World view – Tuesday

Monday GMT

WorldWatch2

For posting on events, news, opinions and anything of interest from around the world.

7 Comments

  1. chrism56

     /  August 21, 2018

    The infighting in the Revolution continues.
    Because a group of TERFs have been distributing stickers saying “women don’t have penises”. https://liverpoolresisters.wordpress.com/ The Mayor of Liverpool council wants that defined as hate speech. https://twitter.com/mayor_anderson/status/1030878562147094530
    As Germaine Greer, an unrepentant TERF, put it
    “Just because you lop off your penis and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a fucking woman. I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a fucking cocker spaniel.”
    Get the beer and chips in – this will be a fight to the death.

    • Gezza

       /  August 21, 2018

      I’ll say.

      ACRONYM : TERF
      trans-exclusionary radical feminist
      Feminists with critical views have been referred to as “TERFs” (short for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). They generally object to the acronym and have called it a slur or even hate speech.

      o_O

  2. The Paul Manafort jury continues to deliberate, which means they are doing their job.

    Vox looks at ..what it might mean

    If it feels like the jury in Paul Manafort’s trial is taking forever to reach a verdict, actually, it’s not. This is how long you’d expect them to take, despite the defense’s claims that extended deliberations and the jury’s questions are a good sign.

    Manafort, the former campaign chair for President Donald Trump, has been charged on 18 total counts. They include bank fraud, bank fraud conspiracy, false income tax returns, and failure to report foreign bank or financial assets, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.

    Michael Bromwich, former Justice Department inspector general:

    These deliberations have not been lengthy by any measure. No one should have expected a quick verdict.

    The defense’s claim that the length of the deliberations is a good sign for them is pure spin; indeed, quick verdicts in complex cases are frequently for the defendant.

    Harry Litman, former US attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania and former deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department:

    The most likely thing it means is that they’re going through the charges, which are paper-driven and require confirmation methodically. We know that’s happening, based on their questioning, and it’s the kind of the case that doing that would take three, four, five days anyway.

    You could speculate that there’s some dynamic involving a holdout, but the better fit with the facts is that they’re just moving through methodically and this is how long it would take.

    The only thing on the jury that will mean anything is their 18 verdicts.

  3. Contrasting tweets:

    The tariffs are real, the ongoing trade talks offer the prospects of only a possible resolution.

    • Griff.

       /  August 21, 2018

      Like your mates the climate frauds maggy?
      You now the ones you support despite the fact BOM reviewed the niwa series and found it correct, the NZ courts found against the cranks and the NIWA data is confirmed by many other lines of evidence.

      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10666-018-9606-6
      Comment on “A Reanalysis of Long-Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand”

      dFDB claimed their paper was the first to properly use a methodology developed by Jim Salinger and Rhoades, first published in 1993. It wasn’t – in two senses. It wasn’t the first, and they didn’t use it properly.
      dFDB claimed NIWA’s long term temp record was based on calculations from Jim Salinger’s PhD thesis. It wasn’t.
      dFDB’s interpretation of the Rhoades and Salinger technique was mistaken and flawed, using station overlaps that were too short and ignoring changes in maximum and minimum temperatures. The result was that they failed to make many adjustments that were required, and therefore underestimated the actual warming.
      dFDB made a few arithmetical errors, dealt with missing data incorrectly, and mishandled trends in the Auckland and Wellington series.
      dFDB ignored other lines of evidence that support warming of 0.7-1.0°C per century, such as temperature series derived by the Berkeley Earth project, the decline in NZ’s glaciers, and analyses of sea surface temperatures around NZ.

      The full paper is well worth a read if you followed the arguments at the time of dFDB’s original publication. It’s an elegant and polite deconstruction of a shoddy, politically motivated piece of work that should never have passed peer review first time round. It should make uncomfortable reading for the remaining authors of dFDB (2015) and their promoters, if they were real scientists rather than propagandists. But they’re not.

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-final-cut-crank-paper-on-nz-temperature-record-gets-its-rebuttal-warming-continues-unabated/

  4. Corky

     /  August 21, 2018

    This from an staunch Aussie Labour man. Not good when he has problems with the current PC climate.