Friday, November 20, 2009

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

By Gerald Traufetter

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.

Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.

Mixed Messages

But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."

The controversy sends confusing and mixed messages to the lay public. Why is there such a vigorous debate over climate change, even though it isn't getting warmer at the moment? And how can it be that scientists cannot even arrive at a consensus on changes in temperatures, even though temperatures are constantly being measured?

The global temperature-monitoring network consists of 517 weather stations. But each reading is only a tiny dot on the big world map, and it has to be extrapolated to the entire region with the help of supercomputers. Besides, there are still many blind spots, the largest being the Arctic, where there are only about 20 measuring stations to cover a vast area. Climatologists refer to the problem as the "Arctic hole."

The scientists at the Hadley Center simply used the global average value for the hole, ignoring the fact that it has become significantly warmer in the Arctic, says Rahmstorf. But a NASA team from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which does make the kinds of adjustments for the Arctic data that Rahmstorf believes are necessary, arrives at a flat temperature curve for the last five years that is similar to that of their British colleagues.

Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the fuzzy computing done by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

"Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif.


$100 Million Payoff to Buy Sen. Landrieu's Vote...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html


The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

November 19, 2009 3:03 PM

Share this blog entry with friends

Karl 2 ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here's a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." 

The section spends two pages defining which "states" would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that "during the preceding 7 fiscal years" have been declared a "major disaster area." 

I am told the section applies to exactly one state:  Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world:  Louisiana.  (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana's Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost?  According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here's the incredibly complicated language: 

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ''subsection (y)'' and inserting ''subsections (y) and (aa)''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

''(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
'(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

''(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

''(2) In this subsection, the term 'disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State' means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ''(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ''(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

''(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.''.

Why to you suppose they keep voting on these over the weekend?

Maybe they hope people aren't paying attention?
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/68777-key-senate-health-vote-set-for-saturday-night

Senate health vote set for Saturday night

By Alexander Bolton - 11/19/09 07:08 PM ET

Senate Democrats have cleared the way for a Saturday night vote to begin the healthcare debate, a Democratic aide said.

 
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has agreed to relent on his demand for Senate clerks to read aloud the 2,074-page bill and allow the chamber to take a critical test vote, said the aide. Reading the bill on the Senate floor was estimated to take as many as 30 hours or longer, raising the possibility of the Senate staying in session into next week.
 
The agreement to dispense with time-consuming procedural hurdles means that lawmakers will be able to catch flights back to their home states later in the evening on Saturday or early the next morning. This comes as welcome news for aides and other congressional workers who wrestled with the prospect of the Senate extending its session until Tuesday or Wednesday.
 

The Senate will vote at 8 pm Saturday to cut off debate on a motion to proceed to the healthcare reform bill. If 60 senators support the motion, the chamber would automatically adopt the motion to proceed to the bill and then depart. The Senate would begin amending the bill after the Thanksgiving recess.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Health bill could get 34-hour reading in Senate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/health-bill-could-get-34-hour-reading-senate/

The 2,074-page Senate health care bill would take 34 hours to read cover to cover -- and that's just what Sen. Tom Coburn wants done on the Senate floor.

The Oklahoma Republican has threatened to invoke parliamentary rules to force the Senate clerk (or more likely, a team of clerks) to read the massive bill before the full Senate begins formal debate on the legislation.

The move is strictly according to Senate rules, which say any senator can demand a bill be read in its entirety before debate begins. While Democrats could, if they wish, repeatedly make motions to end the soliloquy, Republicans on the floor could object, and the reading would continue.

What's even more interesting is that Senate Rule XIV (paragraph 2) states that every bill and joint resolution "shall receive three readings prior to its passage."


Sen. Buttars supports Salt Lake's non-discrimination ordinance

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=8724450

November 18th, 2009 @ 5:55pm
By Richard Piatt

SALT LAKE CITY -- A political shift for conservative state Sen. Chris Buttars came to light Wednesday when the senator announced his support for Salt Lake City's new non-discrimination ordinances.

Buttars, who sponsored the state's constitutional amendment on marriage, is still very much against gay marriage; he is also opposed things like gay adoptions and domestic partnerships. But on the question of housing and employment discrimination, Buttars said he has shifted his opinion.

Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinances usher in a new era for gay rights. At the Capitol, not everyone supports the new job and housing protection, but long-time anti-gay Sen. Chris Buttars says he does.

"An individual should be able to have a roof over their head and have a job and not worry about being fired for their sexual choices. I support that, but that's all I support. I don't support any legislative creep. There's talk up here about going after other things; I will be opposed to that," Buttars said.

To Buttars, that means gay adoptions, civil unions and--in spite of current Utah law already prohibiting it--gay marriage.

His position in support of the non-discrimination ordinance puts him at odds with long-time collaborator Gayle Ruzicka of the Utah Eagle Forum.

"I do disagree [with Buttars] on that. However, I believe we are more in agreement than maybe what was expressed," Ruzicka said.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' support for the ordinances is clearly a shift for Buttars.

"Up until recently, I have been worried about, going dow the road, did the Church's announcement leave an effect on me? Yes," Buttars said.

But Ruzicka has another view.

"They did not say that we, as members of the Church, should take the same position; and I don't," she said.

In the meantime, those fighting for gay rights are encouraged

"Of course we don't agree on everything, but on work place protection and housing protection, which are top priorities for the gay and transgendered community, we have common ground," said Will Carlson, with Equality Utah.

Buttars said he doesn't anticipate a bill to undo what Salt Lake City has done, but he is in favor of a bill that restricts other cities from going too far when it comes to gay rights.

E-mail: rpiatt@ksl.com


Poll on healthcare


Gallup finds 38% of Americans rating healthcare coverage in this country as excellent or good, the highest (by eight percentage points) in the nine-year history of this question, and 12 points above last year's level.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124415/Greater-Optimism-U.S.-Health-System-Coverage-Costs.aspx?CSTS=alert

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Good enough to repeat...

...the Church has not found it possible to follow along the lines of the present general tendency in the matter of property rights, taxes, the curtailment of rights and liberties of the people, nor in general the economic policies of what is termed the "New Deal"....unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions....We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe....We confess to you that it has not been possible for us to unify our own people even upon the necessity of such a turning about, and therefore we cannot unfortunately, and we say it regretfully, make any practical suggestion to you as to how the nation can be turned about. (Heber J. Grant, also J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay signed as the First Presidency, written during World War II Letter to the U.S. Treasury, September 30, 1941.)

Quote verified here

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-letter-to-the-treasury-from-the-lds-first-presidency-in-1941