More evidence of global warming.
 

It's one of the best financial journals out there and I pick it up from time to time when I'm feeling smart, like Hank. That said, I can easily picture them running Swift's "A Modest Proposal" as a straight-faced editorial piece.

More evidence of global warming.
 

Exactly. But you're letting him off too easy, Hank, by just recommending that he read the results. The "results" are no doubt as skewed as this so-called scientist's tree-hugging assumptions. This article is worthless except as an invitation for each one of us to duplicate the study and compare our results to his. Until then, enough of this "global warming" bunkum.

You know, this is just the sort of crap we always hear about the so-called "moon landings." I'm supposed to believe something just because some egghead rocket scientist tells me so? I was born at night, but not last night. At best, the accounts of our so-called "space program" are an invitation for each of us to build a lunar lander and try it for ourselves. Until then, I don't think anyone is in a position to say anthing about anything.

More evidence of global warming.
 

In socialist England maybe, here in the colonies it's centrist, at best.

More evidence of global warming.
 

So you've never picked it up then, have you?

More evidence of global warming.
 

Hmm. Maybe it's the coffee.

More evidence of global warming.
 

Here's the real bitch of it- global warming won't make the air warming. See lots of us was hoping it'd get warmer in the UK sos our clubs can build on players who grow up playing 365 days like the Brazilains do now. We'd be bringing home the Cups then! Plus the Brazilains would be too f'ing hot except to play in the winter so they'd suck! That's what we were hoping!

What is the measurement error for circa 1950's thermometers? 1 How sensitive were they to ocean pressure? 2 When reading the analog scales what sort of error could be expected? The guy's total increase is .5 degree. You don't think it possible error could be as likely an explaination?

More evidence of global warming.
 

Don't know for sure, but I think for the neocons around here "centrist" means Bush economic policy without all the talking-to-Jesus stuff.

More evidence of global warming.
 

I have often thought this, no more so than when watching Colin Powell in front of the UN with those pictures of RVs in the desert. But it only suits to be skeptical about some things, not others, right?

And of course this guy is the only one who's ever mentioned this global-warming-caused-by-man thing, so he's obviously a crackpot with tin foil on his head.

More evidence of global warming.
 

You don't think it fun they now admit air temps won't increase?

More evidence of global warming.
 

I think anyone who looked seriously at this issue when it first began to be reported understands that global warming doesn't mean it's going to be 85 degrees year round in New York. The serious consequences will be things like stronger and more frequent storm systems and a possible shift in the path of the current of warm water that heats the UK and Northern Europe to a liveable temperature. If the Gulf stream slips a little bit, Glasgow is going to feel more like Greenland, and then how are we ever going to get the good Brazilian players to sign for Celtic? Catastrophe.

George's Record is Safe
 

• WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.
  
  The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
  
  The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050301/D88I8SPO1.html

More evidence of global warming.
 

Actually, a few years ago they ran a brilliant piece about children on airplanes modeled on it. I'll try to find it.

I wouldn't say they are of the "global warming isn't happening and if it is it doesn't matter" camp. I'd cast them as being of the "it is probably happening, but most of the science on the subject is shockingly bad, and therefore the effects can't be predicted despite Hollywood and the popular press's protestations to the contrary; meanwhile one can accurately predict the negative effects (economic and otherwise) of many of the proposed fixes, which in many cases are likely to do more damage than the predicted warming itself, so it isn't sensible to enact things like Kyoto based on current knowledge: it's like destroying all the chickens in north america and outlawing the poultry industry because there is a meaningful chance that a bad avian flu will jump species at some point in the future."

Or: that article doesn't strike me as unusual in the context of their other climate change pieces.

BR(read it religiously since '92 or so)C

More evidence of global warming.
 

OK, this wasn't the Swift-riff I remembered - maybe Spanky remembers what I was thinking of. Nevertheless, the children/airplanes articles:

Mum’s the word

Dec 3rd 1998
From The Economist print edition

When children should be screened and not heard

WE LIVE in increasingly intolerant times. Signs proliferate demanding no smoking, no spitting, no parking, even no walking. “No blacks” signs have thankfully disappeared—but elsewhere the imperative of denial seems to be ubiquitous. Smoking, once prohibited only in a few train carriages or sections of aircraft, is now banned totally in many offices, on most public transport and even in many bars. Posh clubs and restaurants have long had “no jeans” rules, but these days you can be too smart. Some London hostelries have “no suits” policies, for fear that boisterous city traders in suits might spoil the atmosphere. Environmentalists have long demanded all sorts of bans on cars. Mobile telephones are the latest target: some trains, airline lounges, restaurants and even golf courses are being designated “no phone” areas.

If intolerance really has to be the spirit of this age, The Economist would like to suggest restrictions on another source of noise pollution: children. Lest you dismiss this as mere prejudice, we can even produce a good economic argument for it. Smoking, driving and mobile phones all cause what economists call “negative externalities”. That is, the costs of these activities to other people tend to exceed the costs to the individuals of their proclivities. The invisible hand of the market fumbles, leading resources astray. Thus, because a driver’s private motoring costs do not reflect the costs he imposes on others in the form of pollution and congestion, he uses the car more than is socially desirable. Likewise, it is argued, smokers take too little care to ensure that their acrid fumes do not damage other people around them.

Governments typically respond to such market failures in two ways. One is higher taxes, to make polluters pay the full cost of their anti-social behaviour. The other is regulation, such as emission standards or bans on smoking in public places. Both approaches might work for children.

For children, just like cigarettes or mobile phones, clearly impose a negative externality on people who are near them. Anybody who has suffered a 12-hour flight with a bawling baby in the row immediately ahead or a bored youngster viciously kicking their seat from behind, will grasp this as quickly as they would love to grasp the youngster’s neck. Here is a clear case of market failure: parents do not bear the full costs (indeed young babies travel free), so they are too ready to take their noisy brats with them. Where is the invisible hand when it is needed to administer a good smack?

Child-free zones

The solution is obvious. All airlines, trains and restaurants should create child-free zones. Put all those children at the back of the plane and parents might make more effort to minimise their noise pollution. And instead of letting children pay less and babies go free, they should be charged (or taxed) more than adults, with the revenues used to subsidise seats immediately in front of the war-zone.

Passengers could then request a no-children seat, just as they now ask for a no-smoking one. As more women choose not to have children and the number of older people without young children increases, the demand for child-free travel will expand. Well, yes, it is a bit intolerant—but why shouldn’t parents be treated as badly as smokers? And at least there is an obvious airline to pioneer the scheme: Virgin.


Oh, what a carry on

Dec 16th 1999
From The Economist print edition

Might it be time for airlines to restrict both luggage and children on planes?

“I FEEL about airplanes the way I feel about diets. They are wonderful things for other people to go on,” Jean Kerr, an American dramatist, once quipped. Flying has become safer, faster and cheaper, but it seems ever more stressful. Having successfully fought for increased competition, to cut airfares, The Economist has now shifted its attention to relieving the stress. One frequent cause is the noise that children, especially bored ones, inflict on other travellers. A year ago, we proposed that all planes should have child-free zones, just like no-smoking zones: children (and parents) should be confined to the back of the plane. As yet, sadly, no airline seems to agree that children should be screened and not heard.

Undeterred, we would like to raise another case of what economists call a negative externality: ie, something which is nice for you but imposes costs on others. This is excessive carry-on luggage. In America six out of ten passengers now take a suitcase on to a flight, rather than check it in, three times as many as in 1990. The result is delay, because flights take longer to board. Passengers trying to squeeze 3-foot suitcases into 2-foot overhead bins hold up people trying to board behind them. Some travellers have tried to take refrigerators, television sets and even a stuffed moose-head on board.



Just kidding
The problems of both children and luggage could be solved in one stroke by putting the children in the hold, to make more space for carry-on luggage. But that, we concede, might be unacceptable. Instead, to reduce delays, most airlines are rightly imposing stricter limits on the size or weight of bags that can be carried on to planes. This has provoked outrage as passengers are forcibly separated from their belongings at check-in. Understandably: if you put luggage in the hold, you have to wait ages for it at the other end—if it shows up at all.

Once you have experienced the nightmare of waiting at the luggage carousel until it stops, with no sign of the suitcase you checked in, it is clear why people prefer to lug their cases on board. You took a flight from London to Tokyo; your luggage and your smart clothes decided to hop on one to Los Angeles. Not an externality, but certainly negative.

In America only 0.5% of bags go missing, but if you are a frequent traveller that risk is too high. A survey of 150 frequent fliers found that two-thirds had experienced some sort of delay or loss to their luggage in the previous 12 months. And if luggage remains lost, your likely compensation is paltry—a maximum of $1,250 in America, regardless of whether your clothes were bought at Wal-Mart or Armani.

If airlines are to restrict carry-ons, therefore, they also need to offer better compensation for delayed or lost luggage. At the least they should extend frequent-flier miles to luggage as well as its owner: if your suitcase travels to Tokyo via Los Angeles, you should get triple frequent-flier miles. In addition, passengers could be made to pay if they want to take extra luggage on board. Better still, given the frequent positive correlation between the size of the traveller and the weight of his (yes, his) carry-on, why not take a tip from Papua New Guinea? When flying within the country, a passenger used to be weighed along with his luggage before boarding the plane. Fight the flab and you can bring your bag on board. Aeroplanes and diets would then indeed be closely connected.

More evidence of global warming.
 

(1) Every article in the Economist is an editorial. They don't try to be objective

(2) I should have been clearer last night. All this article says is that one scientists think there is minor global warning. So I think the Economists position is they still are skeptical about whether or not there is climate change, but they are open to the fact that there may be a slight tempature change, but they still don't think anything should be done about it if it effects economic growth.

The fact that they are now open to the idea that there is a chance that there might be some man made impact on the tempature is a huge editorial shift.

In the nineteenth century the Economist argued that absolutely nothing should be done about the Irish potatoe (did I spell that right - where is Dan Quayle when you need him) famine. They argued that the government should provide no subsidies or help to the starving masses. The market should fix the situation, and all the death is the price you pay for economic efficiency. They have subsequently apoligized for that article (it took them about fifty years) but that shows how far to the right on economics this magazine goes (however, they are not supply siders - they believe deficits are worse than low taxes, where our concervatives believe high taxes are a bigger problem than deficits).

Also back then supportes of the Adam Smith' view were considered liberals, and the government interventionists were considered conservatives. I wish the popular definition did not change in America. I would like to be able to say I am a liberal - I think the government should stay the hell out of economcy, out of my wallet, out of social policy and out of my bedroom.