Folks: the Copyright Office has no enforcement powers. All it is is a repository for registrations of claims of copyrights. Modernizing the copyright office is like modernizing the drivers license division of a state: it doesn't affect who is allowed to drive (assuming that it performs competently either way.) It is not the DL division that enforces the driving laws, it is the police and the courts. Same thing for the Copyright Office; a registration improves a plaintiff's claim, but that claim still has to be made in federal court.
The author of that article (Mr. Simmons) summarizes together a lot of past and suggested reforms. Why he does that I don't know, for restructuring and/or refinancing the Copyright Office won't change the law nor change anyone's rights.
Finally, those of you who promote shortening the copyright period of works in existence: get over it, it ain't a-gonna change. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would require that everyone who had a shortened copyright would have to be compensated justly, and that would clog up the courts beyond imagination. Congress may be foolish sometimes, but it ain't that stupid! Now if you want to talk about shortening the term of copyrights that originate in the future, that's different...
it really isn't useful except where there is a changing atmosphere and the absence of a stronger source of energy such as the Sun. I imagine there are places on the Earth where this could be used, such as deep within caves or piping. Where there is a change in humidity, there is likely to be a change in temperature too. That means that a Peltier device or a battery might be a better choice in most cases.
But I have no doubt that someone will, within a few days or hours, propose this as a solution to global warming. Let the games begin!
The model version being used for the CMIP5 simulations will soon be available in a complete package, though there are nightly snapshots of the current code repository available (including the frozen 'AR5_branch'), but users should be aware that these snapshots are presented 'as is' and are not necessarily suitable for publication-quality experiments.
In other words, the model isn't ready/reliable. Perhaps you'd better stop staring at the Sun for so long, AC: the risks to your health are much greater than those posed by Global Warming.
So says the article that we lack "the ability to adequately process the need for the whole species' long-term survival". Evolution sets forth that we compete with members of our species for resources, caring most about what happens to our relatives (those who have the most-in-common DNA). The reason we don't care what happens to the "whole species" is because that is worse for us as individuals, in the context of the propagation of our DNA.
Oh, and climate change doesn't concern the "whole species" either. It concerns only those who have beach-front property and those who will have to move from arid landscapes. The "whole species" will do fine through GW.
And if you read the website for the Fifth CMIP (at your link on the first page), you'll see that it:
provide(s) a multi-model context for 1) assessing the mechanisms responsible for model differences in poorly understood feedbacks associated with the carbon cycle and with clouds, 2) examining climate “predictability” and exploring the ability of models to predict climate on decadal time scales, and, more generally, 3) determining why similarly forced models produce a range of responses.
The snippet from the press release doesn't identify the model(s) used; it doesn't even specify a model associated with the Fifth CMIP. So even if one were do "dig around" as you suggest, he would still have no idea what model(s) were used to generate their projections. Now when you get around to wrapping your head around that, then you can turn in your ignorance to overlooking the admission on the CMIP website that (1) the models they consider produce significantly different projections and (2) the feedbacks are "poorly understood".
Have a nice day.
NASA is releasing global climate change projections to help scientists and planners better understand local and global effects of hazards.
Now if they'd only make available  the models (as in code) used to generate those projections and  a supercomputer to run it on, then someone could actually use this. The historical data has been available to interested scientists for a long time: releasing it to the public on a website provides only the appearance of openness. Without the transparency of how those projections were generated, the value of them is the same as a press release from a known politically-biased entity. (Yes, I'm talking about the Obama administration, which can't stop the endless string of daily press releases likely to be contradicted a couple of Tuesdays later.)
The reason there is little research against global warming theories is because that effort is unpopular, in terms of funding. Universities, the government, etc. all want to claim they are fixing a problem. No one wants to fund a study that doesn't make a showing of "progress".
When the proponents of GW come up with confirmable theories (ones that don't require the "adjustment" of collected data and last more than a year or two), then they shall have my ear.
If the data isn't accurate enough to explain the disparities in the data, then it isn't accurate enough to explain a theory of man-made global warming either.
So you think that all of the temperature readings (as a whole) taken from the ships all have the same offset error, over only a particular about 15 year period (but not before and after)? Really? I hope that such a correction is not a common one to make: it would make the conclusions of these "scientists" even more suspect.
I don't need to spend my reading time in the annals of junk science.
Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.