I have now read the entire paper. It is true that it does not ever directly attribute the sea level rise in the Solomon Islands to AGW. (The linked ABC news article does though - surely the scientists will be publicly denouncing the media's gross distortion of their claims any minute now... ?)
Welcome to science journalism, we're lucky they didn't talk about a nuclear war.
On the other hand, the premise of the paper is that sea level rise is responsible for significant loss of land area in the Solomon Islands (and the authors worked very hard to connect sea level rise to AGW at every opportunity, even though they didn't quite come out and say that AGW has actually caused any sea level rise yet).
That's a problem, because nowhere in their paper (that I could find, anyway) do they actually offer any evidence that the local sea level rise experienced by the Solomon Islands contributed meaningfully to the loss. They point out several other factors that likely dominated, one of which was erosion by wave action. They then attempt to connect this back to AGW with the following statement:
Wave energy can interact synergistically with localised sea-level rise (through changing wave refraction dynamics and more wave energy propagating across reef crest onto the coast) to exacerbate coastal erosion (Storlazzi et al 2015) and thus may be a key driver of the rapid coastal recession in the Solomon Islands. Further work is required to determine the relative importance of extreme wave events or incremental changes in incident wave energy and their interactions with sea-level on shoreline dynamics of islands.
It does make sense that sea level rise is going to increase wave erosion and it looks like they've seen ~15cm rise in sea level in that region which is pretty significant.
3) A few anecdotes about communities that need to relocate - all of whom, from the sound of it, were in poor locations to begin with.
As someone else pointed out, the last graph clearly shows (if you know how to read the axes, anyway), that there was a net increase in land area for the islands chains studied; the authors simply chose to focus upon a specific few tiny islands that shrank.
Figure 7? It's possible, they should have addressed it. If looks like smaller islands in specific were really shrinking, I'd be curious about the mechanism for how the bigger ones got larger. Is wave erosion spreading out sediment from the island itself making a larger beach or something?
I think there's also a scope question. This study isn't supposed to be a general overview of island erosion, they were narrowly focused on the smaller islands and the mechanisms that were causing them to shrink. The bigger atolls might be there for someone else to look at.
Check out the last graph in the original paper. It shows (pay attention to the axes) that the Central Pacific island chains studied, as a group, increased significantly in land area.
However, the Solomon Islands, specifically, may be an exception to that. (I'd need the raw data to tell for sure; the net change is close enough to zero that I can't just eyeball it from the graph.)
In any case, the specific islands which are the main focus of the paper were all tiny (the largest was only 0.25 (km)^2) and not at all representative of the Solomon Islands as a whole. They were selected for further scrutiny specifically because they were eroding quickly; in a chain with hundreds of islands, there were bound to be at least a few getting smaller.
Figure 7? They don't have a mean but it really looks to me like the mean would be negative.
They are claiming that it got eroded, and that it wouldn't have if the sea level were a tiny bit lower. There is no way they can know that, especially since the actual sea level rise-to-date which is possibly attributable to AGW is more like 2 cm, not 25 cm.
This is a separate effect from your silly claim of a lie.
The statement in the summary, at least, is a lie because they are asserting a definitive cause-and-effect relationship where there is - at best - an unprovable possibility of one, rather than actual solid evidence for one. The claim is being sensationalized.
The summary definitely overstates things. But the paper itself is guilty of none of the things you imply.
There's actually a link to the entire paper with the abstract, I'll even helpfully bold the important bits:
Low-lying reef islands in the Solomon Islands provide a valuable window into the future impacts of global sea-level rise. Sea-level rise has been predicted to cause widespread erosion and inundation of low-lying atolls in the central Pacific. However, the limited research on reef islands in the western Pacific indicates the majority of shoreline changes and inundation to date result from extreme events, seawalls and inappropriate development rather than sea-level rise alone. Here, we present the first analysis of coastal dynamics from a sea-level rise hotspot in the Solomon Islands. Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these remote Pacific communities.
I don't see these definitive claims you speak of, instead I see "sea level rise predicts X, here we observe and analyze some X that's consistent with sea level rise". I'd be more careful before making sensational claims of sensationalization.
Boaty McBoatface is actually very representative of the "democratic" process in our societies: people vote, but ultimately their voice doesn't matter one jot, and the powers that be impose whatever the hell they want.
The inevitable conclusion, in politics as in silly internet ship-naming polls, is: why vote at all then? The deciders don't really need our opinion, now, do they?
This is distinctly different from the democratic process.
People didn't vote for Boaty McBoatface because they thought it was a better name. The voted for it because it was a good joke.
The idea that the British government would ask the Internet for a vessel's name and the Internet would tell them "Boaty McBoatface" is hilarious and it's great that people made that joke.
But now the joke was made and it's time to move on. There's a good reason you don't give things joke names, jokes get old and annoying so "Boaty McBoatface" will very quickly go from "haha! the Internet!" to "please don't say that stupid bloody name again".
So the Internet got a great joke and the Sir David Attenborough ended up with a great name, leave this as a win-win and stop trying to drag it through your political philosophy.
The main issue in this country is that judges can be bought just like any other elected official. Judges having the final say over bad laws and statutes should be held to even higher standards of electoral rules than either senators or presidents. They are potentially the most powerful people in the US, interpreting laws as they see fit, if they get "donations", it colors their judgment and is no longer impartial.
Why does the judge or elected official have to be bought?
Rich donors can sway the outcomes of elections even when the candidates are incorruptible. They just find the candidate whose views are legitimately closest to their own and give them a pile of money to get elected.
But it looks like this judge isn't even elected.
Instead the problem here is that the litigants are able to shop all over the country to find the court, that simply due to random variation, gives them the best outcome and sets a bunch of favourable precedents.
If the suit can be filed anywhere in the country then the litigants shouldn't have that much say over what judge actually hears it.
The big joke turned out to be Sarah's critics. The NYT even encouraged its readers to help go through all her PERSONAL email account contents (which she'd written assuming nobody would ever see them) and NOTHING illegal was found. They did not even find anything blatantly unethical. For all the hyperventilation about the contents of her e-mails, all the liberal press dropped the whole thing when there turned out to be no wrongdoing there.
Yet FOX News and the GOP still hyperventilate over Clinton's imaginary crimes around Benghazi.
You a Trump fan? Substituting facts for angry assertions does not make you right.
I was just pointing out that there was a discussion and it ended with her choosing to continue using her Blackberry.
That is another lie. Stop lying. You said "When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office." Well, guess what? That is a lie, and it's your own words. You know better, but you chose to lie anyway, and now you're surprised that I'm angry about it? Stop lying, and then I won't be angry.
She had a list of functional requirements she felt were necessary, the solution they gave her didn't fulfil those requirements and they weren't going to give her a better one. So she ignored their suggestion and just did her own thing that did fit her functional requirements.
She was wrong to do so, she should have managed or found another solution, but the other poster was correct to say it she found it unsuitable and no one thought it was a big deal.
Clinton didn't think it was a big deal because she didn't hide it in the slightest, the State Department and the National Archives either explicitly knew what she was doing or had a good idea but they never bothered to follow up because it wasn't a big deal. Clinton's enemies, looking to crucify her over Benghazi, poured over the Sidney Blumenthal emails that Guccifer leaked in March 2013. They would have seen her email address, and they didn't care.
No one cared at all until the Republicans, after years of ridiculous obsession over the massive non-scandal of Benghazi, finally clued into the fact they had something where real laws and regulations had actually been violated and they could swap a completely fake scandal for one that actually had a grain of truth.
Oh, and if you don't think those same congresspeople leading the charge aren't constantly sending emails with classified information through their private emails and unsecured cellphones then you're a bloody moron.
The scandal makes complete sense, unless you are a hyper-partisan who thinks it's OK when your side breaks the law. If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence. But, it's Hillary Clinton, so she didn't even get her security clearance revoked. You really don't get how outrageous the whole thing is? And if she does get away with it, it's just going to embolden thousands more government apparatchiks to take even more liberties with our already-overstretched laws?
Except that's not the standard, it never has been, government officials have used private emails for ages, John Kerry was the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov address. The only way Clinton differed was she used her own server instead of a 3rd party server like AOL or Google, and I'm not sure a properly maintained private server (not that she had one) is a worse scenario.
And it's not clear that using the private server was an attempt to evade record keeping. Most indications are that Clinton really wanted to keep using a Blackberry and wanted access to her current email and the NSA and State Department weren't able to accommodate her so she just gave up and did her own thing.
Laws should be applied consistently, that doesn't just mean the rich and powerful don't get off easy, it also means you don't get to throw the book at someone just because you don't like their politics.
So a "hacker", who was really just a guy who used social engineering to guess the answers to security questions, suddenly claims to know how to use exploits says he used those to do an actual hack into an email server!
And his "technical" explanation of the hack contained gems like this:
In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server.
"As far as I remember, yes, there were up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said.
I hope he'll explain how he could identify who logged into Clinton's server by looking at Blumenthal's AOL account!! (Ok, maybe the reporter is just incompetent and related the explanation wrong, meaning she wasn't qualified to vet the story)
I'm sorry but this is a stupid story and/. should be embarrassed for posting it.
1) Guccifer hacked by guessing security questions, that's all he did. There's no reason to think he had the technical skills to do what he did. Look at the interview, it's seriously just "port scanner", "open port", "proxy server", "ya I hacked in". He didn't even think to throw in "unpatched software" or "rootkit"!
2) Guccifer loved to brag about his hacks. That he would have hacked into Clinton's email at the height of the Benghazi freakout and tell no one is absurd. On the other hand he's exactly the sort of person who would seek media attention by claiming to have done the hack that the entire country was speculating about for months.
3) There is absolutely zero evidence that he did what he said, there's not even the "undisclosed source who has a friend who dated a secretary in the division doing the investigation" or the standard "but wait... there's a record of him saying X back in Y... how did he know X back in Y?"
This is just some troll looking for attention, this should be exactly that crowd that sees through it.
In addition, government officials form both parties have used private email addresses as well
There is no comparison. Nobody at her level of authority (fourth in line to the presidency, the nation's top diplomat, someone who handled highly classified material as a regular part of her job) has previously completely skipped using secure email services for official business, electing instead to handle ALL of her official email through a personal account served up on a computer in her residential home. Really, try to find another example of that.
Completely? No. But they still used private email for a lot of business, private email that got automatically erased after 30 days. That still sounds a lot worse
Then take into account the fact that inspectors general from multiple intelligence agencies have said that she trafficked in classified (even way-above-top-secret) material on her unsecured home computer... and never turned over ANY of it as she left office, as required to.
She "trafficked in classified material"? Was she smuggling it somewhere?
That was a screwup/carelessness, it happens, people typically don't get into much trouble over simple screwups.
And when hounded by FOIA requests and subpoenas - which she dragged out for YEARS - she deleted tens of thousands of those messages before grudgingly handing over some of it as printed-out hardcopies stripped of all header information.
Her lawyers deleted the emails because they agreed it was private and not subject to being turned over, perhaps they were wrong but that's how lawyers work.
Cite another top government official who has even approached that level of deliberately hiding ALL OF THEIR OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE from scrutiny.
All of the Republicans where unlike Clinton we don't actually have any of the correspondence (or knowledge if they sent classified data) because it was deleted.
there is no upside for either side to drag this into court.
Sure there is. People who worked under her were subject to losing their careers and even their liberty for doing FAR less than she did. The "upside" to indicting her is to demonstrate that despite the long history of her and her husband's abuses of power, she's not above the law.
Show me an example of someone going to jail for mishandling classified info and no other ulterior motives. If you want to hold leaders to a higher standard you can't choose only the leaders you oppose.
Hillary is a terrible candidate. She just lost another primary state. Bernie supporters hate her and after the DNC finally squeezes him out they'll hate her even more.
The thing about Trump is that your conventional wisdom doesn't work. He fights. He uses the ammo provided and makes more. And there is a huge supply of ammo to use against Hillary. By November "Crooked Hillary" will be a meme your children will know. Every turd the Clintons have ever made will be top-of-mind with every voter in the US. Bernie tried to expose her over the transcripts. Trump will pummel her daily for that, the email crimes, Bengazi, cattlegate, NAFTA, gender pandering, her establishment donors, the Clinton Foundation foreign slush fund and every other slimy aspect of her history and campaign, and he will make it stick. This is the guy that made Obama cough up a birth certificate.
Every coughing fit punctuated campaign event Clinton choreographs will see Trump fill three stadiums with rabid supporters. By November Hillary will be a quivering mass of regret.
The thing is that Trump needs more than "three stadiums" worth of supporters, he needs half the electorate.
Trump was invulnerable to primary attacks for the same reason as Sanders, he represented the base.
Clinton couldn't attack Sanders on policy because she'd have to attack from the right, that's one of the reasons why Sanders sailed through the primary so unscathed.
Trump had the same benefit. While he differed on policy the Republican party is built on identity more than policy. Republican's could attack Trump where he was vulnerable because that would involve making arguments in favour of equality and against crony capitalism, attacks that come from the left.
Come to the general election and the Democrats are capable of hitting Trump where it hurts, it won't hurt his base, but he's going to have a lot of trouble with everyone else.
Schneider: And so the idea is if you can predict that demand, you get that information out there – and you get that supply there ready for the demand so the surge pricing never even has to happen. And I think that's one of the really cool things that machine learning's doing for Uber right now.
Supposedly surge pricing is supposed to get more drivers go out on the road because they earn a premium.
Just predicting that you'll need more drivers doesn't actually put those drivers on the road, you'll still need some kind of extra incentive.
You might get away with a smaller surge, but predictions alone doesn't solve the problem that surge pricing was made to solve.
I lived in Phoenix wen it got up to 50C one day and was/is regularly above 45C. And no AC either other than at work.
And what if it was regularly 50C, and once hit 55C? You really think it's inconsequential?
(oh, and I don't know how the shift in means affects the max with climate, but people dying in heat waves is definitely an issue in parts of the world)
A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation, even adjusting the topmost temperatures doesn't mean that much difference in reality.
Of course that's only kinda relevant if the temperature increases uniformly which it doesn't
In the Middle East and North Africa, the average temperature in winter will rise by around 2.5 degrees Celsius (left) by the middle of the century, and in summer by around five degrees Celsius (right) if global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase according to the business-as-usual scenario (RCP8,5).
That's ~9F, would you consider that change in your summertime average to be inconsequential? The average high in Baghdad in July is 44C, if the projection is right it will become 49C, I suspect there's a few places you start to consider uninhabitable at that point.
Look, OBVIOUSLY it is possible to get permission to legally drive a vehicle around full of gasoline. That's how the gasoline stations get their gasoline. They usually need special tested equipment designed to carry hazardous liquids - and the license to drive said equipment.
True, but they probably have a lot of restrictions about who can driver them and where they can drive, I doubt you can hire a high school student to deliver into your driveway.
It is also obviously legal to fill a car with gasoline at places other than gas stations - people that run out of gas do this all the time using a one gallon container.
There would have to be a specific law prohibiting this particular job.
That would be interesting. I could certainly see wanting to let people do one-off emergency jerry cans while prohibiting the many safety/environmental issues that come up with a widescale deployment. Whether that's encoded in current laws is another question.
Also this business is a STUPID idea. There is always a premium for delivery and for the premium for a delivery of a hazardous liquid should be so high as to make this a financially stupid idea. Gasoline stations are plentiful, on roads, normal people never run out of it and don't need the minor time savings of delivery.
Maybe, even if there is a small premium on cost (not certain, real estate on busy roads is expensive) people are willing to pay more for a better product.
Of course it's far from certain that the product is actually better. I'm not sure it's less convenient to pull into a gas station on my schedule than to wait around for the gas person to drive up and then to run out so they can fill you up.
I was about to post the same sentiment. When your entire business model revolves around a crowd of people who don't have the funds and/or desire to actually buy the media they consume - trying to obtain donations from such a crowd is a fool's errand.
I think it's more than that. It's one thing to donate to support a creator whose writing a comic or making show that you love, it's another to donate to someone trying to make money by facilitating media piracy. People might see TPB as useful or necessary, but it's hard to see them as people worthy of donation.
Looks like the Church of Climatology is jealous of the levels of esteem & high regard held for the Church of Scientology and the Westboro Baptist Church, and are exerting maximum effort towards correcting that discrepancy.
Can't fault the CoC for lack of effort in that regard.
The Church of Climatology: The US Progressive/Liberal version of the bastard-child of the Westboro Baptist Church and the Church of Scientology if they bred. Even the tactics they use against their critics are nearly indistinguishable.
Fascinating, I've apparently missed all of the climate scientists going around picketing funerals while sending out private investigators to stalk and blackmail their opponents.
This is like browsing the front page of yahoo.com or something. WTF? Why is this even here? And it's not like China is the topic either, as comments will immediately change the subject to America.
Nerds struggle with obesity (just like everyone else).
Nerds also like interesting scientific problems. Why are young rural Chinese in particular being affected? Have they really just gotten that lazy? Are the types of food different? Was there supply pressure discouraging overeating previously? Other societal factors? Is this just affecting children or is something similar happening to adults?
Obesity is fascinating as a health issue. We know exactly how to make a fat person thin, just starve them for a while. But giving someone the ability to easily regulate their body weight? The moment you drop someone into an advanced country it turns into a very difficult problem.
So Hillary's dastardly plan to rig the primary by specifically suppressing Bernie supporters began four years ago?
The complaint is not that Hillary herself is rigging the systems. It is that the system has already been rigged towards establishment candidates. This is not Hillary's fault, but that is not the point.
I think that's true, though I wouldn't use the word rigged. It's designed to aggressively filter out people who can't gain establishment approval.
I don't actually think that's a bad thing, Sander's still ran and did pretty well and on a level playing field I don't think he does much better. Obama went up against Clinton and won and he was very new to the game. So while it's biased towards the establishment it's not biased towards insiders because if there was an insider bias I don't see how Obama wins.
Establishment approval isn't a bad thing. The problem with campaigns is it's hard to judge candidates just from speeches and ads, a well functioning establishment makes sure the voter is aware of those qualities that are hard to judge from a distance. That's why the Republican party is so broken, they spent so long railing against the establishment that the base no longer trusts their own establishment. So when the party tries to tell the base that there's something wrong with a certain candidate the base either doesn't believe them or doesn't care.
She did it for the reason most employees skirt IT rules, she had a job to do and they couldn't give her what she considered to be a practical solution.
There are two things to note here. First, practical solution to what problem? if she wanted to carry around PDAs, there were solutions that would comply with IT rules.
Second, your euphemism, "skirt IT rules" ignores that many of these skirtings were federal felonies. Witnessing classified information being passed in emails on an unapproved email server? It's a felony if you don't report it. Continuing to operate said email server when you know classified information is being passed on it is also a felony. As is instructing someone to strip classified headers off a classified document.
Well the stripping of headers might have been a legitimate way of anonymizing the information for unsecured communication.
As for the rest you've now got a lot more felons than Clinton because numerous people were either directly aware, or at least had a pretty good idea, and didn't really care. Most of the classified stuff wasn't even sent by her, why don't you want those people prosecuted as well? Or does the crime seem less serious when you realize you'd need to arrest half the state department.
Mishandling classified information isn't that uncommon and the punishment is usually quite mild. The only time you actually get in trouble is deliberately mishandling classified information for nefarious purposes such as selling secrets or impressing your mistress/biographer. Mishandling info in the process of trying to do your job? You generally get a finger wag and a stern warning.
Remember the Bush email controversy? You really think there wasn't a ton of classified information that got sent over the RNC servers? If they actually recovered the emails and found classified info do you think they should have convicted dozens of people from the Bush White House of a felony?
The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd.
That's how every autopilot system works. It's the only failure mode that aircraft engineers have deemed appropriate in decades of development. What better solution is there?
This is a very tricky situation for a pilot since after being completely disengaged from the act of flying they're not only asked to fly, but fly in an emergency.
That's one of the reason's Aeroflot Flight 593 crashed, the pilots were confused when they had to take over, acted inappropriately, and crashed.
For a car it's much worse. Not only does the driver have much less training but there's a much quicker reaction time required. Imagine you're on the highway relaxing with the autopilot when someone in the other direction drift into your lane, or a child wanders onto the road, and there's less than a second to react. Is the autopilot giving up and saying "your turn!" really the behaviour you want?
That's why I think self-driving cars are a lot further off than people realize, the car doesn't just need to do as well or better in most situations, it has to do better in all situations. Handing control back to the user is not an option.
Because I thought from what you wrote that you had claimed there was tampering on a wide scale.
I'm not sure what I wrote that could have given you that impression.
Anyway, the obvious rebuttal to your last statement is that if a lot of voters will vote inconveniently for the wrong candidates, then disfranchisement keeps them from voting for those wrong candidates.
Even if this tampering did occur, how can you show who did it? A number of people over the years would have access to the files.
The the counter-rebuttal is that selectively picking out those voters is really tough, it's possible looking at demographics, though the pro-Bernie demographics aren't the ones who got hit.
And there's lots of ways to investigate, if it was done through a computer there's some kind of logs. If it was done by hand there's paper evidence and lot of people who might talk.
Either way if it was deliberate there will probably be some kind of semi-definitive evidence that there was a crime, the voter registration department is staffed with people who are in charge of tracking those things, whatever the change is there will be people who have to answer for it.
Clinton's email scandal is a great example of this, sure it's a legit issue but the severity of the crime has been vastly overblown.
It's only a few federal level felonies involving national security and probably is an indication she's hiding bigger crimes. After all, why commit a few felonies over the course of your tenure as Secretary of State which just so happen to shield your email from federal IT personnel and FOIA requests? What was worth that risk? It's really hard to take you seriously when you don't understand the problems.
She did it for the reason most employees skirt IT rules, she had a job to do and they couldn't give her what she considered to be a practical solution.
Even if she was also trying to dodge FOIA requests (quite plausible) that's hardly evidence of further crimes. Anyone with a passing interest in politics knows how easy it is to take things out of context. Probably the biggest legitimate issue with transparency in the executive branch is that it impacts the quality of advice that people can give, you can't really warn someone that a dignitary from another country is ridiculously corrupt or needs to be kept away from the hookers because that advice might now go public.
Well, at least I can't be wrong, right? My view on this is that no one with a bit of power in the Democrat party is going to tamper with voting at a large scale to undermine Clinton. She's the favorite. So if tampering does occur, then there probably is another reason for it.
Why assume it was tampering? Do you think the US Government is so absurdly competent that it's the only organization in the history of civilization that's immune to making mistakes? And why wide-scale disenfranchisement? Among the list of dirty campaign tricks that's perhaps the most useless.
First people are going to investigate why those disenfranchisements occurred and your finger prints are going to be all over it.
Second you don't even affect that many people, as has been mentioned even if every single disenfranchised person voter for Sanders then Clinton still would have easily won.
If you want a real dirty trick you have anonymous sources start feeding desperate media outlets with hints of a scandal that's hard to disprove, similar to Trump's people feeding stories of fake Cruz affairs to the tabloids. Cook up a story about Sanders having hidden bank accounts or find some past association with a lobbyist and start making him look like a hypocrite, that's a much smarter way to run a smear campaign. Clinton's email scandal is a great example of this, sure it's a legit issue but the severity of the crime has been vastly overblown.
A lot of the coverage is being driven by papers looking for readers, but I'm sure those reporters are getting a lot of subtle help and encouragement by party officials on both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
I have now read the entire paper. It is true that it does not ever directly attribute the sea level rise in the Solomon Islands to AGW. (The linked ABC news article does though - surely the scientists will be publicly denouncing the media's gross distortion of their claims any minute now... ?)
Welcome to science journalism, we're lucky they didn't talk about a nuclear war.
On the other hand, the premise of the paper is that sea level rise is responsible for significant loss of land area in the Solomon Islands (and the authors worked very hard to connect sea level rise to AGW at every opportunity, even though they didn't quite come out and say that AGW has actually caused any sea level rise yet).
That's a problem, because nowhere in their paper (that I could find, anyway) do they actually offer any evidence that the local sea level rise experienced by the Solomon Islands contributed meaningfully to the loss. They point out several other factors that likely dominated, one of which was erosion by wave action. They then attempt to connect this back to AGW with the following statement:
Wave energy can interact synergistically with localised sea-level rise (through changing wave refraction dynamics and more wave energy propagating across reef crest onto the coast) to exacerbate coastal erosion (Storlazzi et al 2015) and thus may be a key driver of the rapid coastal recession in the Solomon Islands. Further work is required to determine the relative importance of extreme wave events or incremental changes in incident wave energy and their interactions with sea-level on shoreline dynamics of islands.
It does make sense that sea level rise is going to increase wave erosion and it looks like they've seen ~15cm rise in sea level in that region which is pretty significant.
3) A few anecdotes about communities that need to relocate - all of whom, from the sound of it, were in poor locations to begin with.
As someone else pointed out, the last graph clearly shows (if you know how to read the axes, anyway), that there was a net increase in land area for the islands chains studied; the authors simply chose to focus upon a specific few tiny islands that shrank.
Figure 7? It's possible, they should have addressed it. If looks like smaller islands in specific were really shrinking, I'd be curious about the mechanism for how the bigger ones got larger. Is wave erosion spreading out sediment from the island itself making a larger beach or something?
I think there's also a scope question. This study isn't supposed to be a general overview of island erosion, they were narrowly focused on the smaller islands and the mechanisms that were causing them to shrink. The bigger atolls might be there for someone else to look at.
Check out the last graph in the original paper. It shows (pay attention to the axes) that the Central Pacific island chains studied, as a group, increased significantly in land area.
However, the Solomon Islands, specifically, may be an exception to that. (I'd need the raw data to tell for sure; the net change is close enough to zero that I can't just eyeball it from the graph.)
In any case, the specific islands which are the main focus of the paper were all tiny (the largest was only 0.25 (km)^2) and not at all representative of the Solomon Islands as a whole. They were selected for further scrutiny specifically because they were eroding quickly; in a chain with hundreds of islands, there were bound to be at least a few getting smaller.
Figure 7? They don't have a mean but it really looks to me like the mean would be negative.
Not even that fortunately.
Read the article, the summary is a bald faced lie.
In fact, the total land area of the Solomons is growing relatively quickly
Is this from the paper? I saw no indication that the total land area was growing in the paper.
They are claiming that it got eroded, and that it wouldn't have if the sea level were a tiny bit lower. There is no way they can know that, especially since the actual sea level rise-to-date which is possibly attributable to AGW is more like 2 cm, not 25 cm.
This is a separate effect from your silly claim of a lie.
The statement in the summary, at least, is a lie because they are asserting a definitive cause-and-effect relationship where there is - at best - an unprovable possibility of one, rather than actual solid evidence for one. The claim is being sensationalized.
The summary definitely overstates things. But the paper itself is guilty of none of the things you imply.
There's actually a link to the entire paper with the abstract, I'll even helpfully bold the important bits:
Low-lying reef islands in the Solomon Islands provide a valuable window into the future impacts of global sea-level rise. Sea-level rise has been predicted to cause widespread erosion and inundation of low-lying atolls in the central Pacific. However, the limited research on reef islands in the western Pacific indicates the majority of shoreline changes and inundation to date result from extreme events, seawalls and inappropriate development rather than sea-level rise alone. Here, we present the first analysis of coastal dynamics from a sea-level rise hotspot in the Solomon Islands. Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these remote Pacific communities.
I don't see these definitive claims you speak of, instead I see "sea level rise predicts X, here we observe and analyze some X that's consistent with sea level rise". I'd be more careful before making sensational claims of sensationalization.
Boaty McBoatface is actually very representative of the "democratic" process in our societies: people vote, but ultimately their voice doesn't matter one jot, and the powers that be impose whatever the hell they want.
The inevitable conclusion, in politics as in silly internet ship-naming polls, is: why vote at all then? The deciders don't really need our opinion, now, do they?
This is distinctly different from the democratic process.
People didn't vote for Boaty McBoatface because they thought it was a better name. The voted for it because it was a good joke.
The idea that the British government would ask the Internet for a vessel's name and the Internet would tell them "Boaty McBoatface" is hilarious and it's great that people made that joke.
But now the joke was made and it's time to move on. There's a good reason you don't give things joke names, jokes get old and annoying so "Boaty McBoatface" will very quickly go from "haha! the Internet!" to "please don't say that stupid bloody name again".
So the Internet got a great joke and the Sir David Attenborough ended up with a great name, leave this as a win-win and stop trying to drag it through your political philosophy.
The main issue in this country is that judges can be bought just like any other elected official. Judges having the final say over bad laws and statutes should be held to even higher standards of electoral rules than either senators or presidents. They are potentially the most powerful people in the US, interpreting laws as they see fit, if they get "donations", it colors their judgment and is no longer impartial.
Why does the judge or elected official have to be bought?
Rich donors can sway the outcomes of elections even when the candidates are incorruptible. They just find the candidate whose views are legitimately closest to their own and give them a pile of money to get elected.
But it looks like this judge isn't even elected.
Instead the problem here is that the litigants are able to shop all over the country to find the court, that simply due to random variation, gives them the best outcome and sets a bunch of favourable precedents.
If the suit can be filed anywhere in the country then the litigants shouldn't have that much say over what judge actually hears it.
The big joke turned out to be Sarah's critics. The NYT even encouraged its readers to help go through all her PERSONAL email account contents (which she'd written assuming nobody would ever see them) and NOTHING illegal was found. They did not even find anything blatantly unethical. For all the hyperventilation about the contents of her e-mails, all the liberal press dropped the whole thing when there turned out to be no wrongdoing there.
Yet FOX News and the GOP still hyperventilate over Clinton's imaginary crimes around Benghazi.
Man, all your posts are so angry...
My posts are angry because your posts are shit.
It's not a lie
It is a lie.
You a Trump fan? Substituting facts for angry assertions does not make you right.
I was just pointing out that there was a discussion and it ended with her choosing to continue using her Blackberry.
That is another lie. Stop lying. You said "When she came into her role as foreign secretary they told her that she needed a more secure means of communication, but were unable to come up with anything suitable for her office." Well, guess what? That is a lie, and it's your own words. You know better, but you chose to lie anyway, and now you're surprised that I'm angry about it? Stop lying, and then I won't be angry.
She had a list of functional requirements she felt were necessary, the solution they gave her didn't fulfil those requirements and they weren't going to give her a better one. So she ignored their suggestion and just did her own thing that did fit her functional requirements.
She was wrong to do so, she should have managed or found another solution, but the other poster was correct to say it she found it unsuitable and no one thought it was a big deal.
Clinton didn't think it was a big deal because she didn't hide it in the slightest, the State Department and the National Archives either explicitly knew what she was doing or had a good idea but they never bothered to follow up because it wasn't a big deal. Clinton's enemies, looking to crucify her over Benghazi, poured over the Sidney Blumenthal emails that Guccifer leaked in March 2013. They would have seen her email address, and they didn't care.
No one cared at all until the Republicans, after years of ridiculous obsession over the massive non-scandal of Benghazi, finally clued into the fact they had something where real laws and regulations had actually been violated and they could swap a completely fake scandal for one that actually had a grain of truth.
Oh, and if you don't think those same congresspeople leading the charge aren't constantly sending emails with classified information through their private emails and unsecured cellphones then you're a bloody moron.
The scandal makes complete sense, unless you are a hyper-partisan who thinks it's OK when your side breaks the law. If any other federal government employee tried to hide her official correspondence with a hidden server, that person would now be on year 3 of a prison sentence. But, it's Hillary Clinton, so she didn't even get her security clearance revoked. You really don't get how outrageous the whole thing is? And if she does get away with it, it's just going to embolden thousands more government apparatchiks to take even more liberties with our already-overstretched laws?
Except that's not the standard, it never has been, government officials have used private emails for ages, John Kerry was the first Secretary of State to primarily use a state.gov address. The only way Clinton differed was she used her own server instead of a 3rd party server like AOL or Google, and I'm not sure a properly maintained private server (not that she had one) is a worse scenario.
And it's not clear that using the private server was an attempt to evade record keeping. Most indications are that Clinton really wanted to keep using a Blackberry and wanted access to her current email and the NSA and State Department weren't able to accommodate her so she just gave up and did her own thing.
Laws should be applied consistently, that doesn't just mean the rich and powerful don't get off easy, it also means you don't get to throw the book at someone just because you don't like their politics.
So a "hacker", who was really just a guy who used social engineering to guess the answers to security questions, suddenly claims to know how to use exploits says he used those to do an actual hack into an email server!
And his "technical" explanation of the hack contained gems like this:
In the process of mining data from the Blumenthal account, Lazar said he came across evidence that others were on the Clinton server.
"As far as I remember, yes, there were up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said.
I hope he'll explain how he could identify who logged into Clinton's server by looking at Blumenthal's AOL account!! (Ok, maybe the reporter is just incompetent and related the explanation wrong, meaning she wasn't qualified to vet the story)
Oh yeah, and this "hacker" with his previously undisclosed and unused hacking skills, hacked into the email of Hillary Clinton, probably the 2nd best known politician in the US, and figured... "meh, this is boring, I guess I'll try to get famous by bragging about my hacks into such luminaries such as former FBI and Secret Service agents, the brother of Barbara Bush, and former Miss Maine Patricia Legere.
I'm sorry but this is a stupid story and /. should be embarrassed for posting it.
1) Guccifer hacked by guessing security questions, that's all he did. There's no reason to think he had the technical skills to do what he did. Look at the interview, it's seriously just "port scanner", "open port", "proxy server", "ya I hacked in". He didn't even think to throw in "unpatched software" or "rootkit"!
2) Guccifer loved to brag about his hacks. That he would have hacked into Clinton's email at the height of the Benghazi freakout and tell no one is absurd. On the other hand he's exactly the sort of person who would seek media attention by claiming to have done the hack that the entire country was speculating about for months.
3) There is absolutely zero evidence that he did what he said, there's not even the "undisclosed source who has a friend who dated a secretary in the division doing the investigation" or the standard "but wait... there's a record of him saying X back in Y... how did he know X back in Y?"
This is just some troll looking for attention, this should be exactly that crowd that sees through it.
In addition, government officials form both parties have used private email addresses as well
There is no comparison. Nobody at her level of authority (fourth in line to the presidency, the nation's top diplomat, someone who handled highly classified material as a regular part of her job) has previously completely skipped using secure email services for official business, electing instead to handle ALL of her official email through a personal account served up on a computer in her residential home. Really, try to find another example of that.
Completely? No. But they still used private email for a lot of business, private email that got automatically erased after 30 days. That still sounds a lot worse
Then take into account the fact that inspectors general from multiple intelligence agencies have said that she trafficked in classified (even way-above-top-secret) material on her unsecured home computer ... and never turned over ANY of it as she left office, as required to.
She "trafficked in classified material"? Was she smuggling it somewhere?
That was a screwup/carelessness, it happens, people typically don't get into much trouble over simple screwups.
And when hounded by FOIA requests and subpoenas - which she dragged out for YEARS - she deleted tens of thousands of those messages before grudgingly handing over some of it as printed-out hardcopies stripped of all header information.
Her lawyers deleted the emails because they agreed it was private and not subject to being turned over, perhaps they were wrong but that's how lawyers work.
Cite another top government official who has even approached that level of deliberately hiding ALL OF THEIR OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE from scrutiny.
All of the Republicans where unlike Clinton we don't actually have any of the correspondence (or knowledge if they sent classified data) because it was deleted.
there is no upside for either side to drag this into court.
Sure there is. People who worked under her were subject to losing their careers and even their liberty for doing FAR less than she did. The "upside" to indicting her is to demonstrate that despite the long history of her and her husband's abuses of power, she's not above the law.
Show me an example of someone going to jail for mishandling classified info and no other ulterior motives. If you want to hold leaders to a higher standard you can't choose only the leaders you oppose.
Hillary is a terrible candidate. She just lost another primary state. Bernie supporters hate her and after the DNC finally squeezes him out they'll hate her even more.
The thing about Trump is that your conventional wisdom doesn't work. He fights. He uses the ammo provided and makes more. And there is a huge supply of ammo to use against Hillary. By November "Crooked Hillary" will be a meme your children will know. Every turd the Clintons have ever made will be top-of-mind with every voter in the US. Bernie tried to expose her over the transcripts. Trump will pummel her daily for that, the email crimes, Bengazi, cattlegate, NAFTA, gender pandering, her establishment donors, the Clinton Foundation foreign slush fund and every other slimy aspect of her history and campaign, and he will make it stick. This is the guy that made Obama cough up a birth certificate.
Every coughing fit punctuated campaign event Clinton choreographs will see Trump fill three stadiums with rabid supporters. By November Hillary will be a quivering mass of regret.
The thing is that Trump needs more than "three stadiums" worth of supporters, he needs half the electorate.
Trump was invulnerable to primary attacks for the same reason as Sanders, he represented the base.
Clinton couldn't attack Sanders on policy because she'd have to attack from the right, that's one of the reasons why Sanders sailed through the primary so unscathed.
Trump had the same benefit. While he differed on policy the Republican party is built on identity more than policy. Republican's could attack Trump where he was vulnerable because that would involve making arguments in favour of equality and against crony capitalism, attacks that come from the left.
Come to the general election and the Democrats are capable of hitting Trump where it hurts, it won't hurt his base, but he's going to have a lot of trouble with everyone else.
Schneider: And so the idea is if you can predict that demand, you get that information out there – and you get that supply there ready for the demand so the surge pricing never even has to happen. And I think that's one of the really cool things that machine learning's doing for Uber right now.
Supposedly surge pricing is supposed to get more drivers go out on the road because they earn a premium.
Just predicting that you'll need more drivers doesn't actually put those drivers on the road, you'll still need some kind of extra incentive.
You might get away with a smaller surge, but predictions alone doesn't solve the problem that surge pricing was made to solve.
I lived in Phoenix wen it got up to 50C one day and was/is regularly above 45C. And no AC either other than at work.
And what if it was regularly 50C, and once hit 55C? You really think it's inconsequential?
(oh, and I don't know how the shift in means affects the max with climate, but people dying in heat waves is definitely an issue in parts of the world)
Look at the seasonal variation of temperatures in Bahgdad.
A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation, even adjusting the topmost temperatures doesn't mean that much difference in reality.
Of course that's only kinda relevant if the temperature increases uniformly which it doesn't
In the Middle East and North Africa, the average temperature in winter will rise by around 2.5 degrees Celsius (left) by the middle of the century, and in summer by around five degrees Celsius (right) if global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase according to the business-as-usual scenario (RCP8,5).
That's ~9F, would you consider that change in your summertime average to be inconsequential? The average high in Baghdad in July is 44C, if the projection is right it will become 49C, I suspect there's a few places you start to consider uninhabitable at that point.
Look, OBVIOUSLY it is possible to get permission to legally drive a vehicle around full of gasoline. That's how the gasoline stations get their gasoline. They usually need special tested equipment designed to carry hazardous liquids - and the license to drive said equipment.
True, but they probably have a lot of restrictions about who can driver them and where they can drive, I doubt you can hire a high school student to deliver into your driveway.
It is also obviously legal to fill a car with gasoline at places other than gas stations - people that run out of gas do this all the time using a one gallon container.
There would have to be a specific law prohibiting this particular job.
That would be interesting. I could certainly see wanting to let people do one-off emergency jerry cans while prohibiting the many safety/environmental issues that come up with a widescale deployment. Whether that's encoded in current laws is another question.
Also this business is a STUPID idea. There is always a premium for delivery and for the premium for a delivery of a hazardous liquid should be so high as to make this a financially stupid idea. Gasoline stations are plentiful, on roads, normal people never run out of it and don't need the minor time savings of delivery.
Maybe, even if there is a small premium on cost (not certain, real estate on busy roads is expensive) people are willing to pay more for a better product.
Of course it's far from certain that the product is actually better. I'm not sure it's less convenient to pull into a gas station on my schedule than to wait around for the gas person to drive up and then to run out so they can fill you up.
I was about to post the same sentiment. When your entire business model revolves around a crowd of people who don't have the funds and/or desire to actually buy the media they consume - trying to obtain donations from such a crowd is a fool's errand.
I think it's more than that. It's one thing to donate to support a creator whose writing a comic or making show that you love, it's another to donate to someone trying to make money by facilitating media piracy. People might see TPB as useful or necessary, but it's hard to see them as people worthy of donation.
Fascinating, I've apparently missed all of the climate scientists going around picketing funerals
They didn't do that. Why would they?
They wouldn't. I was pointing out that it was a stupid comparison.
sending out private investigators to stalk and blackmail their opponents.
Yes, you did miss it. Maybe because it wasn't actual climate scientists, but the church's parishioners that claim to speak for them.
Probably not a road you want to go down considering the continuous witch hunts and slanderous accusations thrown at climate scientists.
Looks like the Church of Climatology is jealous of the levels of esteem & high regard held for the Church of Scientology and the Westboro Baptist Church, and are exerting maximum effort towards correcting that discrepancy.
Can't fault the CoC for lack of effort in that regard.
The Church of Climatology: The US Progressive/Liberal version of the bastard-child of the Westboro Baptist Church and the Church of Scientology if they bred. Even the tactics they use against their critics are nearly indistinguishable.
Fascinating, I've apparently missed all of the climate scientists going around picketing funerals while sending out private investigators to stalk and blackmail their opponents.
"News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters."
This is like browsing the front page of yahoo.com or something. WTF? Why is this even here? And it's not like China is the topic either, as comments will immediately change the subject to America.
Nerds struggle with obesity (just like everyone else).
Nerds also like interesting scientific problems. Why are young rural Chinese in particular being affected? Have they really just gotten that lazy? Are the types of food different? Was there supply pressure discouraging overeating previously? Other societal factors? Is this just affecting children or is something similar happening to adults?
Obesity is fascinating as a health issue. We know exactly how to make a fat person thin, just starve them for a while. But giving someone the ability to easily regulate their body weight? The moment you drop someone into an advanced country it turns into a very difficult problem.
So Hillary's dastardly plan to rig the primary by specifically suppressing Bernie supporters began four years ago?
The complaint is not that Hillary herself is rigging the systems. It is that the system has already been rigged towards establishment candidates. This is not Hillary's fault, but that is not the point.
I think that's true, though I wouldn't use the word rigged. It's designed to aggressively filter out people who can't gain establishment approval.
I don't actually think that's a bad thing, Sander's still ran and did pretty well and on a level playing field I don't think he does much better. Obama went up against Clinton and won and he was very new to the game. So while it's biased towards the establishment it's not biased towards insiders because if there was an insider bias I don't see how Obama wins.
Establishment approval isn't a bad thing. The problem with campaigns is it's hard to judge candidates just from speeches and ads, a well functioning establishment makes sure the voter is aware of those qualities that are hard to judge from a distance. That's why the Republican party is so broken, they spent so long railing against the establishment that the base no longer trusts their own establishment. So when the party tries to tell the base that there's something wrong with a certain candidate the base either doesn't believe them or doesn't care.
She did it for the reason most employees skirt IT rules, she had a job to do and they couldn't give her what she considered to be a practical solution.
There are two things to note here. First, practical solution to what problem? if she wanted to carry around PDAs, there were solutions that would comply with IT rules.
Second, your euphemism, "skirt IT rules" ignores that many of these skirtings were federal felonies. Witnessing classified information being passed in emails on an unapproved email server? It's a felony if you don't report it. Continuing to operate said email server when you know classified information is being passed on it is also a felony. As is instructing someone to strip classified headers off a classified document.
Well the stripping of headers might have been a legitimate way of anonymizing the information for unsecured communication.
As for the rest you've now got a lot more felons than Clinton because numerous people were either directly aware, or at least had a pretty good idea, and didn't really care. Most of the classified stuff wasn't even sent by her, why don't you want those people prosecuted as well? Or does the crime seem less serious when you realize you'd need to arrest half the state department.
Mishandling classified information isn't that uncommon and the punishment is usually quite mild. The only time you actually get in trouble is deliberately mishandling classified information for nefarious purposes such as selling secrets or impressing your mistress/biographer. Mishandling info in the process of trying to do your job? You generally get a finger wag and a stern warning.
Remember the Bush email controversy? You really think there wasn't a ton of classified information that got sent over the RNC servers? If they actually recovered the emails and found classified info do you think they should have convicted dozens of people from the Bush White House of a felony?
The idea of handling back the controls to the driver whenever the car encounters a situation it can't handle any more is patently absurd.
That's how every autopilot system works. It's the only failure mode that aircraft engineers have deemed appropriate in decades of development. What better solution is there?
This is a very tricky situation for a pilot since after being completely disengaged from the act of flying they're not only asked to fly, but fly in an emergency.
That's one of the reason's Aeroflot Flight 593 crashed, the pilots were confused when they had to take over, acted inappropriately, and crashed.
For a car it's much worse. Not only does the driver have much less training but there's a much quicker reaction time required. Imagine you're on the highway relaxing with the autopilot when someone in the other direction drift into your lane, or a child wanders onto the road, and there's less than a second to react. Is the autopilot giving up and saying "your turn!" really the behaviour you want?
That's why I think self-driving cars are a lot further off than people realize, the car doesn't just need to do as well or better in most situations, it has to do better in all situations. Handing control back to the user is not an option.
Because I thought from what you wrote that you had claimed there was tampering on a wide scale.
I'm not sure what I wrote that could have given you that impression.
Anyway, the obvious rebuttal to your last statement is that if a lot of voters will vote inconveniently for the wrong candidates, then disfranchisement keeps them from voting for those wrong candidates.
Even if this tampering did occur, how can you show who did it? A number of people over the years would have access to the files.
The the counter-rebuttal is that selectively picking out those voters is really tough, it's possible looking at demographics, though the pro-Bernie demographics aren't the ones who got hit.
And there's lots of ways to investigate, if it was done through a computer there's some kind of logs. If it was done by hand there's paper evidence and lot of people who might talk.
Either way if it was deliberate there will probably be some kind of semi-definitive evidence that there was a crime, the voter registration department is staffed with people who are in charge of tracking those things, whatever the change is there will be people who have to answer for it.
Clinton's email scandal is a great example of this, sure it's a legit issue but the severity of the crime has been vastly overblown.
It's only a few federal level felonies involving national security and probably is an indication she's hiding bigger crimes. After all, why commit a few felonies over the course of your tenure as Secretary of State which just so happen to shield your email from federal IT personnel and FOIA requests? What was worth that risk? It's really hard to take you seriously when you don't understand the problems.
She did it for the reason most employees skirt IT rules, she had a job to do and they couldn't give her what she considered to be a practical solution.
Even if she was also trying to dodge FOIA requests (quite plausible) that's hardly evidence of further crimes. Anyone with a passing interest in politics knows how easy it is to take things out of context. Probably the biggest legitimate issue with transparency in the executive branch is that it impacts the quality of advice that people can give, you can't really warn someone that a dignitary from another country is ridiculously corrupt or needs to be kept away from the hookers because that advice might now go public.
Well, at least I can't be wrong, right? My view on this is that no one with a bit of power in the Democrat party is going to tamper with voting at a large scale to undermine Clinton. She's the favorite. So if tampering does occur, then there probably is another reason for it.
Why assume it was tampering? Do you think the US Government is so absurdly competent that it's the only organization in the history of civilization that's immune to making mistakes? And why wide-scale disenfranchisement? Among the list of dirty campaign tricks that's perhaps the most useless.
First people are going to investigate why those disenfranchisements occurred and your finger prints are going to be all over it.
Second you don't even affect that many people, as has been mentioned even if every single disenfranchised person voter for Sanders then Clinton still would have easily won.
If you want a real dirty trick you have anonymous sources start feeding desperate media outlets with hints of a scandal that's hard to disprove, similar to Trump's people feeding stories of fake Cruz affairs to the tabloids. Cook up a story about Sanders having hidden bank accounts or find some past association with a lobbyist and start making him look like a hypocrite, that's a much smarter way to run a smear campaign. Clinton's email scandal is a great example of this, sure it's a legit issue but the severity of the crime has been vastly overblown.
A lot of the coverage is being driven by papers looking for readers, but I'm sure those reporters are getting a lot of subtle help and encouragement by party officials on both sides.