US Politics: Terminal America

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

It has been broadcast on news programs and in the papers for the last two days -- because hurricane season officially begins today.  Guess you don't live where hurricanes strike commonly. 

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/05/25/us/ap-us-hurricane-forecast.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/climate/2017-hurricane-forecast.html?_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/your-money/hurricane-insurance.html

 

Look, the NOAA forecast (which always is given in wide ranges, unlike many other such forecasts) is really not that different from the Colorado forecast. Colorado predicts 14 named storms, with NOAA "11 to 17", and 14 is exactly in the middle of that range so their forecasts are identical on that score.Colorado says six hurricanes and NOAA "5 to 9". Colorado says 2 "major hurricanes" and NOAA "2 to 4". So if Colorado is predicting an "average" season, NOAA is really only predicting a slightly above average season and the interpretation that this is likely to be a particularly bad hurricane season seems a bit overblown.

The second article you link to in particular is overly alarmist, with the author writing "as many as nine" could be hurricanes and "as many as four" could be major, which is deliberately skewing the report toward the high end of NOAA's prediction. I understand the argument that at the start of the season it may be a good idea to jar people who live along the coast out of any complacency they have -- it only takes one hurricane to be devastating to a particular area, and we all must remember the Hurricane Andrew was the first storm in an extremely "below average" season -- but I wish we could overcome that complacency without deliberately skewing reports toward the high end of predictions, which really isn't very scientific.

 

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Intelligence and military cooperation, I don't think any of the US's key intelligence and military strategic allies will be at all interested in sacrificing these pillars of security on the altar of the environment.

Bolded - Because they've already decided to start limiting what is passed on to the US to protect their intelligence assets? Maybe it hasn't started yet, but I'd be very surprised if the other members of the Five Eyes don't start working together on what they pass along to the US and what they just keep between the four of them.

More generally I think this is pretty much ending American leadership. Its obviously still a titan both militarily and economically, but leadership is more than just being the strongest and a lot of people are already changing where they look to Germany. The French election may have been a tipping point, and the EU was pretty fucked if Le Pen had won, but if Brexit + Trump start pushing the rest of the EU to pull closer together and it starts taking more of a leadership role in the west, that is going to last.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The article you should add to your list is the one about how no one has been appointed to head either FEMA or NOAA yet.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/hurricane-season-starts-with-nobody-in-charge-at-fema-or-noaa/2325887

And that's of course a travesty no matter where within NOAA's predicted range the season turns out.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Quote

My concern is that humans end up wiping themselves out and the end result is an Earth that cannot adapt to the changes humans have wrought, with the result being a runaway venus sometime in the future. 

I think the Earth itself will be fine. Our actions are small and unconcerning to Earth overall and will recover fairly quickly as far as geological time goes in the end.

I am deeply concern that our actions will make the Earth inhospitable for us in the end. That there are people horribly short sighted in power is deeply sad. 

[Altherion]

11 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Pardon my ignorance, but it is known whether Venus ever had an Earth-like atmosphere?  I know I've heard talk about it's atmosphere heating up dramatically, but how much do we know about where that starting point was?  

I actually think this is still on topic given the events of the day.

We don't know for sure, but it is believed that Venus may have been habitable a long time ago. The Sun was cooler when it was young so Venus may have at some point had liquid water. As the Sun heated up, the water evaporated, the vapor was broken up by solar radiation with the hydrogen escaping to space and the oxygen forming CO2. Both water vapor and CO2 are greenhouse gases so at some point in this transition, it heated up even more to become the fiery hell it is today.

The Sun is still heating up so Earth's oceans will also eventually evaporate, but not for at least a few hundred million years and possibly not for as much as one billion years.

[Mudguard]

A runaway greenhouse effect on earth is an interesting academic question, but it's not something to worry about on a practical level at this time.  Rising sea levels though is a real concern.  

[TheKitttenGuard]

I apologize if I am bringing something already shared. I was watching a Cracked video that discussed what Trump left at Vad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust museum, and it was one where I thought it was a joke but of course it was not.

Quote

His message read, "It is a great honor to be here with all of my friends – so amazing & will never forget!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-presidents-trump-obama-clinton-and-bush-wrote-at-yad-vashem-holocaust-memorial/

The article also has what Clinton, G.W Bush, and Obama left. 

As for the why, yes it bothers the man made a museum in remembrance to one the worst events of the modern what is basically the sign in book of a wedding. I do not think amazing is something that is to put down for a memorial to millions of murdered humans. It also cheapens Never Forget.

Spoiler

What the fuckity fuck fuck

 

[A True Kaniggit]

While playing cards today, the conversation turned to the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement. The overall opinion at the table? "I can't wait until those whiny-ass liberals start complaining about this!" 

So I asked whether or not any of them were worried about climate change. The response I got back? "They can't even tell what whether we'll be having next week. Are we really supposed to believe they can figure out the weather in 50 years?"

I'm going to go bang my head against a wall for awhile.

Edit: More to add. 

Not only this, but one of the first things said was, "I'm glad that disgusting bitch Hillary isn't president". 

Sadly, after my question about global warming and the reply I got I let the conversation drift to less dangerous ground. But I'm asking, how should I reply to comments like this in public? Should I escalate the discussion? I really don't want to get into a shouting match in the middle of a casino, which is probably what it would lead to. But how do you talk to a person who denies climate change with the excuse meteorologists can't predict the weather one week ahead of time?

[Wethers]

I get something similar from a Republican friend (this is in the San Francisco bay area mind you) who will never admit directly to supporting Trump (he says he didn't vote) when out with a bunch of buddies at a bar.  He was my partner playing pool and, I know this over the years, is generally a good guy personally - honest, trustworthy, hard-working, fun-loving.

He says that Obama and H. Clinton were soft and let the world have their way with the US.  He wants to go back to the days of the world being pissed at us because we F'd them over and they fear us.  Think a young Tywin Lannister seething at the Westerlands lords and ladies taking advantage of his father's vain generosity and foolishness - that's what he thinks of Obama and Hilary Clinton.

Sigh.  Besides the fact that the US did continue to F the world over to some extent under Obama's administration, I wanted to draw a basic Prisoners' Dilemma square on a napkin... if your strategy is to confess and screw over the other party every time, it ain't going to work out for you long term, especially when there are many diverse players in the game.  And that's not even getting into the overall net negative of climate change.

So yeah, Trump supporters (even ones who say they didn't vote for him) don't view trying to interact with our allies in Europe like a 5th grade bully would as a problem at all.  They love it.

[ThinkerX]

Anecdotal, but...

 

Guy I work with was all for pulling out of the Paris agreement.  Said 'it was too much money for too little gain.'  Plus, while he acknowledges global warming might exist, he sees that as a good thing - warmer winters here in the far north.  That 'global warming' meant 'global climate change with lots of nasty effects' didn't interest him.

[King Ned Stark]

To be fair, Trump said he was willing to negotiate.  It is not like the Paris Agreement is a one time deal only.  Shouldn't the other world leaders, who said negotiations were not possible, be looked at with some skepticism?  If the agreement is so important, then why not negotiate with one of the most influential countries?

[Mindwalker]

Merkel called Trump's withdrawal from Paris "regrettable... and I'm putting it mildly." For her, that's practically a cry of outrage while swinging a baseball bat.

However, I'm very sure that Europe will not react in any form of real punishment  towards the US. China, I have no idea. But Europe can't even agree on a common refugee policy. And the day Merkel does anything that could be regarded as "anti American" is the day hell freezes over. Which it won't, 'cause climate change.

 

@King Ned Stark: The Paris Agreement is already a very low common denominator ktype of thing, so I hope they will not renegotiate to water it down even further.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

To be fair, Trump said he was willing to negotiate.  It is not like the Paris Agreement is a one time deal only.  Shouldn't the other world leaders, who said negotiations were not possible, be looked at with some skepticism?  If the agreement is so important, then why not negotiate with one of the most influential countries?

If Trump was truly 'willing to negotiate' they why he just pull out*?  He could have started the 'willing to negotiate' ball rolling on his trip.  Instead, he pulled a bully move and now why would any of the Paris signatories have any reason to trust he would negotiate fairly and honestly?  He's showed the world that he will shit all over these type of agreements.  His 'willing to negotiate' bs is a dodge and the world knows it.  

 

*pulling out, not very manly

[LongRider]

Seen on FB

Quote

When I find myself in tweets of trouble,

Mother Russia comes to me

Speaking words of wisdom.......

Covfefe

 

[butterbumps!]

23 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

If Trump was truly 'willing to negotiate' they why he just pull out*?  He could have started the 'willing to negotiate' ball rolling on his trip.  Instead, he pulled a bully move and now why would any of the Paris signatories have any reason to trust he would negotiate fairly and honestly?  He's showed the world that he will shit all over these type of agreements.  His 'willing to negotiate' bs is a dodge and the world knows it.  

 

*pulling out, not very manly

But I don't get what he believes there is to be "renegotiated."   The idea of cutting down emissions?    I don't know if he understands that each country proffers it's own contribution, and is free to revise it at any time without needing input from anyone else.   Other than the broad goal of "let's all be accountable for our emissions and pledge to reduce" there's nothing prescriptive, is there?    So what is there to even "regenotiate" and why the f would any of these other leaders be open to negotiating that broad goal?

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

But I don't get what he believes there is to be "renegotiated."   The idea of cutting down emissions?    I don't know if he understands that each country proffers it's own contribution, and is free to revise it at any time without needing input from anyone else.   Other than the broad goal of "let's all be accountable for our emissions and pledge to reduce" there's nothing prescriptive, is there?    So what is there to even "regenotiate" and why the f would any of these other leaders be open to negotiating that broad goal?

Like I said, it's a dodge and as we see from the post by King Ned Stark, some believe it.  It's pure bullshit of course and your post nicely fleshes out more of the reasons why.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Since the world is soon to burn, at least I saw the Chicago Cubs win the World Series before I die.

Just a friendly reminder that Jaxom Jaxomed the world so his stupid Cubs could win a world series. This is the worst deal with the devil since Homer sold his soul for a turkey sandwich. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

To be fair, Trump said he was willing to negotiate.  It is not like the Paris Agreement is a one time deal only.  Shouldn't the other world leaders, who said negotiations were not possible, be looked at with some skepticism?  If the agreement is so important, then why not negotiate with one of the most influential countries?

Put yourself in a world leader's view. Would you seriously negotiate with an unreliable partner who just pulled out of a major agreement under false pretenses? 

[butterbumps!]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just a friendly reminder that Jaxom Jaxomed the world so his stupid Cubs could win a world series. This is the worst deal with the devil since Homer sold his soul for a turkey sandwich. 

I think Homer sold his soul for a donut.  It was forever on his head.  The turkey sandwich was courtesy of the monkey paw, iirc.    

[A True Kaniggit]

For accuracy's sake I looked it up. And yes, Homer sold his soul for a donut in Treehouse of Horror IV. He wished upon a monkey paw for a turkey sandwich in Treehouse of Horror II.