Tag Archives: phrase

RIP Wallace Broecker, the scientist who changed the way we think about the climate

Subscribe to The Beacon

Wallace Broecker, the geochemist who popularized the phrase “global warming,” passed away on Monday at 87. His research changed our understanding of oceans and how we think and talk about climate change.

“The climate system is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks,” he said some 20 years ago.

His landmark 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” was one of the first to use the term “global warming.” In it, he predicted the rise in average global temperature over the next 35 years with stunning accuracy.

Broecker, who wrote roughly 17 books and 500 research papers over the course of his career at Columbia University, conducted groundbreaking research on the “ocean conveyor belt,” a pattern of currents that circulates water around the globe and regulates heat. He suggested that it’s the “Achilles heel of the climate system,” as even a small rise in temperatures could snap it.

Ever seen the movie The Day After Tomorrow, where global warming plays havoc with that conveyor belt, a tidal wave engulfs Manhattan, and much of the Northern Hemisphere turns to ice? It’s based on Broecker’s ideas — though, granted, it’s a wild exaggeration.

After some credited Broecker for coining “global warming” in 1975, he offered $200 to any student who could find an earlier citation. One postgrad took him up and tracked it down in a 1957 editorial in Indiana’s Hammond Times. Alas, the term is slightly older than that: The Oxford English Dictionary traces its usage back to a 1952 article from the San Antonio Express.

In any case, “global warming” was certainly catchier than “inadvertent climate modification,” a clunky phrase used by Broecker’s contemporaries in the 1970s. So global warming it was. The usage became widespread in the late ’80s, when NASA climate scientist James Hansen famously warned Congress of the risks of rising greenhouse gases.

Broecker “warned that he would turn over in his grave if someone put ‘global warming’ on his tombstone,” according to an article from Columbia’s Earth Institute. Instead, he wanted to be cremated and have his ashes scattered in the ocean he spent his life studying.

Continue reading here: 

RIP Wallace Broecker, the scientist who changed the way we think about the climate

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, ONA, OXO, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on RIP Wallace Broecker, the scientist who changed the way we think about the climate

Texas scientists want to school Governor Greg Abbott on climate

Subscribe to The Beacon

A group of scientists affiliated with universities throughout Texas has offered to tutor the state’s Governor, Greg Abbott, on climate science.

Abbott, an established climate denier, dances around the subject so effectively that he’s helped introduce the term “future-proofing” into our lexicon. (It’s what he wants to do to prepare for storms like Hurricane Harvey — as opposed to, you know, climate adaptation.) Pressed by a reporter last month about the role of climate change in bringing about disasters like Harvey, he offered a well-worn denier turn of phrase: “I’m not a scientist.”

Okay. We can’t all be scientists. We can’t all be doctors, either. But when your doctor tells you what’s up, do you raise an eyebrow and say, “Well, I’m not sure there’s any way to know if what you’re saying is true.”

In a letter sent to Abbott on Tuesday, 27 Ph.D.s, professors, and researchers request the opportunity to brief their Governor on the science: “We, the undersigned, are climate scientists and experts, and can report to you that climate change is happening, it is primarily caused by humans, and it is having a devastating impact on Texas, including increasing deadly flooding resulting from Hurricane Harvey.”

The letter goes on to cite relevant data points from the recent National Climate Assessment, released late last year, and suggests that Texas, as one of the biggest wind-producing states in the nation, can play a key role in reducing emissions and avoiding climate disaster.

To borrow a phrase from the scientists: “The only thing missing is leadership.”

Read more – 

Texas scientists want to school Governor Greg Abbott on climate

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Texas scientists want to school Governor Greg Abbott on climate

Donald Trump Is "Not a Big Believer" in Climate Change

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Monday the Washington Post editorial board published a full transcript of its meeting with Donald Trump. It’s worth reading in full, if only because reading Trump’s unedited words, as opposed to hearing them spoken out loud, is an especially mind-blowing tour-de-force of nonsense. In response to the very earnest series of questions posed by WaPo editors, Trump offers little-to-nothing of any substance. In many cases, he just immediately changed the subject rather than respond to the actual questions.

One exception, where he actually did answer to the question asked of him, was the following exchange about climate change. As he has made clear many times before, he is a strident denier of climate science—or, as he puts it, “not a big believer,” as though accepting the premise that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels warms the planet requires some sort of leap of faith. It doesn’t.

Naturally, Trump also doesn’t view climate change as a national security threat. It is.

Sad!

HIATT: Last one: You think climate change is a real thing? Is there human-caused climate change?

TRUMP: I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes—if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not—I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room—but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

STROMBERG: Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?

TRUMP: Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me—I know President Obama thought it was climate change—to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s—that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons.

View original article: 

Donald Trump Is "Not a Big Believer" in Climate Change

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Is "Not a Big Believer" in Climate Change

2016 Is Here, But I Still Haven’t Caught Up to 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over at the Washington Post, Jessica Contrera has a list of what’s out and what’s in for 2016. I assume that all the out stuff used to be in, and I was curious how many I had heard of. Answer: 45 out of 64. There were 19 items on the list that I had no clue about. Vetements? Ghosting? Pulp? (Actually, I’ve always liked my OJ pulpy, but I didn’t know this had become a thing.) Additionally, there are items like squad goals and walls, which I either understand or can figure out, but which I also didn’t know had become things. I assume squad goals are like group goals, but for small groups? Let’s google it.

Crap. I was totally wrong:

Everyone has a different name for that group of friends you do everything with….A group of friends is called a squad now (as seen in the phrase: squad deep, when your whole crew is together). Squads, of course, have goals….So, what are squad goals, then? Well, there’s no official definition for it (yet), but here’s mine:

Squad Goal (skwäd/É¡Å&#141;l) (noun) (plural noun: squad goals): an aspirational term for what you’d like your group of friends to be or accomplish.

Your squad goals are entirely dependent on the members of your squad; so, while some people’s squad goals involve looking like the celebs in the famous Ellen selfie, others might involve reading every Jane Austen book in the NY Public Library. Much like eating a Reese’s, there is no wrong way to squad goal.

This was a thing in 2015? Seriously? I guess this is yet another reason I’m not really going to miss 2015. I’m guessing that 2016 is the year that Donald Trump finally gets his inevitable comeuppance, so it’s almost bound to be better. Right?

View original: 

2016 Is Here, But I Still Haven’t Caught Up to 2015

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2016 Is Here, But I Still Haven’t Caught Up to 2015

Donald Trump Is Breaking Every Rule of Political Branding and Getting Away With It

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump is breaking every rule in the “how to be a candidate” handbook—and maybe that’s his secret.

Unlike the often-stodgy conventional political campaign, Trump’s presidential bid resembles the rollout of a consumer brand. The reality TV star and real estate mogul has a keen knack for self-promotion and an entertaining product to peddle (his unfiltered self), and this is letting him get away with things his opponents can only dream of.

For instance, one key rule of running for president is that you should never, ever put on a hat—or any headwear. You will look goofy and unpresidential. (Remember what happened to Michael Dukakis?) But when Trump arrived to inspect the Mexican border last month, he strolled off his plane wearing an ill-fitting plain white cap, adorned with the words “Make America Great Again.” And he’s worn the hat pretty much everywhere since, sometimes exchanging it for a red version. Arguably, Trump could not make a public appearance outdoors without a cap—it’s unclear how his complexly coiffed mane might react to weather—but the image was as unstylish as any presidential candidate has managed recently. And yet, it works. As Slate put it in an article devoted entirely to Trump’s hat, “Juxtapose almost anything with Trump’s sour puss, and you’ve got yourself an indelible image.”

Despite the conventional wisdom that hats are a nightmare for a politician’s image, last week, at a focus group of Trump supporters run by GOP pollster Frank Luntz, the hat was a high point.

“We know his goal is to make America great again,” a woman in Luntz’s focus group said. “It’s on his hat. And we see it every time it’s on TV. Everything that he’s doing, there’s no doubt why he’s doing it: It’s to make America great again.”

Luntz gushed over the results of the session, claiming the level of avowed support for Trump articulated by the participants stunned him. “Like, my legs are shaking,” he told reporters afterward.

It was a small sample size, and maybe it’s not just the hat. There’s also the catchphrase. “Make America Great Again” is compelling in a way that other candidates’ slogans aren’t, says Tom Bassett, CEO at Bassett & Partners, a San Francisco brand and design strategy firm. Getting consumers to remember a product’s slogan is extremely difficult. Only a handful of brands ever achieve a level of awareness where the line can be recalled with ease. Bassett, who has overseen international ad campaigns for Nike, Apple, and Yahoo, thinks the phrase has an unusual resonance—a nostalgia for American success.

The message is simple and easy to process, Bassett says: “People are a little fearful and they’re looking for someone with a really firm hand to say, ‘We’re going to make it, we’re going to be great again!’ versus anything too intellectual.” He adds, “‘Make America Great Again’ has a sense of mission to it; it’s clear to the reader/viewer,” Bassett says. “Maybe there is something about the clarity of his mission that makes it easier for people to respond to him.”

He points out that this is not the case with the slogans of other candidates. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is using the catchphrase “Unintimidated.” (Merriam-Webster’s dictionary does not list “unintimidated” as an actual word, and it drives spell-checks crazy.) His campaign book is called Unintimidated. The super-PAC supporting him is called Unintimidated PAC. Last week, Walker made a major foreign-policy speech entitled “America Unintimidated,” and when he is unsure how to answer a question or is heckled, he frequently announces he is “unintimidated.”

But for all the synergistic branding effort, Walker is polling in the mid- to high single digits in most polls. (Trump is over 30 percent.)

Jeb Bush, meanwhile, has methodically built his campaign around the phrase “Right to Rise,” which is also the name of his super-PAC. But it isn’t a natural turn of phrase, and even Bush has to conspicuously shoehorn it into speeches.

Bassett asks, are “‘unintimidated’ or ‘right to rise’ a mission statement people can sign up for?”

Continue Reading »

Read article here:  

Donald Trump Is Breaking Every Rule of Political Branding and Getting Away With It

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Is Breaking Every Rule of Political Branding and Getting Away With It

Why Does Jeb Bush Have a Mysterious Shell Company?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, the Jeb Bush campaign unveiled its official logo—Jeb!—which is only a slight variation on the logo Bush has used throughout his previous campaigns. As closely associated with the former Florida governor as it is, the trademarked logo belongs to neither the campaign nor the politician. It turns out that it’s owned by a corporate entity called BHAG.

Almost six months before the official logo unveiling, someone formed a Delaware shell corporation called BHAG LLC and used it to apply for a trademark on “Jeb!” A few days after this anonymous shell corporation was created, it was registered again in Florida, with the manager listed as the office manager of Jeb Bush & Associates, Bush’s business consulting firm. Bush’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on who established the shell corporation and why.

Continue Reading »

More here:

Why Does Jeb Bush Have a Mysterious Shell Company?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Does Jeb Bush Have a Mysterious Shell Company?

The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The members of Congress may occasionally be sloppy boobs, but we must defer to them when their intent is clear. That’s the main message of the Supreme Court decision handed down this morning that protects Obamacare. The issue at hand was whether what was essentially a typo—a poorly worded sentence in the law—could be used to deny health care insurance subsidies to millions of Americans in states where the federal government (not the state government) set up an exchange in which consumers can purchase insurance. Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts told the conservative plaintiffs who had tried to exploit a drafting error (which mentioned only exchanges created by states and not the federal government) to get out of town.

The majority opinion is mostly dry, with Roberts devoting much attention to justifying the court’s decision to consider the full intent of the law and not just the meaning of a few words in a single sentence. Here are some of the best passages:

1. When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000). “In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” Ibid.

This is one of those cases… If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010). But oftentimes the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 132. So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Id., at 133 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.” Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 290 (2010).

2. If we give the phrase “the State that established the Exchange” its most natural meaning, there would be no “qualified individuals” on Federal Exchanges. But the Act clearly contemplates that there will be qualified individuals on every Exchange.

As we just mentioned, the Act requires all Exchanges to “make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals”—something an Exchange could not do if there were no such individuals. §18031(d)(2)(A). And the Act tells the Exchange, in deciding which health plans to offer, to consider “the interests of qualified individuals . . . in the State or States in which such Exchange operates”—again, something the Exchange could not do if qualified individuals did not exist. §18031(e)(1)(B). This problem arises repeatedly throughout the Act. See, e.g., §18031(b)(2) (allowing a State to create “one Exchange . . . for providing . . . services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers,” rather than creating separate Exchanges for those two groups).

These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase “established by the State” in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context.

3. The upshot of all this is that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S. C. §18031” is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—at least for purposes of the tax credits.

4. The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.

5. Anyway, we “must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under Section 18031” is unambiguous.

6. Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S. C. §18031” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of the statute as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.

7. In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—”to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

8. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

Source article: 

The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 8 Best Lines From the Supreme Court Decision That Saved Obamacare

People Around the World Are Pouring Into the Streets to Support Charlie Hebdo After the Paris Massacre

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Dozens of demonstrations have been developing around the world in the wake of Wednesday’s massacre in Paris at the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, where masked gunmen murdered 12 and injured 10 others. French newspaper Le Monde is tracking the growing number of rallies, including those in Berlin, London, New York, and Montreal.

In Paris on Wednesday evening, a crowd reportedly numbering in the thousands gathered at Place de la Republique, rallying in solidarity around the phrase “Je Suis Charlie,” or “I am Charlie.” Some raised pens in tribute to the slain cartoonists.

There was also a stirring tribute from the entire newsroom of Agence France-Presse on Wednesday:

Read the article:

People Around the World Are Pouring Into the Streets to Support Charlie Hebdo After the Paris Massacre

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on People Around the World Are Pouring Into the Streets to Support Charlie Hebdo After the Paris Massacre

Have We Reached Peak Kevin?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In the Guardian today, Paula Cocozza writes about her effort to hunt down the origin of the phrase “peak X.” She turned to linguist Mark Liberman, who runs the Language Log blog, but he says it’s a hard idiom to track:

There is some good news, though. Liberman remembers the first time he noticed the phrase. It was in 2008, when the US writer John Cole blogged that “we may have hit and passed Peak Wingnut”, a derogatory term for rightwingers.

Cole’s post is nearly six years old, but can he recall what inspired the phrase? “I came up with ‘peak wingnut’ because I was shocked,” Cole says. “The Republicans seemed to get crazier and crazier. The source of it is US blogger Kevin Drum. At the Washington Monthly, one of the things he was always talking about was peak oil.”

This comes as news to Drum, who now writes for the web magazine Mother Jones. He was not the only person writing about peak oil, of course, but he was the one Cole read. “I’m very proud of that,” he says. “I had no idea that I had been so influential.”

So now I have three items for my future obituary: creator of Friday catblogging, popularizer of the lead-crime theory, and just possibly the kinda sorta inspiration for the Peak X meme. Not bad!

Source article: 

Have We Reached Peak Kevin?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Have We Reached Peak Kevin?

Grow a Pair – Larry Winget

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Grow a Pair
How to Stop Being a Victim and Take Back Your Life, Your Business, and Your Sanity
Larry Winget

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $10.99

Publish Date: September 12, 2013

Publisher: Penguin Group US

Seller: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.


The straight-talking, New York Times bestselling author and Pitbull of Personal Development&reg; is back with a pithy and prescriptive guide to success. A five-time bestselling author and one of the country’s leading business speakers, Larry has made a reputation for being the first to challenge the positive-attraction gurus and the law-of-attraction bozos with his commonsense approach to success. Larry doesn’t sugar-coat, and he isn’t afraid to make people uncomfortable, because he wants us to stop making excuses, and start getting results. In Grow a Pair , Larry takes on entitlement culture, the self-help movement, political correctness, and more. We’ve all heard the phrase “grow a pair,” but Larry’s advice isn’t about anatomy— it’s about attitude. To get the success we want, we need to reject victimhood in favor of being assertive and finally taking some responsibility. With prescriptive advice on goal achieving, career, personal finance, and more, Grow a Pair will give the readers the kick in the pants they need.

Source:

Grow a Pair – Larry Winget

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Grow a Pair – Larry Winget