulate products and prices and offer subsidies for the poor.

This effort is similar to reforms undertaken over the past decade in the Netherlands and Switzerland. The Swiss were keen to expand access to all, and to contain costs; the Dutch saw private insurance as a boon both to consumer choice and to innovation in the delivery of health care. To ensure equitable access, both countries forbid private insurers from discriminating against applicants because they are in poor health or at high risk of falling ill. This practice, known as “lemon dropping”, continues in the American market for individual health coverage.

Inevitably, however, some insurers (say, those offering cheap, bare-bones packages) will attract younger, fitter and cheaper customers while others (with a reputation for quality or gold-plated coverage for chronic diseases) will attract the old, the sick and the costly. In the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany, which copied some earlier Swiss reforms, regulations force companies that make “excess” profits in this way to hand over that money to those who end up with costly patients. Uwe Reinhardt, a health economist at Princeton University, jokes that Germany has the illusion of 200 private health insurers but because of risk adjustment it in fact has just one. The Dutch are now shifting from risk-smoothing after the fact to doing it even before the fiscal year begins.

Such a tightly regulated expansion of private insurance—in effect, turning health insurance into a utility—can expand coverage. European countries that followed this path now enjoy near-universal access. So does the American state of Massachusetts, which has implemented similar reforms. If Congress eventually accepts Mr Obama’s proposals, the rest of America will also see coverage increase markedly.

RELATED POSTS

The simplest explanation of health reform you will ever read

The catch-22 for opponents of health care reform

Tea Partay: the real force behind the Tea Party movement

Resurrecting a viral hit from years ago. Lest there be any doubt that East Coast business elites are bankrolling the crazed right wing Tea Party movement, let's all remember that before the Tea Party, there was Tea Partay:



I'd completely forgotten about this video, but now the connection is so obvious!

The silver bullet proving there's no climate conspiracy

There's another hopelessly misinterpreted story making the rounds in the denialsphere. Apparently one of the lower projections of sea level rise has been retracted due to errors in its methodology. Most people understand that when you have a set of numbers and remove one that's below average, the average rises, so the only logical conclusion to draw from this retraction is that sea level rise will likely be greater than expected. Indeed, observed sea levels over the past decade have risen at the very upper end of IPCC projections:

But leave it to the denial PR machine to twist evidence that proves them wrong into the opposite conclusion. Joe Romm lists the insanity:

Betsy Newmark: Another global warming claim that has had to be retracted because of problems with the data.

Sammy Benoit: OOPS Never-mind! Climate scientists withdraw IPCC-related article claiming sea is rising.

JammieWearingFool: Another global warming myth comes crashing down. No warming since at least 1995, no melting glaciers and now no rising sea levels.

It goes on like that. To deniers, any time a scientist admits an error, it's proof that all of climate science is crashing down. And yet at the same time that deniers trumpet scientists' admissions of error, they also cling to the delusion that climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to cover up errors in their research. You can't have it both ways: either climate scientists are honest operators who make honest mistakes, or they're conspirators who never admit to the possibility that they are in error.

In this sense, far from being another brick in the conspiracy theory, this retraction is in fact the silver bullet which proves there’s no climate conspiracy at all. A couple scientists made a mistake. Other scientists spotted and pointed out the mistake. The original scientists accepted their errors and retracted the paper. No trying to cover up the mistake. No bruised egos or defensive, politician-style squirming. No intentional manipulation of data. Just an honest mistake, and an honest response. Sorry deniers, science still works.

Bottom line: Any time you read a denialist take on an error or retraction in climate science, keep three things in mind:

1. The error is only one in a vast body of research. Retracting one study does not discredit the others.
2. In this case, the retracted study was on the low-end of projections of sea level rise. When a below-average estimate gets eliminated from contention, the logical conclusion is not that sea levels will not rise.
3. An admissions of error is not evidence of ineptitude or fraud. Quite the opposite: it proves that science works, and should give you more reason to trust the body of climate science as the product of honest research and rigorous review.

UPDATE (2/23/10 at 9:28am)

Right on the heels of this fallacious fracas over sea levels, new research by the US Geological Survey confirms that Antarctic ice shelves are melting faster than previously thought:

Ice shelves are retreating in the southern section of the Antarctic Peninsula due to climate change. This could result in glacier retreat and sea-level rise if warming continues, threatening coastal communities and low-lying islands worldwide.

Research by the U.S. Geological Survey is the first to document that every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been retreating overall from 1947 to 2009, with the most dramatic changes occurring since 1990. The USGS previously documented that the majority of ice fronts on the entire Peninsula have also retreated during the late 20th century and into the early 21st century.

The ice shelves are attached to the continent and already floating, holding in place the Antarctic ice sheet that covers about 98 percent of the Antarctic continent. As the ice shelves break off, it is easier for outlet glaciers and ice streams from the ice sheet to flow into the sea. The transition of that ice from land to the ocean is what raises sea level.

…

Retreat along the southern part of the Peninsula is of particular interest because that area has the Peninsula’s coolest temperatures, demonstrating that global warming is affecting the entire length of the Peninsula.

Yes, sea level rise will be on the high end of estimates.

h/t Financial Times Energy Source

RELATED POSTS

Climate craps: Global warming and uncertainty (or what to say when you hear "the science is not settled!")

When global cooling is only in your backyard