weedkila comments

Agriculture accounts for 11% of planet-heating global emissions, according to the United Nations, most of which comes from gases emitted by livestock during digestion and in manure.

Cows and sheep have probably been around for as long as humans and way before any motor vehicle. Maybe the global warming thing is a natural cycle and not as bad as it's being made out to be ...

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan. [...] Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. [..] This has been (corroborated) by a team at Kobe University in Japan

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

Did anyone see the above on NHK or any other large corporate media?

Meat sizzling on the barbecue might be synonymous with summer, but consumers should re-think their menus to save the planet, a U.S.-based research group says. If the biggest beef and lamb consumers reduced their weekly intake to 1.5 burgers by 2050, it could cut greenhouse gas emissions and save forests from becoming farmland, the World Resources Institute (WRI) said.

Yet another one of life's small pleasures being turned into something taboo to give people a guilt complex. I just checked World Resources Institute's website. Some of its major donors ($750,000 or more) include Google Inc, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Shell Foundation, The World Bank. In other words, Globalist organisations. Going by their track records I don't think they're interested in saving the planet so much as controlling and restricting what people can do.

Unlike Bitcoin, Libra, Facebook says, would have a stable value because it will be pegged to a basket of major currencies such as the dollar, euro and yen.

In other words, backed by nothing except a basket of fiat currencies which can be printed and inflated to oblivion. Libra = clone of fiat currency = fake money. This is not really surprising coming from an outfit as dodgy as facebook.

The finance chiefs from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States plus the European Union called for "the highest standards of financial regulation" over Libra and proposed cryptocurrency retail payments to prevent potential money laundering, terrorist financing and other unlawful activity.

Let's pretend that it's real money and sell the illusion by calling "for the highest standards of financial regulation".

After 50 years we have never been back?

Where did all the dreams for moonbases, life in space, colonies on Mars go?

In 2 words: bad luck. Seems Nasa has had a string of it.

"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again." Don Pettit, Nasa Astronaut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk8vILOaLpg

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

ps; No conspiracy theory in the above for anyone whose comfort zone might have been disturbed. Or is it a micro aggression these days? I'm not sure.

Out of curiosity I did a search on the following: list of conspiracy theories that came true

Here is a small selection of what came up. All or most of these have been published in mainstream media and/or admitted to in official documents/Congress etc.

The U.S. Government poisoned alcohol during the prohibition.

The CIA secretly gave LSD to unsuspecting individuals to test mind control.

The Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.

Tobacco companies hid evidence that smoking is deadly.

The U.S. Government employed Nazi scientists after World War II. (Operation Paper Clip)

The CIA spied on and controlled the American media. (Operation Mockingbird)

The U.S. government planned to commit domestic terrorism and blame Cuba. (Operation Northwoods)

Nayirah’s testimony leading up to the Gulf War was false. (Babies on the floor testimony)

Hard evidence of government false flag terrorism (Operation Gladio) which Italian PM, Giulio Andreotti, admitted he had been involved in and which he helped cover up.

https://bestlifeonline.com/true-conspiracy-theories/ (hyperlinks to corporate media or other mainstream sources like Wikipedia (authentic news, right?!)

Some of these incidents are now common knowledge and accepted as fact like the Gulf of Tonkin or tobacco companies hiding evidence. But before these crimes were uncovered they were of course "conspiracy theories" and people saying there was something nefarious going on were labeled 'crazy' or similar. So given the record of deception, why should anyone with a rational or even not so rational counter argument be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or some other pejorative for simply challenging the official story, whatever it may be? Reading some of the posts on this site it's clear that having one's comfort zone challenged is uncomfortable and often brings out the worst in people; easy when they're anonymous.

Btw, the link below explains how 'conspiracy theory' and 'conspiracy theorist' supposedly came about, along with supporting documentation obtained by the NY Times through the FOIA.

https://www.coreysdigs.com/c-i-a-3-letter-agencies/cia-coined-weaponized-the-label-conspiracy-theory/

Conspiracy theory? Who knows but if it is then feel free to knock it down.

As a citizen of your country you can change your monetary polices. You have depositors insurance.

I wouldn't put too much faith in depositors insurance. It might cover depositors when a bank or some other financial institution goes belly up. But relatively speaking, it's minuscule and nowhere near enough to cover people's losses if there is a large scale crash. Another reason for depositors insurance is so that people will continue to have confidence in fiat currency; ie "My money is safe. It's guaranteed by the government".

Had. Only countries had currencies. Originally, currencies weren't backed by nations, they were backed by entities (individuals, banks). Then nations took them over and they became fiat currencies. It remained that way for a long time because there wasn't any way for any other type of entity to create a currency.

As I understand it currencies are not backed by nations or other entities, they are backed by gold, silver or some other physical commodity. They only become fiat currencies when the government removes that commodity like Nixon did in the '70s. So they then have no intrinsic value but continue to be used because of govt regulation. That's when the problems start because there's no limit to the amount of currency that can be issued, paper or digital. The average life of a fiat currency -- and there have been many of them -- is supposed to be around 27 years. So we're on borrowed time.

Add to that the fact that governments borrow "money" (created from a ledger) from privately owned central banks and then pay the principal back with interest, which was never created in the first place (usury), and you've got a disaster in the making. Why do governments borrow from a private entity when they can issue money interest free directly from their own treasuries? It shows where the real power lies. Once cash is fully digital manipulation will be much easier and people will not have full control over their money. This is one of the reasons for the push to digital currencies like Libra and other forms of cashless payments.

Facebook has shown they'll be sneaky as hell at getting data.... People complain about how Facebook as not respected their privacy.

Exactly, data is the new gold. And the data thieves are just as cunning, if not more so than they were for gold. I never felt like I was missing out on anything by not having a FB account.

Maybe that's the plan!?!

To "quickly become systemic", that is. I don't really see global regulators doing much since they're often part of the same corrupt system. But if it looks like there are 'concerns' and checks and balances then the public can sit back and leave it in their capable hands.

Libra sounds like a trojan horse to get people used to cryptocurrencies and to help pave the way towards a cashless society. Libra is not stabilised by commodities but its value will be defined by a basket of fiat currencies including the dollar, euro, Swiss franc and the yen (SDR?). It is backed by companies like Visa, Mastercard, Paypal which are linked to big banks.

At least Bitcoin is limited in the number of coins that can be created. Not so with not Libra.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/18/facebook-libra/

The plan by the social media giant to build a digital currency has raised concerns among global regulators that it could quickly become systemic given Facebook's huge cross-border reach.

Maybe that's the plan!?!

"With this trade row, Japan and South Korea are both losing the best partners. And neither of them will find good alternatives for a very long time," he added.

I think IloveCoffee 7.59 and stepoutsidethebox 8:01 are on the money here.

I don't believe this is about some decades-long dispute over forced labour.

What's the larger agenda here?

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt

It's going to be fun to read posts arguing with scientists. Let the games begin!

You mean scientists like these ... ?

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

Robert E. Davis, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.

Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society

Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).

Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.

Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.

Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).

Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.

Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.

Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.

Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.

There are many other scientists on the list with similar credentials but it's difficult to find them in the corporate media because their views differ from the official narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Then there is this petition listing scientists who question the "consensus" with the following statement...

[...] There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I don't see any reason to doubt the above scientists but am skeptical of scientists who rely on computer models predicting a dire future 'unless we act now'.

Based on rumors, possibly faked and fabricated report, ambassadors singed a letter to blame China for something she doesn't do ?

China’s Vanishing Muslims: Undercover In The Most Dystopian Place In The World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ

BTW, there was a recent interview with an astrophysicist and mathematician at Northumbria University who claims that the Earth may be now entering a cooling period. She bases her theory on the study of the sun and its history. I keep an open mind but if she is correct then we should be preparing for cooler temps since this will have a negative influence on crops and so on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKMz1-C-Kk

Flute

They clearly explain than water vapor in itself is not sufficient to explain temperature rise.

That's right. Water vapor does not explain temperature rise, but it does regulate it. Think of the difference in temperature between night and day in a dry desert setting and night and day in a humid tropical setting.

The temperature rise can be explained by the Sun and it's cycles. When it's quiet (a small number of, or zero sunspots, ie Maunder Minimum) then it's cold on earth. When it's very active (ie; Medieval warming period) then the solar wind is stronger which means less cloud cover and warmer global temperatures. Clouds are formed by water droplets forming around particulates. The earth is constantly being bombarded by these cosmic particles and the solar wind influences how many enter Earth's atmosphere. A Danish researcher discovered this.

These cycles can also be seen in ice core samples taken from Antarctica and Greenland. The earth has been much warmer (and cooler) in the past when there was no industry or cars to affect the climate one way or another. There are plenty of other factors which determine climate but it's mostly due to the Sun.

Who are "they" ? You seems to refer to the government, there is no citation in that part.

Yes, governments, government and corporate funded scientists, the IPCC etc.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects. The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

All depend of which definition of "pollutant" you refer too : https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp

Conclusion : CO2 can be seen as a pollutant, since it has a negative impact on an environment, by the reader, the journalist, the government, ...

I read some of the article you quoted. In one part it says:

"One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there!"

What the author failed to say is that Venus' "hellish greenhouse effect" is due to the fact that it is much closer to the Sun!!!! Same with Mercury. Has Venus ever had an atmosphere like Earth's?

There was also this ...

Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life.

Again, this is nonsense. Yes, carbon dioxide is emitted by fossil fuel combustion but the author is conflating it with other toxic substances to have you believe that CO2 is also a toxin. So if you take what he says as true then that would mean that CO2 emissions from volcanoes, decaying plant life, animals and insects (way more than man produces) is also harming sea life. Which would mean that CO2 from natural sources has been harming sea life for billions of years!

FYI, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400ppm (0.04%) and man's contribution is only 10% of the total when you include nature. The reason it is a trace gas is because it is denser than air and stays aloft for a relatively short time. Anyway don't believe me, pls check for yourself what I've said.

JimizoToday 10:37 pm JST

By the same people who are promoting the ‘myth’ of a moon landing?

From the person with the "scientific background" who says "I tend to go with scientific consensus" (snigger). If people went by your reasoning then we'd still be on a flat earth and the sun would be revolving around the earth. Copernicus, Galileo and others challenged the scientific consensus of the day and humanity is the better for it.

As for the moon landing, I don't promote it (your word), I question it. Is that a problem?

Sweden has seen the development of a movement called "flight shaming" (flygskam) spearheaded by 16-year-old schoolgirl Greta Thunberg who has become a symbol of the fight against climate change.

Green is Marxism in disguise. Just like a water melon, green on the outside, red on the inside. I suppose many people like the girl mentioned above mean well with their activism to "save the planet" from CO2 emissions but they're being misled.

The government said that the funds from tickets for flights originating in France would be used to create less-polluting transport options as concerns grow about carbon emissions from planes.

Pure propaganda. They've twisted this so that black is white, up is down and CO2 is now a pollutant. CO2 is plant food. How can it be a pollutant?

I mentioned before that water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas, and there is plenty of it being ejected from jet engines. It can be seen with the condensed water vapour forming short cloud-like trails aka contrails behind planes. The politicians would have a hard time justifying a tax on water and the sun so it's CO2, the gas of life which is the target. Some links below just so people don't think I'm making this up ...

The Water Vapor Feedback

Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

Greenhouse Gases: Water Vapor

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

Even the alarmist, end-of-the-world Guardian admits this.

It's true that water vapour is the biggest overall contributor to the greenhouse effect and that humans are not responsible for directly emitting this gas in quantities sufficient to change its concentration in the atmosphere.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/28/water-vapour-greenhouse-gas

There is no need to 'impose new taxes on plane tickets' because of concerns about carbon emissions. As noted above, it's a money grab and further clampdown on people's freedom.

Korean people and Japanese people get along quite well!

It's the damn politicians that have to screw things up!

I agree. It's the age old problem of politicians meddling in people's lives and causing or exaggerating problems so that they can then justify their existence and paycheck by having talks or introducing new legislation etc to solve the problem they created. The party line is that it's necessary to keep people safe or to right some wrong done in the distant past. It's been said that govt is racketeering.

The people of Hong Kong had better be careful that Lam and her govt don't slip the extradition law through by hiding it deep within some unrelated bill in the future. The HK government has already shown it can't be trusted.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/04/19/lifestyle/cannabis-the-fiber-of-japan/

Stick to drinking beer after work to blow off steam. No drug!!

FYI, beer is a drug and has caused way more damage to health and society than cannabis ever did.

Alcohol, also known by its chemical name ethanol, is a psychoactive drug that is the active ingredient in drinks such as beer, wine, and distilled spirits (wikipedia)

Yet alcohol is still legal while cannabis isn't ?!? That one's a bit of a head scratcher.

Furthermore Japan has a history with cannabis which dates back to the Jomon period (10,000 BC - 200 BC) right up to 1948 when the Cannabis Control "Act" was passed. There is even a museum in Tochigi ken dedicated to it called Taima Hakubutsukan.

Osaka Gov. Hirofumi Yoshimura said his prefectural government will aim to promote the sites as tourist attractions without compromising their preservation.

So what exactly are the tourists going to do when they arrive at these tombs? It's highly unlikely they will be allowed to take a boat across to any of these island tombs, and seen at ground level from the other side of the water they are just large mounds with lots of trees. Great for the wildlife and nearby souvenir shops but hardly worth a special trip.

OECD should keep out of Japan, 26% tax is Socialism, and will never be accepted. Good for PM Abe and Japan.

Your post was ok up to the word 'accepted'.

An old political trick is for the opposition or some other organisation (OECD) to posit an extreme view or recommendation (26% tax) so that when the ruling party introduces the new legislation (10% tax) it actually sounds reasonable in comparison. But that the 10%, or whatever they can get away with, is what was planned all along. It's called the Hegelian Dialectic and is a useful tool in the politicians' box of tricks.

Do they really care about climate change when most of them have arrived in Japan by private plane? Still, the climate change taxes will soon be in force for ‘us’ all to pay.....

Exactly

Conspiracy theorists are ten a penny and oh so predictable. I tend to go with scientific consensus. My background is in science although I’m no authority on climate science.

On the contrary, it is you who believes in the conspiracy theory. There is NEVER a consensus in science. It only takes one scientist to come up with empirical evidence contrary to the so-called consensus to blow a hole in any theory. And there is definitely no consensus on anthropogenic global warming /climate change. This is political.

What are your credentials in this field, or which scientists are you quoting who are against the scientific consensus?

The mainstream website, Wikileaks, has a list of major scientists who question or disagree that CO2 has any measurable impact on global temperatures. Take a look at their credentials!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Petition: [...] There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

There are many more scientists who realise that the CO2 issue is politically motivated but are reluctant to speak out because they risk losing their government or corporate funding, or even their positions.

Links please.

There are plenty but I don't have the time and this board is limited. Here are a couple for you to start with. If you want more I'll post them although I suspect you're not really interested since it challenges your belief system.

Geologist Informs UK Govt On Climate Change Lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rLRObEhC4I

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

[...] if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Even the politicians know...

Trudeau Declares Climate Emergency... Then Approves Major Oil Pipeline

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Trudeau-Declares-Climate-Emergency-Then-Approves-Major-Oil-Pipeline.html

It's also well-established that CO2 follows global temperatures, it does not drive temperatures.

Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase in ALL Records

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

And since CO2 is denser than air it stays in the upper atmosphere for only a short time, so it's a trace gas at around 0.04% of the total amount. But don't believe me, check these things out for yourself.

Right now Europe is in the middle of a heat wave, Spain is burning, India is running out of water, soon California is starting to burn again. All the signs of climate change are here.

I noticed in this and the last JT article on global warming that CO2 was not even mentioned. The debate's suddenly over. Now it's just assumed that CO2 is the culprit for 'climate change' when it is anything but. It's all based on emotion and fear-mongering rather than facts.

"Three or four (countries) are under American pressure to water down the message," a French presidency source told reporters in Osaka

Speaking of watering down the message, water vapour (H2O) is the largest contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect and it has way more effect on temperature than CO2. For example:

Dry desert in summer = Daytime hot, Night-time cold.

Humid tropic region in summer = Daytime hot, Night-time very warm.

The difference of course is that humidity in the atmosphere retains the heat in a tropical environment whereas the heat rapidly dissipates in a dry desert environment.

So shouldn't the politician's be debating a deal over how to manage water vapour alongside CO2 if they somehow think that CO2 leads to man made climate catastrophe.

For anyone who believes the hype that CO2 causes 'climate change' please describe how it does this.

*Cheap overseas goods

Also what I mean by manipulation is the high powered computers and algorithms that are used to rig the markets.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of it but the financial system collapsed in 2008 and has been on life support since that time through monetary easing and manipulation. Cheap goods and overseas labour have helped keep prices down. There are lower profit margins through competition and stagnant or lower salaries for the average worker. There has also been heavy manipulation in the precious metals markets with the massive dumping of paper certificates (ETFs) to keep fiat currencies looking respectable. These are only a few of the things I'm aware of but I think it's mostly it's manipulation behind the scenes which has kept the economy reasonably stable IMHO.

Chip Star;

Domestic, foreign, or generally?

I meant Trump and his team, but generally too.

He was put in that position by an archaic system

I don't know how it works but I look at the Democrats and Republicans as part of the same tag team. Same in any county when you've only got 2, or maybe 3 main parties.