The pond woke up to this news ...
Another Saudi Arabian woman has been sentenced to decades in prison by the kingdom’s terrorism court for using social media to “violate the public order”, according to court documents seen by a human rights group.
Nourah bint Saeed al-Qahtani was sentenced to 45 years in prison after a specialised criminal court convicted her of “using the internet to tear [Saudi Arabia’s] social fabric”, according to documents that were obtained and reviewed by Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn), an organisation founded by Jamal Khashoggi.
Dawn shared its findings, which it said were verified by Saudi sources, with the Guardian.
Nourah bint Saeed al-Qahtani was sentenced to 45 years in prison after a specialised criminal court convicted her of “using the internet to tear [Saudi Arabia’s] social fabric”, according to documents that were obtained and reviewed by Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn), an organisation founded by Jamal Khashoggi.
Dawn shared its findings, which it said were verified by Saudi sources, with the Guardian.
The pond couldn't help but think of those lickspittle fellow-travelling golfers doing their best to golfwash the sordid Saudi Arabian regime. They might as well have sat in the court room to help with the sentencing. Naturally there's a sometime Australian involved, a blood-spattered shark, a choker who wants to choke on the rich taste of Saudi cash.
Given that the pond spends its days tearing at the reptiles' social fabric, what a relief to be out of the way of the authoritarians in Saudi land, and their Lord Haw-Haw golfing companions ...
It put the pond in a bad mood, so that the very last thing the pond needed was a dose of nattering "Ned", but that's what the pond does each day ... put itself and others in harm's way ...
What the fuck are "real outcomes"? Is there an alternative universe full of "unreal outcomes"?
Back in the day, no thanks to Mad magazine, the pond had a running gag with friends where we discussed the "overall picture" of the situation, which might require "real outcomes" ...
Yes, we need real world solutions, real world outcomes, and certainly not any surreal world outcomes, a real result for real issues ... and so on and so forth ... and so it goes ...
Why does the pond bother? Well that blather about Hawke and Keating provides a nice segue to an immortal Rowe ...
And with that in mind, the pond knew it could make it through the final gobbet of "Ned" handwringing, and sighing at the clouds and doing his usual Chicken Little impression, in a desperate search for unreal outcomes ...
What on earth is a progressive class? Has "Ned" invented a new form of Marxism? What a useless goose he is, what a futtock, and yet there's a chance to throw in another cartoon ... this time an infallible Pope reminding the pond that there's no room at the inn when the rich have made a booking ...
That's how it used to work when it came to classes ... the rich and the rest ... and not a progressive in sight, just the usual rip-off ...
Heck, the pond is on a bit of a cartoon roll, why not another one before turning to Dame Slap?
But why did the pond start with "Ned", always an exercise in futility? Well there's slim pickings this day early on in the morning ... maybe it'll get better as the reptiles trickle out their click-bait fodder during the day ...
The baleful presence of Dame Slap reminded the pond of a note from a valued, esteemed correspondent, drawing attention to a report in The Graudian ...
Major sea-level rise from the melting of the Greenland ice cap is now inevitable, scientists have found, even if the fossil fuel burning that is driving the climate crisis were to end overnight.
The research shows the global heating to date will cause an absolute minimum sea-level rise of 27cm (10.6in) from Greenland alone as 110tn tonnes of ice melt. With continued carbon emissions, the melting of other ice caps and thermal expansion of the ocean, a multi-metre sea-level rise appears likely.
Billions of people live in coastal regions, making flooding due to rising sea levels one of the greatest long-term impacts of the climate crisis. If Greenland’s record melt year of 2012 becomes a routine occurrence later this century, as is possible, then the ice cap will deliver a “staggering” 78cm of sea-level rise, the scientists said.
The research shows the global heating to date will cause an absolute minimum sea-level rise of 27cm (10.6in) from Greenland alone as 110tn tonnes of ice melt. With continued carbon emissions, the melting of other ice caps and thermal expansion of the ocean, a multi-metre sea-level rise appears likely.
Billions of people live in coastal regions, making flooding due to rising sea levels one of the greatest long-term impacts of the climate crisis. If Greenland’s record melt year of 2012 becomes a routine occurrence later this century, as is possible, then the ice cap will deliver a “staggering” 78cm of sea-level rise, the scientists said.
And then there's been an ongoing bout of disaster porn from Pakistan with truly shocking images of devastation, with the pond realising it must do something about its YouTube addiction ...
Pakistan is not to blame for a climate crisis-fuelled disaster that has flooded much of the country, the prime minister has said, as he made a desperate plea for international help in what he said was the “toughest moment” in the nation’s history.
“We are suffering from it but it is not our fault at all,” Shehbaz Sharif told journalists on Tuesday afternoon at a press conference where his climate change minister referred to the flooding as a “climate catastrophe”.
“We are dealing with a situation I have not seen in my life,” Sharif said. “More than one million houses are damaged or destroyed. Seventy-two districts of Pakistan are in calamity and all four corners of Pakistan are underwater and more than 3,500km [2,175 miles] of roads have been washed away. Around one million animals have died.
“It is the toughest movement in the history of Pakistan. He has never seen such floods in his life … Now I say without fear, I have not seen such devastation in my life,” he said. “We request the international community to come and help us and stand by us at this hour.” The floods had caused up to $10bn (£8.5bn) in damage, he said, adding that there would be transparency on all assistance funds donated.
Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s climate change minister, said towns had become “oceans and rivers” but, due to climate heating, she expected the country to go straight into a drought in upcoming weeks. “We are on the front of unfolding climate catastrophe.” (Graudian, in typical Graudian grammatical style)
“We are suffering from it but it is not our fault at all,” Shehbaz Sharif told journalists on Tuesday afternoon at a press conference where his climate change minister referred to the flooding as a “climate catastrophe”.
“We are dealing with a situation I have not seen in my life,” Sharif said. “More than one million houses are damaged or destroyed. Seventy-two districts of Pakistan are in calamity and all four corners of Pakistan are underwater and more than 3,500km [2,175 miles] of roads have been washed away. Around one million animals have died.
“It is the toughest movement in the history of Pakistan. He has never seen such floods in his life … Now I say without fear, I have not seen such devastation in my life,” he said. “We request the international community to come and help us and stand by us at this hour.” The floods had caused up to $10bn (£8.5bn) in damage, he said, adding that there would be transparency on all assistance funds donated.
Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s climate change minister, said towns had become “oceans and rivers” but, due to climate heating, she expected the country to go straight into a drought in upcoming weeks. “We are on the front of unfolding climate catastrophe.” (Graudian, in typical Graudian grammatical style)
Whenever the next climate disaster turns up, the pond is suddenly triggered and sent back via the Wayback Machine to Dame Slap, scribbling on 28th October 2009 this immortal conspiracy theory, under the header Beware the UN's Copenhagen Plot ...
SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?
With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come.
Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.
Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.
Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”
Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft treaty. It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.”
Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded.
Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,” he says.
The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.
How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.
Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.
Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.
Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable?
And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy?
At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.”
Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about.
With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come.
Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.
Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.
Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”
Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft treaty. It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.”
Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded.
Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,” he says.
The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.
How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.
Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.
Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.
Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable?
And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy?
At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.”
Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about.
You can read some of the comments Dame Slap provoked at the WM if you like, but you could also take a hammer and hit yourself on the head for a few hours and produce much the same result ...
Dame Slap's paranoid scientific wisdom turned up the very same day in the WSJ under the header Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement? U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary ... (no link, the pond never links to Murdoch rags)
We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.
So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."
Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."
Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.
Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.
So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."
Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."
Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.
Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.
Thank you Dame Slap. You've done more than your fair share to help fuck the planet, a bit like those golfers taking the cash in the paw, the blood money, and heading off for a pleasant stroll on the greens ...
Why this elaborate preamble?
Well as soon as the pond read Dame Slap's headline Questioning Albo's voice isn't idiotic, racist or ideological, the pond knew at once there'd be yet another in an interminable series of black bashings, in which Dame Slap would be idiotic, racist and ideological ...
It's always in the form of a question, isn't it? Dame Slap's just asking, just inquiring, just carrying on in her usual ratbag way. You know, the questioner, the inquirer, the seeker after truth, the supplicant at the foot of Lord Monckton yearning for wisdom and insight ...
The only pleasure in it for the pond is to see Dame Slap go at the throat of the craven Craven. Is there anything more pleasing than to see two reptiles bite into flesh and spill blood? The pond is just asking of course ... it surely isn't mean-spirited to question the value of this sort of public reptile spectacle ...
These days the pond is content to revert to a safe position ... almost anything that happens on planet Janet should be expected to deliver unreal outcomes on any other planet ...
And ...
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.
And that's how you do over a planet, while making sure that, in best racist way, an attempt to consult with the original residents of this country is transformed into a "radical change to our democracy", a splendid dogwhistle to racists, idiots and ideologues ...
What a relief it is to turn to parish pump issues and celebrate the ongoing greatness of the Dominator and his team ...
Of course it will produce laughter in Melbourne, but it's a great distraction from climate science and black bashing ... and it's producing some unreal outcomes ...
And to end on a positive note, a thanks to all those who expressed some concern about the pond's situation. As always, and as with all the comments made each day to inform and advise the pond in its quest to tear at the reptiles' social fabric, much appreciated ...
As you saw yesterday, we do appreciate that you put yourself in harm's way for your readers. Your concern about things happening with the climate could have been assuaged with a brief 'Y..tube' clip from Sky last night, where the Dog Bov. was chortling at the plain ignorance of simple-minded folk who thought the intensity of flooding in Pakistan was any kind of evidence for climate change. Why, you silly people, if you knew anything, you would know that that part of the world has this 'monsoon' thingy, every year, that just about covers the entire country with water, always has, and the problem is that the Pakis just haven't caught on to the idea that they should better prepare for it. The clip was too brief to tell us what, in the wisdom of the Bovverer, the Pakis could do - but it was comforting.
ReplyDeleteIt's so comforting, at least for the Doggy Bov, to know that everything that's happening now has happened countless times before. We all know about the annual cross-Pakistan boat races, don't we ?
DeleteAnyway, Doggy Bov is right as usual, the Pakistan floods are due to a veritable monsoon of melting glaciers:
DeleteHow melting glaciers fueled Pakistan’s fatal floods
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2022/8/30/23327341/pakistan-flooding-monsoon-melting-glaciers-climate-change
"Pakistan has more than 7,000 glaciers. Climate change is melting them into floodwater."
Worth more of a quote GB ...
DeletePakistan is home to over 7,200 glaciers, more than anywhere outside the poles. Rising temperatures, linked to climate change, are likely making many of them melt faster and earlier, adding water to rivers and streams that are already swollen by rainfall.
“We have the largest number of glaciers outside the polar region, and this affects us,” Pakistan’s climate minister Sherry Rehman told the Associated Press. “Instead of keeping their majesty and preserving them for posterity and nature,” she said, “we are seeing them melt.”
That means that Pakistan — already one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change — will become increasingly susceptible to flooding as the planet warms. It’s an unfortunate reality for a country responsible for just a tiny fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring how the harm caused by big polluters is often exported. Like many countries, Pakistan will bear an unequal burden of climate change in the years to come...
And ...
...The country is not only a glacier hot spot, but melting in the Himalayas — one of the main mountain ranges in the country — is accelerating, according to a 2021 study.
“Our findings clearly show that ice is now being lost from Himalayan glaciers at a rate that is at least ten times higher than the average rate over past centuries,” Jonathan Carrivick, the study’s lead author, said in a statement when the study came out.
Along with melting snow, glacial runoff can cause rivers to swell, even many miles downstream from the mountains, Kamp said. That’s especially worrisome when it coincides with monsoons, which climate change may also be worsening (partly because hotter air can hold more water).
“With this increase of glacial meltwater for the next decades — because of climate change — we will have to deal with floods,” Kamp said.
Indeed much worthy of the additional quotes, thanks DP.
DeleteAnd for all who may be interested, some additional quotables:
What’s going on with the Greenland ice sheet? It’s losing ice faster than forecast and now irreversibly committed to at least 10 inches of sea level rise
https://theconversation.com/whats-going-on-with-the-greenland-ice-sheet-its-losing-ice-faster-than-forecast-and-now-irreversibly-committed-to-at-least-10-inches-of-sea-level-rise-185590
But then "10 inches" (aka 25cm) isn't really all that much, is it ? Hardly notice that anywhere in the world, would we.
Nodoff Neddy: "Delivering real outcomes the test for PM's summit" Real outcomes ? Hucoodanode. Based on the last 9 or so years, all we expect is a lot of self-congratulatory waffle before getting on with the business of growing their wealth at our expense.
ReplyDeleteHome advantage: federal politicians’ hefty property portfolios revealed in register of interests
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/31/home-advantage-federal-politicians-hefty-property-portfolios-revealed-in-register-of-interests
And now that I've read the hed, the joys of the entire gibber jabber. If you can do it for us, DP, then we can do it for you.
I've just had an experience in monetary inflation: I wanted a small stapler so I went to the stationery store and found one, plus staple remover and a pack of N0 10 staples marked as $5.99 which seemed ok. Went to the counter and got charged $3 - an incredible inflation of -50%. Yep, let's have a lot more inflation just like that.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the meantime, here's a dissertation that will teach you everything about "productivity" that McKinsey want you to know. And will show you what "not denying reality, just never having any contact with it" means:
"Our hospitals, without the driver of competition, have only just begun to embrace efficient practices and lean techniques in the purchase and delivery of services."
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/five-misconceptions-about-productivity
I'm sure Aishwarya Aswath's parents will be happy to know that.
Well, the departure of prominent McKinsey Partner, our very own Beefy Angus, a few years before this paper was unleashed, suggests that he had done little to improve the quality of McK's er - work.
DeleteAnd here Ned goes: "A productivity agenda is essential but it is long-run." My, what a surprise that is. But does Our Ned have any idea what a "productivity agenda" actually is ? I can just see it now for our most stressed "industry": hospitals. They'll need all of the "competition" they can get: build more hospitals, train more doctors - and don't forget to improve the productivity of career training and of hospital building along the way. But most of all what they will need is patients who either die quickly or who can be pushed out the door to go home (if they have one) and self-heal thus visibly improving the hospital care "productivity".
ReplyDeleteYay Neddles, gomango ! But then "The progressive class is restless. It senses Labor's agenda is inadequate." Of course it's inadequate, any attempt to make it "adequate" would just bring on the wrath of the whole 'non-progressive' media, and especially the Murdochrats. Including you, Paul, including you.
Heads up DP.
ReplyDeleteAnd glad you are ok and gracing us with loonpond.
My lunch is ruined though at the image of Dutton pissing in yesterday and both sides today.
While we are mianung, groaning and being distracted by secret abnews meetings, this has happened.
Missed by all it seems except TND. I hope you follow up;
"the Queensland government will provide the secret (and commercial-in-confidence) sauce by subsidising the revenue stream."
"If the Queensland government thinks we need more social housing, which we do, then why doesn’t it just spend the money itself?"
The ART of the deal: Queensland has a super plan for investing in social housing
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/superannuation/2022/08/29/super-for-housing-queensland/
Paid for by what was once called the pension. Now private capital using superannuation. And Bang the Table Pty Ltd in bed with Qld Labor to provide "scial housing", yet sold out to a US co. By a guy who "began his career with Bain & Company as a consultant."
"This site is hosted for QLD Department of Housing and Public Works by Bang the Table Pty Ltd.
https://yoursayhpw.engagementhq.com/terms
Bang the Table Pty Ltd, front for Labor Qld social housing investment vehicle, and website diverts to "Granicus, a US provider of cloud-based civic engagement technology and services for the public sector"
Mark Hynes - CEO
"Mark began his career with Bain & Company as a consultant."
And - BOB AINSBURY
Chief Product Officer
https://granicus.com/company/
BOB AINSBURY in Fortune
..
.
"In the United Kingdom, this dynamic sparked a nontraditional response in the face of budgetary constraints at every level of government: digitalization of citizen services that led directly to public sector revenue generation.
"...to understand how municipalities, from Wrexham to Weymouth, brought citizen services and forums online to connect with communities in more dynamic and revenue-generating ways, like moving parking passes and permit application processes online."
...
https://fortune.com/2020/10/07/covid-19-state-and-local-budget-cuts-digital-transformation/
"Two Australian GovTech innovators, Bang the Table and OpenCities, have been acquired by Granicus, a US provider of cloud-based civic engagement technology and services for the public sector
...
"These acquisitions follow extended periods of growth for Bang the Table and OpenCities. Bang the Table has doubled its revenue and expanded its global reach over the past three years, now operating in four continents. OpenCities has also grown to power millions of daily interactions for cities, counties and states across Australia, New Zealand and North America. "
https://www.govtechreview.com.au/content/public-sector-network/news/two-aussie-scale-ups-acquired-by-us-govtech-leader-1553084853
*
"She says asset sales contributed to the demise of the Bligh government – where she was transport minister – in 2012 and the Newman government last year. "The people of Queensland don't want it. I am not going to break that trust," she says defiantly. (This promise doesn't extend to selling government property like excess land parcels which she is planning to sell or gift to developers to build renewal projects.)"
https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/management/annastacia-palaszczuk--the-cautious-reformer-20161010-grz5si
Oh wau, some giant McKinseyish productivity gains there, Anony.
DeleteAnonymous - have just looked through the link to 'Fortune' about 'digital transformation'. Yes, soooo simple. It looked like the thinking behind Fahour's 'MyPost' transformation, when he was the CEO of what was supposed to be our postal system. The metrics of his tenure might be expressed as 'accomplishment in inverse relationship to his salary'. I have not encountered anyone who ever found a use for 'MyPost'.
DeleteNearer to the intention of this article - my local council thinks it digitises all sorts of functions. What it puts out shows all the classic signs of what the 'computer guy' said he would provide, and nobody tried to look at it from the point of view of the ratepayer.
Fahour's MyPost ? Bang the Table and OpenCities ? And what on Earth is GovTech ? I can just vaguely remember MyPost copping a mention, but the others ?
DeleteTalk about not having any contact with reality, I'm definitely in the process of losing any that I ever had.
And now, for one last word:
DeleteWhat was the Commonwealth Employment Service? Why are people calling for it to return?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-31/what-was-the-commonwealth-employment-service/101381032
Another one of Malcolm Fraser's great politico-social "innovations", along with cancel-culturing Medibank (as it was called ay the time).
Shezbah Sharif: "We are dealing with a situation I have not seen in my life." Oh dear, Doggy Bov will have to sick himself on to Shezbah and remind him that this is fully precedented because things were much worse only a few million years ago - long before anthropogenic greenhouse.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway, "Around one million animals have died." Now surely Sharif must be able to tell us why his just, loving God has done this to a million innocent domestic animals. None of them ever committed a sin, did they ?
As to Slappy's rave, what exactly did she say to them when "my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true." We've never heard tell about that, have we: not from Slappy and not from her (then) teenage daughters. And we never did hear what, if anything, she told her apparently mute son. But thanks for that wander back into the Dame's, and her family's, past; as I hear the sound of the fleet of black UN helicopters flying overhead late at night, I'm thankful to the Dame for being able to recognise what I'm hearing.
But it does just exemplify the state of "mind" of the reptiles: "not so much a denial of reality as never having ever had any contact with it."
Just idly in passing, something from the web:
ReplyDelete"[...] discussing X’s style of argument, which is slippery, laced with appeals to authority and credentialism, and generally a reflection of someone who expects that his words have more meaning simply because he typed them."
Describes quite a few reptiles, eg Polonius and "Ned" Kelly, but particularly Holely Henry, don't you agree ?