Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:30 pm, November 7th, 2019 - 35 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Congratulations to all the people who have worked so hard for so long to get the Zero Carbon Act across the line.
Standing ovation!
And yet…
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/11/duncan-garner-james-shaw-butt-heads-over-climate-change-emergency-declaration.html
You gotta watch the stupid to believe it.
I'm referring to D Garner.
Pardon me if this is already up, but sea level rise is likely more imminent than previously believed.
Did Al Gore revise his prediction?
Who knows – never followed him.
Computer modelling revisions.
Likely.
Perhaps you should listen to the link – it's a sampling, not a modelling error.
It is computer modeled. All of it.
I'd read the nature article which serves only to illustrate, graphically how the science has been and continues to be inaccurate.
That is. Not credible.
Funny how models based on "the science" still seem to be considerably more accurate than models based on "nothing is really changing outside of norms over the history of humanity" or "sunspots".
Comparison is: The Science versus The Science.
The Science has been wildly inaccurate. Therefore is not credible.
Also not credible. Dragging in that funny irrelevance of a comparison.
"Reality has always been overflowing with entities whose essences are baptized in inquiry. We are at a crossroads of understanding and bondage. Who are we? Where on the great journey will we be aligned?"
If current models of the effects of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases on atmospheric and ocean temperatures, sea level, et al. are not credible, would you care to hazard a guess as to whether these models are under- or over-estimating the effects/risks?
Guess we'll know soon enough.
yep – we all saw how wrong this was and clayton tears are not needed or wanted.
but
Yeah that shows the sincerity of the apology – luckily we have more inquiries to get the truth out.
I'd call the changes made as a result of this a win. Gotta take what you can get unfortunately.
“The “but” is where the shit comes out”, – Richard Bandler
Pretty weak attitude imo
Shit gets weirder and weirder.
https://twitter.com/sparrowmedia/status/1192274726267305990
At approximately 3pm today Senator Rand Paul's office held a meeting with Gareth Peirce, a celebrated human rights advocate and British lawyer who currently is representing Julian Assange on matters concerning his extradition to the US.
As a solicitor representing a client facing extradition on political charges under the draconian Espionage Act for exposing US war crimes and abuses, Gareth is duty-bound to leave no stone unturned in advocating for her client —but this meeting landed at deeply troubling time.
This week Rand Paul has repeatedly pulled threads at the already threadbare fabric of democratic process by calling on members of the media and others to unmask the identity of the alleged whistleblower.
Whistleblower protection, like source protection, is a foundational tenet in journalistic ethics, and (unless something recently changed) remains paramount within Wikileaks.
Today’s meeting between Julian Assange’s attorney and Rand Paul’s staff was an affront to every core belief once held sacred by Wikileaks supporters. It never should have happened.
To add insult to injury today Rand Paul blocked a resolution reaffirming the Senate's support for whistleblower protections. Protecting the safety of sources is not “fake outrage,” it’s a baseline to due process in these proceedings.
In addition to showing contempt for whistleblowers & sources, Rand Paul has also shown contempt for journalists from the mainstream & alternative media alike, including fighting to revoke the press credentials of @AbbyMartin who once asked him hard questions about US drone policy
mentions The already horrid optics of this meeting are compounded when it is revealed the individual who purportedly brokered the meeting between Julian Assange's lawyer and Rand Paul's office is none other than Roger Stone protege and Alt-Light Palme d'Or, Cassandra Fairbanks.
mentions This meeting did not speak truth to power …it pulled at the pant legs of it.
mentions This meeting did not lift up the ideals that at one time in 2010 made Wikileaks great …it undermined those ideals in a most brutal way.
mentions This meeting couldn't possibly help Julian Assange in his fight against charges for publishing information about US war crimes …instead it conflates them with a partisan spat that is threatening the safety of another whistleblower seeking to hold those in power to account.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1192160499670106112.html
I've yet to see any media call out the Repug push to expose the whistleblower for what it really can only be: a blatant attempt to intimidate other potential whistleblowers and scare them away from whistleblowing.
Or something else..
https://twitter.com/MattLaslo/status/1192172187253391360
Rand Paul is definitely playing a different game to most of the rest of the Repugs, though I'm not ready to guess at what his end-game might be. (No, I don't think he's a Pooteepuppet, though there is likely some convergence of interests)
But people are complicated, even utter assholes can do worthwhile things now and then. Rand Paul's sticking up for Snowden seems to fall into that category, even though it may be in service of some as-yet obscure asshole goal.
Earlier in the year he was quietly boosting foreign oligarchs with his opposition to sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 project. At around the same time he was holding up funding for a 9/11 victims
An opportunist weasel looking to line his own pockets, I reckon.
Rand Paul is one of the few repug politicians I suspect might actually have some pretty strong political principles that he generally sticks to, rather than being primarily interested in feathering his own nest and clawing onto is sinecure.
Touble is that those principles are libertarian, so whatever good he might advocate he approaches fromn the opposite direction. I.e. protecting Snowden is consistent with trying to make government infintesimally small, so it's the same impulse that makes him want to destroy all government healthcare systems (not sure about his ideas on VA – he'd probably want it government funded but privatised).
Whereas even a light socialist would say Snowden deserves a pass because he exposed mass surveillance that preserves nationalistic capitalist hegemony, and that everyone is entitled to healthcare, food, and housing even if capitalism doesn't provide it to them.
Yeah, but his defenses of fake-tan fuhrer make it look like he doesn't understand that libertarian is not the same thing as libertine.
fair call
Leaking a phone call between world leaders so the Dems have an excuse for impeachment is not whistleblowing.
maui, your previous evasions notwithstanding, I'm still interested in whether you think it's OK for the president to withhold Congress approved and taxpayer funded aid to try to extort a foreign country into smearing a political opponent of the president?
Go on and pretend it's just a hypothetical if it makes it easier for you to answer. It's a very simple question that only needs a “yes it’s OK” or “no it’s not OK” answer.
Nope, not satire.
http://archive.li/3KBar#selection-326.1-411.20
Aw c'mon, give him credit, he's the absolute undisputed master of seagull chess. Y'know, where you flap in squawking loudly, shit all over the board, knock all the pieces over, strut around like you've won, and flap out again still squawking loudly.
I doubt he even knows how each chess piece moves and even if by a miracle he does he'd cheat his arse off like he does in every other aspect of his life from golf to numbers at his parade. He would be good at moving the pieces on one of those magnetic chess sets that are so so small you can hardly hold them, for obvious reasons.
"Despite supporting the bill National have set out several changes to the law that they would make in their first 100 days if elected, including removing the controversial methane target and asking an independent commission to set it."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/117244331/national-will-support-climate-change-zero-carbon-bill
It would appear that Russel Norman was right
What did Norman say? That getting National on board wasn't worth it?
Pretty much….will see if I can find the quote
cheers, I'd like to read some good analysis of this position.
Magic undie drawers are a thing.
https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/1191027505727193088
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/04/09/writer-shared-invisible-work-friend-husband-never-noticed-fair-say-struck-chord/
The rabid hole goes deep