All
This is why there’s a new push by Climate Change skeptics:

Exxon Mobil Climate Change Inquiry in New York Gains Allies

FYI: The ground-breaking reporting that reveal Exxon’s climate deceit:

Exxon: The Road Not Taken

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 13 2016 19:12 utc | 104

Just for you, JR
Are You New To the Global Warming Debate? James Hansen Admits a Couple of Things about Global Temperatures and Sea Levels You Should Know (if you don’t want to appear like you can’t disinguish your Cubitus from your Gluteus Maximus)
Bob Tisdale / 7 hours ago April 13, 2016

Yale University’s Katherine Bagley interviewed James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Spade Studies, in the post For James Hansen, the Science Demands Activism on Climate at YaleEnvironment360. 
That interview was replayed in the article Climate scientist James Hansen ‘I don’t think I’m an alarmist’ at The Guardian.
In that interview, Hansen admitted a couple of basic things that many people do not realize.  So if you’re new to discussions of global warming and rising sea levels read on.
First, global surface temperatures were warmer during the last interglacial than they are today.  An interglacial is a period between ice ages.  That will be news to many readers.
How then, many will wonder, do we know for sure that the recent warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases since we’re still within the realm of natural variability?
Of course the answer is: Climate models tell us so, even though those climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate as it existed in the past, as it exists now, and as it might exist in the future…climate models do not simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause global warming.
Hansen’s second admission was sea levels were 6 to 9 meters (20 to 30 feet) higher during the last interglacial than they are today.  Here’s an illustration from my ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1 (700+ page, 25MB .pdf). (https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/figure-intro-17.png)
But what Hansen failed to say is that paleoclimatological studies have indicated that it took a number of millennia for sea levels to rise those 6 to 9 meters when temperatures were warmer than today. See:

• Kopp et al. (2013) Probabilistic assessment of sea level variations during the last interglacial stage, and
• Dutton & Lambeck (2012) Ice volume and sea level during the last interglacial.

Now, the usual clima-hysterics will of course rant and rave about this, and will make all sorts of silly little accusations, but they won’t be able to show evidence that it is false, so they’ll probably just lie about it. Most likely they will want to talk about anything but the content quoted above, which is how they usually roll, all the while ranting about Science, while refusing to address any actual science.
James Hansen btw made something like an extra 5million dollars out of his Climate Hysteria – remember that when the Clima-tards start ranting about Oil co’s financing sceptics

Posted by: Activist | Apr 13 2016 21:15 utc | 106

Ah, Doofus Maximus
there’s a surpise 😉

Posted by: Activist | Apr 13 2016 22:37 utc | 108

That’s Tribune of the Plebians to you, patrician scum. And America must have proportional representation!

Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 14 2016 2:33 utc | 110

in 96
You always behaved like you were the Second Coming of Christ. The judgemental, authoritarian one, beloved by Calivinists and fundamentalists, Protestant and Catholic alike.
You questioned my bonafides, one may be anonymous, but no one is without a biography. I think my class origins and political activity relevant (Central American solidarity work was far from useless, IMHO). And that you give no suggestion of your own experience I think relevant as well.
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, you and your peculiar definitions. Support usually means “I like ‘em and really think you should vote for them.” As opposed to, “Maybe we’d all be better off with this guy than that, though I want something else, but am ready for any eventuality.”
Your lack of information and experience again shows. ‘Cuz, ya see, actually, plenty of socialists, of Sanders’ soft left social-democratic variety, will be all in for Mrs. Clinton.
The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America, the late Michael Harrington’s group) has long been a Democratic Party ginger group, to name but one example. They’d likely prefer Sanders, but would easily get behind Mrs. Clinton.
Saying “bully pulpit” really isn’t a plan. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But actually, some cabinet positions, if backed up by popular support (created in part by the Sandersistas) would work, and a commitment to a legislative agenda would tend to lessen the wiggle room.
And the Greens could tag along.
Now on to the data.
This item on the on a possible contested convention is quite interesting. Should Sanders emerge as the nominee, but lose due to red-baiting or other nefarious doings, I would have no problem with that putting the Rethuglicans in. Nor with his win.
That’s a risk I think worth taking. The non-entity Dr. Stein doesn’t seem so.
Because there are some risks otherwise, from Mr. Trump & Mr. Cruz. Thuggery or theocracy, Barflies, pick your poison.
Oh, and here’s list of reasons why Trump won’t be actually creating decent jobs for his poorly-educated supporters.
Which makes O’Reilly complaining about “ill educated blacks” ironic and tastless.
And, besides, says The Donald, we don’t need no foreign competition to drive down wages.
I would be still be unlikely to vote for Sanders in the general election. His nomination, to say nothing of his election, however, would definitely change the Democrats, we’d have to see how much.
Still, he looks to have done the Verizon strikers a solid. CWA has endorsed him, BTW.
This endorsement, by Senate colleague, is interesting as well.

Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 14 2016 3:03 utc | 112

Pure speculation but, imo, the ONLY way for Russia to get the Yankees out of Syria forever is to provoke NATO into a hot conflict – which means bombing the crap out of something in Turkey. And then waiting for NATO’s pussies & pansies to commit suicide.
China is apparently treating the Yankee presence in the South China Sea the same way the Russians are treating it in the Baltic. It can’t possibly be a coincidence…

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14 2016 3:28 utc | 114

Oh brother….
First rufus unjustly accuses me of “diversionary personal attacks”, then he launches one against me. LOL!
And you HAVE NO ‘BONAFIDES’, rufus. Unless you reveal who you really are we can’t check what you say about yourself. Sheesh, what a moron.
Sanders has a chance at a contested Democratic Convention? That’s a joke, right? There is absolutely no indication that the Super-delegates will defect to Bernie:

> The Republicans appear to be splintering. It seems very likely that both Trump and a Republican establishment candidate will be in the race for President. Naturally, this will give the Democratic nominee an advantage – thereby reducing concerns that Hillary can’t win.
> If Hillary was really concerned, she would be making overtures to Sanders supporters. She is not. Instead, she has questioned if Sanders is qualified, marginalized him with: “not a Democrat”, and attacked his agenda as unrealistic.

What the ‘contested convention’ pipedream does is keep Sanders supporters engaged as much as possible before the General Election begins. But rufus, ever the sly Hillary supporter, spins: “Should Sanders emerge as the nominee, but lose … [due to] nefarious doings …” he’ll support him. LMFAO! Hasn’t Sanders already been subject to “nefarious doings”?!?!? Yet another moron moment for rufus.
Sanders could disprove the sheepdog label by actually doing what it takes to WIN. ‘Influence the party’ hopes and ‘contested convention’ dreams are fantasies. Sanders must make the case that Hillary is unelectable NOW. Beating Hillary in her home state of New York gives him a real chance to win the nomination. Instead, Sanders has backed away from confrontation and continued with platitudes and glancing blows.
His best opportunity to do so will be at tonight’s debate. Everyone should watch and decide for themselves how serious Sanders is about winning.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
I mused at one point last year that Hillary’s negatives were so high that her nomination would throw the Presidency to the Republicans. Had the next duopoly Presidency been reserved for the Republicans(?). But then Trump entered the race, causing a re-think. Was Trump in it to win or to disrupt the Republican Party so that Hillary could win? The effects of sheepdog Sanders and ‘Party’-crasher Trump seemed designed to elect Hillary.
But Trump’s attacks on Hillary (“worst Secretary of State ever”, e-mail scandal, etc.) appear to be as serious as his attacks on the Republican ‘puppet politicians’. For this, he is demonized by both Parties and the corporate MSM. If he is serious about winning and Sanders supporters are seriously anti-establishment, ‘the People’ may be able to throw the bums out after all.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 14 2016 5:19 utc | 116

Oxfam: Fifty biggest global US companies stash $1.3 trillion offshore
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2016-04-14/fifty-biggest-global-us-companies-stash-13-trillion-offshore

Posted by: Lelver | Apr 14 2016 8:36 utc | 118

Penelope
You are using billionaires that maneuver for advantage in providing solutions to climate change to cast doubt on the science.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 14, 2016 2:01:40 AM | 117
No she is pointing out that all the pressure groups most active on the Clima-Hysteric side are all financed by billionaires. You are trying to pretend that the presence of the Billionaires Billions of dollars on the Clima-Hysteric side signifies nothing, and that “anyway, it matters not” because “the science is sound” – this would be a neat trick* IF the science were sound, but it isn’t.
Far from it, in fact.
======
* A bit like “Mike’s Nature trick” from Clima-gate – dodgy “science” from dodgy “scientists”
As I have previously noted, Wall Street would like to trade carbon credits. Most environmentalists see such a solution as very inadequate.

Carbon Credits – the perfect fake solution for a something that is a fake problem in the first place.

Posted by: Activist | Apr 14 2016 13:45 utc | 120

*In a speech to the Carnegie Endowment on April 6, Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar declared his country was pursuing a “neighbourhood first policy.” He said there were no problems with Bangladesh, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. India was also in a “transition” with Myanmar, well poised to engage the incoming government. But in Nepal and Maldives, he said, “there have been challenges that arose from their domestic policy*
———————————-
cia trg manual,
if u cant beat them, screw them
case study — bangladesh, sri lanka.
[its non-trivial to compose a post bet work, reviewing other’s work is less taxing.]
*Bangladesh has become the focus for increasing geo-political rivalry between China, India and Japan—the latter two backed by the US. Over the past two months, Chinese investment bids in Bangladesh reportedly have been outflanked by Indian and Japanese corporations over port and power plant projects.. * [1]
india/jp, the eternal whitemen’s compradors.
*India’s state-owned Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) is soon to sign a $1.6 billion power station construction contract with Bangladesh after undercutting China’s Harbin Electric International Company.
……………………
Anwarul Azim, a spokesman for the Bangladesh-India Friendship Power Company, a joint venture set up to build the coal-fired plant, said BHEL was the lowest bidder*
perhaps having powerful friend like nsa does help ?
just saying,
*The BHEL agreement further highlights India’s efforts to undermine Beijing’s economic and strategic influence in Bangladesh and throughout South Asia, as part of Washington’s “pivot” to Asia, directed at undermining China and preparing for war.
The Indian media has reported the power station deal as a “second setback” for Beijing, following the failure of a long-planned Chinese deal with Bangladesh to build the huge Sonadia deep-sea port near Chittagong, the country’s major port.
China had carried out extensive feasibility assessments and agreed to provide 99 percent of funds to build Sonadia. *
this is how the snake/bharat/jp Triumvirate are trying to bleed the chinese dry.
*Bangladesh’s planning minister, A.H.M. Mustafa Kamal, however, later admitted that the port deal would not proceed because “some countries, including India and the United States, are against the Chinese involvement*
the master of universe has spoken,
hehehehehe
*Like the port at Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan, Sonadia was to be part of Beijing’s “string of pearls” strategy—a series of Chinese-funded port facilities across the Indian Ocean to safeguard its shipping from the Middle East and Africa. China is heavily dependent on these sea lanes for importing energy and raw materials.*
what do u read in murkkan/indian press ?
china is trying to encircle india, !
*China’s investment in Sri Lankan port facilities was pushed back following the
US-backed regime-change in Sri Lanka, which saw the removal of former President Mahinda Rajapakse at the January 2015 election and the installation the pro-US Maithripala Sirisena as president.*
but after pulling the rug from under the chinese who have been hermohagging monies in the billions,
now the washington/india stooge in sri lanka wants the chinese to resume construction. !!!
beijing watch out, somebody might want to screw u a second time, they’r kinda like addicted to it already.
hehehehe
*China is Bangladesh’s largest trading partner and the cash-strapped Hasina government is seeking more investment from China.
Under pressure from Washington’s “pivot” against China and India’s integration into this increasingly provocative geo-strategic policy, Dhaka appears to be distancing itself from Beijing. These shifts and the intense international competition over infrastructure investment and other projects in Bangladesh show that every country in the region is being drawn into the maelstrom of war tensions created by the US drive against China.*
ass carter
*there must be something wrong with the chinese , all their friends are deserting them*
hehehehehe
[1]
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/05/bang-m05.html

Posted by: denk | Apr 14 2016 16:43 utc | 122

typo: It wasn’t

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 14 2016 23:09 utc | 124

US warns of global attack on freedom, slams some allies

Washington, Apr 14: … Secretary of State John Kerry, writing the preface to his department’s annual human rights report, said attacks on democratic values point to a “global governance crisis.”
“In every part of the world, we see an accelerating trend by both state and non-state actors to close the space for civil society, to stifle media and Internet freedom, to marginalise opposition voices, and in the most extreme cases, to kill people or drive them from their homes,” he said.

US-led airstrikes in Syria, Iraq gross rights violation: China

China has lashed out at the US over rights abuses both inside and outside its borders, saying the deadly Washington-led air raids in Iraq and Syria are a “gross violation” of human rights.
Beijing censured the civilian deaths caused by so-called anti-terror airstrikes, led by the US, in Iraq and Syria, as well as Washington’s drone attacks in other countries such as Afghanistan.

CIA Operations lead to the Spread of Chaos in the World

Of course, the list of the CIA’s operations goes on, but it should be noted that most of them aim at creating chaos to distract the people of the US and other regions of the world from the pressing social problems they encounter in their day-to-day lives. After all, in recent years the United States has been active to show its politicians in the best possible light in contrast to a background of global crime, corruption, and dictatorships they claim holds the upper hand in many other states. What else can they do when their military adventures in the Middle East have virtually destroyed the region, unleashing a wave of terrorism across the globe? It is terrorism that has been bred by Al-Qaeda which was in turn nurtured by Washington in a bid to fight its competition across the globe. But will the CIA ever be held accountable for its various “experiments” and “secret programs” – that’s the big question.

Only the losers are held accountable for anything. So it’s time for the USA to lose.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 15 2016 0:13 utc | 126

Watched the debate..I think Hillary won, despite being 100% establishment for the whole debate. The fact is that Bernie would not call her out on anything – he’s too nice.. She also gotcha’d him over his Libya vote. She teflon’d the whole debate and didn’t seem to be under threat at any point.. Pretty disappointing to watch overall. I think that only Trump can really put a hurt on her, but the RNC is in the process of cheating him out of a nomination

Posted by: aaaa | Apr 15 2016 3:20 utc | 128

Jackrabbit @ 125,
“Billionaire control is via government and corporate influence. But billionaires (of all types) already have immense power. Climate change doesn’t add much to that (really).”
The oligarchs run any part of UN important to them, and the various UN protocols give immense control. As oil & gas energy are progressively cut and replaced by immensely expensive and unreliable wind & solar, the rationing and affordability of energy will worsen. They are already expanding control to water as it will be affected by climate change. What development will be possible to a country? Residential developments, dams, wells will need UN approval. Rationing energy is rationing the use of machines, of electricity, communications, transport, manufacturing & heating. 40,000 people in Western Europe and Britain froze to death last winter. They couldn’t meet the increased cost for heating. Germany’s whole elctric grid is now unstable, due to her experience w renewable energy.
The reason that I keep documenting the international billionaires vast investment in the AGW idea is to point out that this “science” cannot make it on its own. It requires a vast amount of propaganda.
The AGW science was defeated by 2000. The idea is kept afloat only by employing individual activists like Hansen & McKibben, as substantiated in the Senate Report, and subsidizing the activist organizations. Scientists must bring grant money to their institutions or universities, and most grant money is tied to AGW. If a scientist fails to close his study w at least some vague general statement that the activists or controlled media can headline he will never get another grant. The university adminstration gets 10-15% as “overhead”, so you can imagine the pressure. Science which is pressured or paid to reach a particular result isn’t objective, isn’t really scientific.
The science which you think couldn’t be a conspiracy is the product of this system. The Rockefellers who were oil moguls have been supporting the entire AGW campaign from before the beginning of the IPCC.
Here is the temperature measurement from Britain’s HADCRUT: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png
The Global graph shows warming from -.3C to +.6C over 175 years. Our mainstream (skeptic) expectation is warming of .75-.85 per century until we achieve the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period or have another Ice Age.
Here’s one from NOAA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201401-201412.png
Notice that the slope of the line from 1960 to 2000 is roughly comparable to the one from 1905-1940. I think this again indicates that although there was less use of fossil fuels from 1905-1940 the rate of warming is about the same.
There is more info — about Arctic warming and El Nino in my reply to
Piotr Berman @ 98 on the previous page.
Jackrabbit if you will tell me what you find persuasive about AGW I will explain the mainstream position. Sorry– I consider as propaganda a position advanced by billionaires’ control of the administration, media, and govt grants. Especially when the same billionaires pay for the leading activists & vastly subsidize their organizations .

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 15 2016 4:27 utc | 130

cia trg manual
———————-
how to keep an *ally* in line,
how australia lost its virginity
———————————–
australia’s independent minded pm Gough whitlam was *sacked* in 1975.
the maverick whitlam was done in by no other than murkkan *ambassador* marshall green , the envoy from HELL. green engineered the genocidal coup in indonesia 1965.
lucky for whitlam, the murkkan tried a gentler approach that time. after all, blood is thicker than water right ?
in the end whitlam was simply sacked by bob kerr, washington’s man in oz, Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers. [1]
how oz was violated a second time, 2010.
how to take out a *chicom lover*.
————————————————–
rudd’s charge sheet read liks this
*he is a fucking autocratic, unpopular leader*
but his real crime was similar to sk’s mdm park, he’s a god damned sinophile who spoke mandarin. !
to top it all, he had the temerity to spurn the invitation to join the new *eight nations alliance* against china. obviously rudd had to go..
*Three years on, the SEP’s warnings have been fully confirmed. WikiLeaks [tm] cables have documented the deepening hostility in the Obama administration to Rudd’s efforts to ease sharpening tensions between the US and China. They have also exposed the fact that the factional leaders who ousted the prime minister were “protected sources” of the US embassy in Canberra, and collaborated closely with Washington as they moved to install Gillard.* [2]
how to counter the THREAT OF PEACE
case study — jp
——————–
*Just weeks before Rudd was removed, Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, who had sought closer ties with China, resigned under pressure from Washington. Official Japanese politics is now dominated by right-wing nationalism, personified by the current prime minister, Shinzo Abe.*
both bharat/jp are perenial whitemen’s compradors. but i’d cut the jp some slack ,lots of it in fact.
many jp were actually sinophiles who were like mdm park, their immersion into chinese classics would shame many contemporary chinese themselves. hatoyama’s predecesor pm ozawa had once led two plane load of jp intellectures, biz men, artiste to beijing , all 600 of them. !
no doubt the *threat of peace* was like an earthquake to washington, which promplty despatched none other than hillary *enforcer* clinton to tokyo .
the *enforcer* gave the jp such a public whipping that the shaken and trembling jp power elites soon manipulated to depose off the hapless hatoyama amidst a flurry of drumped up corruption charges.
since then sino/jp relation has nose dive due to rounds of jp tauntings at the diaoyu isle and abe’s perverse enthusiasm in joining the scs provocations.
latest polls show majority of jp like their murkkan oppressors while view the chinese with disdain.
WARsj
china’s *aggressiveness* is driving asian countries towards the unitedsnake.
this is the kind of stuff *democracy* are made off
hehehehe
p.s.
the oxford dictionary is pure bs.
this is the def of democracy according to the *dictionary for the politically INCORRECT*
democracy = hypocrisy + bs + blood and gore + forked tongue. !!
[1]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
[2]
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/24/rudd-j24.html

Posted by: denk | Apr 15 2016 4:44 utc | 132

the debate
Sanders was more forceful than in any previous debate but I don’t think he did enough to win. I think the race will narrow a bit. Sanders strategy seems to be to be forceful but nice – hoping to eventually win over Super-delegates at the convention.
To win in NY Sanders had to challenge voter perceptions of Hillary as a: fighter; powerful ally for New York; respected leader. He did not do that.
Hillary has successfully contrasted her pragmatism vs. Sanders idealism; her experience vs. Sanders. And this ‘half-loaf’ approach has largely worked on American afflicted by Stockholm syndrome. Sanders has not challenged this positioning. By all appearances, there is a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between them to stick to talking about differences in policy and ‘judgment’ (a non-stick surface).
Sanders debated issues but he didn’t make the case that Hillary was “unelectable” with points like these:

> she needs HIS supporters to win (when interviewed after the debate he gratuitously said that he would support whoever the nominee was and doesn’t know any of his supporter that wouldn’t!!);
> Hillary’s e-mail problems have worsened since the Fall when he graciously put the issue aside, saying: “enough with the emails!” – despite the fact that she is already coming under fire from Republicans on this issue;
> ‘red’ states that Hillary has won are unlikely to vote Democratic in the General election (he did say that they were the most conservative in the nation – but that is pulling punches);
> a majority of independent voters don’t trust Hillary.

And he failed to:

> provide examples of how big money influences politicians (contrast Trumps talk about ‘political puppets’) when asked a direct question(!!);
> mention undemocratic ‘Super-delegates’ – doing so would have put the DNC and media on notice.

I agree with Sanders on issues more than any other candidate. Most people that feel this way would simply be waving pom-poms, not questioning their candidate. But he is still not doing enough to win. The Sanders that we saw in this debate should’ve showed up months ago.
In an interview after the debate, Sanders’ campaign manager talked about a contested convention. He noted that Super-delegates are not really bound – they are free to vote as they like (yet didn’t take the media to task for counting them as Hillary delegates). That may be true but I don’t see the Party establishment switching to Bernie at the Convention. They like things just the way they are. And they will feel less pressure to consider Bernie given the splintering of the Republicans.
Sanders ignoring of the likely effects the Republican splintering is dog-that-didn’t-bark strange. The Republican Party establishment is fully behind the NEVER TRUMP movement. They have publicly mused about running/supporting a third-party candidate if Trump is the nominee. They just conspired to award all delegates to Cruz! And they have the power to change rules before the convention to try to block Trump if he might be the nominee (which likely means that Trump runs as an independent).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
The American people are angry and want real change. The path to that is uniting the anti-establishment vote: essentially, Tea-Party ‘nationalists’ + Occupy progressives. How can this be accomplished?
In Europe there are coalition governments like Greece where Syriza (the ‘Radical Left’) asked the Nationalists to be their junior partner. But in the US we have always had a ‘winner take all’ system. However, a Trump’s independent run with ‘softened’ positions that are more mainstream + disaffected progressives voting Green or staying home could derail Hillary’s Presidential aspirations.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 15 2016 5:37 utc | 134

@133
Also, Sanders didn’t make an issue of Hillary’s flip-flopping. He should be ready to list flip-flops at appropriate times. Guns, trade, war, etc.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 15 2016 6:26 utc | 136

@ Jackrabbit | Apr 15, 2016 2:03:02 AM | 134
Purpose of the exercise is preventing government regulation of the industry for the public’s welfare – pure and simple. Penelope is a fellow traveler for the industry’s ‘fifth column’ – again, pure and simple explanation for Little Chicken’s “The sky is NOT falling, the sky is NOT falling” loads of rubbish the reader must endure from that source. No legislature will enact regulation as long as uncertainty cannot be reasonably answered. Penelope is a manure spreader to grow uncertainty – pure and simple.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 15 2016 8:52 utc | 138

Huffington Post’s Stein agrees with my view of the debate:

The Brooklyn-born senator had a good night. But he needed something bigger …
On Convention battle strategy:
It’s not an entirely impossible theory … But the Sanders campaign’s rosy outlook sidesteps certain question marks.”

The Democratic Party is where change goes to die via an undemocratic process and deceitful politicians like Obama and Hillary. Those with integrity will simply not contribute to that ‘game’.
Sanders is a sheepdog: he didn’t enter the race to win, he didn’t campaign to win. His newfound fiestiness serves to herd his supporters to the Democratic convention. To the extent that he has done well, it’s really because he’s the only one in the race that appeals to progressives – especially Millennials – at a time of great anger and frustration with the establishment.
The ‘answer’ to Trump and Republicans is NOT Hillary. The answer is to end the neolib/neocon’s gamed political system (the duopoly). Trump has actually helped by revealing the anti-democratic sham political system.
Trump is tearing down establishment walls. Sanders is dancing on them performing his wrecking-ball rain dance. Still no wrecking-ball on the horizon.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 15 2016 14:08 utc | 140

aaaa @141
That’s the way I see it too.
But at Paul Ryan’s News Conference this week (after his return form Israel), he said that the Republicans should nominate someone that actually ran for President (i.e. not Paul Ryan). To me, this suggested a Rubio-Ryan ticket.
I expect that Trump will run as an independent.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 15 2016 21:54 utc | 142

to the Jesus of Gotham, 134, 140, 142.
Incoherent, ill-informed solipsism. As one might expect from a Green Tea Party Trumpeter.
Is this the same vaunted “moral compass” that lead you into finance and new media? Two industries noted, of course, for their deep concern for ethical standards. So long as it doesn’t affect bonuses and page views, that is.
“I agree with Sanders on issues more than any other candidate.” Who knew? You talk nothing but smack about him, and talk up Stein and the Donald.
The rules for any given convention are written by its Rules Committee prior to the convention. This is not to be confused with the RNC’s standing Rules Committee. They are not bound to use the prior rules. Here’s an account of some past and present GOP massaging of the rules.
One wonders how the anti-immigrant, pro-fossil fuel people The Donald draws are supposed to ally with the disaffected Sandersistas and the miniscule Green Party. We socialists traditionally abhor such “rotten blocs” of left & right vs. the center.
I assume that The Donald’s third party talk is bluster to close the deal. If Trump were to run as an independent (assuming he has the organization to get himself on the ballot in all 50 states), whoever the Democratic nominee is will win. Regardless of the vote of the marginal Greens and any abstention by Sanderistas. Sanders, for better or worse, is unlikely to run on a third party ticket, especially if the Republicans openly split.
For those interested, here’s some some data and analysis on third party voting. And a more extensive look at the four-part test here. “And the odds are that disgruntled primary voters today will become loyal partisans in November.”
And speaking of polls, Fox News reports that Mrs. Clinton’s lead is down to 2 pct. in New York state.
Yeah, so let’s just have The Donald blow shit up. In that unlikely event, I just hope I can stay out blast zone and avoid the fallout. But I doubt that someone with The Donald’s high negatives will win.
Here’s a thought. Perhaps Sanders’ less-than-perfect performance in the debate comes from the fact that he’s not had that much experience in this venue? And not some heinous moral failing or nefarious plot with the DNC? Unlike Mrs. Clinton, who has been in the national spotlight since about the Pleistocene Era, and had more high-stakes debates than I’ve had hot suppers.
You can’t replace something with nothing. I know finance works on spec, but politics, not so much.
The best way to end the duopoly is to build a genuine workers movement from the ground up. Assuming it can be done, simply destroying the Democrats does nothing to ensure a progressive party will emerge. Building a workers movement from the streets and picket lines up would displace them with a real alternative.
If an electoral defeat at the hands of third party meant the instant destruction of the losing Republicrat fraction, why are the Rethuglicans still around after Ross Perot? Or, assuming it were really true, the Democrats after losing to the SWP in Florida, and with it, to Bush nationally, in 2000?
Every last disaffected voter must launch into a constant refrain, demanding to know of any politician they encounter, “Do you support proportional representation?”
And Carthage must be destroyed!

Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 16 2016 3:25 utc | 144

At least I’m consistent. I support anti-establishment candidates. You are “socialist” (or claim to be) but support Hillary as lesser-evil.
Anyone with half a brain can see the establishment closing ranks against Trump and Sanders – just as they have against third-parties.
I hope Sanders upsets Hillary in NY but I doubt that will happen. That the Sanders campaign team is talking about a quixotic Convention fight says all you really need to know.
Hillary supporters want to pretend that Sanders really really has a chance so that his supporters vote Democratic in November. They don’t want the sheeple to wander off.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2016 4:50 utc | 146

@ psychohistorian | Apr 16, 2016 1:13:35 AM | 147
Don’t you love the scent of schadenfreude first thing in the morning? The irony is rich in that one.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 16 2016 5:36 utc | 148

everybody knows about hiroshima, where the ghoul kerry just offered his *condolence* world class bs.
how many know or remember the chosen people, UNPEOPLE of the marhsall island. ?
NOT ALL *CHOSEN PEOPLE* ARE BORN EQUAL….
*one fine Sunday after church in 1946, a Navy commodore met with the people of Bikini Atoll and told them they were like the Israelites, a chosen people, and that perfecting the atomic bomb would deliver mankind from future wars. Within one month of that conversation, the Bikinians had boarded U.S. ships for relocation. Within five, the first two tests had been conducted.
“We located the one spot on Earth that hadn’t been touched by the war and blew it to hell,” Bob Hope reportedly once said. [1]
THE NIGHTMARE,
Tony deBrum,
*The entire sky turned blood red, when US scientists exploded a hydrogen bomb, with a force 1,000 times stronger than the device dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
“Many died, or suffered birth defects never before seen and cancers as a result of contamination*
SEVENTY YRS ON, THE ISLANDS ARE STILL UNINHABITABLE. [2]
[1]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/27/a-ground-zero-forgotten/

Posted by: denk | Apr 16 2016 6:59 utc | 150

From The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/15/sarah-palin-bill-nye-climate-change-hustle-film
Sarah P. strikes again as seen from abroad.
Otherwise no commentary, read for yourselves and do your own.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 16 2016 9:54 utc | 152

Also from The Guardian – again without comment:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/04/climate-change-will-blow-a-25tn-hole-in-global-financial-assets-study-warns
Climate change will wipe $2.5tn off global financial assets: study
Losses could soar to $24tn and wreck the global economy in worst case scenario, first economic modelling estimate suggests

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 16 2016 13:07 utc | 154

Formerly T-Bear 148
i read that report and its spot on.
whats your problem ?

Posted by: denk | Apr 16 2016 14:21 utc | 156

…
Don’t you love the scent of schadenfreude first thing in the morning? The irony is rich in that one.
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 16, 2016 1:36:17 AM | 148
Yes. This line sums it up nicely…
“Since the U.S. government refuses to hold up a mirror to look at itself, it has to be done with other people’s help,” it says.
I’m quite looking forward to China & Russia competing with US-UK for the Best Punchline of the Week award.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 16 2016 15:17 utc | 158

Well, Lambert’s 2:00pm cooler has some discussion of Sanders as sheepdog!!
Lambert:

I’m not unaware of the “sheepdog” critique of the Sanders candidacy, but in the same way that the dogs won’t eat the dogfood, the sheep might not follow the sheepdog.

Of course, the problem with this logic is that, while some ‘sheep’ may not follow, many (probably most) WILL follow.
This highlights the danger of subsuming progressives into a larger more conservative party. Abolitionists had to create their own party. Progressives that are anti-inequality and anti-imperialist may need to do the same.
Lambert quotes Salon:

“A growing plurality of democratic voters wants a true progressive agenda. If Clinton and party insiders ignore this reality, such voters will begin to look elsewhere. They will not view themselves as having left the Party. The Party will have left them”.

NC-reader ‘different clue’ excuses Sanders pulling of punches with:

That’s what surrogates are for. And after the surrogates have said their worst on all these points, Sanders can express regret for Clinton being offended.

But how much ‘reach’ do the surrogates have? The debate was the best opportunity for Sanders to make his case.
Plenue adds:

And the idea that huge numbers of Sanders voters will sigh and begrudgingly vote for Clinton if he fails to get the nomination…well, that’s certainly what Clinton hopes for. But I can tell you that I and many other Sanders supporters won’t be giving her our vote. I vote for him or I fail to play the game, it’s that simple. I won’t be any scumbags crutch …

He doesn’t deny that Sanders is a sheepdog, just says that he and some ‘many others’ will not vote for Hillary. But many will Plenue! That’s how the ‘lesser-evil’ game is played.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2016 15:54 utc | 160

rufus parrots the Party line:

~ Sanders is his own man (NOT a ‘sheepdog’)
> Obama seemed to be something he wasn’t also – and we are supposed to ignore Sanders ties to the Democratic Party (Obama and Schumer campaigned for him; he calls Hillary a ‘friend’, etc.);
> Sanders began the race knowing that the odds were very much against him – his goal was simply to “influence” the Democatic Party – in this way he accepted that he would likely play a ‘sheepdog’ role;
> Sanders has NOT done much, if anything, to form a lasting Movement – Obama touted his grassroots appeal also – then promptly discarded them after the election;
> Some of Sanders reluctance to attack Clinton might be seen as strategic but when he pulls punches that he needs to WIN, then it is valid to question his sincerity;
~ Sanders really has/had a chance
> this ignores all we know about “the illusion of choice”;
> the clueless establishment miscalculated people’s anger – that doesn’t mean that they will ever allow Sanders to win
> we have numerous examples of a set-up and dirty tricks, including: 6 coin tosses, a slow-waked emails investigation, DNC-Hillary collusion, media bias; (none of which Sanders will talk about!)
> Bloomberg’s announcement that he would run as an independent is a good example of the establishment repulsion at ‘outsider’ candidates.

… and confuses cause and effect:
As Black Agenda Report makes clear, the Democrats have a history of running sheepdog candidates to protect their left flank. When rufus says that ‘sheepdog’ is just:

weak organizations serving up alibis for their own inability to connect with the masses.

he is being disingenuous. The Democratic Party does their best to weaken and marginalize groups and movements that do not toe the line. Occupy is a great example of that. After Occupy would not fall in line, they were destroyed.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Although he claims to be a socialist, rufus sure spends a lot time and effort convincing us to vote for the Democratic Party (even if that means voting for Hillary)! And his marginalization of non-Party groups applies to socialists as well (moron!). At least he has now dropped the asinine excuse that he does it for the workers.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 16 2016 18:36 utc | 162

Out for a row in the Presidential yacht, the USS Petrodollar, Barack Obama sank the vessel, blowing a whole in bottom of the barque while aiming once again at his own foot, steadied by Israelis, advisors, and other neo-cons …
U.S. does not plan to grant Iran access to U.S. financial system

“The administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters at a briefing. On Friday, President Barack Obama said the United States was not looking to permit the use of its financial system for dollar-denominated transactions with Iran, and said foreign companies could work through European banks.

US Official: Iran Will Not Gain Access to US Financial System

“Rumors and news that has appeared in the press that the U.S. is preparing … to allow Iran access to the U.S. financial system are not true,” Thomas Shannon, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

British banks seen holding back Iran trade due to fear of U.S. penalties

Alexandra Renison, with Britain’s Institute of Directors (IoD) lobby group, said that smaller European banks were starting to move towards providing trade finance to Iran, but the “risk appetite is absolutely not there” for British lenders.
“Any banks in the UK that really have any exposure in the United States … are simply not budging,” she told the conference.

Iran-EU statement urges full commitment to JCPOA

Iran and the 28-nation bloc will also strengthen economic, financial and banking cooperation, combat money-laundering and contribute to efforts aimed at stopping the flow of financial resources to terrorists.

EU must act on US mischief on implementing JCPOA: Iran

The EU foreign policy chief, for her part, said Iran has the right to see the tangible outcomes of the implementation of the JCPOA, including the removal of financial restrictions.

… HMS Pound Foolish went down with the Petrodollar while trying ineffectually to render assistance.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 16 2016 20:33 utc | 164

@165 pen
Well, of course that’s a quote from Martin Berger. But thanks for choosing me as a trampoline to catapult your propaganda!

Posted by: jfl | Apr 16 2016 21:47 utc | 166

jfl at 164 —
Very droll. Any word from Lloyd’s on the Le Franc Libre, the Bis-Mark, or the royal Riyal Dhow?

Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 16 2016 22:52 utc | 168

T-Bear @ 153 ,
Here’s what the Japanese Meteorological Agency said, “The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in March 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.62°C above the 1981-2010 average (+1.07°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.85°C per century.
The position of mainstream (non-alarmist) climate science is that when the last major “Ice Age” (glaciation) ended 11,700 years ago and we entered the modern interglacial period, the climate of course began to warm and the ice to melt. Mainstream climate science has never accepted the hockeystick idea that everything just stood still until CO2 began to increase.
Our most recent major climate event was the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). When the LIA ended we resumed warming (.75-.85 degrees per century), which JMA has confirmed in your sublink.
That one month is higher than the average is weather, not climate. Obviously the way you GET an average value is by having some numbers above & some below. The error range (+/-?) is missing.
We are still in an El Nino, which IS a surface warming phenomenon by definition. This particular El Nino was more pronounced due to a large circumscribed blob of water off Oregon. It sat there an unbelievably long time– more than a year, I think. The formation of these “blobs” in the Pacific occurs about once in 5 years. However this one may have been associated w volcanic action as it was situated over a fault. Blobs also occur in Atlantic.
El Ninos are second only to the change in seasons in affecting our weather.
The Guardian science editor knows all this. The article is just another scare/propaganda. The Guardian consistently lies to you about all things political, which means it’s part of the oligarchic structure, owned or controlled by them. So of course they will push the oligarchs’ anti-energy, pro-global-governance position. And just as with politics they will lie and mislead.
An enormous number of cold records have been broken THIS month. But it’s weather, not climate. The El Nino may soon give way to the cold-producing La Nina. If so, it’s weather, not climate.

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 17 2016 0:40 utc | 170

rufus @167
Hillary weirdness
For someone that is not likely to vote, you are surprisingly interested in politics. Even knowing how Greens are expected to do in November. Mmmm….
You say that you lean toward a socialist ideology that sees voting as useless. The only candidate that you have written of favorably (except when defending Sander’s answer to the question of his Zionism – or defending him against the charge of sheepdog) is Hillary. It is generally as lesser-evil but you have also defended her relationship with Wall Street, saying that global finance is not something that will end anytime soon. And in your pathetic sign-off from MoA (“Thanks for all the fish”) you couldn’t help saying good things about Hillary!
NOW you say that you are not a Clinton supporter and will not vote for her.
I don’t trust anything you say.
Name calling
Sign of a weak intellect. But in this case its also hypocritical. You take others to task about logical argument but distort my objections into a lame put-down.
More sadness from rufus.
But wait, there’s more
Each local Green Party is different from the others. To compare American Greens with German and French makes no sense. No doubt rufus knows that.
Occupy was taken down in a coordinated nation-wide effort. This is widely recognized. The Democrats made overtures to Occupy before that but the leaderless movement could not compromised (part of the reason they chose to make it leaderless).
Rufus notes that “At least one other figure in the Occupy movement does not see it has having been destroyed by the Democratic Party” and this is technically correct because the protests were dismantled by the government with coordination with the Federal goverment which is led by the titular head of the Democratic Party – Barack Obama. But this technicality doesn’t obviate my point: if Occupy had reformed to join the Democratic Party, the outcome would’ve been very different.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2016 2:53 utc | 172

I would be remiss if I didn’t add another point that I have made:

> The Green Party, for all its flaws, is a logical alternative for Sanders supporters. Progressives should not buy into the Democratic Party’s ‘lesser-evilism’. Trump is NOT actually much different than neocon/neolib Hillary and in some ways better. In fact, other crazy republicans attack him for not being “a true conservative”.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2016 5:08 utc | 174

Here is another link about the US sending 9 Yemeni prisoners from Gitmo to Saudi Arabia for “resettlement and put them through a government-run rehabilitation programme that seeks to reintegrate them into society.” Any bets on how long they live?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-04/17/c_135285487.htm

Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 17 2016 5:40 utc | 176

Jill Stein/Greens covered at CNN(!)
Jill Stein: The Democratic Party ‘fakes left,’ marches right

“I have long since thrown in the towel on the Democratic and Republican parties because they are really a front group for the 1%, for predatory banks, fossil fuel giants and war profiteers,” Stein said.
Stein had many positive words for the Sanders campaign but said he was constrained by a political party with a history of coopting progressive campaigns.
“The party allows progressive faces to sort of be their figurehead for a little while, but while it does that, while it sort of fakes left, the party continues to march toward the right,” Stein told CNN.
Stein said the Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party, represented corporate interests and has not allowed progressives to take charge. The story she told of the Democratic Party was one of a party that had used its “kill switch,” in the form of packed primary days, like Super Tuesday, and super delegates, to take down “very good and principled campaigns” over the decades.
. . .
“I think the Democratic Party is going to cut them [Sanders campaign] off at the path [sic], and then maybe it will fall to our campaign to be the Plan B for Bernie’s supporters,” Stein said.
. . .
Stein said her invitations to collaborate have received “no response whatsoever” from Sanders.
“He’s a team player, and he believes in the Democratic Party, so I have to respect that,” Stein said. “He believes in the establishment, in the political establishment. He’s been in Washington a long time. He caucuses with the Democrats.”
The Sanders campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this article.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 17 2016 7:04 utc | 178

Oh JOY !!! this is going to continue on longer than the Hatfields and McCoys.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Apr 17 2016 11:06 utc | 180

Formerly T-Bear, (additional reply)
The Guardian and others fail to inform you that an El Nino event is by definition a temporary event. Both El Nino and La Nina (cooling) are weather, not climate. The following bears watching as a possible climate indicator
Winter Trends in the US DECADE ending 2011, compared to the Winter average 1901-2000
All except CA/NV are 2.1°F- 8.7°F LOWER. CA/NV are only 1.3°F lower
Contiguous US avg: 4.13°F lower
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NCDC_Winters.pdf Click for map w regional breakdown; NCDC is part of NOAA.
Britain also shows a lowering, but Canada shows a rise, so I don’t know what it means.

Posted by: Penelope | Apr 17 2016 18:14 utc | 182

in re 179 —
Finally, after months, you caught on. What a maroon!

Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18 2016 7:13 utc | 184

NYT commented on undemocratic trends in Poland, like the government disabling Polish equivalent of Supreme Court (Constitutional Tribunal, only for reviewing the laws and administrative decisions) to cover a slew of new laws that the court could object to, like amplifying the spoil system in administration and government-dependent media.
What I like was the modest low key approach, in particular, a proposal that during soon-to-come NATO summit in Poland Obama should say something. ??? How about moving the summit to a more democratic venue? Naay, that would make other not-so-democratic members feel bad. It reminds me an idea of a pet of Hillary, Anne-Marie Slaughter: “Concert of Democracies”. Effectively, as long as you count as ally you can oppress opposition any way you want if you have the nerve to withstand mild criticism among all the cooperation.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 18 2016 10:48 utc | 186

murkka at play
* Local residents in Okinawa, the Mariana Islands, and Jeju Island (South Korea) are the communities that have been most vocally opposed to the plan to blanket the Asia-Pacific with destructive military bases. The most appalling example is the proposed Mariana Islands Training and Testing region (MITT), which would open up approximately one million square miles of open ocean to full-spectrum, year-round live-fire military practice, over an area larger than the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Montana and New Mexico, combined. It would also include the whole of the supposedly “protected” Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, established by President Bush in 2009.
Full-spectrum” live-fire military exercises means year-round amphibious attacks, bombing, torpedos, underwater mines and other detonations from the air, from the sea, and from the ground, as well as sonar training that will result in permanent hearing loss for scores of whales and dolphins.
……………………..
The U.S. military has been conducting such full-spectrum live-fire training for the past three-and-a-half years over a half-million square miles of the open Pacific, and also upon the island of Farallon de Medinilla. Farallon de Medinilla, once teeming with amazing sea life and rare migratory birds, has been bombed and disfigured to unrecognizability.*
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/caroline-kennedy-criticizes-dolphin-slaughters
—————————————-
pacom cic harry harris
*china’s reclaimation works on the isle is damaging the scs eco environment * !

Posted by: denk | Apr 18 2016 16:23 utc | 188

Oil prices plunge after Doha output talks fail

“Expectations for the talks to end with an agreement were high, and the lack of one damaged the credibility of future meetings to support the oil market,” said Bernard Aw, market strategist at IG Markets Singapore.
“Asia is set for a negative start to the week, given this development. Commodities are expected to be beaten back… and this would have consequences for equities, especially energy and material counters,” he said in a market commentary.

Wonder if this will be the time the junk debt from the fracking bubble explodes? Or next time.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 18 2016 22:19 utc | 190

U.S. rejects Netanyahu’s claims: “Golan Heights are not part of Israel”

One day after the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, vowed that the occupied Golan Heights would “forever remain under Israeli sovereignty,” the U.S. State Department issued a statement of their own that rebuffed this claim.
When asked about Netanyahu’s comments regarding the illegally occupied Golan Heights, the U.S. State Department’s Spokesperson, John Kirby, asserted that the U.S.’ position has not changed, despite the ongoing turmoil inside Syria.
“This position was maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Those territories are not part of Israel and the status of those territories should be determined through negotiations. The current situation in Syria does not allow this.”
The U.S. was not alone in rejecting Netanyahu’s claims: the German government also expressed their discontent with the Israeli Prime Minister’s comments.
“It’s a basic principle of international law and the UN charter that no state can claim the right to annex another state’s territory just like that,” Martin Schaefer, spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry, said Monday.
According to the Haaretz, one of the few U.S. politicians to back Netanyahu’s comments was U.S. Presidential candidate, Ted Cruz.
Cruz stated that “the government of Israel reiterated the reality that the Golan Heights are part of Israel’s sovereign territory.”

See what the rest of the peas in the pod say in the US. Good for Germany, though. I always thought of Germany as the European country that most stalwartly supported Israel, no matter what. Looks like France has ‘won’ the poll position in the bend-over-for-Israel European grand prix, these days.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 19 2016 2:35 utc | 192

Trump give Sanders a hand
Trump’s new nickname: “Crooked Hillary”, says what Sanders has been unwilling to say himself. These two words make the unelectable case that I have been saying Sanders has (suspiciously) shied away from.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 19 2016 3:34 utc | 194

195
couldnt find it cuz search only brought up the first page of a thread,
subsequent pages are un-searchable.

Posted by: denk | Apr 19 2016 4:19 utc | 196

re 134, 194 —
“I agree with Sanders on issues more than any other candidate.”
“These two words make the unelectable case that I have been saying Sanders has (suspiciously) shied away from.”
There goes the Green Tea Trumpet again. With supporters like this, who needs opponents?

Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 19 2016 12:14 utc | 198

Re 197 and various other stupidities
I dont know why you posted all that Clima-crap from the Guardian. Given that we’ve had ample evidence that the Guardian is “Liar Central”, over the previous few years, only a very dimwitted individual would continue to consider it an authorative or even reliable source at this stage, on any subject.
If theres one thing the Guardian has amply proven over the last few years it’s that they are willing to lie about pretty much everything. You’d have to be blind or stupid not to have noticed that, by now.
But I think I know why you post it without comment (as you are so fond of repeating) -its appears you know sweet FA about this subject and are reduced to mere stenography, repeatedly C&P-ing complete lies and nonsense from the idiotic Guardian, because other than moronically posting cheap propaganda, you clearly cannot actually converse on this subject.

Posted by: Capt. Climate | Apr 19 2016 19:06 utc | 200