Tuesday, April 18, 2023

DiFi needs to announce her retirement immediately

Betty ("If you're over 72 stop running for Congress, if you're over 80 retire now," "Dianne Feinstein needs to retire right now" and "Dianne Feinstein is obstructing the Senate Judiciary Committee")  and Mike ("Graham Elwood, Dianne Feinstein needs to retire,") have been covering the embarrassment that is Senator Dianne Feinstein.  Betty saw that Senator Chris Murphy had weighed in and, since he is one of my U.S. Senators, she thought I might want to comment.  Absolutely.  First, Mr. Murphy:


Sen. Chris Murphy told MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week that he disagreed with the calls for Feinstein to step down.

“I think it’s interesting that there have been male senators who have been away from the chamber for quite a period of time and haven’t necessarily had this call for resignation,” Murphy said. “Dianne is a legend. I think she has changed this country for the better. She deserves to have a little bit of time to recover from this injury or illness.” 

“There have been plenty of members of the Senate who have been sick, gotten ill and given some time to come back and recover,” Murphy said. “I want the same standard applied to everyone.”



I think it is interesting that after she has missed 59 of 77 votes this year so far, Mr. Murphy's immediate focus is on Ms. Feinstein's vagina and not her work record.    She is a legend -- a bad one.  She voted for the Iraq War.  That alone should have her hanging her head in shame.  She called whistle-blower Ed Snowden a liar, he never was a C.I.A. contractor, she insisted.  He never would have been hired.  She just lied like that in a full Committee hearing -- that she chaired -- and she never corrected the record.  Americans were being spied upon and Ms. Feinstein did nothing.  But when she found out her office was being spied upon, she hit the roof. 

The legend was Senator Barbara Boxer who severed about two decades alongside Ms. Feinstein; however, Ms. Boxer had the brains to retire and enjoy her life.  She left while still competent and lively.  We have a judicial crisis in this country.  It includes an illegitimate Supreme Court.  It also includes some court packing on the part of former President Donald Trump's efforts at the federal level.  No nominee from President Joe Biden can leave the Senate Judiciary Committee because Ms. Boxer has not shown up at the Senate for weeks and weeks.  She gave 'permission' over the weekend for the Committee to 'replace' her.  The Republicans on the Committee responded back, "No, we're fine."  And they are fine because their job is to make sure that a Democratic president is not seating judges on the federal bench.  

Ms. Boxer is doing serious harm to the country and needs to retire immediately.   Grasp that the G.O.P. would love to see Senator Feinstein hold on to that seat and refuse to show up.  That would mean burying all of Mr. Biden's nominees.  And in November 2024, there is no guarantee that a Democrat will win the presidency.  Mr. Trump got a liar named Matthew Kascmaryk onto the federal bench.  We do not have the luxury of indulging Senator Feinstein's ego any longer.


She needs to retire immediately.  And, no, Senator Murphy, this is not sexism.  At ESQUIRE, Jack Holmes writes:


Last summer, we floated that an upper age limit to serve in American public office to match the minimum we've all accepted since the founding. 80 years old was the milestone we mooted for when a politician should be encouraged to go spend more time with the grandkids, but it was more of a curtain-raiser for these discussions than a hard policy demand. (It was never likely that politicians would vote to impose a rule on themselves.) One reason we should be wary of electing officeholders of advanced age is that elderly people can decline quite suddenly, at which point they could be unable to fulfill their duties and serve the public. This appears to be the case with California Senator Dianne Feinstein, 89, who has not shown up to the Senate chamber since February. She is suffering with a case of shingles and has said she's working from home, though there have been reports for years that her cognitive health is in significant decline.


Feinstein is not alone in her absence this year—Senator John Fetterman, another Democrat, returned to the Senate on Monday following six weeks of treatment for depression. But hers is particularly pressing as a member of the slim Democratic majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her absence has imperiled President Joe Biden's push to populate the Judicial Branch with judges who reflect the party's values and priorities, and just in the last couple of weeks we've seen that this is possibly the most important agenda item—for both the White House and the Democratic Senate—in a split Congress where not much else may get done. A federal judge in Texas nominated by President Donald Trump, Matthew Kacsmaryk, took it upon himself to nix a decision from the Food and Drug Administration back in 2000 that that approved the use of mifepristone, one of the drugs used in medication abortion. American women's right to make a decision about their own body is now in limbo, batted about by various judges across the land.

Republicans have lost enough elections that their main route to making conservative policy now runs through activist judges they set about installing over the last decade and change. It began with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell's scorched-earth assault on then-President Obama's constitutional prerogative to appoint judges, slowing the process to a halt at every level of the federal system until the opportunity arose for a shameless coup de grace: making up a fanciful rule that presidents can't nominate a Supreme Court justice in an election year. McConnell left the departed Antonin Scalia's seat open, denying Obama pick Merrick Garland any kind of consideration, until it could be filled by Donald Trump. Fast forward a few years, and the man who did get the seat, Justice Neil Gorsuch, was voting to nix Roe v. Wade and—considering many red states had "trigger laws" set to go into effect on such a ruling—de facto strip millions of American women of their abortion rights.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:


Tuesday, April 18, 2023.  Crooked Clarence continues to ruin the image of The Court, Marjorie Taylor Greene has demonstrated she's not fit to serve on a Homeland Security Committee, Iraq has artifact issues (along with climate issues) and much more.



Starting with Crooked Clarence who put a price on justice.  Erin Snodgrass (INSIDER) reports:

Juan Williams, a political analyst at Fox News, as well as a decades-long friend to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed his support f0r an investigation into the conservative justice following a recent spate of corruption allegations.

Thomas is facing renewed scrutiny following the revelation last week that the he sold his childhood home to GOP mega-donor Harlan Crow — and never disclosed the sale.

The ProPublica report came days after the outlet first reported that Thomas has been accepting and failing to disclose several luxury vacations from Crow for years. While Thomas defended the undisclosed trips by citing an ill-defined "personal hospitality" exemption included in disclosure requirements, the real estate revelation has thus far been harder to explain away.

CNN reported on Monday that Thomas plans to amend his financial disclosure forms to accurately reflect the real estate deal, but four ethics law experts told ProPublica last week that the justice likely violated a federal disclosure law that was enacted in the wake of Watergate, sparking public pressure for an official investigation into Thomas' financial dealings, as well as growing calls for his resignation and impeachment.


Wow.  Juan's done more than 'legal expert' Jonathan Turley.  Turley's dismissed this.  Turley's acted as though it's normal.  And then he's avoided it.  He promotes himself as some sort of Constitutional expert but he is just a scared little rabbit, afraid he might weigh in wrong and be dropped from the FOX "NEWS" payroll.  Claims to cover the courts but can't really explore Crooked Clarence.

At THE NEW REPUBLIC, Alex Shephard addresses conservatives (Jonathan Turley became one when FOX "NEWS" tossed enough money at him) who minimize Clarence's crooked actions:

Thomas may not have deliberately changed his votes at Crow’s behest, but a chummy relationship between a right-wing megadonor who literally funds organizations that appear before the Supreme Court and a justice on that court, involving the bestowing of many lavish gifts—which said justice then hides from the public—is clearly crooked. Crow’s relationship with Thomas is based entirely on the former’s wealth and the latter’s influence. It obviously speaks to Thomas’s own contempt for his critics and opponents: He is identifying as a member and agent of a vast right-wing machine. He is, more importantly, using his position in government to enrich himself—it is obvious that Thomas would not be the beneficiary of Crow’s largesse if he were not on the Supreme Court. 
That all of this is amoral on its face should be clear to anyone who values a functional democracy. Having a member of the Supreme Court hobnobbing around and taking all kinds of presents from a billionaire megadonor goes against bedrock principles of self-government. A civic-minded judge or lawmaker labors diligently to avoid even a hint of impropriety; Thomas has done no such thing and instead has gleefully filled his pockets. The idea that Shapiro—or anyone else—knows Thomas’s heart is silly. It’s also irrelevant: We don’t need to connect the dots to determine which bronze gnome wrought which Supreme Court decision. The appearance of a conflict of interest is sin enough. 
To accept what Thomas and Crow have cooked up between themselves is to accept rampant corruption on the Supreme Court, full stop. It shows that the court has no ability to police itself and no interest in doing anything that might ameliorate the continued and growing influence of right-wing megadonors on its justices—particularly Thomas. Undoubtedly Crow and Thomas’s close relationship has influenced the justice’s thinking. Surely Crow has expressed his opinions on ideological matters during those many hours they’ve spent together, sunning in the Riviera.
Crow derives a benefit from keeping Thomas steeped in lavish gifts—all that boodle may not be necessary to push Thomas to rule a certain way, but it sure helps influence other people in Crow’s orbit. He can present himself as someone who has the ear of one of the most powerful jurists in the country. He can also send the message that there are rich rewards to be reaped by staying in the plutocrat’s good graces. And so the failure to do anything about Thomas and Crow’s relationship sends a message to right-wing justices everywhere. If you hold the line—and rule in the manner Crow prefers—you too can one day rake in gifts, vacations, playdates, and weird trips to an absurd “park” containing dozens of statues of fallen dictators. Corruption is welcome. Thomas may not have changed any of his votes at Crow’s behest—but that doesn’t mean others won’t. 


This is a serious issue.  Clarence should be resigning.  Instead, he acts like he's done nothing wrong while he further sullies the reputation of The Court.  Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern (SLATE) note:


When news broke last week, by way of dogged reporting in ProPublica, that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted decades’ worth of hospitality from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow, that this same donor had funded his wife’s legal and political activities and in fact helped pay her salary, and that Thomas had disclosed none of this, our suggestion that the justice had clearly broken the law was dismissed as left-wing “smear.” ProPublica’s new reporting, dropped on Thursday, showed that the same billionaire donor, Harlan Crow, spent $133,363 purchasing several properties co-owned by Thomas, and that these sales were never disclosed. As our colleagues at Slate confirmed this week, Thomas’ mother actually still lives in the property owned by Crow, to which he has made valuable improvements (in addition to buying the house next door and dispensing with previously troublesome neighbors). Unlike the rules around the undisclosed luxury travel reported last week, ProPublica could not find a single ethics expert willing to squint and hop on one foot in a way that would make the failure to report the real estate transaction seem arguably lawful. The court has not responded in any way to the latest revelations. Defenders of Justice Thomas somehow continue to urge that this is a smear campaign by liberals.

In a way, the fact that money went from Harlan Crow’s pocket to Thomas’ mom’s house seems less horrifying than last week’s superyachts and half-million-dollar luxury air travel. Who among us wouldn’t want a billionaire to evict the noisy neighbors who were keeping our mothers up late? But it helps to parse out what mattered about both Thomas stories and what is mostly a distraction. That Thomas is a “hypocrite” for claiming to like parking outside Walmarts to commune with real people while secretly indulging his taste for luxe global travel? Doesn’t really matter. Harlan Crow’s penchant for cunningly little embroidered Nazi table linens? Weird, surely, but materially inconsequential. The Wall Street Journal editorial board’s claim that Thomas is a good and great man being tarnished by “left-leaning” ProPublica (which, let’s recall, is actually founded by former Wall Street Journal folks)? Whatever.
What mattered last week and what still matters this week is whether the Crow/Thomas dealings can be seen as classic quid pro quo (or perhaps quid pro Crow) corruption. We too often think this can only happen in a scene in which cartoon ducks with big sacks of cash pay politicians to do their bidding, which is never how this actually happens. And the longstanding defense to those claims is that Justice Thomas is too independent a thinker and jurist to be influenced by gifts of bibles and vacations and rent-free housing. But what this new reporting shows—and what actually matters—is that Crow and those like him, who have poured billions of dollars into funding cases before the court, campaigns to seat certain justices on the court, and crusades to keep other justices off the court, turn out to just own the whole building. In tandem with the Leonard Leos and Mark Paolettas who have been rendered in art for all eternity, the Harlan Crows are the actual landlords of the houses where the six conservative justices seemingly get to live rent-free.
If you’re defending Thomas’ unlawful refusal to disclose these transactions by saying he’s too famous/powerful/important/busy/put-upon to disclose these transactions, you are missing the point. Disclosure laws aren’t tawdry “gotcha” traps that form the basis of smear campaigns. Disclosure rules are the only means of transparency in a world of increasingly broken democratic systems. Citizens United and its dismantling of campaign finance reform? Justified on the grounds that disclosure rules suffice to ferret out corruption. We don’t demand that public figures deal honestly with the public because we are mean; we do it because law and democracy rise and fall on knowing who paid who for what.

Someone should print that last paragraph and tape it to Turley's office door.  

Speaking of his office door, let's be honest.  We raise our kids with the hope that they'll have better lives.  Why would we then send them to George Washington University?  We want the best for them and now that Turley's transitioned into a hate monger, why would we send our kids there?  We got them to 18 and ready for college -- an accomplishment, yes.  We didn't do that to turn them into soulless hate merchants.  We want them to hope for the future.  They won't get a hope at an institution that allows a transphobe and homophobe like Turley to flourish.  These are our treasured loved ones.  They're too important to have their minds put in the hands of a monster so we need to avoid not just George Washington University's law school, but the whole university.  And that probably means our donations need to drop when it comes to George Washington University -- give less or, better yet, none at all.

I'm workshopping it, I've got a series of lunches coming up about how we best use our money to invest in colleges and which investments are betraying our youth.   Anyway,  Khaleda Rahman (NEWSWEEK) notes:

Following The Washington Post's report, lawyer David R. Lurie tweeted: "Thomas's disregard for legal disclosure mandates exemplifies the attitude of the Supreme Court's extremist majority toward the citizens to whom they issue increasingly imperious dictates: Contempt."

Newsweek reached out to Lurie via Twitter and a Supreme Court spokesperson via email for comment.


Lurie also warned that the nation's federal courts are "living on borrowed legitimacy" in a post for journalist Aaron Rupar's Public Notice newsletter last week.

He wrote that "the corrupt conduct of Justice Thomas demonstrates, some members of the Trump Era judiciary appear to believe there is no longer a need for them even to maintain an appearance of judicial probity."

He noted that Thomas had not recused himself from election cases following the 2020 election even though his wife, Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist, had reached out to the Trump White House and lawmakers to urge them to attempt to overturn election results.

"We now know that — even as Ginni Thomas was raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from 'family friend' Harlan Crow — Thomas himself was receiving lavish gifts of travel and other benefits from the billionaire, a right-wing activist, with an intense interest in the subject matters of many cases that come before the Court," Lurie wrote.






The Supreme Court keeps tripping over its own robes. Last week, ProPublica revealed that a conservative megadonor has been secretly subsidizing the lifestyle of Justice Clarence Thomas. In a rare public statement, the justice claims he asked others on the Court and in the judiciary, who assured him he need not disclose such beneficence.

It’s not clear which is worse: if this is true, or if it isn’t.

Thomas said all this merely involved “personal hospitality” from a friend (albeit a billionaire who befriended Thomas only after he was appointed to the Court). That might evoke a dinner party or a weekend at a friend’s lake house. Hardly: Thomas frolicked on Harlan Crow’s superyacht, flew on his personal jet, vacationed at his private resort, and traveled with him to Bohemian Grove, an all-male retreat in California. According to ProPublica, the largesse was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Thomas claimed to want to avoid chichi vacations. “I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it,” Thomas said. “I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.” They say hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

This all shows the perils of DIY ethics. The Supreme Court is the only court in the country with no enforceable code of ethics. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has pointed out that the Court quickly launched a formal investigation of the leak of the Dobbs decision last year. It could do so again. If the Court will not craft a set of ethics rules — and pronto — Congress can and should do so.

Congress should also investigate. There’s ample precedent: Justice Abe Fortas, too, was found to be receiving support from a wealthy benefactor, and the controversy proved so intense that he resigned.

But beyond stronger rules, the scandal shows how lifetime tenure can engender justices with a startling sense of entitlement and a belief that they are beyond accountability. Thomas almost certainly knows that cavorting around the globe in a superyacht isn’t “personal hospitality” in the spirit of current rules. After briefly disclosing the trips and causing a minor stir in 2004, he decided it would be better to keep them to himself. He was confident he could avoid consequences.

Where did that confidence come from? At least in part from the assurance that comes with years of accumulated power and influence.

Few government jobs anywhere in the world are quite like that of U.S. Supreme Court justices: nine unelected people who dictate wide swaths of national policy. And if they’re put on the Court at a young age, they get to do so for many decades with no real risk of removal. Only one justice has ever been impeached (Samuel Chase in 1804). None has ever been convicted. Supreme Court justices are, in this way, more akin to royalty than public servants. Only a single U.S. state mirrors the federal system — the rest have either fixed terms or mandatory retirement.

We can make a change, as I recently argued in the Los Angeles Times. There is a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of term limits for Supreme Court justices. Justices would serve for up to 18 years, with each president allowed two appointments per presidential term. I describe all this in my upcoming book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America.

Term limits would ensure that the composition of the Court better mirrors the preferences of American voters and stop presidents from influencing national policy decades beyond their terms in office. Term limits would also prevent any individual from accumulating unaccountable power, as Thomas seems to believe he has.




Transphobe Ben Burgis has weighed in on a topic.  No surprise, he Tweets like the uninformed blowhard that he is:



Apr 14
Issues I couldn’t care less about: *Whether the leaker deserves the “whistleblower” label *What his motives were Issues I care a lot about: *Whether the American public should know about our government’s foreign policy *Whether media should help the Pentagon catch leakers


Written like the idiot he is.

The leak didn't happen in a vacuum and its effects don't take place in a vacuum.  People are rushing in with no knowledge and making very revealing statements.

I'm not talking about the press coverage of the information itself.  That information is now public and must be covered.  

But the label does matter.  Ed Snowden is a whistle-blower and that should come with protection and support.  

I don't think we can say the same about someone who began revealing classified information in online chats to impress others and needed more and more gratification so he went on to reveal more and more.  This matters.  

It matters because someone who is too crazy to be in Congress -- and whoever that would be possible -- has praised the current leaker as a "hero."  That's Marjorie Taylor Greene.

She praised the man the day his identity was known.

And it matters, tubby Ben, because she sits on the House Homeland Security Committee and I don't think I'm alone in not wanting someone on that Committee if they're applauding the mishandling of classified information.

Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning did what they did because they thought the public had a right to know.  I can get behind that and I can support it.  Someone like the leaker who just left it lying around and only brought it up to impress others?  

No.

That's illegal with no real appeal process.  He abused his clearance and he revealed classified information.  He broke the law and there was no reason such as the public good for it.

It matters.  Marjorie Taylor Green makes it matter by her praise of him.  She is not to be trusted with classified material.  She should be immediately removed from the Homeland Security Committee.  She has demonstrated that she does not believe in the basic rules. 

Will she be removed?  Probably not.  Kevin needs her to much to hold onto his leadership position at present.  But that's what needs to happen and, within the court of public opinion, that's what should happen.  And when the elections come up next year, whomever runs against her should be hammering her for her public statements on this matter. 

Meanwhile, Madeleine Muzdakis (MY MODERN MET) reports:


After a hard day's work, ancient people liked to unwind at the pub just like modern folks. At least, that is what new findings on the important archeological site of Lagash in Iraq indicate. As recently announced by the University of Pennsylvania, archeologists digging at the site uncovered a tavern dating to around 2700 B.C.E. The find is complete with an oven, benches, a clay refrigerator known as a zeer, and bowls with food remnants. These findings can tell historians and archeologists a lot about daily life in a busy, ancient industrial center.

Lagash is one of the largest archeological sites in southern Mesopotamia. The city dates to the Early Dynastic period from 2900 to 2300 B.C.E. The urban center was part of a trio of cities that formed a powerful polity. Lagash was situated near fertile lands, but archeologists also believe it was an important center of craftsmen and industry. Excavations have uncovered ceramic kilns and trenches where wet clay was stored. Tables and benches nearby suggested a workroom. These workers may have lived in the domestic quarters also discovered on the site, which contained a kitchen, bowls with food, a grinding stone, and a toilet. 

A surprising feature of the neighborhood was the tavern. Benches for guests, a zeer, an oven, and remnants of storage vessels containing food all suggest a thriving working-class watering hole. “It’s a public eating space dating to somewhere around 2700 BCE,” says Professor Holly Pittman, curator of the Penn Museum’s Near East Section and the Lagash project director. “It’s partially open air, partially kitchen area.”

To uncover the tavern, the team employed modern technologies. Using drone imagery and magnetometry analysis (testing the magnetism of objects under the soil), they could determine where best to dig. They then removed the dirt in microstratigraphic layers—very thin slices with surgical precision. Pittman described it in a statement as “like doing very careful surgery…Just 50 centimeters down, we were able to capture all of this. We were happily astounded.”


AFP notes that, in the past. looting was the biggest threat to Iraqi artifacts; however:


Now the changing weather and its impact on the land, especially creeping desertification, spell an additional threat to ancient sites all across southern Iraq, according to Mansrawi.

“In the next 10 years,” he said, “it is estimated that sand could have covered 80 to 90 per cent of the archaeological sites.”

[. . .]

Compounding its woes, Iraq is also one of the five countries most affected by some effects of climate change, including drought, according to the United Nations.

Upstream dams in Turkey and Iraq have reduced the flow of its big rivers, and more water is wasted by Iraq’s ancient irrigation system and outdated farming practices.


Iran.  I believe AFP meant "Upstream dams in Turkey and Iran have reduced the flow of its big rivers."


Still on artifacts, Rachel Avraham (INTERMOUNTAIN JEWISH NEWS) notes:

 

Iraqi historian Omar Mohammed, known for his Mosul Eye blog, now an NGO, is known for documenting life in his city under ISIS rule. 

He has started a new project, “Reviving the Jewish history of Mosul.”

Under ISIS, the tombs of the Prophets Jonah and Daniel were both destroyed, as were the local mikveh ritual bath and a couple of synagogues. 

In a recent talk that Mohammed gave to Qesher, he emphasized that what happened to the Tomb of Jonah was not only a tragedy for the Jewish people but for all of the people of Mosul.

“I used to hear stories about the Prophet Jonah. The people of Nineveh were the only people who heeded his warning,” said Mohammed. 

“After three days of studying the offer from G-d, they decided to follow G-d’s message and received divine protection. Unfortunately, this divine protection left us in 2014, when Mosul was overrun by ISIS, who systematically destroyed the cultural heritage of Iraq.”

The ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh was located in what is now the city of Mosul in northern Iraq. Today, Nineveh is a common name for the half of Mosul that lies on the eastern bank of the Tigris River.

Mohammed said that the Tomb of Jonah was not presented to him as a Jewish site. “I learned everything about Jonah except for his Jewish heritage. Later on, I went to a school and learned that it was once the Jewish school. In 2000, it was demolished to the ground by Saddam Hussein and then they built a new structure.”

Mohammed first learned about the Jewish heritage of Mosul from Iraqi Jewish historian Sami Ibrahim. Mohammed was still living under ISIS rule when Ibrahim managed to send him a book in digital form that really inspired him. 


In anticipation of worsening dust storms, EARTH.ORG notes Iraq is talking of a tree initiative which would see the planting of five million trees:


15% of Iraq’s total surface area is currently categorised as being in a state of desertification. The country is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because of its extensive oil reserves – with the fifth largest reserve in the world at over 140 billion barrels’ supply. 

Iraq’s fragile social contract under an oil-led growth model has reportedly been a source of economic volatility and, according to the new World Bank Group’s Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR), the country faces the challenge of moving away from total oil dependence towards a more sustainable future. Without the capacity to achieve sustainable development, leaders will have to come up with costly, extensive projects. 

For decades, Iraq has suffered from summer heatwaves, frequent droughts, and desertification triggered by intense dust storms – the duration and intensity of which are increasing due to global warming and increased vulnerability due to arid conditions almost all year round. 

According to government figures, more than seven million citizens have been affected by climate change, with extreme weather events and natural disasters displacing hundreds of thousands of people who rely on agriculture and hunting for a living. Climate change has also impacted the physical environment in Iraq, as declining surface water reserves, recurring drought and increasing water salinity continue to contribute to large-scale desertification. 

Projections of water availability in Iraq are highly uncertain under different climate change scenarios, which has huge implications for both human health and the natural environment. 

 



The following sites updated:


Posted by at