j_b

cluck, you seem poorly informed. it's not journalists telling us extreme events will be our every day fare, it's the climate scientists. for your benefit (make sure you read it), here is a piece in the independent from the beginning of july. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=421166 Reaping the whirlwind Extreme weather prompts unprecedented global warming alert 03 July 2003 In an astonishing announcement on global warming and extreme weather, the World Meteorological Organisation signalled last night that the world's weather is going haywire. In a startling report, the WMO, which normally produces detailed scientific reports and staid statistics at the year's end, highlighted record extremes in weather and climate occurring all over the world in recent weeks, from Switzerland's hottest-ever June to a record month for tornadoes in the United States - and linked them to climate change. The unprecedented warning takes its force and significance from the fact that it is not coming from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but from an impeccably respected UN organisation that is not given to hyperbole (though environmentalists will seize on it to claim that the direst warnings of climate change are being borne out). The Geneva-based body, to which the weather services of 185 countries contribute, takes the view that events this year in Europe, America and Asia are so remarkable that the world needs to be made aware of it immediately. The extreme weather it documents, such as record high and low temperatures, record rainfall and record storms in different parts of the world, is consistent with predictions of global warming. Supercomputer models show that, as the atmosphere warms, the climate not only becomes hotter but much more unstable. "Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase," the WMO said, giving a striking series of examples. In southern France, record temperatures were recorded in June, rising above 40C in places - temperatures of 5C to 7C above the average. In Switzerland, it was the hottest June in at least 250 years, environmental historians said. In Geneva, since 29 May, daytime temperatures have not fallen below 25C, making it the hottest June recorded. In the United States, there were 562 May tornadoes, which caused 41 deaths. This set a record for any month. The previous record was 399 in June 1992. In India, this year's pre-monsoon heatwave brought peak temperatures of 45C - 2C to 5C above the norm. At least 1,400 people died in India due to the hot weather. In Sri Lanka, heavy rainfall from Tropical Cyclone 01B exacerbated wet conditions, resulting in flooding and landslides and killing at least 300 people. The infrastructure and economy of south-west Sri Lanka was heavily damaged. A reduction of 20-30 per cent is expected in the output of low-grown tea in the next three months. Last month was also the hottest in England and Wales since 1976, with average temperatures of 16C. The WMO said: "These record extreme events (high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts) all go into calculating the monthly and annual averages, which, for temperatures, have been gradually increasing over the past 100 years. "New record extreme events occur every year somewhere in the globe, but in recent years the number of such extremes have been increasing. "According to recent climate-change scientific assessment reports of the joint WMO/United Nations Environmental Programme Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global average surface temperature has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been around 0.6C. "New analyses of proxy data for the northern hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest in any century during the past 1,000 years." While the trend towards warmer temperatures has been uneven over the past century, the trend since 1976 is roughly three times that for the whole period. Global average land and sea surface temperatures in May 2003 were the second highest since records began in 1880. Considering land temperatures only, last May was the warmest on record. It is possible that 2003 will be the hottest year ever recorded. The 10 hottest years in the 143-year-old global temperature record have now all been since 1990, with the three hottest being 1998, 2002 and 2001. The unstable world of climate change has long been a prediction. Now, the WMO says, it is a reality.

trolls. and bad ones too. if you think anyone but morons is going to buy your bullshit, you should not pick on someone who has over 20 years of cascade climbing because it does not make for a very coherent story. who the fuck are you by the way gohawks? you just show up and think your garbage is going to stick?

any evidence to support the slander? since we are on the topic of biggots, gohawks fits right in ... from another thread gohawks says: "If it weren't for conservatives, we'd be spending all our hard-earned money on taxes to pay for welfare, housing for drunks, needles for heroin addicts, studies on how butterfly piss affects squirrels' habitats, and incentives for unemployed single mothers to have their 5th and 6th kids. Like in the former Soviet Union, no one would bust their ass to build a legitimate business; organized crime would control everything."

if i was about revealing zionist conspiracies, you would know about it. believe me. your baiting is not going to work. criticizing israeli politicies is not antisemitism. between the 2 of us, it is clear who is a biggot and it is not me.

yeah right, the royal swedish academy of sciences awarded an economics prize in 2001 in the hope the clearly pro-status-quo laureate would say something bad about bush in 2003. anyway, it's not the same committee (different institutions) that awarded the peace prize to arafat, perez and rabin in 1994 for having started negotiating after years of reciprocal murders.

don't you think it is a little early to be incapacitated by alcohol? or are you just trolling? in any case i'll oblige you. firstly, i was not accusing anyone of anything but letting the chips fall where they may for the sake of historical accuracy. secondly, the holocaust does not imply a blank check for the doings of the zionist state. and thirdly, your political pedigree has produced many more antisemites than mine.

i have rarely witnessed such sustained public display of stupidity. how could anyone think it might make one's point of view more compelling?

as already mentioned by dave s. When Radio Uganda announced at dawn on 25 January 1971 that Idi Amin was Uganda's new ruler, many people suspected that Britain had a hand in the coup. However, Foreign Office papers released last year point to a different conspirator: Israel.

since you seem to have comments, i thought i'd post the entire interview so that you can also address its content "The worst government the US has ever had" SPIEGEL ONLINE reached George A. Akerlof, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, on the phone while he was vacationing in New England. Following are excerpts of the conversation. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Akerlof, according to recent official projections, the US federal deficit will reach $455 billion this fiscal year. That's the largest ever in dollar terms, but according to the President's budget director, it's still manageable. Do you agree? George A. Akerlof: In the long term, a deficit of this magnitude is not manageable. We are moving into the period when, beginning around 2010, baby boomers are going to be retiring. That is going to put a severe strain on services like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is the time when we should be saving. SPIEGEL ONLINE: So it would, instead, be necessary to run a budget surplus? Akerlof: That would probably be impossible in the current situation. There's the expenditure for the war in Iraq, which I consider irresponsible. But there's also a recession and a desire to invigorate the economy through fiscal stimulus, which is quite legitimate. That's why we actually do need a deficit in the short term - but certainly not the type of deficit we have now. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Because it's not created by investment, but to a large extent by cutting taxes? Akerlof: A short-term tax benefit for the poor would actually be a reasonable stimulus. Then, the money would almost certainly be spent. But the current and future deficit is a lot less stimulatory than it could be. Our administration is just throwing the money away. First, we should have fiscal stimulus that is sharply aimed at the current downturn. But this deficit continues far into the future, as the bulk of the tax cuts can be expected to continue indefinitely. The Administration is giving us red ink as far as the eye can see, and these permanent aspects outweigh the short-term stimulatory effects. SPIEGEL ONLINE: And secondly, you disagree with giving tax relief primarily to wealthier Americans. The GOP argues that those voters deserve it for working hard. Akerlof: The rich don't need the money and are a lot less likely to spend it - they will primarily increase their savings. Remember that wealthier families have done extremely well in the US in the past twenty years, whereas poorer ones have done quite badly. So the redistributive effects of this administration's tax policy are going in the exactly wrong direction. The worst and most indefensible of those cuts are those in dividend taxation - this overwhelmingly helps very wealthy people. SPIEGEL ONLINE: The President claims that dividend tax reform supports the stock market - and helps the economy as a whole to grow. Akerlof: That's totally unrealistic. Standard formulas from growth models suggest that that effect will be extremely small. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has come to a similar conclusion. So, even a sympathetic treatment finds that this argument is simply not correct. SPIEGEL ONLINE: When campaigning for an even-larger tax cut earlier this year, Mr. Bush promised that it would create 1.4 million jobs. Was that reasonable? Akerlof: The tax cut will have some positive impact on job creation, although, as I mentioned, there is very little bang for the buck. There are very negative long-term consequences. The administration, when speaking about the budget, has unrealistically failed to take into account a very large number of important items. As of March 2003, the CBO estimated that the surplus for the next decade would approximately reach one trillion dollars. But this projection assumes, among other questionable things, that spending until 2013 is going to be constant in real dollar terms. That has never been the case. And with the current tax cuts, a realistic estimate would be a deficit in excess of six trillion. SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the government's just bad at doing the correct math? Akerlof: There is a systematic reason. The government is not really telling the truth to the American people. Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting. SPIEGEL ONLINE: If so, why's the President still popular? Akerlof: For some reason the American people does not yet recognize the dire consequences of our government budgets. It's my hope that voters are going to see how irresponsible this policy is and are going to respond in 2004 and we're going to see a reversal. SPIEGEL ONLINE: What if that doesn't happen? Akerlof: Future generations and even people in ten years are going to face massive public deficits and huge government debt. Then we have a choice. We can be like a very poor country with problems of threatening bankruptcy. Or we're going to have to cut back seriously on Medicare and Social Security. So the money that is going overwhelmingly to the wealthy is going to be paid by cutting services for the elderly. And people depend on those. It's only among the richest 40 percent that you begin to get households who have sizeable fractions of their own retirement income. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there a possibility that the government, because of the scope of current deficits, will be more reluctant to embark on a new war? Akerlof: They would certainly have to think about debt levels, and military expenditure is already high. But if they seriously want to lead a war this will not be a large deterrent. You begin the war and ask for the money later. A more likely effect of the deficits is this: If there's another recession, we won't be able to engage in stimulatory fiscal spending to maintain full employment. Until now, there's been a great deal of trust in the American government. Markets knew that, if there is a current deficit, it will be repaid. The government has wasted that resource. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Which, in addition, might drive up interest rates quite significantly? Akerlof: The deficit is not going to have significant effects on short-term interest rates. Rates are pretty low, and the Fed will manage to keep them that way. In the mid term it could be a serious problem. When rates rise, the massive debt is going to bite much more. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why is it that the Bush family seems to specialize in running huge deficits? The second-largest federal deficit in absolute terms, $290 billion, occurred in 1991, during the presidency of George W. Bush's father. Akerlof: That may be, but Bush's father committed a great act of courage by actually raising taxes. He wasn't always courageous, but this was his best public service. It was the first step to getting the deficit under control during the Clinton years. It was also a major factor in Bush's losing the election. SPIEGEL ONLINE: It seems that the current administration has politicized you in an unprecedented way. During the course of this year, you have, with other academics, signed two public declarations of protest - one against the tax cuts, the other against waging unilateral preventive war on Iraq. Akerlof: I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of what kind? Akerlof: I don't know yet. But I think it's time to protest - as much as possible. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Would you consider joining a Democratic administration as an adviser, as your colleague Joseph Stiglitz did? Akerlof: As you know my wife was in the last administration, and she did very well. She is probably much better suited for public service. But anything I'll be asked to do by a new administration I'd be happy to do. SPIEGEL ONLINE: You've mentioned the term civil disobedience a minute ago. That term was made popular by the author Henry D. Thoreau, who actually advised people not to pay taxes as a means of resistance. You wouldn't call for that, would you? Akerlof: No. I think the one thing we should do is pay our taxes. Otherwise, it'll only make matters worse. Interview: Matthias Streitz

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy. This is not normal government policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience."

bold is my emphasis. by 200 years ago the bulk of african slaves had arrived. it is true that slavery is much older, including that of native americans and poor whites. http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html finally i am not sure how you go from what i said to this: "if your hypothesis were true, Blacks would remain forever impoverished by this legacy even if all white people magically dissapeared or ceased to discriminate against them". it just does not follow logically. and i am not denying that some african americans are doing well/better, but we are talking average as it relates to the american average. then there is the condition of the very destitute, notably in the inner city.

tsk tsk tsk. there was no discussion of "All social problems amongst minorities are a direct result of white racism", so stay on track. the issue is the status of a minority that has been in this country for ~200 years .... yes, 200 years. the fact that a minority on the average has such problems getting out of poverty after a 200 years time span undoubtedly questions the legacy of slavery, segregation and more recently general indifference (if not racism).

true. but jim crow laws enforced segregation in most states through the 1960's.

actually you are off by a factor of 10, try 600 billions over the next decade. you won't hear about it in congress however.

so the courts should not have forced the swiss to pay reparation to the jews for property taken during ww2?

wow! that sucks. 150 feet? i hope you are ok.

answers to a few of the questions that came up in the replies: Himalayan Heli Ski Guides

this may be, but then this is certainly a different statement than your earlier posts on this topic (organized labor versus afl members, not electing versus being anti, etc ...). essentially, the same way the statement "sport climbing is less committing than trad climbing" is completely different from saying "sport climbing sucks". note that some history book will say "gwb was elected by americans", which many of his contemporaries would object to in many more ways than one. also note that i am not an ideologue either.

this is essentially not true. through the 30's, although the afl leadship (gompers) was indeed anti-'collectivist', the labor movement was not so. then came the 2nd wwar, then mccarthysm. check out 'a people history of the us' by zinn for further reference.

ask dwayner if he thinks that saying 'sport climbing sucks' is a matter of fact.

learning about labor history from JayB is equivalent to wanting to sport climb and taking lessons from Dwayner

good climb(s). how are the bolts holding up on t&c?

not much of a point really. i was only trying to express an idea without belaboring it. in a few words, if surging glaciers are inexistent at lower latitudes, it suggests that surging is dependent on climate and glacier health. that's all.

which indeed suggests that surging behavior could be related to glacier health.

i am not sure montaineers courses are the place to teach simul-climbing. covering it in freedom of the hills is an altogether different issue. old timers (pre-hardware) were pretty much climbing simulatenously most of the time since they were often more than 2 on a rope and they only had rock bollards, and wedged sitting belays.