ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Get Ready for Super-Extreme Weather: “We Are Just Now Experiencing the Full Effect of CO2 Emitted [by] the Late 1980s”

Next Up: The Droughts, Heat Waves, and Floods from the Last Two Decades’ Surge in CO2 Levels

JR: Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters said in June that, driven by global warming, “It Is Quite Possible That 2010 Was The Most Extreme Weather Year Globally Since 1816.″ In a late December PBS story on the link between 2011′s “mind-boggling” extreme weather and global warming, Masters said it’s like “being on steroids … for the atmosphere.” Now Masters examines “Where is the climate headed?”

by Jeff Masters, cross-posted from the WunderBlog

The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.


Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.

How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?

Read more

Alyssa

‘House Of Lies’ Open Thread: Street Meat And Heartbreak

This post contains spoilers through the January 29 episode of House of Lies.

I thought it was smart of House of Lies to move beyond Marty a bit this week to start fleshing out the other characters. But the way it happened reaffirmed for me that the show should really be an hour rather than a half-hour, given how surprising some of the character reveals were, and how little we still know about Clyde and Doug other than a semi-generic bullying story.

First, take Jeannie. We’ve had essentially no sense of her personal life at all before it’s suddenly revealed that hey! she’s engaged!, her future mother-in-law is a drunk, and her fiance is a semi-conventional but very rich dude. It doesn’t strike me as particularly surprising that Jeannie is resisting introducing him to, as he puts it as they head off for their respective engagements, “these guys I share you with every week,” given that they’re jerks. But it does suggest that there’s a totally different Jeannie than the relatively restrained one we’re seeing as part of the team. The show’s version of introducing us to that side of her is to have Jeannie moon over a bad cafe musician in San Francisco all night, and then go to bed with him. It might be a meaningful sequence if we had any sense of Jeannie’s relationship to her boyfriend-now-future-husband and why she might be anxious about the engagement (given her behavior at the end of the episode, she appears to be hiding his very existence from Marty and company). I’m more inclined to believe Jeannie when she tells her hookup “You, this, tonight, and your penis, and your mediocre weed, they don’t have anything to do with my real life,” than I am to believe the musician who is psychoanalyzing her. But something’s up, and we don’t have the context to be able to think about it in a meaningful way*.

Speaking of context, I’m getting increasingly frustrated by the dynamic between Clyde and Doug. Honestly at this point, Clyde may be the character I least enjoy watching on television, and as y’all know, I watch a lot of television. The hookup points schtick is sort of gross on its own, and given that we’re getting the impression that’s what Clyde lives for, that it may be the sole substance of his personality other than humiliating his friends on airplanes and giving terrible advice about “being Clooney,” he’s not a person I want to spend any time with whatsoever.

Doug, on the other hand, has some interesting things going on. His over-identification with Harvard is understandably irritating to his coworkers, but it’s at least an indication of some deeper need. And I appreciated the way he clumsily tried to step up with Roscoe tonight, whether asking if he needed to be watched going to the bathroom, hitting up food trucks with him, or solving his “case.” “There was a kid who was handsome, not in the classic sense but smart, but handsome, and smart, genius-level, and there was this other kid who tortured him,” Doug tells Roscoe. “He really just tortured him. And the kid’s mom was like ‘Stop all the crying, doug.’ But then this kid realized that the other kids were just jealous. That’s all. Jealous of his awesome awesomeness. He went on to be super-awesome. And today that kid is Justin Bieber. True story.” It’s a nice little moment, and it made me want to get some more details about Doug’s backstory. He deserves more than tics and a Harvard-seal-embossed briefcase.

Then, there’s Marty, who’s stuck with the client from hell, abandoned by his father, who’s left him “off to speak to a bunch of swooning Jungian analysts in Taos,” and feeling angry at his unreachable ex, who is”dependable, that is, in her psychosis.” He does badly with Roscoe in San Francisco, pawning him off on the team and feeding him out of vending machines, and I wish the show hadn’t pulled a punch by letting him off the hook for it, and having Roscoe over his bully problem by the time Marty got around to paying his son a little attention. I’d honestly watch a family show about Marty, Jeremiah, and Roscoe with a dose of Roscoe’s mother on the side, and even though I know this show is not that, I can’t help but treasure the moments when we see glimmer of the real pain, and fear, and love they’re all experiencing together. There’s something genuinely tragic about Marty’s rant on the phone to Monica that “You know what he understands now? He understands that life is unsteady, and full of regret and recrimination. You have let our son down because you are not there.” But like so many other things in House of Lies, this would be better if Monica was an actual person, if Marty had to take real responsibility, if we could spend time with the story of his mother’s death instead of some fraud-committing former-hacker twerp.

Politics

Allen West To Liberals, President Obama: ‘Get The Hell Out Of The United States Of America’

Just days after President Obama reiterated his call for an end to partisan gridlock in Washington, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) delivered an incendiary speech at the Palm Beach County GOP Party Lincoln Day Dinner in West Palm Beach calling on prominent Democrats to “get the hell out” of America:

This is a battlefield that we must stand upon and we need to let president Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, the chairman of the Democrat National Committee [Debbie Wasserman-Schultz], we need to let them know that Florida is not on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, and take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.

Watch it:

West went on to say further that he “will not allow President Obama to take the United States of America and destroy it.”

At a time when a rising number of Americans see a major conflict between the rich and the poor and feel that too much power lies in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations, nearly two-thirds of the country (66 percent) would be obliged to follow President Obama out of the door.

This 10-minute speech in West Palm Beach is only the latest controversy in a string of rhetorical hiccups for West. Most recently, he slammed critics who condemned the actions of a group of U.S. Marines who urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban fighters, referred curiously to undocumented immigration as an “invasion,” and marked the repeal of DADT as the harbinger of America’s military decline. Just a month ago, West chided President Obama for his use of “divisive rhetoric” when speaking about “equality and fairness” as he felt such words were contrary to “liberty and [the] pursuit of happiness.”

Fatima Najiy

LGBT

Prominent LGBT Leaders And Allies Decry Voter Suppression At National Conference

NAACP President Ben Jealous

While issues like marriage equality and nondiscrimination protections were certainly on the agenda at this weekend’s National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change, keynote speakers highlighted conservatives’ efforts to obstruct the right to vote as one of the most pressing concerns for the LGBT community and its allies. In his address at the conference’s opening session Thursday night, NAACP president Ben Jealous emphasized that “our nation is in the midst of the greatest wave of voter suppression legislation since before the creation of the NAACP”:

JEALOUS: Supporters of voter suppression are responding to the growing diversity in this country, and the political power of this new population. They are afraid of the more inclusive America that the future holds.

And they know that coming after your right to vote is the first step to coming after so many of your other rights. That includes the right of workers to organize; the right of a woman to make decisions about her body; the right to walk down the street without fear of being harassed for papers; the right to stand alongside your loved one in his hospital room; the right to be yourself at work.

On Friday, Rea Carey, president of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, used her annual “State of the Movement” address to rally the LGBT community toward fighting the voter suppression efforts sweeping the nation. Calling voting an act of “resistance and insistence,” she urged the conference and movement at large to “occupy the vote”:

CAREY: Our opposition — those who do not believe in our full humanity or equality are on the attack. But, mobilizing the right-wing base to come out and vote on marriage isn’t actually their trump card anymore — it’s much deeper than that.

It’s the very ability to cast a vote. [...]

Having lost ground on LGBT and racial justice and equality over the last 40 years, and not having enough respect for our democracy to accept it, the right is now doing all it can to complicate the rules to register, get a ballot, vote early — you name it, they’ll do it, if it disenfranchises certain types of voters.

And so we are called to lead and to protect access to voting. This is in our self-interest and in the interest of our allies! We are people of color, we are students, we are transgender.

In 2012, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Maine are already preparing for referendums on the issue of same-sex marriage, and Washington and New Jersey could join them. Conservatives are also attempting to use ballot initiatives to attack California’s law mandating that school curricula be LGBT-inclusive. The right of LGBT citizens and their allies to vote is crucial to advancing equality, and voter ID laws present a serious threat to that goal.

Economy

Citigroup CEO Calls Jobs ‘Our Number One Priority’ Weeks After Announcing 4,500 Layoffs

As Reuters’ Felix Salmon noted, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit went to the Davos Economic Forum to announce that job creation should be a top priority for the international business community:

The 42nd World Economic Forum Annual Meeting closed today, with business leaders urging resolute action to promote growth and employment, particularly among young people. “Jobs should be our number one priority,” declared Annual Meeting Co-Chair Vikram Pandit, Chief Executive Officer of Citi, in a session on the global agenda for 2012. “Ultimately it is about growth. Nothing creates jobs better than growth.”

But this proclamation comes just seven weeks after Citigroup announced 4,500 job cuts, and some analysts think those job cuts are just the “tip of the iceberg.” Overall, the financial industry cut 200,000 jobs in 2011. Bank of America has announced 30,000 job cuts that will take place over the next several years.

“Everybody knows, in any case, that profits are Pandit’s number one priority; to be honest I’d be surprised if jobs are on his priority list at all,” Salmon noted. “The markets like it when big banks cut jobs, and hate it when they add jobs. And Pandit’s job is to do what the market wants. Which is, fire people.”

To explain how to boost growth, Pandit broke out the favorite right-wing canard about “uncertainty” holding back job creation. But as economist Bruce Bartlett has pointed out, “regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out.”

Climate Progress

Daily Mail Fabricates Claim That There’s Been 15 Years Of No Global Warming, Despite Hottest Decade In History

Climate denial is now in a decadent phase of absurdity.

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again),” the Daily Mail says. “Global warming trend ended in 1997, new data shows,” the Washington Times promotes.

This is strange, since temperature data and NASA scientists show the 2000s to be the warmest decade in recorded history, significantly hotter than the 1990s.

As it turns out, the Daily Mail’s David Rose concocted the “entirely misleading” story by cherry-picking from two different press releases from the UK Met Office. The first press release said that low solar activity would not counteract global warming from greenhouse gases — the second that 2012 will be much warmer than the 20th century average because of global warming.

Rose deliberately ignored the science, cherrypicked data, and quoted scientists on the fringe of reality. By excluding as many actual facts as possible, Rose came to the conclusion that global warming stopped years before the warmest decade in recorded history.

The Daily Mail is controlled by right-wing British billionaire Jonathan Harmsworth, Viscount Rothermere.

Update

ScienceBlogs‘ Greg Laden has more.

Update

Bad Astronomy‘s Phil Plait has even more.

Alyssa

‘The Good Wife’ Open Thread: Another Ham Sandwich

By Kate Linnea Welsh

Last night in “Another Ham Sandwich,” the legal proceedings against Will that The Good Wife has been teasing for weeks finally got started, and the grand jury hearing – which almost resembled a bottle episode – provided a showcase for excellent work by many of the show’s skilled actors. First, a note on the title: in case you, like me, didn’t recognize it, it’s a reference to a comment supposedly made by a New York State judge about how a grand jury could be made to “indict a ham sandwich” if that’s what a prosecutor asked; Tom Wolfe made the phrase famous in The Bonfire of the Vanities.

As the grand jury hearing gets underway, Diane must tell the rest of the firm – but first acknowledges Alicia’s hitherto-unspoken involvement by taking her aside and telling her first. Two things of note here: Alicia is honestly shocked to learn of what’s really been going on, and Diane is unswervingly attesting to Will’s innocence as a matter of course. Is she really that sure of him, or is her reputation and livelihood so entwined with Will’s that she can’t let herself admit any doubt? Or, for Diane, is there any difference between the two? She also tells Alicia not to feel responsible, which of course ensures that Alicia will feel responsible. (Although really, this is Alicia. She’d feel responsible anyway.) Alicia immediately makes an appointment with Peter – supposedly to discuss his mother – and then finds Will and Elsbeth outside the grand jury room. The reason Will offers for not telling Alicia sooner isn’t about privacy or embarrassment or putting her in the middle, but rather about his own psychology of self-preservation: “This is legal. It’s not personal. If I told you it would become personal.” And Alicia wastes no time in allying herself with Will against Peter, going so far as to tell Elsbeth that she wants to use “what [she] know[s] about the State’s Attorney” to help. Her public decisiveness surprised me a little until I realized that, personal feelings aside, Will is in the right and Peter’s office is in the wrong, and black-and-white moral judgments tend to be Alicia’s fallback when she has to justify her decisions to others – or to herself.

Alicia and Peter do finally talk about the grand jury trial, but Peter insists “It has nothing to do with us.” “Peter, how can it not?” Alicia asks. “Because I won’t let it.” And here we have the trifecta, along with Diane’s unshakable belief in Will’s innocence and Will’s insistence that the investigation isn’t personal if he doesn’t tell Alicia. This show is full of people who believe they can create the world in their image if they say things forcefully enough, and their shifting alliances control which world exists at any given time. Those three, Eli and Alicia, even Elsbeth and Wendy – that’s how they operate. The exceptions here are Kalinda and Cary: their strength comes from observing rather than dictating reality, which in part explains why they can be so effective, why they always seem slightly out of place, and why they have such a unique rapport with each other. Alicia finally gets Peter to admit that “of course” the issue is that he thinks she’s sleeping with Will – and then she looks him in the eye and says she isn’t. Which is true, as far as it goes, but Peter knows something’s up and almost smiles as he marvels, “My God, you have changed. I used to be able to tell when you lied.” Alicia offers up a substantial amount of personal and political capital when she asks Peter to just stop the hearing, hilariously implying that he’s been corrupt forever, so why stop now? But Peter – running for governor, don’t forget – refuses to go back to his old ways on behalf of his romantic rival: “Will Gardner is not my family.” Fair enough, but his children are his family, and they’re likely to be hurt in this. And if Peter is thinking about his campaign, I’m not sure the benefit he gets from keeping his office clean outweighs the risk of public reaction to his wife carrying on an affair with someone convicted of judicial bribery.
Read more

Climate Progress

Even as Clean Energy Deal Flow Jumps 40% in 2011, the Sector Has “Rolling Uncertainty”

With billion-dollar deals becoming the norm in clean energy, investors have “confidence” in the sector. But after rebounding from the 2008 financial crisis, companies are facing a new range of diverse challenges.

If the 2008 financial crisis was a swift punch to the face for the clean energy industry — and for the whole energy sector — the global uncertainty of 2011/2012 is more like a rolling series of blows to the body. In both cases, the sector continues to stand back on its feet. But it’s still going to be a hard fight to the top.

In the aftermath of the financial implosion in 2009, mergers and acquisitions in the sector fell by one third, venture capital capital investments fell 50%, and total global investment grew by only 4%. Today, as markets have recovered and deal flow has increased, we’ve seen a massive surge increase in investment — with global investment up by two thirds since then.

However, even while leading investors continue to say that companies not investing in clean technologies “risk becoming irrelevant to the marketplace,” there are still plenty of risks involved for companies doing deals. Those risks, which range from Europe’s debt crisis to the political freeze in the U.S., are creating what experts call “rolling uncertainty.”

As the global advisory firm PricewaterhouseCoopers explains in a new report on 2011 mergers and acquisitions in clean energy, decisions are being made with a far more difficult range of options to consider:

Read more

Politics

Gingrich ‘Will Not Accept’ Obama Debate With Reporters As Moderators

At a campaign stop in Florida today, Newt Gingrich said that if he wins the GOP nomination, he will refuse to debate President Obama if a reporter serves as moderator. Gingrich has prided himself on his debating prowess and his intellect, and virtually every presidential debate is moderated by members of the press, but Gingrich thinks all reporters are secretly Obama shills and he is apparently uncomfortable dealing with them:

GINGRICH: As your nominee in the fall, I will not accept debates in which reporters are the moderators, because I will not accept another Obama person in the debate.

Watch it:

Gingrich has been pushing for a scheme to hold seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates with no moderator, but this seems to be the first time he’s said he would refuse to participate in a traditional debate.

Justice

Nikki Haley Hires John Boehner’s $520/Hr Lawyer To Defend Illegal Voter Suppression Law

Nikki Haley's $520/hr Lawyer

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement is the high-priced lawyer of choice for conservative lawmakers eager to mangle the law and the Constitution at taxpayers’ expense. Clement will defend Arizona’s unconstitutional SB 1070 law before the Supreme Court, he is spearheading the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, and he is charging the American taxpayer $520 an hour to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of Speaker John Boehner and his fellow House Republicans.

According to a contract released last week, South Carolina taxpayers will now be on the hook for the same price to pay for Clement’s services defending an illegal voter ID law:

South Carolina taxpayers will be on the hook for a high-powered Washington attorney’s $520-an-hour rate when the state sues the federal government this week to protect its voter ID law.

That litigation could cost more than $1 million, according to two South Carolina attorneys who have practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court.

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson has more than five dozen staff attorneys to handle the state’s legal affairs, but Wilson hired a former U.S. solicitor general to litigate the voter ID case at a rate of $520 an hour, a contract obtained last week reveals.

South Carolina’s taxpayers aren’t just paying this unnecessary and unnecessarily high fee, they are paying it to defend illegal voter suppression. Voter ID laws are popular among conservative lawmakers because they disproportionately disenfranchise students, low income and minority voters — all of whom tend to be more likely to cast votes for left-of-center candidates than the electorate as a whole. Accordingly, these laws exist for the purpose of shifting the electorate rightward.

Such manipulation of the electorate isn’t just disturbing, it is also illegal because the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits state laws that which are either passed specifically to target minority voters or which have a greater impact on minority voters than on others. If the courts pay even the barest heed to the law, they will strike South Carolina’s voter ID law down in a heartbeat.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up