been there. done that. debunked these zombies before.
Heat Islands: short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset. longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
A close read of the Paris Agreement demonstrates that the U.S. delegation was entirely successful in navigating the line delineating the President’s legitimate exercise of his existing authority. If anything, the American negotiators were excessively conservative, in insisting on hortatory language when legally binding obligations were arguably entirely appropriate.
The President’s authority to enter into internationally legally binding agreements without Congressional participation or Senate advice and consent dates to the earliest years of the Republic. More than 90% of binding international agreements governed by international law are concluded by the United States without Senate advice and consent, known as “executive agreements.” As the President must act consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States, every executive agreement must find legal support in the form of one or more of the following: (1) Congressional legislation; (2) an article II, section 2 treaty; or (3) the President’s own Constitutional powers. A process for determining the legal basis for an anticipated international agreement, known as “Circular 175,” has been in place since 1955 and applied by every Republican and Democratic President since.
Many of the binding obligations in the Paris Agreement are procedural in nature, involving reporting of emissions, progress in implementation, accounting for emissions, and the like. Exchanging information with other states is a Constitutional power of the President as Chief Executive and the U.S.’s top diplomat, the “sole organ” of the Nation in dealing with foreign governments. Even in the absence of express statutory or treaty authority, the President may engage in information exchange and cooperation with foreign government in the environmental field, as demonstrated by a 1980 executive agreement with Canada on acid rain.
Moreover, the 1992 Framework Convention, an article II, section 2 treaty expressly referenced in the Paris Agreement, specifically articulates an extensive range of procedural obligations, including emissions reporting, exchange of information, technology transfer, and cooperation in implementation. The Framework Convention also lays a legal foundation for substantive matters addressed in a binding mode in the Paris Agreement, most notably financial support for developing countries’ programs of mitigation (emissions reductions) and adaptation. Domestic statutory authority, such as the Clean Air, further buttresses the U.S.’s capacity to implement these commitments. Consequently, the individual obligations in the Paris Agreement find legal support in one, two, or all three of the requisite domestic sources.
If anything, U.S. negotiators overcompensated on the side of caution in the negotiation of the Paris Agreement, even to the title of the instrument. The Convention specifically addresses the relationship between that instrument and ancillary protocols. But as long ago as 2009 governments had widely understood that the new agreement could not be called a “protocol” without complicating U.S. participation after the highly charged domestic debate over the earlier Kyoto Protocol. More to the point, the many undertakings employing the hortatory “should” can be examined one by one to determine whether they might have been supported by U.S. domestic law. This preference for a non-binding mode is part of a pattern in negotiations undertaken by the Obama Administration, which has the effect of avoiding the creation of internationally legally binding obligations altogether.
here. lets look at the full transcript, and then you can tell me exactly what the context was that it was taken out of:
Wow. Whoa. That is some group of people. Thousands.
So nice, thank you very much. That’s really nice. Thank you. It’s great to be at Trump Tower. It’s great to be in a wonderful city, New York. And it’s an honor to have everybody here. This is beyond anybody’s expectations. There’s been no crowd like this.
And, I can tell, some of the candidates, they went in. They didn’t know the air-conditioner didn’t work. They sweated like dogs.
They didn’t know the room was too big, because they didn’t have anybody there. How are they going to beat ISIS? I don’t think it’s gonna happen.
Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don’t have them. When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.
When did we beat Japan at anything? They send their cars over by the millions, and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn’t exist, folks. They beat us all the time.
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.
Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East. They’ve become rich. I’m in competition with them.
They just built a hotel in Syria. Can you believe this? They built a hotel. When I have to build a hotel, I pay interest. They don’t have to pay interest, because they took the oil that, when we left Iraq, I said we should’ve taken.
So now ISIS has the oil, and what they don’t have, Iran has. And in 19— and I will tell you this, and I said it very strongly, years ago, I said— and I love the military, and I want to have the strongest military that we’ve ever had, and we need it more now than ever. But I said, “Don’t hit Iraq,” because you’re going to totally destabilize the Middle East. Iran is going to take over the Middle East, Iran and somebody else will get the oil, and it turned out that Iran is now taking over Iraq. Think of it. Iran is taking over Iraq, and they’re taking it over big league.
We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion. We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq. We have wounded soldiers, who I love, I love — they’re great — all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers.
And we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing. And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it.
Gee. Nope. Sorry. Not out of context. Clearly racist.
Looks to me like the people trying to take it out of context of his defenders like you.
A short and very incomplete list of completely racist things Trump has said or done: -"theres one of my blacks" -"mexico is sending us rapists" -"laziness is a trait in blacks" -"the judge is a Mexican" -"they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.” -supports stop-and-frisk, as practiced by the NYPD (ie, unconstitutional and racially discriminatory), and wants it expanded nationwide, claiming it worked, contrary to all evidence -Obama's birth certificate -condoned the abuse and even beatings of multiple Black Lives Matter protesters and other minorities at his campaign rallies -regularly engages in anti-Semitism -treats his minority supporters as literal tokens -treats minorities and racial groups as monolithic stereotypes -thinks all African americans live in the inner city, are poor, without work, receiving welfare, and uneducated -saying 88% of white murders are committed by black folks -repeating statements from white supremacists multiple occasions -making blatant dog whistles to the alt-right, white supremacist crowd -not condemning or distancing from white supremacists campaigning for him, including David Duke -encouraged mob justice against the Central Park 5, and continues to insist they are guilty years after its proven otherwise, including spending 85k$ on full page ads in the paper advocating for their execution -being sued by the federal government on multiple occasions for not renting to minorities
Hell, even when he claims to be trying to reach out, he's doing so in white communities and actually only repeating racist myths and stereotypes that are meant to appeal to white voters and make them feel better about voting for such overt racist.
His father was a racist who went to KKK rallies. His sons are racist, and kep appearing on white supremacist radio programs..."accidentally". Once may be an accident. Twice, you need to fire your booking agent. four times and counting? its no longer accidental or someone else's fault. Donald Trump IS racist, regardless of the efforts of the ignorant to ignore it or explain it away.
when I say American ideals, I'm referring to equality, liberty, and justice for all*. when you speak of it, you're referring to slavery, jim crow, and systemic bigotry.
we know this because of how you dismiss people who are opposed to the election of the most openly bigoted candidate to ever run.
*and no, that does not in fact require the tolerance of your intolerance.
and to repeat myself: because you conservatives tried to exclude people from the public sphere on the basis of their genitals, sexual identity, skin color, or creed. that's why it matters.
the fact is, even when merit is identical, that non-white, non-straight, non-male persons are STILL at a structural disadvantage, hired less often and for less pay. this leads to a self perpetuating cultural cycle that reinforces itself. that's why representation matters, why breaking glass ceilings matters, why purposely hiring typically under-represented groups when merit is identical, helps to break down that cycle and create a more just, more equitable society.
that is why, after 400 years of keeping black people down (or women, or other minorities, or LGBTQ folks), pretending everything is magically equal now and if they don't make it it's somehow their own fault, is bull*hit.
you are simply using a more eloquently stated, ie better hidden dog whistle, that fighting structural bigotry is itself bigoted. it is not, and you are for trying to make that case.
BTW: it's been less than a week, and already there have been more than 360 reported hate crimes against minority groups following and attributable to the election and trump supporters, including outright, open, neo-Nazi acts.
conservatives talk like that because they, delusionally, think welfare still exists.
Hint: it was killed in the 90's by Bill Clinton working with the GOP Congress, and replaced with TANF, aka, workfare.
TANF on the other hand is a limited block grant to the states of 16billion dollars (total, not each) that has never been increased or adjusted for inflation (so its lost more than 35% of its value), with work requirements and a lifetime cap, that the states get to spend on whatever they want. most don't spend it on poverty, but instead on their own budget holes.
Welfare used to be an entitlement for anyone making below X amount of dollars. As such it was received by >95% of those that qualified. TANF is received by less than 8% of those who would otherwise qualify. The majority of the funds go to shore up state budget holes under the many loopholes in the law.
Welfare was a hand up. Provably demonstrably so, regardless of any and all BS from the conservative side, that reduced poverty.
TANF doesn't work and doesn't reduce poverty.
So when conservatives, like you, say that welfare doesn't work, its just like when they say government doesn't work: its because they broke it, so they could then say SEE! IT DOESNT WORK! (with much help from a far too trusting and optimistic Clinton). ---
No one has declared Thiel not gay any more than they declared his brother asshat Milo not gay. they have rather both been labeled as toxic disgusting people....because they are. Not because of their orientation, but because of the things say and do. ---
The Left have become extremist whackos doing anything they can for power including violence, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and every other thing they accuse others of doing. Look at facts and see who does this stuff, it sure as hell ain't the right. In fairness it's not even people in the democratic party, it's the whackadoo people pushing communist ideology.
Pure projection. Also: you apparently are unfamiliar with the definition of communist.
it seems like this is news to you, but it's an acronym:
Republican In Name Only.
RINO.
and since when is there a purity test to be a member of the party anyway? the only membership requirements is to check a box when you register to vote. RINO was created by conservative movement to push out more moderate folks (which now would include Saint Ronnie himself btw) who were ok with things like civil rights, freedom, and just plain tolerant civil discussion. the folks who shout RINO are the most dangerous of political hacks because the are the ones that turn to demagoguery and autocratic rulers who would use the power of law and force to suppress those they disagree with (re: Trump, re: Reagan as governor, re: you).
-the border is secure -we do vet immigrants, especially refugees, especially from Syria region -someone is not a criminal just because they were brought here as a child and stayed -inner cities are not hell -education is not broken, but it is underfunded, and as long as BS like the texas textbooks whitewashing (literally) slavery it will be lacking. but broken is not the word I would use, not even in the face of the massive delusions required to elect Trump
No, you cannot prove anyone wrong because you haven't even used logics or facts to begin with. and again: you prove youre delusional by saying OReilly is left of center.
Projection. Projection is the word that describes you when you say "Leftists refuse to look at facts" because honey, you're describing yourself, not leftists.
you mean other than: -the Paris Accords -the Green Energy Revolution -the DoE loan program -protecting more land or water than any other president -and more
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo
been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.
Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Nope.
Still not a treaty.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/pa...
A close read of the Paris Agreement demonstrates that the U.S. delegation was entirely successful in navigating the line delineating the President’s legitimate exercise of his existing authority. If anything, the American negotiators were excessively conservative, in insisting on hortatory language when legally binding obligations were arguably entirely appropriate.
The President’s authority to enter into internationally legally binding agreements without Congressional participation or Senate advice and consent dates to the earliest years of the Republic. More than 90% of binding international agreements governed by international law are concluded by the United States without Senate advice and consent, known as “executive agreements.” As the President must act consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States, every executive agreement must find legal support in the form of one or more of the following: (1) Congressional legislation; (2) an article II, section 2 treaty; or (3) the President’s own Constitutional powers. A process for determining the legal basis for an anticipated international agreement, known as “Circular 175,” has been in place since 1955 and applied by every Republican and Democratic President since.
Many of the binding obligations in the Paris Agreement are procedural in nature, involving reporting of emissions, progress in implementation, accounting for emissions, and the like. Exchanging information with other states is a Constitutional power of the President as Chief Executive and the U.S.’s top diplomat, the “sole organ” of the Nation in dealing with foreign governments. Even in the absence of express statutory or treaty authority, the President may engage in information exchange and cooperation with foreign government in the environmental field, as demonstrated by a 1980 executive agreement with Canada on acid rain.
Moreover, the 1992 Framework Convention, an article II, section 2 treaty expressly referenced in the Paris Agreement, specifically articulates an extensive range of procedural obligations, including emissions reporting, exchange of information, technology transfer, and cooperation in implementation. The Framework Convention also lays a legal foundation for substantive matters addressed in a binding mode in the Paris Agreement, most notably financial support for developing countries’ programs of mitigation (emissions reductions) and adaptation. Domestic statutory authority, such as the Clean Air, further buttresses the U.S.’s capacity to implement these commitments. Consequently, the individual obligations in the Paris Agreement find legal support in one, two, or all three of the requisite domestic sources.
If anything, U.S. negotiators overcompensated on the side of caution in the negotiation of the Paris Agreement, even to the title of the instrument. The Convention specifically addresses the relationship between that instrument and ancillary protocols. But as long ago as 2009 governments had widely understood that the new agreement could not be called a “protocol” without complicating U.S. participation after the highly charged domestic debate over the earlier Kyoto Protocol. More to the point, the many undertakings employing the hortatory “should” can be examined one by one to determine whether they might have been supported by U.S. domestic law. This preference for a non-binding mode is part of a pattern in negotiations undertaken by the Obama Administration, which has the effect of avoiding the creation of internationally legally binding obligations altogether.
here. lets look at the full transcript, and then you can tell me exactly what the context was that it was taken out of:
Wow. Whoa. That is some group of people. Thousands.
So nice, thank you very much. That’s really nice. Thank you. It’s great to be at Trump Tower. It’s great to be in a wonderful city, New York. And it’s an honor to have everybody here. This is beyond anybody’s expectations. There’s been no crowd like this.
And, I can tell, some of the candidates, they went in. They didn’t know the air-conditioner didn’t work. They sweated like dogs.
They didn’t know the room was too big, because they didn’t have anybody there. How are they going to beat ISIS? I don’t think it’s gonna happen.
Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don’t have them. When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.
When did we beat Japan at anything? They send their cars over by the millions, and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn’t exist, folks. They beat us all the time.
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.
Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East. They’ve become rich. I’m in competition with them.
They just built a hotel in Syria. Can you believe this? They built a hotel. When I have to build a hotel, I pay interest. They don’t have to pay interest, because they took the oil that, when we left Iraq, I said we should’ve taken.
So now ISIS has the oil, and what they don’t have, Iran has. And in 19— and I will tell you this, and I said it very strongly, years ago, I said— and I love the military, and I want to have the strongest military that we’ve ever had, and we need it more now than ever. But I said, “Don’t hit Iraq,” because you’re going to totally destabilize the Middle East. Iran is going to take over the Middle East, Iran and somebody else will get the oil, and it turned out that Iran is now taking over Iraq. Think of it. Iran is taking over Iraq, and they’re taking it over big league.
We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion. We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq. We have wounded soldiers, who I love, I love — they’re great — all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers.
And we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing. And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it.
Gee.
Nope.
Sorry.
Not out of context.
Clearly racist.
Looks to me like the people trying to take it out of context of his defenders like you.
if that were it, youd have a point.
but its not, and you dont: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Is Trump racist? YES!
FTFY.
A short and very incomplete list of completely racist things Trump has said or done:
-"theres one of my blacks"
-"mexico is sending us rapists"
-"laziness is a trait in blacks"
-"the judge is a Mexican"
-"they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.”
-supports stop-and-frisk, as practiced by the NYPD (ie, unconstitutional and racially discriminatory), and wants it expanded nationwide, claiming it worked, contrary to all evidence
-Obama's birth certificate
-condoned the abuse and even beatings of multiple Black Lives Matter protesters and other minorities at his campaign rallies
-regularly engages in anti-Semitism
-treats his minority supporters as literal tokens
-treats minorities and racial groups as monolithic stereotypes
-thinks all African americans live in the inner city, are poor, without work, receiving welfare, and uneducated
-saying 88% of white murders are committed by black folks
-repeating statements from white supremacists multiple occasions
-making blatant dog whistles to the alt-right, white supremacist crowd
-not condemning or distancing from white supremacists campaigning for him, including David Duke
-encouraged mob justice against the Central Park 5, and continues to insist they are guilty years after its proven otherwise, including spending 85k$ on full page ads in the paper advocating for their execution
-being sued by the federal government on multiple occasions for not renting to minorities
Hell, even when he claims to be trying to reach out, he's doing so in white communities and actually only repeating racist myths and stereotypes that are meant to appeal to white voters and make them feel better about voting for such overt racist.
His father was a racist who went to KKK rallies. His sons are racist, and kep appearing on white supremacist radio programs..."accidentally". Once may be an accident. Twice, you need to fire your booking agent. four times and counting? its no longer accidental or someone else's fault.
Donald Trump IS racist, regardless of the efforts of the ignorant to ignore it or explain it away.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/... [fortune.com]
Is your lack of self awareness truly so powerful?
no but apparently yours is.
apparently we did not watch the same debates.
for starters, the ones I watched actually existed.
mod up
and the people who voted for hitler totally weren't Nazi supporters too, right?
when I say American ideals, I'm referring to equality, liberty, and justice for all*.
when you speak of it, you're referring to slavery, jim crow, and systemic bigotry.
we know this because of how you dismiss people who are opposed to the election of the most openly bigoted candidate to ever run.
*and no, that does not in fact require the tolerance of your intolerance.
as well as an argument for increased strife, fewer and non-universal rights, destruction of land, and even war.
no thanks.
Federalism has proved its superiority.
that's the thing: it wasn't designed to be fair, and to say it was is the true ignorance.
and to repeat myself: because you conservatives tried to exclude people from the public sphere on the basis of their genitals, sexual identity, skin color, or creed.
that's why it matters.
the fact is, even when merit is identical , that non-white, non-straight, non-male persons are STILL at a structural disadvantage , hired less often and for less pay. this leads to a self perpetuating cultural cycle that reinforces itself. that's why representation matters, why breaking glass ceilings matters, why purposely hiring typically under-represented groups when merit is identical, helps to break down that cycle and create a more just, more equitable society.
that is why, after 400 years of keeping black people down (or women, or other minorities, or LGBTQ folks), pretending everything is magically equal now and if they don't make it it's somehow their own fault, is bull*hit.
you are simply using a more eloquently stated, ie better hidden dog whistle, that fighting structural bigotry is itself bigoted.
it is not, and you are for trying to make that case.
BTW: it's been less than a week, and already there have been more than 360 reported hate crimes against minority groups following and attributable to the election and trump supporters, including outright, open, neo-Nazi acts.
as I said: you are engaging in projection.
conservatives talk like that because they, delusionally, think welfare still exists.
Hint: it was killed in the 90's by Bill Clinton working with the GOP Congress, and replaced with TANF, aka, workfare.
TANF on the other hand is a limited block grant to the states of 16billion dollars (total, not each) that has never been increased or adjusted for inflation (so its lost more than 35% of its value), with work requirements and a lifetime cap, that the states get to spend on whatever they want. most don't spend it on poverty, but instead on their own budget holes.
Welfare used to be an entitlement for anyone making below X amount of dollars. As such it was received by >95% of those that qualified.
TANF is received by less than 8% of those who would otherwise qualify. The majority of the funds go to shore up state budget holes under the many loopholes in the law.
Welfare was a hand up . Provably demonstrably so, regardless of any and all BS from the conservative side, that reduced poverty.
TANF doesn't work and doesn't reduce poverty.
So when conservatives, like you, say that welfare doesn't work, its just like when they say government doesn't work: its because they broke it, so they could then say SEE! IT DOESNT WORK! (with much help from a far too trusting and optimistic Clinton).
---
No one has declared Thiel not gay any more than they declared his brother asshat Milo not gay.
they have rather both been labeled as toxic disgusting people....because they are.
Not because of their orientation, but because of the things say and do.
---
The Left have become extremist whackos doing anything they can for power including violence, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and every other thing they accuse others of doing. Look at facts and see who does this stuff, it sure as hell ain't the right. In fairness it's not even people in the democratic party, it's the whackadoo people pushing communist ideology.
Pure projection.
Also: you apparently are unfamiliar with the definition of communist.
nope. still delusional.
and it's RINO.
not RHINO.
it seems like this is news to you, but it's an acronym:
Republican
In
Name
Only.
RINO.
and since when is there a purity test to be a member of the party anyway?
the only membership requirements is to check a box when you register to vote.
RINO was created by conservative movement to push out more moderate folks (which now would include Saint Ronnie himself btw) who were ok with things like civil rights, freedom, and just plain tolerant civil discussion. the folks who shout RINO are the most dangerous of political hacks because the are the ones that turn to demagoguery and autocratic rulers who would use the power of law and force to suppress those they disagree with (re: Trump, re: Reagan as governor, re: you).
-the border is secure
-we do vet immigrants, especially refugees, especially from Syria region
-someone is not a criminal just because they were brought here as a child and stayed
-inner cities are not hell
-education is not broken, but it is underfunded, and as long as BS like the texas textbooks whitewashing (literally) slavery it will be lacking. but broken is not the word I would use, not even in the face of the massive delusions required to elect Trump
No, you cannot prove anyone wrong because you haven't even used logics or facts to begin with.
and again: you prove youre delusional by saying OReilly is left of center.
Projection.
Projection is the word that describes you when you say "Leftists refuse to look at facts" because honey, you're describing yourself, not leftists.
you are f'ing delusional.
not sure if satire or actual trump supporter
"obama didnt do anything for the environment"
you mean other than:
-the Paris Accords
-the Green Energy Revolution
-the DoE loan program
-protecting more land or water than any other president
-and more
He'll be appointed Press Secretary or Minister of Information is my guess.
its an accord, not a treaty.
conservatives just elected a dictator in waiting, so of course they now support other dictators around the world.
not insightful.
just stupid.
idiot.