text:
The most important reason the left's "War on Coal" is wrong
Energy Matters takes a look at the progress of the green energy renewables that were supposed to be saving the day and justifying the "war on coal":
"So while we can expect that hydro will continue to provide most of the energy generated by renewables for some time to come it isn't likely to contribute to decarbonizing global energy generation any more than it already has. If decarbonization is to be achieved by expanding renewables the expansion will have to come in wind, solar and biomass. So let's take hydro out and see how far growth in wind, solar and biomass has carried us along the decarbonization path so far…Clearly they still have a long way to go."
Ya think?!
US government data shows no warming in US for last decade
So, when you hear Obama and the alarmist bleating incessantly about the crisis of "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever phrase they choose to characterize the hoax they're trying to perpetrate on the people of the country, ensure you point out that not even their own data supports their claim:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.
Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.
According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.
But, but, that's only the US … yup, and that supports the observation that globally there has been no warming for the past 17 years. The models are wrong. Just flat wrong and it's time we started saying that. There is no credence to be found in their predictions and certainly nothing to support the alarmist's claims.
Carly Fiorino, former CEO of Hewlett Packard and a senate candidate remarked this weekend on the cobbled up "war on women". On CNN, she pulled out a fortune she'd gotten from a fortune cookie and said:
"'Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause,'" Fiorina read. "And that's exactly right. The War On Women is shameless, baseless propaganda. There's no fact to it. But it's worked because it's scared women to death. Enough."
Substitute the alarmist's "climate change" for "war on women" and it describes precisely what is going on with them. They have no case, only propaganda, and their only "argument" is to call the other side names and call for violent action against them.
Meanwhile, the case against the alarmist cause just keeps on getting stronger and stronger, not that it will slow them down or cause them to decrease the volume of screaming. It's not about science, it's abotu power and money … and they want both. More power over the way you live and more money to use against you to enforce their edicts.
A few things to note
I don't mind at all saying "I told you so" when it comes to the alarmists and "climate change". You'll remember a few weeks ago when the alarmists began screeching about the collapse of an ice shelf in Antarctica and how that was going to raise sea levels by feet, not inches and that there was nothing we could do about it? Oh, and it was because of man-made global warming?
We found out subsequently, that the "rise in sea levels" might occur with this melting of the ice shelf, but that it would likely take a 1,000 years. And, at that time, I put forward an article I'd written for QandO in 2009 where I noted that volcanic activity (aka geothermal activity) was responsible for an ice melt then. I further posited that it was entirely possible it was responsible for the most recent ice shelf melt (since it is very close to the shelf itself) and had nothing to do with man.
Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.
The Thwaites Glacier has been the focus of considerable attention in recent weeks as other groups of researchers found the glacier is on the way to collapse, but more data and computer modeling are needed to determine when the collapse will begin in earnest and at what rate the sea level will increase as it proceeds. The new observations by UTIG will greatly inform these ice sheet modeling efforts.
Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.
The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.
Oh my. Who knew? Uh, we did. Or at least we were able to apply facts and logic to the event and give a credible hypothesis as to why what was happening was happening. Nice.
On another subject, the Bergdahl fiasco, it appears that Mr. Obama, who was perfectly fine about taking all the credit for his release when it appeared it would be to his political advantage (thus the Rose Garden announcement with the family), has now found someone he can throw under the bus since it has all gone wrong. It's Hagel's fault:
FInal approval for the prisoner exchange that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was made by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, members of Congress learned on Monday from administration officials.
'They indicated (it was) Secretary Hagel (who made the final call),' Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) said after a classified briefing, ABC points out.
'It was the president of the United States that came out (in the Rose Garden) with the Bergdahls and took all the credit and now that there's been a little pushback he's moving away from it and it's Secretary Hagel?'
Yup … I've lost count of all those who've found themselves looking at the underside of the Obama bus. And for those who don't think that this was an attempt to divert attention from the VA scandal, check this little tidbit out:
The final agreement was brokered in a week by Qatar and dovetailed with Obama's announcement of a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2017. Engulfed in a scandal over hospital care for veterans, it also provided him an opportunity to demonstrate he was helping those who had served.
So it was Hagel's final call? Yeah, right. Again, the administration insults our intelligence.
Meanwhile we find more and more neglect and corruption in the VA, an agency that Mr. Obama criticized when his predecessor was in charge and vowed to clean up:
The agency said more than 57,000 new patients have waited at least 90 days for their first appointments and that about 13 percent of VA schedulers indicated they were told to falsify appointment-request dates to give the impression that wait times were shorter than they really were.
Remember, this is pure government run health care aimed at a very small population, relatively speaking. And it is a disaster.
The agency also found evidence that in the past 10 years, nearly 64,000 veterans who sought VA care were simply never seen by a doctor.
"Simply". Not simply at all. This is mind numbing incompetence and corruption. This was Ezra Klein's ideal example for touting the benefits of government run (single payer) health care back when he was shilling so hard for the ACA. Obama has done nothing to change the situation. Congress, as usual has simply thrown money at it assuming that would fix it. But its not just Obama's problem. This is a decades old institutional problem driven by a corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy that has given short shrift to the care of our veteran population. This is the face of "government run healthcare".
"Check your premise"
One of the first things you learn when you're putting an argument forward is to check the premise of your argument to ensure it is valid. Obviously if it isn't, then you end up battling a straw man and looking like a bit of a fool.
We have a practical example of not checking your premise (that's giving him the benefit of the doubt- in fact it may be a case of creating a false premise on purpose) in the New York Times today by a professor of classics and anthropology at George Washington University. Professor Cline writes an op/ed there in which he attempts to prove that climate change doomed the ancients and that the history of that time replicates the danger we face at this time.
Uh, ok. But, of course, that's not the real purpose of his history lesson as soon becomes evident. It is to take a political shot at "climate deniers" by using Senator James Inhofe as a proxy for AGW skeptics – without ever naming them as such:
THIS month, a report issued by a prominent military advisory board concluded that climate change posed a serious threat to America's national security.
The authors, 16 retired high-ranking officers, warned that droughts, rising seas and extreme weather events, among other environmental threats, were already causing global "instability and conflict."
But Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a stalwart believer that global warming is a "hoax," dismissed the report as a publicity stunt.
Perhaps the senator needs a history lesson, because climate change has been leading to global conflict — and even the collapse of civilizations — for more than 3,000 years. Drought and famine led to internal rebellions in some societies and the sacking of others, as people fleeing hardship at home became conquerors abroad.
Note how he switches from "global warming" to "climate change" – a term he will use throughout the rest of his article. He knows "global warming" has become a loaded term. But it is clear, the premise he is putting forward is that Senator Inhofe is denying the climate is changing and calling it all a hoax.
But, in fact, Senator Inhofe has never denied "climate change". Who would? Our climate changes – constantly. Instead, what he has denied is that man is causing it. He's been quite clear about that.
Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, does not believe that human activities cause climate change.
"I have to admit—and, you know, confession is good for the soul… I, too, once thought that catastrophic global warming was caused by anthropogenic gases—because everyone said it was." [emphasis mine]
That's right – everyone said it was. And some never bothered to investigate it themselves, but took it on faith that the nonsense being touted was factual and true. But subsequent study of the actual science, not that which had been manipulated (and now discredited), as well as the history of temperature change in the last 17 years (it hasn't changed) vs what the models said would happen, have led him and many others to believe the entire basis of AGW was flawed and a "hoax".
Go figure.
By leaving out the fact that Inhofe thinks that " man made" climate change is a "hoax", Cline creates a false premise – that Inhofe doesn't believe climate change is real. And by addressing only "climate change", he then can attempt to make Inhofe look like a science denier who isn't acting in the best interest of our nation and our military. By doing that he marginalizes Inhofe.
So why would Senator Inhofe call a report on the impact of climate change on our national security a hoax if we all know the climate always changes and, at some point in the future, could indeed impact our national security? He probably wouldn't. He didn't call it a hoax for that reason. He called it a hoax because of a couple of paragraphs in the report's executive summary that clearly, if not implicitly, put AGW to the fore as the reason for this climate change as well as calling for emissions to be limited:
"Scientists around the globe are increasing their confidence, narrowing their projections, and reaffirming the likely causes of climate change. As described in Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Assessment: "Heat trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat trapping gasses emitted globally, now and in the future."
Climate mitigation and adaptation efforts are emerging in various places around the world, but the extent of these efforts to mitigate and adapt to the projections are insufficient to avoid significant potential water, food and energy insecurity; political instability; extreme weather events; and other manifestations of climate change. Coordinated, wide-scale and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gasses and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required – now.
Obviously you can't stop or limit the "amount of heat trapping gasses" emitted by nature, so what gasses are the authors talking about here? Why what else – those emitted by man. IOW, they've carefully danced around not saying "man-made global warming" but it is precisely what they're talking about. And that, given the evidence now available in the present, is what Inhofe is calling a hoax.
Cline lays out his history lesson based on this false premise. As far as the history goes, meh, it's okay. I'm not sure it proves much of anything concerning whether or not this was happening globally, but the regional change obviously had an effect. A hint that it was a regional phenomenon is found in one of Cline's paragraphs:
While sea levels may not have been rising then, as they are now, changes in the water temperature may have been to blame for making life virtually unlivable in parts of the region.
Guess the glaciers and such located around the globe must have been pretty stable, even while all this was going on in the area noted, huh?
Anyway, he concludes with this little gem:
We live in a world that has more similarities to that of the Late Bronze Age than one might suspect, including, as the British archaeologist Susan Sherratt has put it, an "increasingly homogeneous yet uncontrollable global economy and culture" in which "political uncertainties on one side of the world can drastically affect the economies of regions thousands of miles away."
But there is one important difference. The Late Bronze Age civilizations collapsed at the hands of Mother Nature. It remains to be seen if we will cause the collapse of our own.
And there it is. While refusing to call it "man-made global warming" through the entire piece, his last few words give away the game [emphasis mine]. He's just another pedantic alarmist using a false premise to try to attack someone who disagrees with the obviously flawed "consensus". Somehow he thinks relating a cyclical climate event from centuries ago where man obviously couldn't have influenced it even if he tried to what is happening (or not happening in reality) today somehow makes a compelling case. You know, it couldn't just be the same cause that precipitated the events back then coming to visit us again could it? Nope, it has to be man.
This guy is teaching your children folks. And this is the quality of his work. The irony is he just prostituted his academic credibility to take a political shot at someone – and missed.
Scientists rebut Obama Administration's "National Climate Assessment"
Yes, that's right … scientists. Here's their opening. As you'll see, they don't mince words nor do they show much respect for the nonsense spouted in the NCA or those who produced it. And I don't blame them:
The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of "Climate Change,"however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration's version of "Global Warming," "Climate Change," "Climate Disruption," or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.
We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth's climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple:
It is NOT true.
Here we address the administration's basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern. The theory of 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming' (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse gas' and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so.
Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their 'Climate Models' as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.
This document is structured around a "fact-check," where we quote a number of the government's key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown "Climate Disruption" evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man's burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.
They then present a point by point rebuttal of the "3 LoE", pointing to evidence that shows them to be demonstrably false. And, as they point out, since those 3 LoE are the foundation of the CAGW theory, the theory collapses.
Antarctic ice shelf "collapse" may have an effect on sea levels … in a 1,000 years
The cult of global warming, aka "alarmists", have found a new drum on which to bang. Scientists recently announced that the western ice shelf in Antarctica is "collapsing". Immediately the "Chicken Little" pronouncements of imminent doom were sounded by the usual suspects all implicitly tied to AGW. The UK's Guardian sounded the alarm in various headlines which read:
"Two separate studies confirm loss of ice sheet is inevitable, and will cause up to 4m of additional sea-level rise
'Collapse will change the coastline of the whole world'
Reading on into the actual findings of the studies, however, one finds that the drama that is implicit in these headlines could have been tempered a bit with a very slight modification:
But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away.
Oh. So it isn't a crisis that will impact the world today or anytime in the near future, correct?
This is not new stuff either. This story has been popping up since 2008. I wrote about it here and here. As noted in 2008, a fairly simple discovery, not mentioned in any of these articles, proffered an explanation of why the ocean water was warming and the ice shelf was melting.
"Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that "creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea". That could include the Wilkins Ice Sheet as well (the article cited talks about the Larson A and B sheets.
But, say the alarmists, we're not talking about Wilkins or the Larson sheets. We're talking about the Thwaites glacier.
The study honed in on the Thwaites glacier – a broad glacier that is part of the Amundsen Sea. Scientists have known for years that the Thwaites glacier is the soft underbelly of the Antarctic ice sheet, and first found that it was unstable decades ago.
The University of Washington researchers said that the fast-moving Thwaites glacier could be lost in a matter of centuries. The loss of that glacier alone would raise global sea level by nearly 2ft.
Thwaites also acts as a dam that holds back the rest of the ice sheet. Once Thwaites goes, researchers said, the remaining ice in the sheet could cause another 10 to 13ft (3-4m) of global sea-level rise.
Ok. Well, let's look at a couple of pictures then. The first is from the 2008 post I did on the volcano:
The second picture, from the Guardian article, shows the area of the study. The red dot is the glacier in question:
Does anyone notice anything interesting? Yes, that's right, the glacier in question is in the vicinity of the volcano in question. And I don't think anyone would argue that a undersea volcano can't heat up the sea in the vicinity to a little higher temperature than it would be normally (it was certainly successful with Wilkins). Has it had an effect? Who knows … it doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all in the study. But, if you go to the Guardian article you'll see an embedded 17 second video that attempts to explain the effect of the warmer water on the glacier. It shows less dense (and therefore lighter) warm water somehow flowing under much denser and therefore heavier cold water to destabilize the glacier. The only reasonable explanation for such a flow would be if the heat source were somewhere near the bottom of the ocean, no? Otherwise its hard to explain how that warm water got below the cold water and stayed there.
But if you question things like this, you're an ignorant nincompoop. A "denier", which, by the way is akin to being a member of the KKK and a Holocaust denier all in one. However, I'm certainly not denying that something is happening in Antarctica. I am questioning the purported cause though. It isn't at all unimaginable that the side of Antarctica most exposed to warmer South Pacific sea currents and experiencing volcanic activity might see some melting due to causes unrelated to CO2 put in the atmosphere by man.
That, of course, won't stop the cultist from declaring themselves to be the ones with science on their side and deniers to be the fact-challenged among us. Here's a perfect example from today's NYT:
But the unfortunate fact about uncertainty is that the error bars always go in both directions. While it is possible that the problem could turn out to be less serious than the consensus forecast, it is equally likely to turn out to be more serious. In fact, it increasingly appears that, if there is any systemic bias in the climate models, it's that they understate the gravity of the situation. In an interesting paper that appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change, a group of scholars, including Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard, and Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton, note that so-called climate skeptics frequently accuse climate scientists of "alarmism" and "overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system." But, when you actually measure the predictions that climate scientists have made against observations of how the climate has already changed, you find the exact opposite: a pattern "of under- rather than over-prediction" emerges.
Really? If that's the case, that should be pretty easy to demonstrate, shouldn't it? Since pictures are worth 1,000 words, here's a little picture I picked up over at The Federalist that does exactly that – it demonstrates that the pattern of the climate models is exactly as the "deniers" have claimed they are:
Somehow, the claimant from the NYT couldn't be bothered to actually fact check. Instead she swallowed whole the alarmist line and regurgitated it with the usual ignorant literary smirk found in most of their fact free writing. Sean Davis sums up the argument for most "deniers" very well:
I have a simple rule when it comes to people who want me to invest obscene sums of money in their forecasts of discrete future events: just be accurate. If you come to me and tell me you can predict future stock market performance based on these five factors, then you had better predict future stock market performance based on those five factors. All you have to do is be correct, over and over again. But if your predictive model is wrong, I'm not going to give you any money, and I'm certainly not going to pretend that what you just did is science. Any idiot can make incorrect guesses about the future.
Science, properly practiced, is the search for truth. Science, properly practiced, rejects forecasting models that consistently produce inaccurate forecasts. There's nothing scientific about shouting down anyone who has the audacity to point out that the only thing your model can accurately predict is what the temperature won't be.
New White House priority? Climate change!
Apparently tomorrow, President Obama will "showcase" his climate change agenda. According to the Washington Post:
After years of putting other policy priorities first — and dismaying many liberal allies in the process — Obama is now getting into the weeds on climate change and considers it one of the key components of his legacy, according to aides and advisers. He is regularly briefed on scientific reports on the issue, including a national climate assessment that he will help showcase Tuesday. He is using his executive authority to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other sources, and is moving ahead with stricter fuel-efficiency standards for the heaviest trucks. And while he routinely brings up climate change in closed-door meetings with world leaders, according to his aides, he also discusses it in his private life, talking about global warming's implications with his teenage daughters.
As usual, he intends to proceed by using executive power, whether or not the people or their representatives agree. And also without any consideration of the cost to the consumer. All in the face of mounting evidence that the supposed crisis of CO2 is a non-crisis. According to the WaPo, this intention to address "climate change" was spurred by Obama viewing satellite pictures of the California mountain snow pack:
The satellite images viewed by President Obama before a meeting with eight Western governors were stark, showing how snowpack in California's mountains had shrunk by 86 percent in a single year.
Of course, most of us know that's likely a local weather phenomenon, not a result of "global warming" or we'd be unlikely to be seeing things like this:
Antarctic sea ice continues to set new records, with extent in April at the highest since measurements began in 1979.
Remember, Antarctic and Arctic sea ice melts were to be the harbingers of doom. In fact, the Arctic was supposed to be ice free last year according to the perpetually wrong alarmists. Instead we saw record sea ice there as well. Factor in the fact that there has been no global warming for over 17 years and one has to ask why this, in the face of a badly performing economy and over 92 million Americans being out of work, is suddenly to become a priority for the White House? As one editorialist puts it:
The problem is, it's just so hard to be an alarmist these days. Temperatures aren't rising, U.S. CO2 emissions are down, and now it turns out that peak oil won't peak. What's a scare-monger to do?
The answer is keep on trying to gin up the alarm to satisfy the true-believers who are an important political constituency of the Democrats. And it is becoming clearer every day that the Democrats are going to need all of their constituencies to even have a ghost of a chance in the November mid-terms. To this point, the left environmental movement hasn't been to happy with the Obama administration and it certainly wants more drastic action to be taken to curb the use of fossil fuel. So its time to shore up their support:
Environmentalists such as Democratic donor and billionaire Tom Steyer want him to veto the Keystone pipeline and wean the nation from natural gas. Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke said of the administration: "We have to increasingly get them to acknowledge that there has to be a major transformation away from fossil fuels."
That desire the Natural Resources Defense Council voices has resulted in such things as the "war on coal" and the reduction in production of oil on federal lands and off our coasts. It has also meant slow walking the permit process as well as holding the Keystone Pipeline hostage to presidential politics. So why now? Why is this the time to do this? Because he can:
A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plans are not final, said Obama has made it clear that he considers climate change a priority and is less politically constrained now that he no longer faces reelection.
Meanwhile the public views the issue as a low priority if a priority at all, given jobs and economic problems. Yet Obama persists. Elections are in the offing. And if there is one thing he has at least a semblance of competence in, it's getting elected (or helping others do so). So all the high flying rhetoric aside, this is about votes, this is about elections and this is about trying to preserve at least one Democratic house in Congress for the last two years of his presidency. It is one of many such moves he'll be attempting in the coming months. But make no mistake – this isn't about the environment or his legacy, it's about politics. ~McQ
Why it pays to be an environmental skeptic
Because, you know, their track record is sooooo good. In the wake of Earth Day, yesterday, let's revisit another Earth Day – say the first one in 1970 – and take a look at all the predictions we were then treated too in order to scare the devil out of us:
- "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
- "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
- "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
- "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
- "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
- "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
- "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
- "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
- "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
- "Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
- "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, 'Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, 'I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
- "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
- "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
Yes, that's right dear friends … then all this pollution was going to spawn a new Ice Age and we were all going to starve in the cold.
Now add in a dash of Al Gore and a few others and you can see why they've been so interested in quelling skepticism. It goes against the n0nsense they've been trying to sell for 50 plus years. Note all the appeals to authority (Demographers almost unanimously agree?) that came to naught. Look and the dire conclusions presented without caveat that were just flat wrong.
There is nothing new among the enviro radicals today except we're headed for a heat wave instead of an Ice Age. The "science?" Just as flaky now as it was then. But their belief in the correctness of what they're pumping out there now? Just as total as it was then.
Their only problem, as usual, is reality continues to bitch slap them. Meanwhile the skeptics are the one's called names.
Defining the alarmist problem
While doing a review of Rupert Darwall's book "The Age of Global Warming", Charles Moore does an excellent job of succinctly identifying the alarmist movement's core origins and core identity:
The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won't last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America's natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome's work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: "The world has cancer and the cancer is man.").
These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists' attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of "sustainable development". This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972.
Indeed, the resulting grouping was a natural one. Eco radicals out to 'save the world' from evil capitalism (and man) and poor countries looking for a way to extort billions from rich countries without having to do anything of note to help themselves.
The G7 Summit in Toronto in 1988 endorsed the theory of global warming. In the same year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. The capture of the world's elites was under way. Its high point was the Kyoto Summit in 1998, which enabled the entire world to yell at the United States for not signing up, while also exempting developing nations, such as China and India, from its rigours.
The final push, brilliantly described here by Darwall, was the Copenhagen Summit of 2009. Before it, a desperate Gordon Brown warned of "50 days to avoid catastrophe", but the "catastrophe" came all the same. The warmists' idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have "the green crap", but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard.
The UN was the natural forum for this push and the IPCC, headed by an railway engineer, the natural "scientific" instrument. We know how that story has turned out to this point. No global warming registered for 17 years and 6 months despite all the dire, but apparently scientifically groundless, predictions. The irony, of course, is it is those who have been skeptical of all of this are the one's called "deniers". And the alarmists have become so bankrupt and shrill that some of them are calling for the arrest of "deniers." One supposes since the alarmist cause most closely resembles a religious cult, the call for arrest is on the grounds of heresy … or something.
Meanwhile, "green energy" – the eco radical solution to all – continues to not be ready for prime time, while fossil fuel becomes cheaper and more plentiful.
Yet somehow, the so-called "elites" have decided – based on what, one isn't sure – that the threat to the globe is real. More irony. On the one hand, the eco radicals don't care at all if it costs lives since they've been convinced for decades that it is man that's the problem. Less of us is a "good thing" in their world. On the other hand you have the elites, aka, politicians, who see an opportunity to both expand government power and create revenue literally out of thin air. The fight is over who will get the money.
Meanwhile the reputation of science – real science – will suffer because of this very political cause and the actions of some scientists to serve it.
Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the "subjectivity" of the future, and too often have a "cultural aversion to learning from the past".
And that is a complete disservice to science. Given all of that, who are the real deniers here?
Answering the IPCC
In the past couple of weeks we've all been "treated" to climate change alarmist screeds calling for the arrest of "deniers." Hey, just because you have a bi-line in a publication doesn't mean you're particularly smart. In fact, I've always found that "true believers" who voice no skepticism about much of anything to be, well, not the brightest bulb in the room.
However, I'm not sure there's anyone out there "denying" climate change. The climate of the world is in constant flux and few if any deny that. The denial is of the claims – the assertions – that trace gas CO2 is the major culprit and that man is the major reason for all the CO2. That man's activities are driving climate change, not natural forces.
Of course all this recent alarmist activity has been designed to coincide with the UN's IPCC report on climate change. As you might imagine, they've become a little gun shy at the IPCC after so many of their previous claims have been found to be either groundless or wrong. So this report is couched in a mountain of qualifiers like "could", "may", "might" etc. They still claim they're right, but they aren't quite as specific about it as previously. Instead they use the qualifiers to help put fear in people without really having to take responsibility for their claim.
It's one of the oldest tricks in the book for those who perceive themselves to be on very shaky ground but still have an agenda to fulfill.
Thankfully there are a few "denier" organizations (skeptical is the word most normal folks would use) who are monitoring the IPCC and the screechy alarmists and answering even their caveated claims. For instance:
IPCC: "Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges."
NIPCC: "Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding."
IPCC: "Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations."
NIPCC: "There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
IPCC: "Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding."
NIPCC: "No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial."
IPCC: "Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions."
NIPCC: "Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies."
Etc, etc., etc. What it seems you get from the IPCC is pseudo-scientific and blatantly political claims. The UN has decided that "climate change" is a huge and threatening problem (and a grand method of redistributing national wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world). Consequently it has decided to make "science" bend to the political agenda they've put forward. And compliant "scientists" are apparently willing to do their bidding.
Meanwhile, as Anthony Watts has pointed out, no one among that group of IPCC "scientists" can answer the most basic and troubling question. Why hasn't it warmed, as predicted, in 17 years and 6 months in the face of higher CO2 levels, and, in fact, is trending toward being cooler? One chart points the the alarmist problem in a nutshell:
So tell us again, oh ye Chicken Littles of the alarmist creed, why we should believe a single thing you claim about climate change when you and your predictions (and models) have been so awfully wrong for almost 2 decades?


text:
Skip to content
and found 16 items
398cc, 31bhp, 94mph, Insurance group 9
Strictly speaking, the BROS 400 is heavy, underpowered and outdated. But the cheap grey imports are surprisingly nice to ride – they're well balanced, steer well and the engine is flexible, torquey and characterful given its 33bhp output. That also makes it legal for new riders on a restricted licence.
1462cc, 67bhp, 110mph, Insurance group 12
Although the Suzuki VL1500 Intruder shares a basic engine design with the Suzuki VL1400 Intruder, the two bikes have very different chassis. The Suzuki VL1500 Intruder is long, low and wide, very similar to Kawasaki's Vulcan 1500 in terms of power, overall feel and ride quality. The bottom line is this however; can you ride a bike with `Intruder' written ...
644cc, 43bhp, 105mph, Insurance group 11
The Honda Dominator is the motorcycle that defined the 'urban trailie' craze of the Nineties. Beloved by town-bound motorcycle couriers and B-road hackers thanks to its punchy delivery, rufty-tufty build quality and commanding riding position the Honda Dominator still makes its mark as a value-for-money commuting motorcycle.
349cc, 30bhp, 75mph, Insurance group 8
Suzuki's dirt-simple dirt plugger is the bedrock on which green-laning is based. Simple, rugged and cheap the Suzuki DR350 is an easy motorcycle to own forever. It's got its faults – a poor finish, weedy engine and a few too many kilos, but it's endearing and enduring. If you're buying a Suzuki DR350, make sure you get a post-1995 electric ...
748cc, 123bhp, 165mph, Insurance group 16
The Kawasaki ZX-7R is proof that a motorcycle doesn't have to be the latest, lightest and most powerful to be popular. The Kawasaki ZX-7R was no match for Suzuki's GSX-R750 when launched in 1996 and was never updated significantly until it was deleted in 2003. But people love them and bought the Kawasaki ZX-7R because it looked great and they're ...
1337cc, 60bhp, 112mph, Insurance group 15
The Harley-Davidson Bad Boy has possibly the most embarrassing name in motorcycling history applied to one of the weirdest Harley-Davidson combinations. On face value it had a lot going for it: all black image, cool Springer forks, flat bars and tons of attitude. In reality the Harley-Davidson Bad Boy is a bit naff, and neither handled, was comfortable or was particularly ...
248cc, 20bhp, 81mph, Insurance group 7
The Gas Gas Pampera 250 MK III is one of the great trail motorcycles of modern times. It's particularly suitable for shorties and more inexperienced riders, thanks to its combination of easy manners and low seat height (for a trail bike). Spanish factory Gas Gas has a good history of making quality off-roaders and they have a string of world titles ...
904cc, 80bhp, 140mph, Insurance group 14
Real retro sports motorcycle that was outdated when new. If you're after all-out speed, practicality or reliability look elsewhere. If you want old school charm, a great twin cylinder sound track, stunning looks and handling to surprise the odd modern motorcycle the Ducati 900SS is worth a look.
249cc, 26bhp, 86mph, Insurance group 7
Look up 'easy going' in any encyclopedia and you'll see a cheesy picture of Kawasaki's KLR250 beaming back at you. Kawasaki's KLR250 is a fun, economical, long-lasting and undemanding dual purpose machine. Most will undoubtedly have led hard lives as introductory green laners or farm bikes, but a little TLC and an easy throttle hand will keep a Kawasaki KLR250 ...
998cc, 124bhp, 165mph, Insurance group 17
Although arguably a better bike, the Ducati 999 has never really stepped out of the shadows of the preceding, iconic Ducati 916 series of motorcycles. It lacks the grunty, fluid finesse of its V-twin rival motorcycles, the comfort of Japanese superbikes and has typical Ducati failings; of poor riding position, useless mirrors and quirky electrics. On the right racetrack, the Ducati 999 ...
Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy
With over 18,000 products, MCN shop is the best place to buy your biking kit
Motorcycle Cover | Cheap Motorcycle Insurance | Moped Insurance | Scooter Insurance | 125 Insurance | Work Experience | Complaints Policy
Car Magazine | Empire | FHM | Parkers | LRO | Today's Golfer | Zoo
Bauer Consumer Media Ltd (company number 01176085, 1 Lincoln Court, Lincoln Road, Peterborough, England PE1 2RF)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
HPLC 2012 was held 16–21 June in Anaheim, California, USA, for the first time in its long history. In this instalment, coverage
of some of the technology and application advances is reported. We review the overall liquid-phase chromatographic trends
observed at the symposium, the opening plenary session, awards presented, column technology highlights and sample preparation
and detector usage.
The 38th International Symposium on High Performance Liquid Phase Separations and Related Techniques, which alternates between
Europe and North America with occasional side meetings in Australasia, was held 16–21 June 2012, in Anaheim, California, USA,
for the first time (not far from Disneyland). More affectionately known as HPLC 2012, the symposium is the premier scientific
event for bringing together the myriad techniques related to separations in liquid and supercritical fluid media. Chaired
by Professor Frank Svec of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, USA, HPLC 2012 assembled 830
participants from all over the world. This number included vendor representatives (150) from 52 exhibitors for the three-day
instrument, software and consumables exhibition. Based on the lower number of attendees and exhibitors compared to HPLC 2011
in Budapest, the worldwide economic crisis may have played a role in the support for this important conference.
The five-day-plus event had a total of 117 oral presentations in plenary and parallel sessions and 443 posters in sessions
with 19 different themes. Attendees had their hands full deciding how to allocate their time with an ample social event schedule
including a symposium banquet at Disney California Adventure, nine vendor workshops, six "sunrise" tutorial educational sessions
and seven short courses (held during the previous weekend). The tutorials were particularly well attended and covered current
topics such as organic monoliths, selectivity optimization, hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC), higher
order protein structure, capillary LC and ion chromatography (IC) and supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC).
Obviously, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was the predominant technology in the technical sessions at the symposium,
but sample preparation, the use of electrophoretic techniques (mostly in a capillary format) and an increase in method development
and method transfer papers were strongly evident. From a perusal of the poster and oral presentation abstracts and notes from
my colleagues, I broke down some of the major areas of coverage in this year's symposium. These tables are useful to spot
trends in the technology, applications of liquid phase separations and detection principles that were introduced in this series.
The interest in new research into sub2μm porous packings has waned a bit this year, probably because these columns are now
firmly established in the ultrahigh-pressure liquid chromatography (UHPLC) world with more than 30 vendors supplying these
products. On the other hand, there were considerable discussions about the practicality of whether the next generation of
smaller totally porous particles or superficially porous particles will approach the 1-μm dimensions.
Sample preparation technology was well represented in the poster papers and two oral sessions were devoted to some of the
current techniques. Most prominent were improved solid-phaseextraction (SPE) and solid-phase microextraction (SPME) technologies
with new phase chemistries: monoliths, immobilized enzyme in situ reactors, molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), dispersiveSPE phases for QuEChERS (quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged
and safe) and mixed-mode phases providing new selectivities.
Electro-driven separation techniques (for example, capillary electrophoresis (CE), capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE), micellar
electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC) and isoelectric focusing (IEF) showed a slight drop-off compared to HPLC 2011 (1), but
continued to see a strong following in the application papers with great strides being made in interfacing to mass spectrometry
(MS). The developing interest in biopharmaceuticals has spurred a renewed interest in CE technologies for the separation of
biomolecules. A continued lack of interest in capillary electrochromatography (CEC) was noted with only nine presentations
at HPLC 2012.
CHROMacademy/LCGC monthly Tutorial e-learning e-newsletter
Sign up here
Column Watch: Ron Majors, established authority on new column technologies, keeps readers up-to-date with new sample preparation trends in all branches of chromatography and reviews developments. LATEST: When Bad Things Happen to Good Food: Applications of HPLC to Detect Food Adulteration
Perspectives in Modern HPLC: Michael W. Dong is a senior scientist in Small Molecule Drug Discovery at Genentech in South San Francisco, California. He is responsible for new technologies, automation, and supporting late-stage research projects in small molecule analytical chemistry and QC of small molecule pharmaceutical sciences. LATEST: HPLC for Characterization and Quality Control of Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies
MS — The Practical Art: Kate Yu brings her expertise in the field of mass spectrometry and hyphenated techniques to the pages of LCGC. In this column she examines the mass spectrometric side of coupled liquid and gas-phase systems. Troubleshooting-style articles provide readers with invaluable advice for getting the most from their mass spectrometers. LATEST: Radical Mass Spectrometry as a New Frontier for Bioanalysis
LC Troubleshooting: LC Troubleshooting sets about making HPLC methods easier to master. By covering the basics of liquid chromatography separations and instrumentation, John Dolan is able to highlight common problems and provide remedies for them. LATEST: How Much Can I Inject? Part I: Injecting in Mobile Phase
More LCGC Columnists>>
LCGC North America Editorial Advisory Board>>
LCGC Europe Editorial Advisory Board>>
LCGC Editorial Team Contacts>>


text:
November 26, 2014
SHERMAN, Tex. -- Tuesday's heavy rain caused flash flooding in some areas and forced a handful of road closures. Click to view.
Pushmataha County:
SH-144 east of Nashoba
US 271 towards Talahina
Atoka County:
Highway 131 at Wardville
The following are road closures from Tuesday night. Water should be receding, and these roads should reopen accordingly.
Fannin County closures:
Highway 56 just east of Bonham
FM 100 north of Honey Grove
Crockett Lake at Bois d'Arc.
FM 271 at State Park Road
FM 1396 at Bois d'Arc Creek
Marshall County closures:
Tiny Chapel Road (Northwest Marshall County)
Bryan County closures:
Grassy Farm Road between Kemp and Dairy
Grayson County there are reports of high water on Highway 11 near Luella. Along Ida Road, Choctaw Creek is topping the banks in places.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.


text:
Michelin names 46 "good-value" Chicago restaurants
- chicgail Nov 10, 2010 07:00 AM
A week before the Michelin Guide to Chicago comes out, Michelin has named what it calls 46 good value Chicago restaurants, including the Girl and the Goat, Frontera Grill, Belly Shack, Publican and Browntrout. What's not included in the list may give us an idea of what will receive Michelin stars.
Speculation? Talk among yourselves.
See the list here.
>> What's not included in the list may give us an idea of what will receive Michelin stars.
I do not get that impression from the article, although some individuals in it speculate that this effect occurs. I guess we'll find out for sure next week.
EDIT: My impression is wrong, since the Michelin folks state clearly in the article in the link provided by ms. mika that "You can't have a Bib Gourmand and a star."
re: nsxtasy
Here's another interview that discusses it- the restaurants named on this list will not receive any stars.
I thought this was interesting input from some of the Chicago chefs on their chances as well.
re: ms. mika
>> Here's another interview that discusses it- the restaurants named on this list will not receive any stars.
You're right, they state so flat out. Thanks for the link!
re: ms. mika
quote from the article:
"TOC: Everyone knows that you love Hot Doug's. So why no Bib Gourmand? JN: Why no Bib Gourmand? That's a good question. Umm, I mean, we have quite a few different….I don't think we have one for Hot Doug's, you're right. The quality is really an important thing, and we had some very good—don't get me wrong—hot dogs there. But Bib Gourmand is not a star, and it's not two stars—it's a different meaning. It's really saying: This is a place where I'll take you on my day off being an inspector, and take my family there, or take my friends, because it's a good deal. And that's really what it is. Good deal, good value, good money."
This answer confuses me. Is he saying that Hog Doug's quality/value is not good enough, or is he saying that Hog Doug's may have a star rather than having Bib Gourmet designation?
Hot Doug's
3324 N California Ave, Chicago, IL 60618
re: mountsac
>> This answer confuses me. Is he saying that Hog Doug's quality/value is not good enough, or is he saying that Hog Doug's may have a star rather than having Bib Gourmet designation?
Sounds to me like he is being intentionally ambiguous.
Of course, we'll find out next week whether or not Hot Doug's has a star.
re: nsxtasy
Doug's with a star would sure be something. I wonder if there is some encased meats type place in Germany that ever got a star. I'd have to think it'd be a first.
I gave up on trying to make too much of BG lists a while ago. On one hand, there are certain upscale restaurants (A.O.C. in LA, Incanto in SF) that are getting some sort of concession for being among the "0.50-0.75 star" rejects (I'm guessing Girl in the Goat would be the example here). Then you have the 'cheap' places that actually go along with the 'good value' claim. And then they'll bring places COMPLETELY out of the air for this "$40 or less" list... like Asia de Cuba in NY.
Makes no sense.
Am I the only one who was surprised by some of the names that made even this list? Otom and Ann Sather both jumped out at me.
And there were some restaurants I don't even know - - undoubtedly more of a reflection on me than Michelin, but still.
re: chicgail
>> Am I the only one who was surprised by some of the names that made even this list?
No, not at all. And for all kinds of reasons, too. Some of them seem to flaunt the alleged $40 price limit, and some of them are just... pedestrian, really ordinary places. Of course, with lists like this, there are always going to be places that appeal to them and just don't appeal to me, and other places I would have liked to see on the list. If I had to choose one or two French bistros, one or two Italian places, one or two Thai places, etc, my choices would definitely NOT be the ones they chose. OTOH it's nice to see some deserving places on the list, including Hopleaf, Lula, M. Henry, Mexique, and Mixteco Grill. It also seems like they went out of their way to include places with the biggest buzz over the past year, which sometimes does and sometimes doesn't represent quality and consistency.
>> And there were some restaurants I don't even know - - undoubtedly more of a reflection on me than Michelin, but still.
Actually, since I have the same reaction, and I think both of us are quite aware of restaurants here, even ones we haven't been to but have heard a lot about, I think it's more of a reflection on Michelin than on either of us. It truly seems like they picked some of them out of a hat, real head-scratchers.
re: chicgail
The Thai places seem very random. I'm surprised that Spoon Thai, TAC, or Sticky Rice didn't make the list.
Spoon Thai
4608 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60625
Sticky Rice
4018 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60618
re: lbs
>> The Thai places seem very random. I'm surprised that Spoon Thai, TAC, or Sticky Rice didn't make the list.
True - and you could make the same argument about a lot of the places (why Bistro 110, Le Petite Folie, and of all places La Creperie, rather than La Sardine/Le Bouchon or Kiki's Bistro? why Riccardo Trattoria rather than Cafe Spiaggia, Coco Pazzo Cafe, Piccolo Sogno? etc)
re: nsxtasy
Some of the places omitted may be destined to receive a star. You cannot get both under the Michelin system.
re: masha
Yes, you have a point, except that these affordable places are not likely to get a star. I know, a place does not need to be expensive to get a star (and being expensive doesn't guarantee a star), but these are places where the atmosphere is significantly more casual than even those awarded one star. I would be shocked (although pleasantly so) if any of these received a star.
re: chicgail
The article in Time Out, link above, says that any rated restaurant is visited at least twice by different reviewers. However, it doesn't say anything about how many restaurants they visit or how they choose them. With almost 20,000 restaurants in the greater Chicago area, I'm sure they don't visit every single one - not even close - but gee whiz, how they narrow them down seems inscrutable, given some of the ones designated with the Bib Gourmand award.
re: nsxtasy
I've always wondered how many restaurants there are in Chicagoland. I've seen stats for the City that it's about 6000. Where did you read the number for the greater Chicago area?
re: chicgail
"Does any one know how many restaurants the MIchelin team visits in a city ... and how many times they dine somewhere before making a determination?"
There's an article in this week's Newsweek which says the Michelin guide will cover 300 restaurants in Chicago.
Also in the article Grant Achatz is quoted as saying he "'firmly believes' there are four three-star restaurants (in Chicago) but refuses to name names." The article says Charlie Trotter's "will almost certainly" be included.
Four sounds a bit too optimistic to me, but I guess we'll know in a week.
As for the number of visits, I read the book "The Perfectionist: Life and Death in Haute Cuisine" about Bernard Loiseau, a French chef who killed himself in part because he thought his restaurant was losing a Michelin star, and the book said that while details about things like # of visits are kept secret that former Michelin reviewers said they preferred at least four visits before dishing out two or three stars to make sure the restaurant was consistent.
Charlie Trotter's
816 W. Armitage Ave., Chicago, IL 60614
re: willyum
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Achatz is correct - while I think the Chicago dining scene is the most dynamic in the country I just don't see them giving 3 stars to four places on the first guide.....that is more than LA/LV/SF/Napa combined and rivaling NYC in a single issue of the guide.
Having been to most of the US 3-stars (excluding MASA and The Restaurant at Meadowood) I personally feel that Alinea, L2o, and Trotter's deserve three while Everest and TRU could easily warrant two. The food at Schwa could certainly qualify for 2-3, but the obscure reservations, interior, and loud music may put people off............then again, Ko got two with equally bizarre fashionings and (IMO) worse food at a higher pricetag.
1723 N Halsted St, Chicago, IL 60614
re: uhockey
Perhaps Grant Achatz, because his restaurant is most likely to score 3 stars, is being generous towards the other top chefs in town. I was just at Trotters and, while it was excellent, IMO, just didn't have the spark that Alinea had.
I, like many of you, am looking forward to next week's list. I'm sure we'll all have a lot to say about it.
re: mountsac
>> From Lula, to M. Henry, to Han 202 - seems that Michelin is going for representing the diversity in the city.
That much is obvious, from the fact that they designated 1-3 Thai places, 1-3 French bistros, 1-3 Italian places, etc.
>> Although I wonder if Michelin ventured outside of the city limit.
My guess is no, based on the fact that they did not designate a single place in the suburbs, despite plenty of worthy places like Campagnola, Inovasi, Walker Brothers, Bistro Bordeaux, etc.
re: nsxtasy
I agree about going outside of the city limits. The NY guide covered only places in NYC. The SF guide seemed more unusual in being more a regional guide.
re: mountsac
The Michelin guide rankers probably couldn't afford the 2 hour traffic battle to get to Vie to only be told they'd "sold out" of two menu items (in a 90% empty restaurant) by a surly server :-)
re: mountsac
>> Does that mean the star-list will also be within the city limit?
>> Because if that's the case, then the inclusion of worthy contenders such as Michael, Vie, or Tallgrass would be out of the question.
Yes, and that's too bad.
>> the 2 hour traffic battle to get to Vie
In the evening commuting hours on a weekday, you can get to Vie from downtown Chicago in as little as 25 minutes by Metra train. And if it's not the evening commuting hours, you can usually drive there in about the same time.
re: nsxtasy
Well gracious - had I gone after the "evening commuting hours" they'd have likely been sold out of 90% of the menu.
In none of the other cities have bib gourmand spots received stars.
That noted - good list, though if Spotted Pig and Casa Mono get a star in NYC there is no reason in the world Girl and the Goat did not - perhaps too new, but a stellar experience.
re: Bob W
It's a trendy and happening place. It feels more like a wine lounge than a restaurant. Drinks are very good. I went in thinking that it was a lounge type place, so my impression of the food was quite favorable. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I went in thinking it as a fine-dining restaurant, though. But overall it was a positive experience.
re: Bob W
I went to gilt for a date night a few months ago and the food was awesome...definitely worth the trip...cocktails are great as well but the food is worth the trip alone. It is trendy and loud and busy...be warned...
I remember having a yellowtail sashimi that was great and the bone marrow, which was awesome, very big portion. The desserts were a little lacking...I don't think they have a pastry chef...but I'm not a big dessert fiend anyway.
The lack of pizza places on the menu is perplexing to me - Great Lake definitely qualifies and I'd say at least a few of the deep dish spots would also work.
Nice to see m.henry on this list and the same with Lula, but I'd wonder why Southport Grocery Cafe and Hearty are absent.
re: uhockey
Spacca Napoli, a thin crust pizza place made the list. It is really good, but I haven't been to Great Lake yet, so I can't compare.
Spacca Napoli
1769 W Sunnyside Ave, Chicago, IL 60640
Great Lake
1477 W Balmoral Ave, Chicago, IL 60640
re: igorm
Katz making it in NYC but no Hot Doug's in Chicago? Perhaps they'll give Doug a star - that'd be pretty fantastic.
Hot Doug's
3324 N California Ave, Chicago, IL 60618
Missing Sun Wah on this list is a huge oversight. It's one of the best restaurants in the city. And, nothing against Ann Sather, but I really don't understand it's place on the list. There are some great places I'm glad to see recognized here (Hopleaf, Smoque, and Opart among others are some of my faves), but I find some of the collection a little perplexing.
Sun Wah Bar-B-Que
1134 W Argyle St, Chicago, IL 60640
I'm eager to see the list of "starred" restaurants, but what has come out so far has left me questioning the Michelin system as I never have before. So many restaurants that I consider first rate, if not star-worthy have been left out and so many odd choices included on the Bib Gourmand list that I have serious doubts about how Michelin chooses and rates restaurants. I am eager to see the rest of the list.
re: chicgail
It is purportedly "food only" but given that fact it makes no sense to me how Manresa has not gotten a third star in the SF guide..........I contest there are a lot of politics at play.
re: chicgail
I agree 100 percent with chicgail. I am not at all troubled by the debate over which restaurants receive two stars vs three stars - either one is quite an honor - but some of those choices on the Bib Gourmand list are absolutely inscrutable to those of us familiar with the Chicago dining scene. And it's not so much the new restaurants on that list, as it is places that have been around for quite a while and are just not that good, and not representative of the best Chicago food OR food values. I mean, seriously - La Creperie, Thai Village, Twin Anchors??? I just don't know what they could possibly be thinking!
re: nsxtasy
And look at some of the places that are missing: Sola, Browntrout, Sticky Rice, Le Sardine, La Bouchon, Bistro Campagne, Mercat a la Planxa, Uno, MIrai, Japonaise and so many more that I'm not even naming -- they're all going to get stars? or are they overlooked?
re: chicgail
I doubt that many, if any, of them will get stars. I can only believe that many of the best restaurants in Chicago will be overlooked. Which is not really surprising, considering just how many there are. Think about it. Michelin gave out 39 one-star and 5 two- and three-star awards to restaurants in San Francisco, and they included those well away from the city. Chicago's restaurant scene is bigger (and IMHO better) than San Francisco's, but even if they gave awards to twice as many restaurants here as there, they would still be overlooking quite a few good ones.
Too bad you and I don't make the star decisions, huh? :)
re: nsxtasy
If you go to the Mchelin website and look at the history of SF and NYC guides, you'd see that the Bib Gourmet portion gains many new places each year. So maybe it is true that Michelin overlooks many good candidates at the beginning and keeps addding to the list as the guide evolves over the years.
re: chicgail
I think the three French places you mentioned are definitely worthy places that could have been included in the bib gourmet. But since it's a French guide, they might be a bit tougher on French food?
Mercat might be a little too expensive to qualify as a Bib Gourmet restaurant, considering that the portion is not the same as a traditional course. Mercat might be able to get 1 star, though.
For Uno, I think it has great food. But the spirit of Bib Gourmet is "good value." Uno's tab is cheap, but so is the experience of dining there. The settting feels cheap, bathroom is cramped and a bit dirty, service is horrible, and other than the pizza, many items on the menu are not that great. So while I love the deep dish at Uno (just like I love the foie gras dog at Hot Doug's), I wouldn't really call it a "good value" bib gourmet restaurant.
Mirai, IMO, is quite mediocre. If the standard of the Chicago guide is comparable to that of the New York guide, then Mirai and most of the sushi places in Chicago (city proper) don't stand a chance.
Hot Doug's
3324 N California Ave, Chicago, IL 60618
2020 W. Division St., Chicago, IL 60622
re: mountsac
>> I think the three French places you mentioned are definitely worthy places that could have been included in the bib gourmet. But since it's a French guide, they might be a bit tougher on French food?
They included two French bistros, La Creperie and La Petite Folie, so they're not afraid to include French restaurants in their Bib Gourmand selections for Chicago. I haven't been to La Petite Folie so I don't know what to make of it, but La Creperie is a real head-scratcher; you can get far better food and better value at many French bistros around town: La Sardine/Le Bouchon, Kiki's Bistro, Bistro 110, Mon Ami Gabi, and Bistro Campagne, just to name a few.
re: nsxtasy
I've never been to the two French places on the Bib Gourmet list (while I've been to all the ones that you mentioned, and enjoyed them all), so I can't really comment on what they did include. Suffice to say that what THEY deem as a good-value French bistro is very different from what WE think!
Hey Ya'll new to this board. (Life long Chicagoan). Enjoying this thread and the Chicago banter overall. Agree with many that the inclusion of Twin Anchors is curious at best. What I'm most excited about is what will happen with Schwa, 1 star would be acceptable, 2 stars would be great imho. I do think we have an outside shot at getting the highest number of 2 star restaurants in the country-which will basically mean there will be a few disappointed owners in this city-Everest,Charlie,Spiaggia,Avenues.. Haven't been to Spiaggia in about 8 years but at the time it was the best meal that I've ever had in this city. Sounds like it has gone down hill a little... Cheers!
re: La Canasta
Agree that Schwa is in a class by itself, but the restaurant's service and reservation eccentricities may well disqualify it from a Michelin star. We shall see.
re: chicgail
Ko got two.....if they ignore Schwa then I'll largely consider their "guide" lacking much guidance.
Not sure if anyone else saw this - but Grant Achatz just tweeted this:
re: uhockey
If this is true, then what a small list! I thought we'd at least have more than SF... Les Nomades not even one star is kind of surprising. Yes Vie but no Michael? L2O getting 3-star would be interesting, given the uncertaintly of the future fate of the restaurant. Seasons getting one star is also kind of surprising (not that great IMO). Cuisines other than Contemporary American and French / Fusion French are basically non-existent. One Italian, one Mexican, and no other ethnic food. Talk about diversity.
Let's hope the actual list is bigger and better represents Chicago's diversity!
2300 Lincoln Park West, Chicago, IL 60614
Les Nomades
222 E Ontario, Chicago, IL 60611
re: mountsac
Topolobampo is ethnic. :-)
L2o absolutely deserves 3 stars when compared to the other 3s I've been to (all but Meadowood and MASA)
That is just a reviewer list - no idea if it is true - but as much as I like Chicago I never figured they'd top San Francisco in their first guide.
Overall their feelings mirror mine, though I'd have expected TRU to get 2 and Coco Pazzo to get one. Personally, I think Girl and the Goat deserved a star, as well.
445 N Clark St., Chicago, IL 60610
Coco Pazzo Cafe
636 N St Clair, Chicago, IL 60611
re: uhockey
Lol, I realized that after I posted and have since corrected my original post =)
Dish has compiled the predictions of various reviewers as to 2 & 3 star recipients:
re: mlipps
And Taste of Peru! Love Michelin for both of those!
Taste of Peru
6545 N Clark St, Chicago, IL 60626
Well wait no longer...
From the Chicago Tribune:
re: lbs
A) I've said all along that L2o was on par with the best in the country.
B) I've said all along that North Pond's food did not justify it's high praise on this site.
Congrats to all - especially Blackbird, Bonsoiree, and Schwa.
2728 W Armitage, Chicago, IL 60647
North Pond
2610 North Cannon Drive, Chicago, IL 60614
re: uhockey
I think you're right that North Pond is overrated and over priced but their Brunch justifies * alone IMHO.
North Pond
2610 North Cannon Drive, Chicago, IL 60614
re: La Canasta
I've not been for brunch - I'd consider it as I've heard good things - but then again, the Chicago brunch scene is potentially the strongest in the country so 'tis good to try new things.
Michelin has moved up their "official" announcement to today FWIW- sounds like the leak was in fact right on the money. My initial impression is that Tru will not be please with *, and that Avec, North Pond, and One Sixty Blu, will not be pleased with um not making the list. Also, some very solid suburban places obviously were not in play- Michael, Carlos', and a few others. Consider this a first rough draft the SF and NYC guides have expanded as the years have passed .
Avec Restaurant
615 W Randolph St Ste A, Chicago, IL 60661
North Pond
2610 North Cannon Drive, Chicago, IL 60614
re: La Canasta
It's pretty funny that Michelin has to move up the announcment because of a Yelp post! I imagine somebody is getting fired right now.
But still- nice to see that Michelin is generating such buzz among chefs and diners in Chicago. I think the guide overall will improve Chicago's global recognition and food tourism. I have no doubt that Michelin will expand their reach into the suburbs in the coming year. I mean Vie has already paved the way.
re: Xellosw2099
I was not surprised. While I feel that there should be more Chinese restaurants on the bib gourmand list, I didn't think there's any Chinese restaurant in Chicago that is star-worthy. The level of refinement is just not there. Shanghai Terrace may have a shot in the future if it raises the authenticity and focus of its cuisine. The service, setting, ingredients, and exeuction are already there.
Shanghai Terrace
108 E Superior, Chicago, IL 60611


text:
This building was designed by Charles Rennie Mackintosh between 1903-4, a time when he was doing his very best work. It was commissioned by a local ironmonger, as a shop with a flat above it and it is this flat that has been made into a Landmark. The nod towards Scottish Baronial architecture is evident in the projecting turret. This gives an airy feel, and a pleasant view of the River Earn and the wooded hills beyond.
Fire or Stove
1 Twin, 1 Double
A first floor flat with spacious, airy rooms and touches of Mackintosh's design flair.
Fire or Stove
'A delightful flat, a charming and friendly village, magnifient countryside and enough to do and see to last a lifetime.'
'A delightful flat, a charming and friendly village, magnifient countryside and enough to do and see to last a lifetime.'
From the logbook
This building was designed by Charles Rennie Mackintosh and dates from 1903–4, a time when he was doing his very best work (see the other Landmark designed by Mackintosh, The Hill House). It was commissioned, at whose suggestion we know not, by a local draper and ironmonger, Peter Macpherson, as a shop with a flat above and workrooms in the attics. The spacious flat is now the Landmark apartment.
The flat passed into separate ownership some years ago, but we were able to reunite the two by buying the flat in 1985 and then the shop from Mr. Macpherson's granddaughter. We have redecorated the flat, which has good and characteristic details. The main room runs into the projecting turret, or tourelle, which Mackintosh added to the outer angle of the building in a nod towards Scottish Baronial architecture. This gives it an airy feel and a view of the River Earn and the wooded hills beyond.
The Mackintosh Building is in the centre of Comrie, a typical highland village, with a bridge over a pebbly river, a whitewashed church and a small square, on the corner of which stands this distinguished and surprising building. There are good places to eat here and if you might catch a performance by the local pipeband in the square below. The highland scenery unfolds around Comrie and Loch Earn is only a short drive away, as are the towns of Perth and Stirling.
'It has made us quite determined to find out more about Charles Rennie Mackintosh.'
'It has made us quite determined to find out more about Charles Rennie Mackintosh.'
The Mackintosh Building enjoys a view along the high street of Comrie and across to the bridge over the River Earn and a pretty whitewashed church.
Doune Castle
Crieff Visitor Centre
Auchingarrich Wildlife Centre
Stirling and Stirling Castle
Loch Earn
Does the property allow dogs?
Is there car parking specifically for Landmark guests?
What type of heating does the property have?
How can I get fuel for the open fire or stove?
How is the property accessed?
What is the nearest railway station and how far away is it?
What are the kitchen facilities?
What are the bathroom facilities?
Does this Landmark have steep, narrow or spiral stairs?
Is there a garden or outside space?
Can I pay a deposit?
How can I pay?
How do I pick up the key?
How can I cancel or change my booking?
What if I arrive late?
Do you accept payment in other currencies?
How far in advance do I need to book?
Do you have to be a member to book a Landmark?
Do I need a Handbook to be able to book?
What happens if I can't get to the Landmark due to bad weather?
Are Landmarks only available as self-catering accommodation?
Do you provide catering?
Do you allow dogs?
Can I bring a pet?
Insured if I break something?
Are Landmarks suitable for children?
Are Landmarks accessible for people with disabilities or limited mobility?
Can I get married in a Landmark?
Can I hold a big party in a Landmark?
Is it true there are no televisions in the buildings?
Why are your access tracks sometimes difficult?
Will there be sockets for my electrical appliances?
Are the kitchens and bathrooms restored to a modern standard?
Is linen provided?
Are the kitchens fully equipped?
Do you provide logs for the open fire/stove?
Will there be a mobile signal in the Landmark I book?
Is there Wi-Fi in your buildings?
What should I bring with me? Are there lavatory rolls, soap, shampoo, milk, teabags, coffee, hairdryer?
Our Booking Office can help with information about each building.
What's a changeover day? and Why can't I select other dates?
A changeover day is a particular day of the week when holidays start and end at our properties. These tend to be on a Friday or a Monday but can sometimes vary. All stays run from one changeover day until another changeover day.
Here are some other Landmarks in the same region
Many famous historic travellers have found hosp...
Ferryman's Cottage is a well-constructed little...
Cul na Shee means 'nook of peace' in Gaelic, an...
An elaborate and eccentric summer house built i...
Saddell Lodge is a handsome granite gate lodge,...
A fairytale cottage in a wild and beautiful gle...
Sign up to our newsletter
Keep up to date with news
and special offers


text:
Courtenay Semel calls herself the lesbian "Don Juan"
Courtenay Semel is going to be on the cover of Curve. Yep, the heiress who has been linked romantically to both Tila Tequila and Lindsay Lohan — and who allegedly set her ex's hair on fire. And I couldn't be happier.
Oh, put down your pitchforks already. What could be more delicious than a young Hollywood-type celesbian gracing the cover of a lesbian magazine that has been called "a lesbian magazine" "for Women and Womyn — in flyover states." Seriously, don't hate. If the straights can have their Paris Hiltons, we should be able to have our own tabloid regulars like Courtenay and the Twitter-challenged Tila. And should I drive home the point that this is Curve and not OK! Magazine or Perez Hilton? It's truly the dawn of a new day!
Because, sometimes, some of us just want to relax and read mindless gossip about our own without being judged by "enlightened lesbians" and having to pretend to care about impossibly-perfect-to-achieve representations of lesbians in the media twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. (Karman, please don't fire me.)
According to People, Courtenay cites Lindsay Lohan's tabloid blunders as an example of "what not to do," even though she admits that she has among other things, "fall[en] drunk out of a club." So let me ask you all a question: How many of you (legal age lesbians) have not fallen drunk out of a club at least once in your life? Raise your hand.
That's not many hands. Hell, I tottered drunk out of a club last week, as did thousands of other people in New York City. The only difference is that no one felt that capturing it on film was important. (Yes she also admitted to getting a DUI and being arrested, which is probably something one should avoid at all costs, but hey, being a lesbian doesn't mean you're perfect.)
About her dating history, she says, "I'd like to to say that I'm kind of like the Don Juan of the lesbian world." (So any of you out there want to start AmIShaneOrNot.com and see if she scores a 9 or above?) But according to Semel, her dating history does not include Lindsay Lohan, and she blames the media for fueling rumors about her and Lindsay.
She says, "I would like to say that Lindsay and I would make a really hot couple, but unfortunately we were best friends and the media kind of ruined that relationship."
The Hollywood Gossip reports that
she is throwing a party in celebration of her interview Curve. To be honest, I want to go. Can anyone get me a press pass?
She also plays a word association game, in which she says that Spencer Pratt is "ALL CAPS AMAZING" and that Paris Hilton is "hot."
THG: Let's play word association! We'll name a celebrity. You tell us the first word(s) that comes into your head: Miley Cyrus?
Courtenay: Prodigy superstar.
THG: Spencer Pratt?
Courtenay: Amazing with a capital A.
THG: Paris Hilton?
Courtenay: Hot.
THG: Jon Gosselin?
Courtenay: Desperate.
THG: Robert Pattinson?
Courtenay: Enough already.
THG: Sarah Palin?
Courtenay: Nightmare.
Even if you think I've gone off the deep end, you'll have to agree that she's spot on about Robert Pattinson. (See Exhibit A.) And Sarah Palin? No exhibits necessary.
The Curve issue goes into circulation on Nov. 24.


text:
Photos and Description of this 1 bedroom holiday apartment in Brooklin - Janes Retreat
Jane Retreat is a delightful apartment nestled in the trees in Brooklin with views of Blue Hill Bay. It has an open kitchen and living room floor plan with glass doors leading to a deck located off the living room. There is a water view from the living room and deck, and access across the owners property to a lovely sandy beach. It is located only minutes away from the Wooden Boat School and close to restaurants and shops in nearby throughout the Blue Hill Peninsula. Easy access to Acadia.The apartment has been described by renters as a TREE HOUSE as it is surrounded by trees on 3 sides and looks out at the water on the deck side. Very cozy!Accommodations: Cozy 1 bedroom apartment with views and beach access to Blue Hill Bay. Nice sandy beach.
Amenities: Fully equipped. Coffee pot, TV w/ DVD player, phone line, hairdryer, iron, gas grill, toaster, microwave, outdoor chairs, linens provided.
Common Areas: Open living room, dining area, kitchen and upper deck.
Br 1: Queen
Bathrooms: 1 Full Bath
Grounds: Nicely wooded and private. Fully open access across the owners property to a lovely sandy beach. The apartment is located only minutes away from the Wooden Boat School.Very private. The apt. is up above a garage with a small deck that looks over the water.
- Suitability:
- pets not allowed


text:
You must log in to access this feature. Sign in with Twellow or Facebook to get started.
By signing in to Twellow, you indicate your agreement to our terms of service.
Simply connect with Facebook and kiss those password blues away,
or go here to reset your password.
Entrepreneur - Positive Thought Practitioner | Online Marketing | Web Development | Liberty Watch | iFollow Back! | NFL Football Fan!!


text:
DEFINITION of 'Total Return Index'
A type of equity index that tracks both the capital gains of a group of stocks over time, and assumes that any cash distributions, such as dividends, are reinvested back into the index. Looking at an index's total return displays a more accurate representation of the index's performance. By assuming dividends are reinvested, you effectively have accounted for stocks in an index that do not issue dividends and instead, reinvest their earnings within the underlying company.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Total Return Index'
The Standard & Poor's 500 Index (S&P 500) is one example of a total return index. The total return indexes follow a similar pattern in which many mutual funds operate, where all resulting cash payouts are automatically reinvested back into the fund itself.
While most total return indexes refer to equity based indexes, there are total return index that for bonds, which assumes that all coupon payments and redemptions are reinvested by buying more bonds in the index.
Capital Gain1. An increase in the value of a capital asset (investment or ...
IndexA statistical measure of change in an economy or a securities ...
Dividend1. A distribution of a portion of a company's earnings, decided ...
Dow Jones Industrial Average - ...The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted average ...
Standard & Poor's 500 Index - S&P ...An index of 500 stocks chosen for market size, liquidity and ...
Total ReturnWhen measuring performance, the actual rate of return of an investment ...
The ABCs Of Stock Indexes
Is it possible to lose all of your investment ...
Mutual Funds & ETFs
Index Investing
Chart Advisor
A Total Stock Market ETF For Any Portfolio


text:
Heterogeneity is also important in current discussions of so-called welfare leavers—women who have left the welfare rolls subsequent to welfare reform. The employment and other outcomes of welfare leavers are likely to differ according to their labor market skill and background. Women with greater labor market skills may be expected to fare better off the rolls than women with weaker labor market skills, for example. The existing studies on welfare leavers typically report only average outcomes for all leavers and hence do not attempt to detect differences arising from heterogeneity, but such heterogeneity is certain to be present.2 Heterogeneity among leavers is also important because it may lead to differences in average outcomes of leavers across states, for different states have different mixes of recipient types. Hence surveys of how leaver outcomes vary in different states may be reporting differences that arise from differences in the types of women on the rolls in different states rather than the effects of different state welfare policies. The types of women who are on welfare also vary over time as the caseload shrinks and expands, as well for cyclical reasons, and this will cause the average outcomes of leavers to vary over time as well, depending on what types of women exit the rolls at different points in the cycle. Thus, for example, leaver outcomes before and after 1996 may differ because of the business cycle rather than because of welfare reform.3
Heterogeneity in the caseload can be characterized in many ways. A straightforward approach is simply to examine the distributions of characteristics thought to be related to labor market skill, income-generating potential, and general coping capabilities. Examining the distribution of recipients by education, work experience, health status, drug use and illegal activity, and similar variables, are typical for such an exercise. Many studies have examined these differentials. Another approach is simply to examine the labor market outcomes of those who have left the rolls, but this is not appropriate if the object of the analysis is to develop measures of heterogeneity that might be correlated with, or possibly determine or predict, those labor market outcomes.
The approach taken in this chapter instead examines heterogeneity as measured by the recipient's own welfare experience (hence "experienced-based" measures of heterogeneity). The most important aspect of that experience is the amount of time the recipient has received welfare benefits, which is also a measure of the individual's degree of welfare "dependence." The most common measure of this type is the "total-time-on" measure, which denotes the total amount of time within a fixed calendar time interval that the individual has
See Brauner and Loprest (1999) and Acs and Loprest (2001) for reviews. For studies that examined heterogeneity among leavers, see Cancian et al. (1999), Moffitt and Roff (2000), and Ver Ploeg (this volume).
See Moffitt and Stevens (2001) for a study of how the types of women on welfare have varied over the business cycle in the past, and whether the change in the types of women on welfare after 1996 was different than what would have been expected from the effects of the economy alone.


text:
Waterproofing your basement is an essential first step if you want to finish it and make use of it as an extra living space.
There are many waterproofing mixes on the market today. To determine what's right for your basement, discuss further with a specialist at a home improvement outlet.
The Yellowbook Answers are provided as a service to users of yellowbook.com and are not intended to replace advice from qualified professionals. Yellowbook makes no promise, guarantee or warranty regarding the comprehensiveness, accuracy or reliability of the information provided.


text:
What's the Buzz? Practicing Patterns
The bugs on this worksheet are on parade and are in a pattern! Can your preschooler find the sequence? To complete this exercise she will look at the line of insects, and then decide which one is missing from the end of the line. This worksheet will help her with identifying patterns.
Updated on Nov 18, 2014
Worksheet reprinted with permission from The World Almanac for Kids Puzzler Deck: Early Math, (Chronicle Books, 2008).
This Weeks Deals
FREE Shipping on Orders over $50


text:
Many of us know what food is best for our health, but how about what food is best for of our planet, too? For Earth Day this year, let's consider the big picture for buying and eating food. Easy eco-friendly habits include bringing reusable totes to the grocery store, using "real" coffee mugs and water… Read more »
Posts Tagged: carbon footprint
Money-Saving Tips for Earth Day and Every Day
This Earth Day, begin taking simple steps to line your pocket with a little more green. These resource-saving tips help give us a healthier environment, too: Save Energy Turn off the lights when you leave a room. Reduce energy bills by 30 percent with Energy Star appliances and equipment. They can also help to cut… Read more »


text:
[QUOTE] Many pro-choice women, like me, have been deeply disturbed by ultrasound scan photos that show fetuses, at earlier than once thought periods of gestation, sucking their thumbs, appearing to smile and otherwise resembling a full-term baby.[/QUOTE]
It's disturbing because millions of these thumb-sucking, smiling babies have been killed. While there may be a "practical" reason for women wanting to abort, it is nonetheless very disturbing.
For people like me, who see both sides of the argument, it is hard to get past this part of the deal.


text:
Ads by Google AdSense
Loading Libya TV... Please Wait
Libya TV is a satellite television station from Doha, Qatar, providing News and Talks shows. Also known as Libya Al-Ahrar TV, Libyan TV produces and airs newscasts and political commentary about Libya in Arabic and the Amazight languages.
Playlist, tracklist, top songs played coming soon...
PC requires Windows Media Player - Mac additionally requires Real Player - See FAQs for more info on how to listen to live streaming radio.


text:
Mallards Cove
- Click to Talk
View property, WalkScore, and Driving Directions
Fax: (561) 744-8051
Floorplans and Pricing
1 Bedroom
|1 Bathroom
|$1060 - $1085
|Check Availability
2 Bedrooms
|1 Bathroom
|$1140 - $1260
|Check Availability
|2 Bathrooms
|$1205 - $1325
|Check Availability
Features and AmenitiesBack to Top
Special Features
- 21 beautiful acres with 2 large lakes
- Renovated apartments available
- Close toShoppping
- Lake View
- Pet Friendly
- New Stainless Steel Appliances
- Neighborhood Location
- On-Site Management
Community Features
- Club House
- Fitness Center
- Freeway Access
- Laundry Facility
- Pool
- Tennis Court
- View
Apartment Amenities
- Air Conditioning
- Broadband Internet Access
- Cable or Satellite
- Carpet
- Dishwasher
- Garbage Disposal
- Internet Access
- Microwave
- Patio or Balcony
- Tile Floors
- Walk In Closets
- Washer Dryer Hookup
- Water Sewer and Trash
- Window Covering
Additional Information
Year Built: 1985
Apartments in Community: 240
Pet Policy
Under 35 lbs - please ask for details.
- Cats Allowed
- Pets Allowed
- Small Dogs Allowed
Local Schools
- Independence Middle School
- Jerry Thomas Elementary School
- Jupiter Community High School
We believe school data to be accurate, but do not guarantee that. Please be sure to verify where your children will attend school before making your housing decision.
As you search for your perfect apartment, please keep in mind that rental rates (including specials and discounts) and availability are very fluid in the apartment industry. Based on many factors, the rental rates (including specials and discounts) and availability can actually change not just daily, but hourly, if not even more quickly. While our advertisers do take steps to keep their information current, the rental rates or availability you may find here now at ForRent.com may not be the same as when you contact the communities.


text: Get ready for one of the biggest local shows in December, filled with 12 bands on two stages--and when you go, you'll be helping out kids in need over the holidays. The 5th Annual Rock for Tots event goes down Saturday, December 12 at Olive Branch in Tempe. The event benefits The Marine Toys ... More >>


text:
Why reportedly Cooper was a strong consideration at 9, if there, and not Warmack...[/QUOTE]
I heard before and after the draft that Warmack did not fit the blocking schemes that the Jets want to run. Cooper fit perfectly. That's why he wasn't drafted. Don't know why a zillion people choose to ignore this fact. It was posted quite a bit and some people are still mad we didn't choose him.