No, It is a hoax. If you had done as you suggested, you would know that.

"In Historic Turn, CO2 Emissions Flatline In 2014, Even As Global Economy Grows." There are three distinct claims made:

1 - That CO2 emissions have not flatlined or declined before while the economy grew - While this is a logical assumption, there is not sufficient data to support the conclusion on the historical end.

2 - That CO2 emissions flatlined. I do not believe we measure the emissions with sufficient precision to accept this assertion. When the numbers consist of estimates piled upon estimates, the conclusion has error bands that still go well into the positive side.

3 - That the global economy grew. Same issues as #2 in the other direction.

Given that, according to the headline itself this is unprecedented, should we not be skeptical of claims 2 and/or 3?

You truly are an idiot - just as Alexander Graham Bell predicted you would be. One cannot prove that Bell did not say the thing attributed to him, but no one can find such a quote before 1997 (75 years after his death) from the falsified biography which was attempting to make Bell relevant, but no one has an image of an original document or contemporary reference to support the quotation - it is drawn from whole cloth. I can cite the source relevant to his supposed advocacy for alternative fuels which clearly shows he had no environmental concerns and confirms my statement as to his reasoning which were strictly economic contrary to many of the current attempts to rehabilitate his image as a forward-looking environmentalist instead of an industrialist: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

It isn't nitpicking, I simply do not believe your post required more than a cursory response. I have no obligation to address the many falsehoods you put forth, but let's start with your initial statement, "Gore is right: the science is settled. In fact, it's been understood for nearly 200 years" Again, this is revisionist history. Fourier ultimately dismissed "greenhouse" effects in his published works which disqualifies him from being credited with an understanding of the issue of planetary temperature. https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~r...

If you want to insist that Fourier understood the issue, then you must conclude as he did that the atmosphere was not part of the issue of the the planet's temperature. I am confident you do not agree with his conclusion.

Svante Arrhenius described the greenhouse effect in 1896 which at 119 years ago is not really all that near 200 years.

Perhaps you should actually educate yourself on this issue. It is clear that your sources are dubious, and that you are not a critical thinker, but merely a parrot spewing talking points.

The Alexander Graham Bell quote is revisionist history - there is no record of such statements prior to 1997. No one has ever published an image of any document with such words. Bell was anything but an environmentalist, he advocated alternative fuels because he believed that oil would be depleted within a decade. Your ability to copy verbatim from a Wikipedia article is unlikely to be confused with intelligence or critical thinking by anyone possessing either of those traits.

No, the first sentence is not fine. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of rights vs law. The court ruled that people have always had the right, rights trump laws so any laws abridging the right are void and must be eliminated. Viewing this as changing laws is wrong because it would put this into the realm of debate over public policy, and rights are not subject to debate without constitutional amendment.

If they are truly committed to numerical equality, coercion is the only way. Enslave the girls to make them equal!

True enough, and in this case he probably will have earned it.

On the face of it, it sounds like a good move. If applied evenly, and without ulterior motives, I am unabashedly for this one and will give credit where it is due. The administration isn't calling for a change in the law here (and neither are any Republicans) which might indicate they wanted a restoration of our rights. That means they simply want to use this law to further their agenda. I suspect the status quo would be better than what they plan.

The current administration is choosing not to enforce some existing laws, notably immigration, and wants to preclude other entities from enforcing those same laws - I don't believe any reasonable person would dispute that statement. There is little they can do currently about Joe Arapaio enforcing Federal Laws, except choose not to prosecute the cases.

I expect at least two abuses to be in the works:

It will be used as a tool to increase Federal presence/control/"cooperation" in local law enforcement through funding controls/incentives/inducements. We all know how well that has worked out in Education. It will mean more shared data about us being available to the Federal Government.

Currently the Federal Government cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations because of the10th Amendment. This will be used as an end run around that, since the Commerce Clause has never worked very well in compelling the states in law enforcement (drinking age being a notable exception). Laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which had enforcement provisions that were ruled unconstitutional will get their enforcement at the state level because of this type of financial leveraging. It will be used selectively to punish those localities that are not compliant with the wishes of the Federal Government in some regard, and reward those that are aligned with the administration's agendas. Expect Chicago, DC and NYC to be rewarded for their gun controls and Maricopa County, AZ to be punished for its enforcement of immigration laws. Expect the reverse under the next Republican President.

This is a bad law that we need to have repealed, and not made worse by politically selective application.

Try reading the NYT or Washington Post more often.

I made no such broad statement. I didn't say we could avoid a corporation that misbehaved or that government couldn't behave properly, only that government hadn't behaved properly in those cases.

It is interesting that you think UPMC is led by people who behave badly, yet you want their services, and you seem to give a pass to Highmark which makes much more money. Highmark has already demonstrated in central PA that it does not treat other hospitals on an equal basis with its own. Highmark has higher deductibles and copays for Geisinger Health System, and would undoubtedly do the same with UPMC. One of the factors that contributed to the bankruptcy of West Penn Allegheny was Highmark's reduced payment scales to it, so Highmark hasn't demonstrated any concern for sustained healthcare availability in the region, nobody else would buy WPA because they would have to deal with Highmark on its terms and suffer a similar fate. UPMC simply chose not to be the victim back in 2009 or after the WPA acquisition. You were disadvantaged by Highmark.

Wow, yourself. You presented a plausible scenario with essentially no information, it is less than anecdotal evidence, indistinguishable from fantasy. With a city and the parties identified, it actually becomes meaningful and verifiable (or disprovable).

I didn't say government should be involved in any dispute between companies, so where do you come off claiming I advocate its involvement in all such disputes? You're trying to paint me as being extreme, and I may be, but on the other side from that you accuse me of being.

You paint UPMC as the villain, but I do not accept your contention. I think you've been watching too many Highmark commercials that have been attacking UPMC. What I see is two companies which are each involved in activities they should have been barred from by state (not federal) regulators. UPMC has been a healthcare provider for a long time, in 1998 it was allowed to offer healthcare insurance, Highmark has been a healthcare insurer for a long time and last year purchased West Penn Allegheny (which had sued both Highmark and UPMC for acting together to stifle hospital competition) to became a healthcare provider. I see two governmental agencies, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department and the Division of Acute and Ambulatory Care, failing to represent the interests of the people of Pennsylvania by failing to prevent the obvious conflict of interest involved in allowing integrated delivery system providers (particularly in companies which already dominated one aspect of that system). The solution is for government to take actions to eliminate its need for further involvement, and the state went the other way, reminiscent of our" too big to fail" banks.

You portray UPMC as the bully using its position to dominate the market for healthcare when Highmark is a much bigger company in both revenues and profits that dominates the region in providing health insurance, which purchased the plaintiff in the antitrust suit against it to kill the suit, and is in the catbird seat as it has the revenue up front and can direct business to itself for its customers who would have little choice while UPMC can merely cut off its nose to spite its face by not accepting Highmark insurance thereby turning away business, I hardly think that is the abusive position you suggest. It was not the local government that dealt with the mess, it was the Pennsylvania Insurance Department which should have prevented the issue 26 years ago.

Please name, "my city", "one company", and "another company", or it didn't happen. If you think being able to vote for the people and policies in government is worthwhile, why does your city have the problems you have described? Those problems exist because politicians see those problems as opportunities and solutions. When a city grants a monopoly, they can put whatever requirements they like on those ISP's, but they don't. Ever.

Flatulence is usually associated with New Jersey.

Maybe the world would be better if instead of assuming what others will say, you would wait and listen. When YOU assume how others will respond, it is impossible that the response would be intelligent, but that has nothing to do with others.

That saved me back in 1993 in Korea when my laptop was dead.

Easy to say, until you are the party wanting the content removed. Then you will be whining about how onerous it is to force someone to comply.