Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday June 04 2020, @11:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-the-rain-rain-rain-came-down-down-down dept.

The Atlantic's third storm has formed in record time, and it's a threat:

Last year's Atlantic hurricane season ranked among the top five most-active years on record. Its third named storm, Chantal, did not form until August 20.

By contrast, today is June 2, and the Atlantic's third named storm of the year just formed. [...]

This is the earliest ever in the Atlantic season (which, however imperfect, has records dating back to 1851) that the third named storm has formed in a given year. The previous earliest "C" storm was Colin, on June 5, 2016.

[...] The storm is trapped within a large oceanic circulation, known as a gyre, and high pressure over the northern Gulf of Mexico is also inhibiting its motion. As a result, Cristobal will probably wobble around the Bay of Campeche until at least Friday. This will cause torrential rainfall in Southern Mexico and parts of Central America this week.

[...] The bottom line is that a tropical system is likely to be in the Gulf of Mexico late this week, bound for the United States, over waters warm enough to sustain intensification. The time for preparations is definitely now.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:01PM (46 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:01PM (#1003165)

    Hmm, yeah actually. Not as in panic right here and now for this particular storm, but panic for humanity as a whole to do something drastic to stop global warming sooner rather than later, to mitigate the upcoming disaster.

    Which will not happen before it's too late, because humanity has a falling man syndrome: the ground is coming up fast, but he's still alive and well, so all is good.

    So yeah, you're kind of right in a frightening way: no need to panic. The deal is sealed already.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:26PM (34 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:26PM (#1003173) Journal

    You do realize he's shitposting, don't you? Nothing is going to convince him until we start losing coastal cities, and *then* he'll just go "Good, flooded the fuckin' progtards off the face of the earth." Nothing this guy says about anything remotely political or social has any value, remember that.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:56PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:56PM (#1003184)

      Meta:

      So what's the Mod for Shitposting, it seems a little too casual for Flamebait or Troll?

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:07PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:07PM (#1003217) Journal

        Offtopic

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 05 2020, @04:48AM (4 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday June 05 2020, @04:48AM (#1003566) Journal

        If we could mod as deserved, in meatspace? A savage beating with the Clue by Four about the beak until it shattered into a handful of Clue by Three Sixteenths. Buzztard is as much a sociopath as Trump, just without the malignant narcissism or the go-getter attitude. He's even lazier than he is evil, and thank fuck for that. We just have to put up with his shitposting until he, I don't know, asphyxiates on some jackboot or another.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 05 2020, @01:41PM (3 children)

          You'd do yourself a service by learning what "shitposting" means.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 06 2020, @02:12PM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday June 06 2020, @02:12PM (#1004198) Journal

            Oh, I *know* you actually mean what you post, but it's so utterly delusional and content-free it doesn't even rise to the level of troll, whatever your intentions were. You're such a complete failure you can't even troll your own fucking forum properly.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2020, @05:05AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2020, @05:05AM (#1004416)

              So says the stupid bitch who knows so little about technology and science that it's only capable of shitposting about politics. Let's also not forget that you absolutely love to proselytize others with your bullshit religious beliefs. You wished many people you dislike politically to die painful deaths from COVID-19. Meanwhile, you kept going to work while ill, being fully aware that you were putting elderly and immune compromised people at risk of catching COVID-19 from you. It was all because you're a selfish and greedy bitch who is more concerned about its paycheck than curtailing the spread of a dangerous and highly infectious disease. You're a hypocritical bigot who hates Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Perhaps you should have avoided spreading disease to your customers by wearing your pointy white hood to work, you worthless piece of shit.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 07 2020, @09:41PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday June 07 2020, @09:41PM (#1004620) Journal

                Hold it, hold it...this entire thing was an obvious troll, but where did you get "going to work while ill?" I get seasonal allergies from mid-June to early September but haven't been sick with anything worse than a mild cold in years. What the actual fuck? And, if you're familiar with the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin," take it to heart: my problem is with the Abrahamic *religions,* not their followers, the same way a doctor takes an issue with a disease, not the patient.

                You are one twisted son of a bitch, you know that?

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2020, @02:18PM (19 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @02:18PM (#1003194) Journal

      Nothing is going to convince him until we start losing coastal cities

      Why would that happen? They would have centuries to move.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:10PM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:10PM (#1003221) Journal

        Of course, unless they don't; with weather being so unpredictable and such... (grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday June 04 2020, @04:11PM (16 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @04:11PM (#1003270) Journal

        When visiting Walt Disney World (Florida) (which I've done too much of) I've heard it said, pointing at the park, all of this will be under water in 200 years. (Sounds like a line from the movie Titanic. All of this will be at the bottom of the Atlantic.)

        If that is true, then it is a gradual thing. Not an overnight thing. Long, Looooong before a couple centuries the place becomes commercially un-useful, and then practically un-useful for anything. And cities, which have homes, businesses, etc.

        The time to need to move out will come much sooner than the end result damage.

        Conspiracy theories:

        Big oil takes in a couple billion dollars per day. That is an amount difficult to really grasp for most people. No wonder someone is out there shorting Tesla stock. They have no intention of making money in the market. Losing ten billion is chump change if they can hurt Tesla. And what *cough* big oil *cough* industry would want to and could do that?

        It is amusing how Chevrolet destroyed all of the EV1's. I wonder if someone could pay them billions in pocket change to do that.

        It is amusing how Chevrolet bought the patent for NiMH batteries. Put the patent on the shelf. Then sold it to . . . Texaco. Who then licensed it for small consumer electronics sizes, but not sizes for EVs. Yet the inventor had developed it expressly for EVs.

        No wonder Tesla sees it as highly critical to secure their own entire supply chain for their batteries.

        Gee, I wonder what industry would create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about Climate Change, when there was no significant scientific disagreement. And if they can't disagree with the facts, then Teach The Controversy.

        The end of humanity will be because politics and the Ministry of Truth drives policy and science, rather than policy being derived from science.

        Elon would like to give humanity a 2nd place to live for redundancy. I don't think we'll make it. I'm not sure we should. Despite that Elon has already changed the world for the better in significant ways. Unlike most billionaires. And pretend billionaires whose tax returns we'd love to see.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2020, @08:19PM (15 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @08:19PM (#1003343) Journal

          When visiting Walt Disney World (Florida) (which I've done too much of) I've heard it said, pointing at the park, all of this will be under water in 200 years. (Sounds like a line from the movie Titanic. All of this will be at the bottom of the Atlantic.)

          Even if that were true, so what? Disney can move Disney World or just end it.

          The time to need to move out will come much sooner than the end result damage.

          Because? Even if this happens, I bet Disney can milk Disney World for a few more decades by building levees and other flood control systems or even elevating the park (yes, including all those enormous buildings) tens of meters.

          One of the things, this sort of scenario illustrates is the economic perception of time. For example, in a high growth situation like present day Earth, the future doesn't matter that much. Sure, extinction level events are bad no matter how fast your economy is growing, but events that just cost money like condemning Disney World, can be quite cheaply priced in the present. For example, real global GDP grows something like 3% a year presently. If that were somehow to continue forever hypothetically, then the value of a Disney World operating at constant profit to the heat death of the universe is roughly 33 times its annual income. The present day difference between Disney World ending in exactly 200 years versus running forever would be about 9% in present day money of the annual income. That difference rises to about 95% of income for 2% GDP growth (something which the world could probably sustain for more than two centuries), and roughly 14 times annual income at 1% per year (which would probably require breaking significant parts of the economy in order to achieve such a slow growth rate).

          Big oil takes in a couple billion dollars per day. That is an amount difficult to really grasp for most people. No wonder someone is out there shorting Tesla stock. They have no intention of making money in the market. Losing ten billion is chump change if they can hurt Tesla. And what *cough* big oil *cough* industry would want to and could do that?

          The problem is that they can't hurt Tesla that way. It's just giving away free money. Musk did more talking down [nypost.com] his own stock.

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:45PM (14 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:45PM (#1003407) Journal

            Because? Even if this happens, I bet Disney can milk Disney World for a few more decades by building levees and other flood control systems or even elevating the park (yes, including all those enormous buildings) tens of meters.

            You're pretty generous with other people's money.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 05 2020, @01:15AM (13 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 05 2020, @01:15AM (#1003481) Journal

              You're pretty generous with other people's money.

              Disney can always just not do it too. I suspect however that if Disney World is still kicking in 200 years, that they'll have the budget for some serious work.

              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 05 2020, @10:50AM (12 children)

                by sjames (2882) on Friday June 05 2020, @10:50AM (#1003665) Journal

                So the alternative is take a total loss on their existing investment? You are REALLY REALLY generous with other people's money.

                Kinda like you accuse the left of but turned up to eleven.

                • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 05 2020, @03:20PM (1 child)

                  by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 05 2020, @03:20PM (#1003777) Journal

                  A consistent pattern I observe is that the right leaning never see even a teeny tiny bit of irony when they do the very things they accuse the left of doing. I've seen it too many times.

                  (and I would be shocked, shocked! I tell you, if that hypocrisy happens on both sides)

                  --
                  People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @06:34AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @06:34AM (#1004113) Journal

                    A consistent pattern I observe is that the right leaning never see even a teeny tiny bit of irony when they do the very things they accuse the left of doing. I've seen it too many times.

                    Like what?

                    Let's keep in mind that your original post was a supposition, that Disney World could be "under water" in 200 years combined with a half-baked conspiracy theory about Big Oil shorting Tesla (after all, Big Oil isn't even trying [soylentnews.org] and they get that humongous revenue per day). I merely pointed out, first, that Disney has considerable options to dealing with Disney World's possible fate and it just isn't that big a deal to the present day world, if Disney World ends up underwater or if they do something to prolong its life. I certainly wasn't demanding that Disney spend a lot of money on this. They might choose to in order to continue to profit from Disney World in its present location, but I'm not mandating they spend a dime. sjames goes stupid and claims otherwise.

                    Then when I point this out, I get accused of hypocrisy, sophistry, and "weasel words" for some reason you probably are incapable of articulating and sjames has already shown he can't articulate. If you want to continue to play the role of fool, go ahead. But if you want to take things seriously, I'm willing to let you try.

                    Second, on the matter of Tesla - Big Oil isn't the only party with money. Suppose they really did use some of that billions and billions to deliberately short Tesla based on the theory that this selling will make it look bad. What happens when someone else, say PIMCO or J. P. Morgan calls their bluff by buying up all those shorts? Big Oil loses billions and billions ("giving away free money") with no long term effect on Tesla's stock price.

                    In comparison, propaganda has little risk to it, even if they're caught red-handed. Yet what do we find? Very little propaganda activity (at least an order of magnitude less spending than the pro-climate change side). They just aren't trying. My take is that's because they'll make their hundreds of billions anyway.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @01:25AM (9 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @01:25AM (#1004035) Journal

                  So the alternative is take a total loss on their existing investment?

                  If only I had said that, then you would have a point. But an investment two centuries in the future is not an investment today. And if the park is underwater two centuries from now, then something expensive will happen, with sort of loss or expenditure required. It's not I who is "generous" with their money, but reality itself.

                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @02:24AM (8 children)

                    by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @02:24AM (#1004047) Journal

                    Sophistry and weasel words, and I suspect you know it.

                    Reality is that inaction on CO2 pollution is the problem.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @06:04AM (7 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @06:04AM (#1004106) Journal

                      Sophistry and weasel words, and I suspect you know it.

                      I find it surprising that you even try that.

                      Let's stop being asinine fools for a bit. The original assertion was that Disney World would be under water in 200 years. I assume you're not so ridiculously braindead as to assume that Disney World would operate normally without impairment of any sort while underwater. Right?

                      So they have a choice that no matter what, will cost them. Be it scuttling Disney World, moving it, or fortifying it in place somehow. This isn't hypocritical conservative cooties. It's the prior of the suposition.

                      Reality is that inaction on CO2 pollution is the problem.

                      Is a problem. There are many others include several environment problems of more serious degree such as normal pollution, habitat destruction, overpopulation, resource mismanagement, and deforestation. Should you ever want to get serious about this stuff, it's good to keep in mind what the real problems are.

                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:03AM (6 children)

                        by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:03AM (#1004116) Journal

                        Continued inaction on CO2 pollution is essentially saving some money now at an immense cost to a few later. Thus my comment that you are quite generous with other people's money.

                        Nice try muddying the water, but you failed. The essential logic is right there. You advocate inaction so you can pass the costs on to an unfortunate subset of people (with a great deal of interest) later when you're dead so they can't sue you.

                        Of course, it won't just be Disney, it'll also be a lot of people with far less resources at their disposal.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @08:38AM (5 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @08:38AM (#1004121) Journal

                          Continued inaction on CO2 pollution is essentially saving some money now at an immense cost to a few later.

                          Then where's the evidence? You'd be huffing and puffing whether it were true or not.

                          Nice try muddying the water, but you failed. The essential logic is right there. You advocate inaction so you can pass the costs on to an unfortunate subset of people (with a great deal of interest) later when you're dead so they can't sue you.

                          I made two points - far future costs are deeply discounted in a growing economy like we have and Big Oil isn't stupid enough to massively short Tesla. Fortunately, there are other readers than you.

                          Of course, it won't just be Disney, it'll also be a lot of people with far less resources at their disposal.

                          And far less cost to move. Not feeling the concern over here.

                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @04:49PM (4 children)

                            by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @04:49PM (#1004235) Journal

                            And far less cost to move. Not feeling the concern over here.

                            My point exactly, because you are very generous with other people's money.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:38PM (3 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:38PM (#1004249) Journal

                              My point exactly, because you are very generous with other people's money.

                              No. Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. Here's a question that should cut to the core of the matter. How does one not be "very generous with other peoples' money" in this situation? What's the proper course of action here?

                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:51PM (2 children)

                                by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:51PM (#1004258) Journal

                                Take action on climate change so that people don't get flooded out.

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:26PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:26PM (#1004284) Journal
                                  I thought it would come to that. You're proposing an even worse "generosity". Sorry, no credibility there. Even if we were to suppose that JoeMerchant's scenario happened with Disney World and Bangladesh drowned by rising sea levels, despite lack of evidence to support it, we still have the remarkable ineffectiveness of those actions on climate change. I'm not a fan of squander peoples' wealth now, often in ways that just make the situation worse, so that we can avoid relatively minor costs of the future.

                                  Here's what I know (Joe BTW has heard this before.). The non-immigrant part of the developed world has gone into negative population growth (that is, without immigration and the higher fertility of second generation immigrants, the entire developed world would be in negative population growth). The rest of the world has seen a massive drop in human fertility. The key factors are empowerment of women and rising wealth of average people globally. That last part is important - more wealth among people, the lower the population growth rate and the more interested and capable they are in solving environmental matters.

                                  Current proposals to "take action on climate change" monkey with that. They make people poorer (and hence, higher fertility and greater disinterest in environmental matters like sea levels in 200 years), thus, making climate change worse in the long run. I can go through the list: agricultural subsidies that adopted the language in order to get environmentalists' support like US corn ethanol subsidies; carbon emission trading markets that still can't get it right; paying energy providers who can do their own damn research to build pointless technology demonstration projects; the continued obsession with ending fossil fuel use without having adequate replacements; and the huge variety of small scale environmental projects like most recycling which sacrifice valuable resources like human time for cheap plastic, glass, and paper (wasting more valuable resources to conserve or recycling less valuable resources). It's not just that I don't think climate change is that important a problem. I think also that we already see that would-be fixes actually make it worse. So here's my proposal. We only go after cheap, low lying fruit, like putting out coal mine fires, information distribution on conservation, further habitat conservation, eliminating flood insurance subsidies and other simple measures to reduce the cost of extreme weather, and making the economy more efficient and productive. And stop wasting our time with "doing actions" that are worse than doing nothing, instead building up our civilization(s) so that they will be more capable and interested in fixing climate change, if and when climate change becomes a serious problem.
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @10:12PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @10:12PM (#1004344) Journal
                                  I think what is particularly telling about this exchange, is how you describe what we should do:

                                  Take action on climate change

                                  inaction on CO2 pollution is the problem

                                  At no point, do you articulate what "action" and "inaction" are. So that leads to my other reply. My take is that proponents of action for climate change mitigation are so ignorant and misinformed of climate, demographics, and economics that there's no point to considering such demands for action. Doing nothing is better.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday June 04 2020, @02:33PM (3 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday June 04 2020, @02:33PM (#1003205) Journal

      What would cause us to "lose coastal cities"? A category 3+ Hurricane Humberto (2007) style storm [wikipedia.org] hitting a part of the Gulf coast every week like a barrage?

      The most affected buildings are the homes that keep getting rebuilt on the beach and other areas vulnerable to storm surge... because taxpayers keep footing the bill:

      Taxpayers Get Soaked by Government's Flood Insurance [go.com]
      After hurricanes, U.S. beach homes are rebuilt bigger [earthmagazine.org]
      Costly hurricanes raise questions about the future of federal flood insurance [latimes.com]

      Further inland, you get trees damaging property (preventable). Tornadoes can cause direct damage, but the ones hurricanes spawn are usually weak.

      Winds could rip up buildings directly, but newer homes and buildings are more resistant. And if it's further from shore, it's probably not going to experience category 5 winds.

      Hurricanes seem to be getting stronger and more numerous on average, but not to the extent needed to make the coast completely uninhabitable:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season#Number_of_storms_of_each_strength_since_the_satellite_era [wikipedia.org]

      We could have a season worse than 2005 and still survive if building codes improve, no levees unexpectedly break, and we stop incentivizing home building where wetlands [theconversation.com] should be.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:25PM (2 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:25PM (#1003234)

      Nothing is going to convince him until we start losing coastal cities

      Waddaya mean, "start"? It wasn't that long ago that New Orleans was destroyed. Houston has been flooded at least twice in the last 5 years. New York still hasn't recovered from flood damage. Ditto for Washington DC. And in the Bay Area, it wasn't the water but the fire.

      And yes, those cities have been repaired and rebuilt, but it's not like that doesn't cost a huge amount of money each time, on approximately the scale of the annual revenue of Amazon.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:06PM (1 child)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:06PM (#1003382)

        The bit that worries me is not those US cities, but what happens when the 150 million Bangaldeshis who live at sea level find they have nowhere to live anymore and start flooding into India?

        India has nukes, and a powerful political movement who doesn't like Muslims. It could get very ugly indeed.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:57PM (5 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @01:57PM (#1003186) Journal

    but panic for humanity as a whole to do something drastic to stop global warming sooner rather than later, to mitigate the upcoming disaster.

    They don't need to. Normal disaster prep already mitigates upcoming disasters massively.

    Which will not happen before it's too late, because humanity has a falling man syndrome: the ground is coming up fast, but he's still alive and well, so all is good.

    Except it's not true.

    I see this game played all the time. The evils of the world are laid at the foot of this convenient scapegoat. Well, here's my take on this. If we address disaster prep worldwide, instead of global warming, we'll see a massive decline in death rate from disasters compared to addressing climate change instead of disaster prep. If we address flood insurance subsidies instead of global warming, we'll see a massive decline in property damage from storms and flooding. If we address bad agricultural practice and poor water management instead of climate change, we'll see a massive decline in the damage from droughts. If we spread capitalist-democratic systems throughout the world instead of addressing climate change, we'll eventually see global negative population growth and a populace actually interested in addressing environmental problems like climate change.

    Basically, a lot of problems have already been solved by the developed world, often at astoundingly cheap cost. We just need to implement them on a global scale. The obsession with climate change interferes with that process both by mixing up priorities and by pulling economic wealth and funding from things that make our lives better.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Aegis on Thursday June 04 2020, @02:32PM (1 child)

      by Aegis (6714) on Thursday June 04 2020, @02:32PM (#1003203)

      They don't need to. Normal disaster prep already mitigates upcoming disasters massively.

      Should I go out fishing on my boat today or stay home?

      No need to listen for weather warnings or anything, somehow my 3 week supply of emergency food at home will save me.

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:22PM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 04 2020, @03:22PM (#1003231) Journal

      If you ever decide to address the financial market bailouts, you will suddenly find all the capital needed to do all that disaster preparedness and infreastructure.

      If we spread capitalist-democratic systems throughout the world instead of addressing climate change, we'll eventually see global negative population growth and a populace actually interested in addressing environmental problems like climate change.

      Oh please, capitalist-democratic systems would spread naturally if we didn't prop up crony dictators to keep your financial markets fat and happy.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2020, @05:50PM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @05:50PM (#1003305) Journal

        If you ever decide to address the financial market bailouts, you will suddenly find all the capital needed to do all that disaster preparedness and infreastructure.

        Not everyone buys your premise that financial markets are some sort of magic economic unicorn that can provide for everything.

        Oh please, capitalist-democratic systems would spread naturally if we didn't prop up crony dictators to keep your financial markets fat and happy.

        Except when they don't.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 04 2020, @06:00PM

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 04 2020, @06:00PM (#1003311) Journal

          Not everyone buys your premise that financial markets are some sort of magic economic unicorn that can provide for everything.

          :-) Nice try. Financial markets are robbing us of everything. Well, not really "robbing", it's being given to them by elected officials.

          Except when they don't.

          Ah, but they will, always, when there is nothing to finance the dictator. Bullets cost money

          (Why do you deny being a sociopath?)

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 04 2020, @02:23PM (4 children)

    If that's indeed the case, as most global warming folks claim, it would be entirely pointless to panic or even calmly try to fix things. If it's not the case, the alarmist shitheads saying it is are doing more harm than good.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:07PM (3 children)

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2020, @10:07PM (#1003386)

      If that's indeed the case, as most global warming folks claim, it would be entirely pointless to panic or even calmly try to fix things.

      Heh. "Why are people bothering to head for the lifeboats? We're 200 feet above the water!! If by some chance we really are sinking we've got plenty of time."

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 04 2020, @11:45PM (2 children)

        Bad analogy. We're talking about folks saying "we're fucked and there's nothing we can do about it". If they're right, it's party time, because it's too late so why not? If they're wrong, they're making the folks who're saying "we're not fucked yet but that may very well be in our future" look like alarmist idiots by association.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.