The abrupt climate change thesis suggests that climate passes through threshold transitions, after which change is sudden, runaway and unstoppable. This concurs with recent themes in complexity studies. Data from ice cores indicates that major shifts in global climate regimes have occurred in as little as a decade, and that for most of the span of human existence the climate has oscillated much more violently than it has over the last 10,000 years. This evidence presents enormous challenges for international climate change negotiation and regulation, which has thus far focused on gradual change. It is argued that existing social theoretic engagements with physical agency are insufficiently geared towards dissonant or disastrous physical events. Wagering on the past and future importance of abrupt climate change, the article explores a way of engaging with catastrophic climatic change that stresses the inherent volatility and unpredictability of earth process, and the no-less-inherent vulnerability of the human body. Drawing on Bataille and Derrida, it proposes a way of nestling the issue of environmental justice within a broader sense of immeasurable indebtedness to those humans who endured previous episodes of abrupt climate change, and considers the idea of experimentation and generosity without reserve.
I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if a Republican could read that and say something like Obama FAIL! While it doesn't surprise me when you do it, it does disappoint me.
Oh, I'm sorry. The diarist has restricted what can be considered. Considering all that is allowed to be considered, and doing so while keeping in mind the overall goal of blaming Obama for every legislative failure (and every "less than ideal" legislative success), I'll have to agree. Given the constraints, I find it pointless to disagree.
I love these discussions, that is, if I'm allowed to.Otherwise, I have the emotional reaction to them within the prescribed limits.
In the original diary you are doing exactly that which you are condemning others for doing, and now in your reply to me you are doing it again - with a transparent attempt to do that which you accuse me of doing - re-opening the PW. As much as you believe there was a conspiracy against Hillary, there wasn't. As much as you believe she lost unfairly, she didn't. She's a great Secretary of State. One of the best ever. And there is no doubt in my mind that she was, is, and will ever be a Democrat, and proud of it. She also has a record of supporting less than perfect male Presidents.
Well, give the idiots what they want. I don't crave a longer line at the doctor's office enough to force the issue. Maybe the stupidity that the polls shine a light on in this instance explains why Obama's numbers are off. That's my guess.
Polls are only useful in showing just how many ignorant people there are out there. It appears that the people here want the President to spend his time worrying about the polls. I expect he will spend his time more wisely. The following is an example: