Kevin Drum

Climate Change Deniers Take Yet Another Hit

| Sun Feb. 22, 2015 11:31 AM EST

Climate change deniers don't have a lot of credible scientists who support their view. But they have a few, and one of the busiest and most prolific is Wei-Hock Soon, who insists that global warming is caused by variations in the sun's output, not by anything humans are doing. Soon's doctorate is in aerospace engineering, not atmospheric science or geophysics or some more relevant discipline, but he's nonetheless an actual scientist and a reliable ally for the climate deniers.

Unfortunately, the New York Times reports a wee problem with Soon's work:

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Oops. But a friend of mine suggests that the real news is the way climate change was treated by the Times reporters who wrote the story. Here are a few snippets:

The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.

....Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change....“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” [said Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan].

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a statement accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Etc.

There's no he-said-she-said in this piece. No critics are quoted suggesting that there's an honest controversy about human contributions to climate change. There's no weaseling. It's simply assumed that climate change is real and humans are a primary cause—the same way a similar article might assume that evolution or general relativity are true.

I haven't followed the Times' coverage of climate change in close enough detail to know if this represents an editorial change of direction or not. But whether it's new or not, it's nice to see. More please.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Friday Cat Blogging - 20 February 2015

| Fri Feb. 20, 2015 3:00 PM EST

The quilts are back! This is Hopper peering down from the second story hallway and surveying her domain from between the quilts hanging over the railing. Amusingly, Hilbert saw her and immediately started fussing and mewling, trying to figure out to get up to her. He jumped on a bench, but that wasn't high enough. He put his paws up on the wall, but plainly couldn't climb up it. Finally, after about a minute of this nonsense, a neuron fired somewhere and he remembered that all he had to do was run up the stairs. So he did, and then immediately lost interest in whatever it was he thought he wanted. But it was touch and go there for a while.

Will Stonewalling Work For Bill O'Reilly in Falklandsgate?

| Fri Feb. 20, 2015 2:28 PM EST

Over at the mothership, David Corn and Daniel Schulman report that Bill O'Reilly might have a problem with the truth that's surprisingly similar to Brian Williams'. Basically, they both seem to have a habit of exaggerating their war-reporting prowess. In Williams' case, it was about a helicopter during the Iraq War. In O'Reilly's case, he's repeatedly said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina" during the Falklands war, but in fact he was never anywhere near the actual war. He was a thousand miles away in Buenos Aires:

O'Reilly did see some action in Argentina— just not war action. He writes in The No Spin Zone that shortly after he hit Buenos Aires—where CBS News had set up a large bureau in the Sheraton hotel—thousands of Argentines took to the streets, angry at the military junta for having yielded to the Brits.

As he tells it in his book, O'Reilly, then 32 years old, raced to cover the event: "A major riot ensued and many were killed. I was right in the middle of it and nearly died of a heart attack when a soldier, standing about ten feet away, pointed his automatic weapon directly at my head." A television cameraman was trampled, journalists were banged up, and O'Reilly and others were teargassed. "After a couple of hours of this pandemonium," he recalls, "I managed to make it back to the Sheraton with the best news footage I have ever seen. This was major violence up close and personal, and it was an important international story."

Now, even this might be a bit of an exaggeration—click the link for details—but put that aside for the moment. It's pretty obvious that a protest, even a violent protest, isn't a war zone or anything close to it. O'Reilly can bob and weave all he wants, but no one is going to buy the idea that covering a protest in Buenos Aires is anything like reporting from a war zone.

Nonetheless, I suspect we're about to witness an interesting phenomenon. In the case of Brian Williams, NBC caved in to pressure pretty quickly and suspended him for six months. It's possible that his career is over. In O'Reilly's case, the response so far has been (a) silence from Fox News and (b) a torrent of insults and abuse from O'Reilly. And my guess is that it will work. The Williams case generated a ton of commentary. So far, the O'Reilly case has generated very little. As long as both Fox and O'Reilly stonewall, it will probably stay that way. It will be a momentary squall and then it will blow over.

Stonewalling often works. We're about to find out if it will work here.

Quote of the Day: The Surveys Will Continue Until Morale Improves

| Fri Feb. 20, 2015 1:00 PM EST

From a study of low morale in the Department of Homeland Security, explaining why the authors hadn't made much progress in figuring out why morale was low:

“Other entities had already engaged employees in efforts to assess morale,” and as a result, DHS employees were developing “interview/survey fatigue.”

Survey fatigue! Otherwise known as stop screwing around with your endless damn assessments and just do something, OK?

But apparently more studies are in the works anyway. Will they improve morale? Stay tuned for next week's exciting episode!

Men Complain Far More Than Women About Work-Family Conflicts

| Fri Feb. 20, 2015 12:13 PM EST

Danielle Kurtzleben points to an interesting chart today from the White House's Economic Report of the President. It's based on only two data points (1977 and 2008), but it's still kind of intriguing.

Since 1977, two things have happened. First, more women have entered the paid workforce. Second, more men have started doing housework. It's hardly surprising, then, that both men and women report more work-family conflicts than they used to. But among women, this number has gone up only 6 points. Among men, it's gone up a whopping 25 points. Why the difference? Here are some possibilities:

  • In the period 1977-2008, female participation in the workforce went up only about 11 percentage points. So a rise of 6 points in work-family conflicts is within the range you'd expect.
  • Men feel worse about adding housework to an existing job than women do about adding a paid job to existing housework. Some of this might be about the pay. Some of it might be about men feeling that housework is humiliating in some way. Some of it might be about workplaces being less sympathetic to men who want more flexibility for family reasons.
  • "Conflict" can also be another word for guilt. There's always a certain amount of badgering from the boss in any kind of job, and badgering from your wife might produce more feelings of resentment and guilt than badgering from your employer.
  • Men are just bigger whiners than women.

I'd probably put my money on the first and third reasons—though the last one has a lot going for it too. And if I had to pick only one, I'd pick the first. Over the past few decades, there has just been way more growth in the number of men expected to do housework than in women entering the paid workforce. So it's hardly surprising that there's also more growth among men in work-family complaints.

But that's just a guess. Feel free to school me in comments.

Despot-in-Chief Back to His Lawless Ways Yet Again

| Fri Feb. 20, 2015 11:00 AM EST

Cue up the cries of tyranny, folks. The despot-in-chief is at his lawless ways yet again:

The Obama administration said it would allow people to sign up for plans on HealthCare.gov through April to avoid tax penalties for going uncovered in 2015. The extension, which adds more than two months to the enrollment period for health coverage this year, was announced by Health and Human Services officials on Friday.

....People who pay penalties for going uncovered in 2014 and are still uninsured will be allowed to visit HealthCare.gov until the end of April....They will be able to apply for coverage starting March 15 as long as they attest that they didn’t learn about the health law’s requirement to carry insurance or pay the fine when they filed their taxes.

This is basically a recognition of the real-world reality that a lot of people are going to be pissed off when they realize they have to pay a tax penalty for lacking health insurance. So HHS is giving them a choice: once you find out about the penalty, you can either pay it or sign up for health coverage.

Does this make sense? Is HHS within its rights to do this? Will it help lots of people who are genuinely confused about the law? Is it just a bit of ass-covering from the Obama administration, which knows it will otherwise face a big backlash from folks who have to pay a penalty?

It doesn't really matter. It's lawlessness. It's tyranny. It's Obama shredding the Constitution yet again. It's the end of the America we love. The soundtrack for this movie is a beloved conservative classic, and it's coming to a TV screen near you in 3, 2, 1....

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Sorry, But Working for the Government Is Not a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card

| Fri Feb. 20, 2015 10:31 AM EST

First it was the police union in New York City, now it's the transport workers union:

The arrest last week of a bus driver who struck a 15-year-old girl angered union officials, who sent a memo to members this week warning that bus drivers were under attack and were being treated like “criminals.”

The union, Transport Workers Union Local 100, says the arrest on Friday of the driver, Francisco DeJesus, a veteran with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, was uncalled-for....Mr. DeJesus was charged with failure to yield after his bus struck the girl as she was crossing the street with a walk signal in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on her way to school. She was pinned under the front of the bus, and her leg was severely injured.

....Union officials argue that accidents can happen despite bus operators’ best efforts. Making a left turn without a traffic signal can be difficult, city streets are chaotic, and there are blind spots in the bus equipment, John Samuelsen, president of the Transport Workers Union, said on Wednesday. “In this case,” he said, referring to Mr. DeJesus, “there was no indicator, despite the heartache of the tragedy, that the bus operator did anything reckless.”

Come on. This is the worst excuse ever. Making a left turn without a signal on a busy street is difficult for everyone, not just bus drivers. That's hardly a good reason to just let it pass.

I sympathize with the union's position to the extent that anyone who drives a lot is more likely to be involved in an accident, and that's not necessarily evidence of recklessness. It's just evidence that you drive a lot. But plenty of people drive a lot. Truckers. Delivery vans. Taxi drivers. Sales people. And if they hit someone, they're held accountable. That doesn't mean they're always convicted and jailed, but it does mean they're (sometimes) arrested and then investigated. What else are police supposed to do?

A bus driver's union card is not like a 007 license to kill. Working for the government is not a Get Out Of Jail Free card. If you run over someone, you're probably going to be arrested and you're certainly going to be investigated. If you did nothing wrong, then charges will be dropped. If a prosecutor concludes you did do something wrong, you'll get a fair trial. It's crazy to expect anything different.

The NSA Has Access to Your Cell Phone's Encryption Key. And Everyone Else's Too.

| Thu Feb. 19, 2015 11:38 PM EST

The surveillance state, it turns out, is even bigger and badder than we thought. Previously, the story from the NSA has been: yes, we have access to petabytes of telephone metadata (who you called, what time you called, etc.), but we don't have routine access to your actual conversations. And this even made a kind of sense: telephone companies store bulk metadata and can make it available to the NSA. They don't record phone conversations. Besides, on cell phones those conversations are encrypted anyway.

But guess what? That encryption depends on a key stored on the SIM card inside your cell phone. If you have access to the key, you can listen in to all the conversations you want.

You know what's coming next, don't you? Here is Jeremy Scahill at the Intercept:

American and British spies hacked into the internal computer network of the largest manufacturer of SIM cards in the world, stealing encryption keys used to protect the privacy of cellphone communications across the globe, according to top-secret documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. The hack was perpetrated by a joint unit consisting of operatives from the NSA and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ.

....The company targeted by the intelligence agencies, Gemalto, is a multinational firm incorporated in the Netherlands that makes the chips used in mobile phones and next-generation credit cards. Among its clients are AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint and some 450 wireless network providers around the world.

....According to one secret GCHQ slide, the British intelligence agency penetrated Gemalto’s internal networks, planting malware on several computers, giving GCHQ secret access....Most significantly, GCHQ also penetrated “authentication servers,” allowing it to decrypt data and voice communications between a targeted individual’s phone and his or her telecom provider’s network. A note accompanying the slide asserted that the spy agency was “very happy with the data so far and [was] working through the vast quantity of product.”

The folks at Gemalto say they had no idea any of this had happened. Apparently it was a very stealthy hack indeed. As you might expect, there is much, much more at the link.

How Big a Deal Would It Be If Red States Lost Their Obamacare Subsidies?

| Thu Feb. 19, 2015 5:51 PM EST

What happens if the Supreme Court somehow persuades itself that Obamacare subsidies shouldn't be available to people in states that rely on the federal exchange? Answer: in the red states that have refused to operate their own exchanges, lots of people would lose their subsidies—and most likely lose their health insurance too, since they could no longer afford it.

We already know that most red-state governors don't care about that. After all, if they did care they'd accept Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which would provide health care to millions of their residents. So Greg Sargent takes a different tack today. What would it mean to state economies if their subsidies go away? Sargent's rough calculations are on the right. Florida, for example, would lose about $5 billion per year, which would be a hit to its economy. Would that be likely to convince its governor to start up a state exchange so that subsidies would keep flowing?

Sadly no. Florida has a state GDP of about $750 billion. The loss of $5 billion would represent about half a percent of the state's economy. That's not nothing, but it's close. And it's certainly not enough to make up for the opprobrium of being thought soft on Obamacare.

So....nice try. But I think we're pretty much where we've always been: it's going to be yelling and screaming from constituents and lobbyists that eventually gets red-state governors (and legislatures) to accept any part of Obamacare that they have a choice about. It's anyone's guess when that yelling will finally get loud enough.

Walmart's Surprise Wage Increase Might Be Good News About the Economy

| Thu Feb. 19, 2015 2:09 PM EST

This is interesting news, especially in the wake of my earlier post about the dismal state of earnings growth in 2014. Walmart is raising wages:

The retail giant, which has been criticized for continuing to pay some employees the bare legal minimum, said that all of its United States workers would earn at least $9 an hour by April [and $10 per hour by 2016]. That would mean a raise for about 40 percent of its work force, to at least $1.75 above the federal minimum wage, the retailer said....Walmart's move follows in the footsteps of retailers like Gap and Ikea, which both took steps last year to keep pay above federal minimum wage level, in an effort to lessen turnover and attract more lower-wage workers.

....In trying to address other major complaints from workers, Walmart said it would work to make scheduling easier and more predictable, and would also improve employee training.

Why is Walmart doing this? I hope Neil Irwin is right:

The best possible news would be if Walmart’s executives made this decision not out of a desire for good press or for a squishy sense of do-gooderism, but because coldhearted business strategy compelled it.

....The company’s sales and profits rose nicely [between 2007 and 2014] while the company kept a lid on its payroll. Gains went to Walmart shareholders, not Walmart workers. So what has changed? The simple answer is that the world for employers is very different with a 5.7 percent unemployment rate (the January level) than it was five years ago, at 9.8 percent. Finding qualified workers is harder for employers now than it was then, and their workers are at risk of jumping ship if they don’t receive pay increases or other improvements. Apart from pay, Walmart executives said in their conference call with reporters that they were revising their employee scheduling policies so that workers could have more predictability in their work schedules and more easily get time off when they needed it, such as for a doctor’s appointment.

Megan McArdle highlights some recent changes in Walmart's business strategy, such as a stronger focus on e-commerce, groceries, and better inventory control:

What a lot of these changes have in common is that you need good workers to execute them well. (Terrible things happen in the grocery business unless you have an absolutely passionate commitment to rooting out expired meat and past-it produce.) Keeping stock on the shelves doesn’t sound hard until you try to get resentful teenagers to actually do so. And so forth.

One way to get a more dedicated and experienced workforce is to pay workers more. They’ll stay longer, and they’ll be very eager to keep that job. Wal-Mart had clearly previously concluded that it didn’t need a dedicated and experienced workforce composed of people who were really eager to keep their jobs. Now the company seems to have changed its mind.

From any other retailer, this would just be an isolated bit of news. From Walmart, it's potentially a big deal—thanks both to Walmart's sheer size and its impact on other retailers. Maybe, just maybe, it's a sign that the labor market really is starting to tighten.