there seems to be more stories being floated to the media about who is responsible for blocking the deal than about realistic paths to actually getting one.
it's understood by outside observers that the saudis are not a rational actor in much of any context. that is a region that may legitimately become uninhabitable....well, unless you're absurdly rich and live in an air conditioned high rise. which describes enough of the population. the people with a voice, certainly. hey: the more the peasants starve in the sun, the less chance they'll revolt.
i have little doubt that they're being less than constructive.
but, if (it's clear: when) the deal fails, it's hardly going to rest entirely on their shoulders. we're just being conditioned to blame somebody.
it was "blame canada". then, we got a new prime minister with close ties to the whitehouse.
then it was "blame india". but, the argument collapses quickly under any cursory analysis.
now, it's "blame the saudis". and, it's hard to make the counter-argument. but, it's no less propagandistic.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/climate-talks-contend-with-both-villains-heroes-as-deadline-looms-1.3355327
GordonRobertson
The entire meeting is a charade perpetuated by deniers. The difference today is that the deniers are those who have ignored the 2013 IPCC announcement that no warming has been detected since 1998.
No warming = No climate change.
This meeting is about money managers trying to profit from an orchestrated catastrophe imposed on us by climate alarmists.
jessica murray
more nonsense.
can you do me the favour of actually reading that document?
or, is that even worthwhile, given that you're unlikely to understand it?
GordonRobertson
Which part don't you understand Jessica?
See page 6:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf
"Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade)..."
Is it this one..."... including the warming hiatus since 1998"?
or this one..."The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade)..."
The first states very clearly there has been a hiatus in warming since 1998. Hiatus means stopped.
The second gives the figures of 0.05C/decade with an error margin of -0.05C to +0.15C. That could mean there was a slight cooling. Either way, 5/100ths of a degree C is considered an insignificant warming. You could not even see 5/100ths of a degree on a common room thermometer.
No model predicted this hiatus and all of them predicted far more warming.
The IPCC opinion comes from surface data. The inifinetly more accurate satellite data is showing no warming and little or no warming since 1979.
jessica murray
it doesn't appear to have been worthwhile, as you didn't understand it.
this is the part you are quoting, in context:
It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century. Each of the past three decades has been significantly warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest.
The global combined land and ocean surface temperature data show an increase of about 0.89°C (0.69°C–1.08°C) over the period 1901–2012 and about 0.72°C (0.49°C–0.89°C) over the period 1951–2012 when described by a linear trend. Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 1998–2012 (0.05°C [–0.05 to +0.15] per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C [0.08 to 0.14] per decade). Several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in broad agreement that LSAT has increased. Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods, including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of uncertainties and biases in the records.
i'm not going to bother explaining this to you. i'm just going to give you another chance to try and understand it.
enough effort has been put into explaining this. if you still don't understand, nobody should care anymore.
GordonRobertson
Jessica given the data I provided from the IPCC in 2013, NOAA, the official climate experts in the United States have set out to rewrite that temperature record since 1998 to show a warming. NASA GISS is also rewriting the historical record, replacing cooler years with warmer years.
NOAA is priceless, however, provided you can find humour in their chicanery. There used to be 6500 global weather stations from which they derived surface data. NOAA slashed the number to 1500 and they are using climate models to fill in the missing 5000 stations using data from only 1500 stations.
As a student of science and someone not enamoured by pseudo-science, I understand only too well. I am a big fan of the scientific method and the anthropogenic warming theory does not meet the criterion of that historic method.
Neither am I a fan of the scientific miconduct currently being perpetrated by NOAA, a US government organization that answers to climate alarmists like Obama.
jessica murray
the thing about 1998 was that it was unusually warm. the passage that you cited attempted to explain why you wouldn't expect to see large trends since 1998, not to suggest that there has been a pause in warming.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
when was the last time a federal conservative balanced a budget?
did diefenbaker do it? maybe i could call my grandmother and ask her...
zero credibility.
watch mulcair on this. and watch him win arguments on it, too.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-trudeau-question-period-isis-1.3353871
nope.
"Dief was quick to fund social programs and farmers to win votes. And despite talking fiscal responsibility, he never managed to run a balanced budget. "
who was the conservative before diefenbaker? bennett? did he actually manage one, or did he just push austerity and contribute to the depression?
RustBeltCAN
Conservatives have NEVER, ever been good stewards of our economy.
jessica murray
well, the budget has absolutely nothing to do with the economy, though.
i'm just pointing out that the ndp has more credibility, here. and that observers should expect mulcair to key in on that.
RustBeltCAN
bennet was a castrophy of mismanagement and corruption.
jessica murray
i'm still not sure if he pulled off a balanced budget or not, though.
Marc
Is Mulcair worth to be listenend to? NO.
jessica murray
well, if i cared about balanced budgets (and i don't...), i'd want to give somebody else a shot at it.
BrutalLogic
so that says a lot about Liberals does it not? You don't even care about balanced budgets! Let's just spend spend spend. Wait until we hit the wall. Notice how the currency plummeted as soon as it looked like Prince Charming would win? Notice did you how the TSX is going? Does not matter? We'll see when there is no tax revenue to pay for your handouts.
jessica murray
well, i wouldn't really call myself a liberal. i'm in the group of anarchist nutters trying to pull the spectrum to the left. the type that sees the liberals as the better half of bay street, and would certainly prefer them over the historical alternative, but is a good ten steps to their left.
and, no, i don't care about the tsx. unless you want to talk about transaction taxes.
but, regarding the conservatives running balanced budgets? fool me once, fool me...fool...how do i get to four with this thing?
did diefenbaker do it? maybe i could call my grandmother and ask her...
zero credibility.
watch mulcair on this. and watch him win arguments on it, too.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-trudeau-question-period-isis-1.3353871
nope.
"Dief was quick to fund social programs and farmers to win votes. And despite talking fiscal responsibility, he never managed to run a balanced budget. "
who was the conservative before diefenbaker? bennett? did he actually manage one, or did he just push austerity and contribute to the depression?
RustBeltCAN
Conservatives have NEVER, ever been good stewards of our economy.
jessica murray
well, the budget has absolutely nothing to do with the economy, though.
i'm just pointing out that the ndp has more credibility, here. and that observers should expect mulcair to key in on that.
RustBeltCAN
bennet was a castrophy of mismanagement and corruption.
jessica murray
i'm still not sure if he pulled off a balanced budget or not, though.
Marc
Is Mulcair worth to be listenend to? NO.
jessica murray
well, if i cared about balanced budgets (and i don't...), i'd want to give somebody else a shot at it.
BrutalLogic
so that says a lot about Liberals does it not? You don't even care about balanced budgets! Let's just spend spend spend. Wait until we hit the wall. Notice how the currency plummeted as soon as it looked like Prince Charming would win? Notice did you how the TSX is going? Does not matter? We'll see when there is no tax revenue to pay for your handouts.
jessica murray
well, i wouldn't really call myself a liberal. i'm in the group of anarchist nutters trying to pull the spectrum to the left. the type that sees the liberals as the better half of bay street, and would certainly prefer them over the historical alternative, but is a good ten steps to their left.
and, no, i don't care about the tsx. unless you want to talk about transaction taxes.
but, regarding the conservatives running balanced budgets? fool me once, fool me...fool...how do i get to four with this thing?
when is the conservative leadership vote? 2017?
if she holds to harper's script that long, her successor will have a big hole to climb out of. bombing campaigns & tax cuts may resonate in texas, but it won't even hold the base in alberta.
trudeau should be more concerned about mulcair.
...and on his right, as much or moreso as on his left.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-trudeau-question-period-isis-1.3353871
jplondon
save whatever damage mr mulcair can and likely will inflict on mr trudeau, mr mulcair will not be there four years from now.
jessica murray
i would like to think that this is true, but anybody at all that could have replaced him is gone. it's functionally a total purge of the party; there's literally nobody left. whether anybody likes it or not, this is now his party. he broke it, he bought it - and now he has to glue it back together. and, it will look very different when he's done, too.
elizabeth may, on the other hand, will probably not be the leader of the green party four years from now. and that's probably a very important truth.
RustBeltCAN
the NDP and CONs will be trading seat numbers next election.
jessica murray
yup. i think the ndp are moving into a space on the moderate right that paul martin wanted to move the liberals into. the cpc is in the process of falling back to socred irrelevancy. the left will be taken over by the greens.
expect big noises from mulcair on the budget.
paired with a less extreme social agenda, while the conservatives are having an existential debate on abortion, it will be an attractive combination for moderate conservative voters.
if she holds to harper's script that long, her successor will have a big hole to climb out of. bombing campaigns & tax cuts may resonate in texas, but it won't even hold the base in alberta.
trudeau should be more concerned about mulcair.
...and on his right, as much or moreso as on his left.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-trudeau-question-period-isis-1.3353871
jplondon
save whatever damage mr mulcair can and likely will inflict on mr trudeau, mr mulcair will not be there four years from now.
jessica murray
i would like to think that this is true, but anybody at all that could have replaced him is gone. it's functionally a total purge of the party; there's literally nobody left. whether anybody likes it or not, this is now his party. he broke it, he bought it - and now he has to glue it back together. and, it will look very different when he's done, too.
elizabeth may, on the other hand, will probably not be the leader of the green party four years from now. and that's probably a very important truth.
RustBeltCAN
the NDP and CONs will be trading seat numbers next election.
jessica murray
yup. i think the ndp are moving into a space on the moderate right that paul martin wanted to move the liberals into. the cpc is in the process of falling back to socred irrelevancy. the left will be taken over by the greens.
expect big noises from mulcair on the budget.
paired with a less extreme social agenda, while the conservatives are having an existential debate on abortion, it will be an attractive combination for moderate conservative voters.
zappa would openly ridicule almost all of this.
if zappa were alive today, he'd probably be making novelty techno that sounds vaguely like psy and writing off any kind of hyphenated rock music as 20th century.
and, he'd no doubt have spent the 00s doing cracked out hip-hop, spitting rhymes over soundscapes that sound like mashups of squarepusher, mars volta, indricothere and flying lotus.
(if somebody has enough spare time for that, i'd like to hear it)
honestly. that is the absolute truth.
if zappa were still alive, he'd have ten or fifteen hip-hop records and would be heavily into abstract techno.
"shut up and play the return of the son of monster hip hop from hell, on your guitar, some more"
you've never heard a rap in 37. that's just 'cause zappa didn't live long enough to get to it. you don't understand what he would have done to hip-hop. you probably *can't*.
diffuser.fm/22-musicians-frank-zappa-would-love/#photogallery-1=23
if zappa were alive today, he'd probably be making novelty techno that sounds vaguely like psy and writing off any kind of hyphenated rock music as 20th century.
and, he'd no doubt have spent the 00s doing cracked out hip-hop, spitting rhymes over soundscapes that sound like mashups of squarepusher, mars volta, indricothere and flying lotus.
(if somebody has enough spare time for that, i'd like to hear it)
honestly. that is the absolute truth.
if zappa were still alive, he'd have ten or fifteen hip-hop records and would be heavily into abstract techno.
"shut up and play the return of the son of monster hip hop from hell, on your guitar, some more"
you've never heard a rap in 37. that's just 'cause zappa didn't live long enough to get to it. you don't understand what he would have done to hip-hop. you probably *can't*.
diffuser.fm/22-musicians-frank-zappa-would-love/#photogallery-1=23
this is slut shaming. where's the outrage?
it's very much unusually patriarchal for pop music. the topic of sexual infidelity is pretty normal in pop, but it generally takes the form of jealousy or inadequacy. it's generally in the form of a reflection regarding what went on, or in the form of a mea culpa in not being adequate. this is a reflection of 20th century culture, which was very much an objectivist culture in the sense that it was rooted in the idea that individuals need to take responsibility for the events that occur in their lives. our culture in the last century was that when bad shit happens, we primarily have ourselves to blame and need to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. this was true across the spectrum, starting some time in the great depression.
i think this is the first time i've ever heard infidelity in pop take the form of an angry accusation that implies some kind of transgression against the male "protagonist". the messaging in the song is i own you, and you have disobeyed my honour.
this is a massive step backwards, socially. but, it's not surprising. talk of the younger generation leaning left on civil rights is being skewed by media exposure, as it was with their grandparents. there is a massive silent majority that got their religion growing up from sitcom reruns and sees re-establishing the sanctity of the christian family as a means of placing order on a world full of chaos. it's a false concept of the past, but it's what they were given to digest and what they broadly think is an accurate reflection of it. they may be less judgmental than the conservatives of previous generations, and less interested in enforcing their values on others. but, they're being driven by some kind of awakening that is a reactionary consequence of some kind of existential angst and seem to have an actual desire to move in this direction in their lives.
not conservatism through draconian law. but, conservatism through popular decree. it's the kind of social revolution that socialists talk about, but in the direction of re-establishing a traditional hierarchy; falling back into the womb, where it's safe.
most are so lost in this, they won't even understand what i'm talking about.
a good way to see what i'm saying is to look at polling on abortion amongst young people.
on the one hand, they're pretty much the only generation that has ever had a majority opinion of being pro-choice. the culture war people have pointed to that to suggest they're a bunch of liberals. but, on the other hand, polls consistently show that a higher percentage of them consider it to be "morally wrong" - sometimes pushing 70%. the majority opinion from gen xers is that a fetus is just a rightless clump of cells. so, that's a hardened swing right on opinions about abortion, coinciding with less authoritarian views on disallowing it.
the majority opinion seems to be that it's rarely justified, but that doesn't mean that it should be disallowed. it's immoral, but that doesn't mean the government has a right to stop it.
one consequently needs to be careful in interpreting polls about these kinds of things with these kids, as they seem to have a tendency to break a lot of the conventions we're used to. the conventional narrative would consider that a contradiction. but, of course, it isn't a novel position. it's the position associated with right-libertarianism (and adhered to cautiously by some liberals). i think this label is pretty broadly applicable on a lot of things. you see the same thing with gay issues. media points to broadening acceptance, in terms of legal structures. but, those same kids are openly homophobic in their day-to-day language and tend to view gays as social outcasts.
they may lean left in the short term, but it's on the authoritarian axis and pretty pragmatic. it's probably at least positive that it's probably unlikely that they'll become more authoritarian as they age. but, if the right figures this out, expect it to adapt to it.
it's very much unusually patriarchal for pop music. the topic of sexual infidelity is pretty normal in pop, but it generally takes the form of jealousy or inadequacy. it's generally in the form of a reflection regarding what went on, or in the form of a mea culpa in not being adequate. this is a reflection of 20th century culture, which was very much an objectivist culture in the sense that it was rooted in the idea that individuals need to take responsibility for the events that occur in their lives. our culture in the last century was that when bad shit happens, we primarily have ourselves to blame and need to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. this was true across the spectrum, starting some time in the great depression.
i think this is the first time i've ever heard infidelity in pop take the form of an angry accusation that implies some kind of transgression against the male "protagonist". the messaging in the song is i own you, and you have disobeyed my honour.
this is a massive step backwards, socially. but, it's not surprising. talk of the younger generation leaning left on civil rights is being skewed by media exposure, as it was with their grandparents. there is a massive silent majority that got their religion growing up from sitcom reruns and sees re-establishing the sanctity of the christian family as a means of placing order on a world full of chaos. it's a false concept of the past, but it's what they were given to digest and what they broadly think is an accurate reflection of it. they may be less judgmental than the conservatives of previous generations, and less interested in enforcing their values on others. but, they're being driven by some kind of awakening that is a reactionary consequence of some kind of existential angst and seem to have an actual desire to move in this direction in their lives.
not conservatism through draconian law. but, conservatism through popular decree. it's the kind of social revolution that socialists talk about, but in the direction of re-establishing a traditional hierarchy; falling back into the womb, where it's safe.
most are so lost in this, they won't even understand what i'm talking about.
a good way to see what i'm saying is to look at polling on abortion amongst young people.
on the one hand, they're pretty much the only generation that has ever had a majority opinion of being pro-choice. the culture war people have pointed to that to suggest they're a bunch of liberals. but, on the other hand, polls consistently show that a higher percentage of them consider it to be "morally wrong" - sometimes pushing 70%. the majority opinion from gen xers is that a fetus is just a rightless clump of cells. so, that's a hardened swing right on opinions about abortion, coinciding with less authoritarian views on disallowing it.
the majority opinion seems to be that it's rarely justified, but that doesn't mean that it should be disallowed. it's immoral, but that doesn't mean the government has a right to stop it.
one consequently needs to be careful in interpreting polls about these kinds of things with these kids, as they seem to have a tendency to break a lot of the conventions we're used to. the conventional narrative would consider that a contradiction. but, of course, it isn't a novel position. it's the position associated with right-libertarianism (and adhered to cautiously by some liberals). i think this label is pretty broadly applicable on a lot of things. you see the same thing with gay issues. media points to broadening acceptance, in terms of legal structures. but, those same kids are openly homophobic in their day-to-day language and tend to view gays as social outcasts.
they may lean left in the short term, but it's on the authoritarian axis and pretty pragmatic. it's probably at least positive that it's probably unlikely that they'll become more authoritarian as they age. but, if the right figures this out, expect it to adapt to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)