I think the article is missing details that could make it more convincing.
The article's main premise is that there is a "vicious circle" which is slowly making renting unaffordable for median income people.
In the article they say "In 2013, the median rent for a new apartment was $1,290, about 50 percent of the median renter’s monthly income ..."
50%!?! That sounds like a lot... but I wonder: What percentage of the median renter's monthly income was rent back in earlier decades? Has it been rising? Has it been falling? The article does not provide that historical data.

Nail 'em for "false advertising"!

Sometimes, when casting my ballot, I think "that ballot box looks like a trash can with a slot."

Not to be trollish, but why is there a voice inside my head that chants "A reading from the Gospel of Evolution 'skeptics' and other purveyors of FUD" whenever I see someone complain about consensus in science?

"The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming."
http://www.theguardian.com/env...

So you're trying to tell me that "95 percent confidence" is the same thing as "wild speculation"? Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

While I can't speak to the newer generations of models, but climate models from the 1990's have already been tested in the way that you describe:
"UN climate change projections made in 1990 'coming true' ... The world is warming at a rate that is consistent with forecasts made by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 22 years ago."
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yo...
The news article is based on: http://www.nature.com/nclimate...

We already know that some of the climate models in the 1990's have made two decades worth of accurate predictions.

Science does not work on the "how consistently do you live by your beliefs" principle! That shows me how little you understand about science.

What the person you are replying to (u38cg) says is exactly what I say to Creationists who claim to be "challenging the consensus of Evolution" (the Creationists I talk with call themselves "Evolution skeptics").
... And then they reply the same way you just did. The Creationists say "It's a real good thing that scientists didn't say that to Gallileo. We might still believe in an earth-centric universe!"

I don't take it seriously when Creationists make the "appeal to Galileo" argument, why should I take it any more seriously when you make it?

Commenting to remove accidental mod.

I think that environmentalists are already "touching this issue".
I'm pretty sure that I've heard environmentalists call for better treatment of our waste water (to remove or degrade these hormones) before it is discharged back into the rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Maybe your problem is that environmentalists are "touching the issue" in a way that you didn't anticipate?

A quip popularly attributed to Carl Sagan.

You know what Carl Sagan had to say about climate change?
"For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."
~Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))

Dr. Sagan clearly believed that the "extraordinary claims" of climate science were backed up by extraordinary evidence.

The "skeptics" of Evolution said the same thing.
They said "the vast majority of the loudest Evolution proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are atheists(/secularists) with their own agenda to advance."

I didn't accept that argument from Creationists. Why would I accept it from you?

I find it even more interesting that the skeptics that have collected data and built models ended up convinced that the Climatologists are correct:
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
~Dr. Richard A. Muller
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...

I think you have the word "equal" confused with "identical" (it is a common mistake).
Two things can be different but still equal.

Even special treatment does not preclude the possibility of two types of things being equal: So long as both groups require some sort of special treatment then they can still be equal.