Open mike 14/01/2020

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, January 14th, 2020 - 68 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

68 comments on “Open mike 14/01/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sabine 1
    14 January 2020 at 7:51 am

    dropping food for the critters taht survived the fires.

    i wonder how long they can keep that up for.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/6402115/australia-animals-food-fires/

    • weka 2.1
      14 January 2020 at 9:58 am

      Ross, you are in moderation. Please go back and look at your last comments and see the moderation notes. When you do so, and respond, I will revisit the moderation.

      • Ross 2.1.1
        14 January 2020 at 10:21 am

        hmmm I don’t know what my last comments were although you likely disagreed with them. Maybe you could simply explain what the issue is?

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          14 January 2020 at 11:17 am

          I’ve spent more than enough time on this already, the onus is on you to go look up the morderations. They will be under your last comments onsite before today.

          • Ross 2.1.1.1.1
            14 January 2020 at 2:14 pm

            Maybe you could link to them. There is no heading entitled ‘moderations’. Cheers

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1
              14 January 2020 at 2:46 pm

              Put ‘Formerly Ross’ into the search box, then look for your last comments, and my replies to them.

              • Ross …
                14 January 2020 at 2:51 pm

                And then? As you know I’ve repeatedly said climate change is man made, so am not sure what the problem is. Quoting Bjorn Lomborg is OK?

                • Ross …
                  14 January 2020 at 2:58 pm

                  By the way I did as you suggested and in the first thread that appeared there were 132 messages. None of them were from me. I’d consider that punishment enough. 🙂

                  • weka …
                    14 January 2020 at 6:26 pm

                    if you can’t be bothered finding your own comments, why should I? Leaving this here for posterity, because I am not doing this again. My suggestion is that you pay attention to who replies to your comments at the time.

                    • Ross …
                      14 January 2020 at 10:51 pm

                      if you can’t be bothered finding your own comments, why should I?

                      I followed your advice, which was incorrect. Don't shoot the messenger.

                • weka …
                  14 January 2020 at 6:24 pm

                  do you agree to stay out of commenting under my posts about climate change?

                  • Ross …
                    14 January 2020 at 10:49 pm

                    do you agree to stay out of commenting under my posts about climate change?

                    You've never asked me to do that, so why now? Have you ever thought of becoming more resilient so you can handle disagreements more easily? There are lots of videos on YouTube on how to become more resilient.

                    [I’ll take that as a no then. Here’s the mod note where I asked you to stay out of my CC posts. https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-04-01-2020/#comment-1676987

                    You are now banned from commenting under my CC posts. If you comment under my other posts and it looks like climate denial expect moderation without warning. This is using my definition of climate denial, not yours. As already mentioned, the onus is on you to keep track of replies to your own comments including moderations.

                    Please read the Policy. This is the relevant bit right now,

                    Generally wasting a moderators time is just not a good idea. We’re there to deal with isolated problems. People persistently sucking up our voluntary time won’t like the results.

                    Likewise telling authors and moderators what to do. – weka]

                    • weka …
                      14 January 2020 at 11:35 pm

                      mod note above.

                    • Ross …
                      15 January 2020 at 7:17 am

                      If you comment under my other posts and it looks like climate denial

                      It doesn't look like climate denial and never has. You simply cannot accept an opinion different from your own.

  3. Muttonbird 3
    14 January 2020 at 9:24 am

    It is sad news that a young man has lost his life in the ongoing Culture Wars.

    Fascinating though the rise of conservative, gay, transphobic activists. We have our own in Ani O'Brien and Rachel Stewart who believe gender is immutable.

    Incredible that some gay people would seek to shut down protections for the maginalised and vulnerable.

    Have they forgotten the struggle for their own rights so soon?

    [‘Conservative’ has a particular political meaning in NZ. O’Brien and Stewart are not conservative, they’re left wing. It’s not ok to misrepresent people’s politics like this, especially on such a controversial topic (this applies to all sides). I tried to address this with you last time in comments, now I’m moderating.

    If you want to argue that their politics on gender are conservative, you’ll have to do that specifically, but both of them appear to be gender critical feminists, which is predominantly a left wing movement. If you do try and make this argument you will have to back it up with credible evidence and clear rationale (evidence means links and quotes and explanation of relevance where necessary, not expecting people to read a whole article to parse what you mean). Again, this will apply to all sides of the debate, because there is so much misrepresentation and miscommunication all round – weka.]

    • Psycho Milt 3.1
      14 January 2020 at 9:48 am

      … Ani O'Brien and Rachel Stewart who believe gender is immutable.

      Gender is a social construct, so I'd be astonished if either of those people has claimed it's "immutable" (or any synonym thereof). Perhaps you've confused sex and gender? If not, can you provide evidence for your claim they believe gender is fixed?

    • weka 3.2
      14 January 2020 at 10:09 am

      mod note for you Muttonbird.

    • weka 3.3
      14 January 2020 at 10:17 am

      What PM said re sex and gender (in this debate gender is no longer interchangeable with biological sex as a term). You need to now either provide evidence that Stewart and O'Brien believe gender is immutable, or you need to retract this.

      To help you out, GCFs believe that biological sex is immutable, and that gender is a social construct that harms women. GCFs generally support gender non-conformity and believe that rigid gender roles should be abolished. Many support trans people having the same rights as everyone else, but they do have significant issues with transphobia within their movement and in the GC movements more broadly (imo it's not dissimilar to say the left having internal issues with sexism/misogyny, or feminism having internal issues with classism or racism).

      My advice is that if you want to take part in this debate you educate yourself, because this is not the first time you have gotten the basics wrong.

      O'Brien is a GCF. Don't know if Stewart describes herself as that, but she seems generally aligned.

        • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.1
          14 January 2020 at 11:24 am

          Biological sex isn't immutable either.

          It is immutable given our current level of technology, at least. Or can you point out an example of a human being whose sex changed from one to another?

          You've provided some links from scientists trying to obfuscate sex for political purposes. None of those articles alters the facts that Homo Sapiens is sexually dimorphic and in almost all cases the sex of an individual is clear from their physiology. The existence of a tiny percentage of intersex cases (something inevitable given how messy biology is) doesn't make sex a "spectrum."

          • arkie 3.3.1.1.1
            14 January 2020 at 11:37 am

            can you point out an example of a human being whose sex changed from one to another?

            Any person who has transitioned.

            You've provided some links from scientists trying to obfuscate sex for political purposes.

            Um… evidence? You seem to know more about biology than the experts I cited.

            None of those articles alters the facts that Homo Sapiens is sexually dimorphic and in almost all cases the sex of an individual is clear from their physiology.

            Thus spake Psycho Milt.

            It's a messy subject that's for sure, but the certainty that you and GCFs exhibit is unwarranted. It's more complicated than judging people by how they look to you.

            • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.1.1.1
              14 January 2020 at 1:29 pm

              Any person who has transitioned.

              No person who has transitioned has changed their sex. We don't have the technical capability to turn male into female and vice versa – maybe we will one day, but we certainly don't right now.

              Um… evidence?

              The evidence is there in the articles. The attempt to talk up a tiny percentage of intersex cases into sex being a spectrum is unscientific and has an obvious political agenda.

              It's more complicated than judging people by how they look to you.

              Well, yes, exactly. The fact that somebody looks male or female to you doesn't necessarily mean they are the sex you're assuming – that's the whole basis on which transsexuals use transitioning to help alleviate their gender dysphoria.

              Gender can be as complicated as you like. Which sex you are isn't complicated at all though, unless you're one of a very small number of intersex people (who are not "trans" and shouldn't be lumped in with them).

              • arkie …
                14 January 2020 at 1:53 pm

                No person who has transitioned has changed their sex.

                Says you, because you are wedded to essentialist view of sex and gender.

                I was asking for evidence for your assertion that these scientific concepts are "trying to obfuscate sex for political purposes". That's a fairly big claim.

                The attempt to talk up a tiny percentage of intersex cases into sex being a spectrum is unscientific and has an obvious political agenda.

                A corollary is that your desire to ignore/dismiss a minority of peoples experiences is also unscientific and has a political agenda; one that has many ideologies in common with conservative thought on the issue.

                Gender can be as complicated as you like. Which sex you are isn't complicated at all though, unless you're one of a very small number of intersex people (who are not "trans" and shouldn't be lumped in with them).

                You have dismissed all of the scientifically proven variations that exist in the biological (chromosomal, hormonal etc) expression of sex that my links provide. Intersex individuals are already 'lumped in' with trans people as part of the minority; Queer people, LGBTQIA+. Why do you assume that there are no trans intersex people?

                • Psycho Milt …
                  14 January 2020 at 2:19 pm

                  you are wedded to essentialist view of sex and gender.

                  Recognising that sexual reproduction involves two sexes and that the two have distinct roles in reproduction isn't "essentialist," it's "rationalist." And what an "essentialist" view of gender would look like I have no idea, given that gender's a social construct.

                  I was asking for evidence for your assertion that these scientific concepts are "trying to obfuscate sex for political purposes".

                  And I gave it. Like any biological process, sexual reproduction isn't perfect and there are defects. Occasionally those defects occur in the reproductive system itself. In humans, the defects large enough to bring the sex of the person into question involve a fraction of one per cent of live births. For a scientist to present this tiny minority of defects as evidence that sex is a spectrum can only be deliberate obfuscation, because a scientist wouldn't do that in error – it would be like claiming that the existence of birth defects involving the legs means that humans aren't bipedal and number of legs is a spectrum. Likewise, the motivation for the obfuscation is clearly political – scientists don't obfuscate just because they're bored.

                  … your desire to ignore/dismiss a minority of peoples experiences is also unscientific…

                  I don't dismiss anyone's experiences, unless their claimed experience is highly unlikely (eg I dismiss people's experiences of being cured by faith healers) or contradicted by physical reality (eg I dismiss Muhammad's experience of riding a flying horse to Jerusalem). The idea that a human can change sex under our current technological capability is contradicted by physical reality.

                  You have dismissed all of the scientifically proven variations that exist in the biological (chromosomal, hormonal etc) expression of sex that my links provide.

                  Not at all. I've just pointed out that they don't alter the fact that Homo Sapiens is sexually dimorphic.

                  Why do you assume that there are no trans intersex people?

                  Trans intersex people? Which sex would they be transitioning from, do you think?

                  • arkie …
                    14 January 2020 at 2:30 pm

                    I tire of your deliberate ignorance of the terminology of this subject that you are clearly deeply invested in. I will not continue to attempt to correct your assumptions.

                    Trans intersex people? Which sex would they be transitioning from, do you think?

                    From the one they were assigned at birth, like all trans people.

                    For a scientist to present this tiny minority of defects as evidence that sex is a spectrum can only be deliberate obfuscation… …Likewise, the motivation for the obfuscation is clearly political – scientists don't obfuscate just because they're bored.

                    What is this 'clear Political motivation'? What is their goal?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      14 January 2020 at 3:33 pm

                      I tire of your deliberate ignorance of the terminology of this subject that you are clearly deeply invested in.

                      Right back atcha. I'm invested in this subject only to the extent that it's the most intense example of the infestation of the left with postmodernist bullshit. That, I care a lot about.

                      What is this 'clear Political motivation'? What is their goal?

                      You've demonstrated the motivation in this thread – it's to provide gender identity enthusiasts with ammunition to claim biological sex is a spectrum. The goal is public acceptance of sex self-id.

                    • arkie …
                      14 January 2020 at 3:47 pm

                      infestation of the left with postmodernist bullshit

                      Yikes. I'll just leave you and DF to roll in that sty.

                      The goal is public acceptance of sex self-id.

                      What's the issue? And alternatively how would you be ID-ing peoples sex then?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      14 January 2020 at 5:10 pm

                      What's the issue?

                      Sigh. Feminists have written plenty about what the issue is, it's easy enough to educate yourself on that subject.

                    • arkie …
                      14 January 2020 at 5:21 pm

                      I reject your assertion that 'Feminists have written plenty about what the issue is' because plenty of feminists have no issue with sex self-ID. Some percentage of self-described feminists have a problem with it.

                      I notice you have failed to articulate how you intend to ID peoples sex if self-ID is an issue

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      14 January 2020 at 6:53 pm

                      …plenty of feminists have no issue with sex self-ID.

                      I think most people reading this blog grasp the idea that feminism isn't a monolith and don't need me to explain it to them.

                      I notice you have failed to articulate how you intend to ID peoples sex if self-ID is an issue

                      Given the lack of difficulties arising from doing without sex self-ID for the last however-many-million years, I don't believe it needs any explanation.

                    • arkie …
                      14 January 2020 at 7:23 pm

                      Right so the particular group you're referring to when you say 'Feminists have written plenty about what the issue is' are a small minority of feminism who are arguing against the majority of feminism, I have read their arguments and found them lacking. As you say it is an Appeal to Nature 'for the last however-many-million years'.

                      But the reason this issue is being discussed is because we have differing views about the 'lack of difficulties' preceding this present. Trans, non-binary and intersex people are among the most marginalised people around the globe and enforcing a Manichaean view of sex/gender etc isn't helping people feel welcome in this world.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      15 January 2020 at 6:02 am

                      …[gender-critical feminists] are a small minority of feminism…

                      …in your opinion. I haven't seen any figures putting percentages on it, but it wouldn't alter my statement anyway. A minority opinion is no less valid than a majority opinion, what counts are the arguments.

                      … it is an Appeal to Nature…

                      I'm the last person who'd argue that 'natural' is a synonym for 'good.' I'm arguing that physical reality is unaltered by our feelings about it.

                      Trans, non-binary and intersex people are among the most marginalised people around the globe…

                      That's a situation that can't be improved via dishonesty. It's wrong to discriminate against them per se, there's no need to invent stories about sex supposedly being a matter of what your feelings about it are.

                    • arkie …
                      15 January 2020 at 8:07 am

                      I have provided links to back up my argument. You have decided that you know better than the science and don't need to provide any evidence beyond your reckons, and your appeal to nature.

        • weka 3.3.1.2
          14 January 2020 at 3:00 pm

          I think people use the term sex in somewhat different ways. For instance there is no scientific doubt that humans need two different sexes to reproduce, and that humans have only two sexes. We call them male and female, but the mechanism for reproduction relies on large gametes (egg) and small ones (sperm), there is no third gamete in that, only two and they are binary (distinct from each other always but needed in relationship to each other) There are important evolutionary reasons for this. This is how it is for a great many organisms.

          This is different from how humans ascribe meaning to biological sex (and consequently gender). I think what is happening currently is a fight over power to determine what meaning 'sex' has for humans (and consequently gender), and science is being used by several sides to justify their position. I can see it argued both ways, but remain unconvinced that either is absolutely right (apart from the bit above about reproduction). I'm much more interested in who is served by the fight over power. I don't think it is women or trans ppl. Also not the left or progressives or life on earth that is under threat from human civilisations.

          My preference is to step out that of that binary thinking (TA vs GCF, right vs wrong) and see what can be salvaged and rebuilt past the damage done by the war. I also think that being able to talk about it is critical and much of the damage has occurred because of heavy duty suppression of debate.

          • arkie 3.3.1.2.1
            14 January 2020 at 3:43 pm

            For instance there is no scientific doubt that humans need two different sexes to reproduce, and that humans have only two sexes.

            There needs to be two types of gametes yes, not necessarily two different sexes, and their is indeed scientific doubt that there are only two sexes, I provided the links. The association of these types of gametes with the physiological forms of 'male' and 'female' is the essentialist thinking we must move beyond. If I am infertile, if I choose not to reproduce, if I produce both gamete types, I am no longer male or female? Also how are we to know what type of gametes a person produces before assigning their sex/gender? I understand there is fight of these definitions but I fail to see who is benefitting by restricting sex/gender to these essentialist lines. It is a rehashing of the conservative 'its just natural' argument.

            Could you perhaps point me to a definition of the gender-critical position?

            • soddenleaf 3.3.1.2.1.1
              14 January 2020 at 4:51 pm

              I'm confused. Someone who has surgery to become binary means there's a third gender? Evolution wisely doesn'twant adaptive pressure on sexual reproduction since invariable it would mean infertility, since there has been a quite recent development of the chemical industrial revolution… …sure no absolutes in evolution but also a very plausible reason for the new wave of people needing surgery.

              • arkie …
                14 January 2020 at 5:14 pm

                Humans evolution isn't really driven by natural selection, hasn't been for most of history. Evolution isn't 'wise' and does not want anything.

                • soddenleaf …
                  16 January 2020 at 4:33 pm

                  Evolution wants to survive to reproduce, it will choose behaviours that accomplish this since those that don't aren't successful. Wisely evolution guards most intensely against changes to sexual reproducion, those strains more likely to mutate their sexually are also less likely to reproduce. Humans are currently experiencing a over population period that all species, sooner or later, adapt their environment to increase resources, reduce risks of death naturally enter into. This is when species bifurcated, over population in Africa push early hominids into desert regions and a land bridge to Asia.

                  If it needs surgery it ain't a gender change, it's a cultural one. Since the genes aren’t passed on any more or less than they would have been.

            • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.2.1.2
              14 January 2020 at 5:08 pm

              The association of these types of gametes with the physiological forms of 'male' and 'female' is the essentialist thinking we must move beyond.

              We must? Given that 'male' and 'female' are the names of the two sexes producing those two types of gametes, there is no obvious reason why we 'must' change their definitions to something unrelated to the two sexes.

              If I am infertile, if I choose not to reproduce, if I produce both gamete types, I am no longer male or female?

              Nope. Humans have two arms and two legs, but that doesn't mean you cease to be human if you lose a limb.

              … who is benefitting by restricting sex/gender to these essentialist lines.

              Sex and gender are different things. Who is benefiting by conflating them into "sex/gender?"

              • arkie …
                14 January 2020 at 5:25 pm

                Nope. Humans have two arms and two legs, but that doesn’t mean you cease to be human if you lose a limb.

                No, you are a ‘defect’ apparently. as you said above.

                Who is benefiting by conflating them into “sex/gender?”

                People who do not neatly fit into either, or both, false binaries.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  14 January 2020 at 6:41 pm

                  as you said above.

                  The fact that biological processes aren't perfect doesn't make people "defects." This kind of deliberate misrepresentation is part of the "fight" weka refers to.

                  People who do not neatly fit into either, or both, false binaries.

                  Gender isn't binary. Sex is. This stuff isn't rocket science, despite postmodernists' attempts to portray it as a great, complicated mystery.

                  • arkie …
                    14 January 2020 at 6:55 pm

                    The fact that biological processes aren't perfect doesn't make people "defects."

                    It certainly read that way. I apologise if that wasn't your intention.

                    From my first link:

                    It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

                    Sex isn't binary either. It's not rocket science, it's not postmodernism, it's biology.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      14 January 2020 at 8:19 pm

                      Yes, that's a good example. List the various ways sexual reproduction doesn't work perfectly in a tiny fraction of the population, describe them as though they were common and widespread features of that population, and to the credulous it sounds like sex isn't binary. It's obfuscation, and it's deliberate.

                    • arkie …
                      14 January 2020 at 8:25 pm

                      From my third link:

                      The idea that gender or sex are binary harms everyone by stigmatizing traits that lie outside of what society considers normal. Changing attitudes and social structures to recognize sex as a spectrum is a daunting task, but it is possible. To make real change, we need both public education about the biological sex spectrum as well as policy changes. We should ban surgeries on intersex people without their consent and reinstate the Obama-era interpretation of Title IX to enact laws that specifically protect those who are intersex, transgender, or non-binary.

                      It's deliberate alright. The goal is positive change for marginalised people, why is this bad?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      15 January 2020 at 5:48 am

                      It's bad because:

                      1. Sex isn't a spectrum. Promoting something obviously untrue is unethical and causes rational people to reject your ideas, which is counter-productive.

                      2. Scientists using their knowledge to obfuscate rather than inform brings science into disrepute and harms every other area of science (eg, if we know that there are biologists with an agenda peddling a lie for political purposes, we might be more inclined to believe AGW-denier propaganda).

                      3. Promoting something obviously untrue doesn't actually help marginalised people, because the bigots marginalising them will regard the fact their opposition is lying as an endorsement of their views, and otherwise-neutral people will regard other claims in support of marginalised people with suspicion.

                      4. Because sex clearly is binary even to people who know little about it, conflating sex and gender can only encourage people to think of gender as binary, which is horribly counter-productive for everybody, not just trans people.

                    • arkie …
                      15 January 2020 at 8:07 am

                      I have provided links to back up my argument. You have decided that you know better than the science and don't need to provide any evidence beyond your reckons, and your appeal to nature.

      • Muttonbird 3.3.2
        14 January 2020 at 10:49 am

        I know you hate me for some reason, Weka.

        I doesn't seem to matter what I post about, there is a lengthy authoritarian statement with demands in bold to follow.

        Having worked at home this morning I have to physically go to work now so I will not be able to meet your requests until later.

        I did think my last response on this topic after your last bold writings was sufficient, with short explanations and links as demanded above, because you didn't respond letting me know whether it was satisfactory or not, according to you.

        I sincerely hope other moderations and the owner of this site see things differently.

        • weka 3.3.2.1
          14 January 2020 at 11:05 am

          Later is fine. I probably lost track of the last time, I'll have a look and respond. I did look up the previous gender discussion before I moderated today and saw a similar pattern that I thought I had addressed clearly. Making assertions about public figures requires evidence if there is doubt about accuracy. If someone posted a political comment that included that say Ardern believed that NZ should be more centrist than it is, I'd certainly expect them to provide some evidence.

          As I've said today, I think if you want to engage in this debate you need to educate yourself. You can still take the position you do, but you cannot mislead especially about public figures.Also, I’m no saying this to be patronising, but the debate elsewhere on the internet is often a nasty shit show and I’d highly encourage you to take the time to learn the deeper debate so you can avoid that. My commitment at the moment is to prevent debate on TS from becoming a shit show as well.

          In terms of your general commenting history, you have posted here for many years about all sorts of things and not gotten a huge amount of moderator attention. To me this moderation today is just a setting of boundaries as discussion about trans/gender on TS increases. It's not even about you, you're just the one being more proactive about it. Whoever brings this topic up needs to take more care than usual, and again this applies to all sides.

          Please also bear in mind that much of moderation boils down to us not having to spend excess time on moderation. The requirement from me about how to provide evidence has been consistent for most of the time I've been moderating. It's mostly about me not having to read lengthy pieces and trying to guess why someone thinks it backs up their assertion. But it's also because other people shouldn't have to do this either, and debate improves when communication is clear.

          edited.

          • weka 3.3.2.1.1
            14 January 2020 at 11:15 am

            just checked, last time this came up I didn't bold moderate.

            https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29-12-2019/#comment-1675915

            Without going over that discussion again, I think you are missing the core of the moderation now. You can make whatever political arguments you want (within the limits of the Policy), and you can express opinions, but when you start making assertions you have to back them up if required. This has been TS Policy for longer than I have been here,

            This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so. Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.

    • weka 3.4
      14 January 2020 at 10:19 am

      That is sad about the young man's suicide. Am hoping social media wasn't a contributing factor 🙁

    • A 3.5
      14 January 2020 at 6:19 pm

      ♡ He was just a baby (my opinion is anyone 26 or under) starting out in the world, but seems to have achieved quite a lot. Thoughts with the family x

  4. mosa 4
    14 January 2020 at 9:36 am

    And now they start kicking the Bern.

    Amazed it took that long but they can't ignore him any longer.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/13/sanders-flubs-his-new-york-times-ed-board-interview/

  5. joe90 5
    14 January 2020 at 10:55 am

    Of course he'll turn up.

    Assad runs an hereditary, thuggish kleptocracy tRump can only dream of.

    In a video of the conversation between Assad and Putin at the Orthodox Church of the Virgin Mary in Damascus, Assad mentions the Apostle Paul’s conversion to Christianity after a vision at the gate of Damascus, Axios reported.

    “If Trump arrives along this road, everything will become normal with him too," the Syrian leader said, according to the news outlet.

    “It will be repaired … invite him. He will come,” Putin reportedly responds, with Assad responding that he is prepared to invite Trump and Putin resolving to pass the message along.

    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/477900-putin-urges-syrias-assad-to-invite-trump-for-visit

  6. Incognito 6
    14 January 2020 at 12:37 pm

    Stats NZ reports that a 2.7% lift in monthly building consents for November saw the annual level of consents around the country hit over 37,000 for the first time since the 1970s

    https://www.interest.co.nz/property/103227/stats-nz-reports-27-lift-monthly-building-consents-november-saw-annual-level

  7. Sabine 7
    14 January 2020 at 2:28 pm

    There are a lot of interesting links in this dairy at Daily Kos. (Disclaimer: i have enjoyed DK since 2003 when some of the writers there were Steve Gilliard (rip) and Billmon (who stopped blogging. Moon of Alabama comes of the defunkt BillmonBlog )

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/13/1909613/-Climate-models-suggest-global-food-system-crisis-at-hand-dust-bowl-scenarios-now-locked-in?utm_campaign=trending

    btw, it finally 'rained'. Its more of a drizzle, but at least it has been a fairly constant one, it is needed as our soils are dry. Trees dropping fruit and leaves browning. Its that lingering drought of ours. We should think about that every now and then.

  8. mosa 8
    14 January 2020 at 5:22 pm

    Water is a natural resource and should belong too all New Zealanders.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2020/01/ending-governments-charade-over-water.html

  9. Jenny How to get there 9
    14 January 2020 at 5:24 pm

    Why is climate change so dangerous?

    Understanding climate change

    When temperatures between day and night time can vary as much as 20 degrees. And differences between seasons can vary by even more.

    How can a small average rise of one or two degrees, globally, be dangerous?

    How can an average global rise of only a few millimetres in our oceans be dangerous?

    The clue is in the words 'globally' and 'average'

    Think of it this way way.

    In the open ocean the tides raised by the pull of the moon are only a little over a half a metre.

    It is because the average tidal pull of the moon on the earth's oceans gets amplified locally that we can get tides of up to 16m in some places.

    The same with an average rise in sea level of one or two millimetres due the melting of Greenland ice cap. A small rise in average oceanic sea levels can in some places and on some occasions be amplified to more than a metre. When you add in the effect of climate change fueled super storms, in some places and on some occasions a small global average rise in sea level can multiply localised storm surges by 3m or more.

    The same with climate change, some places the effects of climate change are more pronounced than others. The North polar region, for instance, is heating up much faster than almost any other region of the planet. (with global consequences).

    These localised effects and amplifications can vary, already dry places may get dryer. Already wet places may get wetter. Depending on different varying local conditions, (topography, wind and water currents), the inverse can also happen.

    Another question people ask, is how can CO2 which is a trace gas in our atmosphere, amounting to only 0.04% of Earth's Atmosphere be responsible for so much heating?

    The answer lies in the qualitative difference between CO2 and nitrogen. At 78% nitrogen makes up the vast bulk of our atmosphere, but nitrogen is completely transparent to infrared radiation, (radiative heat). CO2 on the other hand blocks radiative heat, trapping it.

    Think of it this way

    Fill a bath to the top with completely transparent water from your bath tap. Now get an eye dropper and fill it with Indian ink. Drop into the clear bath water the same proportion of Indian ink into the clear bath water as there is CO2 in the atmosphere. Note the very visible difference in the bath water to let visible light pass through it.