I think it's time to take a break from the pandemic and politics to reflect on something that doesn't care about either. It will do what it wills. That is our planet. The one we all live on. The one that has been crying out for attention for some time now. The latest salvo was the wildfires out West.
A lesson on our connected world.
A little brush clearing just won't cut it.
The danger in our political climate goes hand in hand with the danger in our planet's climate. If we don't work together we will all lose.
410 comments:
1 – 200 of 410 Newer› Newest»I might take this opportunity to point out that there are ranking epidemiologists who claim that our current covid-19 pandemic is likely also the result of the climate crisis already underway (and, that if it can't yet be proven then subsequent disease outbreaks almost certainly will fill in the statistical gap necessary to supply the "proof" to an agreed upon and stated scientific certainty--much like it took a while for the stats to accumulate to where the climate scientists will now assert that the California fires--and other climatic events--almost certainly are the result of global warming).
You did mention the connection between our political climate and the environmental climate. But there's also a fairly direct connection between the overall environmental climate and the occurrences of pandemic human diseases.
Climate change really isn't high on the list of things threatening human livelihoods. It's mostly a liberal western obsession.
"It's mostly a liberal western obsession."
I don't think the Chinese are generally defined as either "liberal" or "western". That notion seems peculiar to yourself.
Why Trump really ran for president.
Donald Trump needed a new act.
By 2015, more than a decade removed from the smashing success of "The Apprentice," Trump's brand -- always his most marketable and valuable commodity -- was foundering, his golf courses were losing loads of money and he had nine-figure loans coming due. (We know all of that thanks to blockbuster reporting from The New York Times that reveals Trump paid $750 in taxes in 2016 -- and no taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.)
So he ran for president. Which, in retrospect, makes all the sense in the world.
Petes,
I watched your video last night. A little late so I kind of fell asleep at the very end, but I saw most of it. I may have to re-watch the last 15 minutes to see if I missed anything of substance. I found that he never really gave specifics for anything. I will need to research that before I can determine what the facts of the matter are. The events he refers to were a while back.
The Editorial Board of the Washington Post has today endorsed Joe Biden for President of the United States. I don't reckon this will be treated as "breaking" news in most quarters, nor will Trump be emotionally crushed by this development.
But there's also a fairly direct connection between the overall environmental climate and the occurrences of pandemic human diseases.
Yes, you are right. I have read that as we destroy more natural habitat for wild animals and humans live closer to them the chance of animal to people transmission of new strains of viruses increases.
The destruction of more of the natural world by climate change will exacerbate this.
Climate change really isn't high on the list of things threatening human livelihoods.
It really depends on who you talk to. There are some areas of the world that may benefit economically, but for the most part an unlivable planet for most people will eventually curtail that as well.
Hurricanes don't generally kill too many people until they finally make landfall.
That's not a good excuse for ignoring the weather forecasts and the predicted storm track.
9 Takeaways from the NYT's report
On Sunday, the New York Times published the deepest dive ever into the US president's finances, citing detailed tax records that the newspaper says "portray a businessman who takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year yet racks up chronic losses."
"The tax returns for Mr. Trump and hundreds of his businesses reveal the hollowness, but also the wizardry, of the self-made-billionaire image honed through 'The Apprentice,'" the Times concluded. "They demonstrate that he was far more successful playing a business mogul than being one in real life."
As we have always known a classic con man.
[Lynnette]: "I have read that as we destroy more natural habitat for wild animals and humans live closer to them the chance of animal to people transmission of new strains of viruses increases."
Climate change and environmental degradation are two quite separate issues. Catastrophists tend to conflate them all the time. It makes for more satisfying doom-laden news -- we're gonna suffer from horrible diseases just before the world bursts into flames.
[Lynnette]: "It really depends on who you talk to. There are some areas of the world that may benefit economically, but for the most part an unlivable planet for most people will eventually curtail that as well."
There is no prospect whatever that the planet will become unlivable. The ongoing increase in global GDP per capita may be curtailed by 0.05% per annum (source: IMF).
Climate catastrophe is the new existential anxiety besetting the west. For those of us old enough to remember the nuclear anxiety of the 1970s, it was similar (except that was way more real). For people of a certain disposition it can lead to genuine depression.
"Climate change and environmental degradation are two
quite separate issues."
Only for fools who can't see the connection.
Chris Wallace has informed the NewYorkTimes that, "I do not believe it is my job to be a truth squad;…it’s up to the other person to catch them on that."
(Advance permission to lie with impunity in tomorrow night's debate.)
It is I think important to make note of this.
In a typical, aka pre-Trump, election, we would see a handful (at most) of elected officials cross party lines to support the nominee of the other party. Georgia Sen. Zell Miller did so when he backed President George W. Bush and spoke at the 2004 Republican convention. Ditto Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman when he endorsed Sen. John McCain and spoke at the 2008 Republican convention. And Michael Bloomberg when he spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
So, it happens! But the very fact that we can a) name the people who have done it in the past few elections and b) all of them got prominent speaking slots at the other party's national convention suggests it's pretty rare -- and something that is treated by a real coup by the other side.
Which brings me to Trump. And the hugely ironic reason that the sheer number of prominent Republicans rebelling from him in this election hasn't received the attention I think it should: Because there are just so damn many of them.
"Because there are just so damn many of them."
And none of them currently or considering elected office as a Republican. It's Trump's Party now.
Catastrophists tend to conflate them all the time. It makes for more satisfying doom-laden news -- we're gonna suffer from horrible diseases just before the world bursts into flames.
Er...ummm...that's kind of what's happening now, isn't it? We had Covid-19, which we still have btw, and then we saw wildfires all over the western United States.
t's Trump's Party now.
I was looking at a QAnon video the other day and at the end the person being interviewed bluntly said the same thing. It isn't the Republican Party as we knew it.
It has morphed into something that allows the crackpots like QAnon to become mainstream. (That "crackpot" reference was me, not the guy from QAnon, obviously.)
[Petes]: "Catastrophists tend to conflate them all the time. It makes for more satisfying doom-laden news -- we're gonna suffer from horrible diseases just before the world bursts into flames."
[Lynnette]: : "Er...ummm...that's kind of what's happening now, isn't it? We had Covid-19, which we still have btw, and then we saw wildfires all over the western United States."
Climate change did not cause Covid, nor hasten its spread compared to the obvious human factors -- worldwide long distance travel and urban population density.
Fires in the western US are at their lowest ebb for 3,000 years. Which is not to say that they are not affected by climate -- they most definitely are. That is why the current level of burning is completely unsustainable. It needs to be much greater. Fire suppression practices prevent it from attaining a stable equilibrium. (Source: Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA, Marlon et al. in PNAS).
I agree with your blog article that this is a situation "that has been crying out for attention for some time now". But let's not anthropomorphise an angry Mother Earth like that crackpot Pelosi did earlier in the month. Large fuel loads and dry climates do not mix well. (Or perhaps I should say that they mix rather too well). If you're going to have conditions like the Medieval Climate Anomaly, you can't have fire levels that are tens of percentage points below the average for those times. Even at current levels, the fire deficit continues to grow. At some point you have to realise that the billions of dollars spent on fire suppression is misdirected.
[Lynnette]: It has morphed into something that allows the crackpots like QAnon to become mainstream.
Not nearly as mainstream as the crackpot climate catastrophists, though. But I agree, the left and the right have descended into outright irrationality. That may be the biggest threat that civilisation faces.
"Fires in the western US are at their lowest ebb for 3,000 years."
You know what he's doing don't you? He's counting the average pounds of charcoal residue produced in Montana to try to tell you that the fires in California ain't as bad as the folks in California think they are.
I know of a guy who does tricks something like that with milk and and large pitcher (and a whole bunch of other sleight of hand stuff). He hires out for children's birthday parties, big orange "fright" wig, white grease painted face and red plastic nose--says the kids love it; they squeal and clap.
Money quote:
"…our results do not address several important aspects of
fire history of the western United States. First, the trends do
not reflect subregional patterns of burning or changes in
burning in grasslands and shrublands. A good example is the
increase in area burned in California during the 20th century."
(emphasis added)
You continue to seem determined to treat Lynnette like a moron, incapable of interpreting the text for herself. Doubly ironic, seein' as how you are incapable of interpreting what she and I wrote. Do ya see anyone other than yoreself mentionin' California? So how about sayin' somethin' that's actually relevant instead of yappin' like an ankle-bitin' terrier.
Ain't no point rantin' at me just 'cause ya got caught (again).
You still wanna try to bullshit her with that PNAC article, you go right ahead and try. It'll either work or it won't. (Bettin' it won't, but….)
Ain't my fight, either way is good 'nuff for me.
I was just pleased to point you're basically a lyin' bastard, and all your purported evidence needs to be scrutinized, 'cause ya got no ethical restraints apparent anymore. You bullshit people with abandon and not with much skill. Probably a result of you hangin' with Trumpkins here of late; you can get away with it with them. But, that's not my problem.
You go ahead and get in the last word now. Hell, knock yourself, get in two, or three, or however many pleases ya.
Ciao for now!
[Yappy]: "ya got caught (again)."
Yup. Got caught talkin' about nuthin' to do with what y'all accused me of not talkin' about. It's kinda too easy to catch people out like that, dontcha think? I mean, jes' accuse them of not talkin' about what they weren't talkin' about. And hey presto, yore right again.
Keep yappin', Yappy. It's what y'all do best.
First Presidential debate tonight. 8:00 pm CDT. They weren't alloted time for opening statements under the rules. Biden should come in with an opening statement anyway.
I see fat boy had only the one "final word" last night.
So, moving right along.
"Climate change did not cause Covid…"
Climate change doesn't cause the sun to rise in the morning either. Makes no sense to talk about what climate change doesn't cause when the discussion is about what it does cause and while it causes so damn much. That's just the standard Petes' distraction tactic; it's a bullshit move and he's just hoping that it works better here than it used to work on me. ('Cause he got no new moves.)
Meanwhile, back on topic…. Tropical and sub-tropical viruses are breaking out into the temperate zones and moving north towards the major world population centers, West Nile, Ebola, Zika, just to name a couple of the better known. One of them's eventually likely to find the new habitat to its liking and take off like rabbits in Australia, smallpox, or a modern-day, vaccine resistant equivalent of the 1916 Spanish flu, something truly of a global disaster category.
[Petes] Fire suppression practices prevent it from attaining a stable equilibrium.
If you have increasingly drier conditions how do you really reach an equilibrium? Also, some of these fires are not starting in the forest so removal of brush will have no impact. One of those I linked to started in a cleared field next to a housing development and the winds pushed it along a path destroying multiple communities. The tinder was the buildings it encountered.
I will have to look at your links tonight.
But I agree, the left and the right have descended into outright irrationality. That may be the biggest threat that civilisation faces.
I really believe it is social media that is adding fuel to those fires. It is the misinformation that is being fed to so many people who really don't seem to be able to think critically.
Those who seem to believe that any tweet deserves the same weight as scientific data or proven facts are foolish.
*mutters softly*
$70,000.00 deduction for hair. Seriously?
*sigh*
"I will have to look at your links tonight."
When you're looking at his links remember that comparing the charcoal residue production from the old growth virgin forests of 3,000 years ago, or even 200 years ago, to the charcoal production of modern California chaparral scrub, or apple orchards in Oregon, or cherry orchards in Washington, or to any other modern 2nd or 3rd growth mixed exurban/rural environment is like comparing apples to gooseberrys.
It tells ya nothin' except that apples ain't gooseberrys.
I grew up in the backwoods; I know these things.
"$70,000.00 deduction for hair. Seriously?"
Not as startling as the millions of dollars in "consulting fees" to his employee/daughter.
[Lynnette]: "If you have increasingly drier conditions how do you really reach an equilibrium?"
Equilibrium doesn't necessarily mean stable equilibrium. It changes along with the conditions. A drier climate leads to more burning. Bigger fuel loads lead to more burning. Fire suppression leads to bigger fuel loads. More burning leads to lower fuel loads. It's a feedback loop. You probably can't beat it in the long run. You can only decide to suppress fires so that they are less frequent but bigger and more intense when they do occur. Controlled burning may be cheaper and more effective. That's the experience in some places.
[Lynnette]: "I really believe it is social media that is adding fuel to those fires. It is the misinformation that is being fed to so many people who really don't seem to be able to think critically."
Totally agree. I think we're only starting to appreciate what we unleashed a decade and a bit ago. It's totally changed the way people interact -- more anonymously, less accountably, less considerately. And, as you say, people with underdeveloped critical facilities are much more easily influenced.
Popcorn out. The circus has begun. I expect to see one septuagenarian tell another septuagenarian that he's over the hill. Gonna be ugly stuff from the orange oaf.
"Equilibrium doesn't necessarily mean stable…"
Had to laugh, then, when it sank in fully that he wasn't joking, but instead was maneuvering, trying to suggest an new Petes' category of "unstable equalibrium", had to laugh some more.
Biden is tripping over his words on his very first salvo.
Biden: "the two hundred thousand people that have died on his watch ... how many of those have survived?"
Ouch.
Biden's actually handling himself ok now. He's letting Trump be an asshole. Good tactic.
(I thought about correcting the typo on "equalibrium", but I decided to leave it 'cause Petes is probably gonna need to get himself some jollies when this debate is over. I'll give 'im that one to roll 'round in.)
And few people do "asshole" better than Trump. What a thundering disgrace. He hasn't a presidential bone in his body.
Chris Wallace scolding Trump like a child for his outbursts. I think Trump is losing real bad here.
Like most of his primary debates, Biden came into this one ahead in the polls, needing nothing more than to maintain. All he had to do was get through the debate without tripping over his own stutter and going face down on the stage in front of everybody.
Instead, Biden "won" the debate. Hands down.
It will make very little difference. Trump came in at around 42-43% to Biden's 50%. Biden "won" the debate. Next week it'll still be be Biden at 50-51% (maybe 51-52%), Trump still at 42-43%. No significant change.
Of course, no real change is very, very bad news for Trump. This was a real bad night for Trump.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Some time back I speculated that Trump might skip the second debate (figuring he'd be Campaign Rally Trump in public in the first debate, and sure 'nuff). I'm gonna renew that speculation. They may start thinking about how to not show Trump in public outside of the Trump-friendly silos for the next six weeks.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Speaking of which… Don't know if anybody's publishing numbers yet, but this show's gonna come in at maybe 100,000,000 American viewers. Also not good news for Trump.
Whew! That was was indescribable.
The first debate just finished and I'm still kind of speechless. Even after the last awful 4 years Trump has managed to slink even lower. Biden wasn't perfect, no, but eeeeewwww it was like watching a train wreck. Trump was like a petulant bully and Biden's tendency to laugh at him was actually a relief.
"Biden wasn't perfect, no…"
Biden's never perfect trying to speak off the cuff, never will be. It's a major problem when doing extemporaneous speaking. He has to spend so very much of his conscious attention on trying to keep the stutter at bay. (I have a cousin almost exactly my own age who stuttered, born 14 days apart; same classroom in the rural school, and then again in the single high school in the one actual town in the county--they all said he was dumb, students, teacher all of 'em. He wasn't dumb.)
I was pleased that Chris Wallace called Trump out on his behavior. His campaign had agreed that he would shut up for the 2 minutes each debater had to speak and he couldn't do it.
What a thundering disgrace. He hasn't a presidential bone in his body.
No he doesn't. He should neve have been elected.
Some time back I speculated that Trump might skip the second debate (figuring he'd be Campaign Rally Trump in public in the first debate, and sure 'nuff). I'm gonna renew that speculation.
You may be right.
I suspect that Trump will be livid after he hears what all of the commentators are saying about his "performance". I can see him slinking away to hide amongst his followers.
He has to spend so very much of his conscious attention on trying to keep the stutter at bay.
Yes, and I give him a huge amount of credit. No, he isn't stupid. He does get emotional, this is true. And when Trump went after his sons I was impressed that Biden actually kept his cool and responded.
Biden did a good job of speaking to us directly, I think. I hope people were listening.
There were many times I felt that Biden was the more stable personality and would be a far better president in times of trouble.
I never did get a chance to read the link tonight, Petes. I will have to look later. The debate was just too engrossing. Or too something...
"He has to spend so very much of his conscious attention on trying to keep the stutter at bay."
I didn't explain that very well. They spend so much of their minds in controlling their "right now" vocalizations that they tend to lose track of just how much they've already said or still need to say--it get's down to--"Okay, got that word out without stumbling, so now just where exactly was I in that sentence--how far along did I get before I had to make that special effort on forming the sounds?"
As of 11:00 pm CDT, Trumptweets are happening. And Trump is attacking tonight's moderator, Chris Wallace, solid anchor of FoxNewsSunday for many years now, blaming Wallace for how things came out.
This means that Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson will be expected to join the attacks on FoxNews' most prominent news "host" by sunup.
Should be fun to watch.
FoxNews: Sean Hannity: Trump just "steamrolled" over Joe Biden in tonight's debate.
I find it most curious that Tucker Carlson has absolutely zero comments on the debate so far.
And, that's about it for the night for me.
"People close to the president said he was jubilant upon
exiting the stage, and many in his inner circle were thrilled
with his performance. Trump dominated with his aggressive
approach, they argued."
Politico
Yeah, well, okay then. But what he needed to do was to reboot his campaign, to gain back some of the ground he's lost to Biden among the general electorate.
He didn't get any of that done, not even close.
"The first debate just finished and I'm still kind of speechless."
Seems to be a lot of that going around this morning. From what I'm seeing in the morning news.
Most reasonable people appear to have found it an embarrassment. But then that is how many view Trump anyway. I guess I'm not surprised that Trump and his followers would think differently.
In the end it will be what the voters think that counts. At least I hope it still does, anyway.
"In the end it will be what the voters think that counts.
At least I hope it still does, anyway."
Well, he announced last night that he was going to ask his Supreme Trumpkins to invalidate Biden's mailed-in votes. And he told the "Proud Boys" to "stand by" in case the newly packed Court somehow doesn't halt the vote count and declare him the President for another four years in spite of the election. (Like happened in Florida in 2000, giving us President Dubya.)
And he just last night also royally screwed up his last real chance at turning around his floundering campaign.
So, now's the time to start worrying for real.
So, now's the time to start worrying for real.
Yes. It was a real scary performance. What's sad is that it probably will not change voters' minds. If he doesn't lose by a wide margin our country has some really deep problems. Either we have too few people who still believe in democracy or they are totally clueless, for whatever reason.
"What's sad is that it probably will not change voters'
minds."
Well, there aren't that many that haven't already made up thier mind, firmly. The Trump supporters knew what he is before last night. Last night will have embarrassed them in public. And they'd prefer that not happen. But, in the end, making public what they already knew in private isn't gonna make a difference in their vote or their fervor. They are dedicated Trumpkins.
And, you can add to that an even further right sub-set of voters, the kinds who'll march under neo-Nazi banners and along side Klansmen in robes chanting "Jews will not replace us". The kind who were updating their websites last night to announce that they were "standing back and standing by", as Trump had called for. (And who damn well mean it about "standing by") Add them to the original dedicated Trumpkins and that's how he got his support up from the original 35-38% to about 43-44% today.
All of which calls out for a revision of your other sentence, to wit:
Even "if he does lose by a wide margin our country has
some really deep problems."
The danger is still real. They're still out there. Next time the demigogue might be smarter than Trump. FoxNews is still a fully functional right-wing propaganda machine and the Republican Party has died off already. That's bad news in and of itself, and the internet and "social media" compound that problem.
(Luckily it does seem that the younger voters, early 40s on down, seem to be rather more immune to the siren songs propagating on the internet. But, that's not a high bar nor a reliable bet for our future.)
By the way, I understand the Chinese press is fairly gleeful about last night's "debate".
Curious that Jeffrey hasn't shown up to announce how proud he is that his family contains black Trump supporters, especially in view of Trump's performance last night.
Sometimes one has to take comfort where one can.
A more current PNAS article.
Aridification of North America
Increasing aridity is already a clear trend in the West, but greater aridity is also expanding its reach eastward with continued warming. Recent exceptional “flash droughts” in 2012 and 2017 on the High Plains of the United States and Canada, as well
Other parts of North America likely will not see the widespread aridification and decadal to multidecadal droughts of the West, but will nonetheless continue to see more frequent and severe arid events—extreme dry spells, flash droughts, and interannual droughts will become part of the new normal.
as the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s, highlight how extreme spring and summer temperatures can speed the onset, and worsen the impact, of dry spells and droughts (17, 18). Climate change farther east, in the Midwest, also means that summer dry spells will tend not only to become hotter but also to lengthen (19). It is no surprise that irrigated agriculture is expanding eastward in response to climate warming. Perhaps most troubling is the growing co-occurrence of hot and dry summer conditions and the likely expansion, absent climate change action, of these hot–dry extremes all of the way to the East Coast of North America, north deep into Canada, and south into Mexico (20). It is no surprise that the boreal forest of Canada is starting to show a substantial increase in wildfire and a related net increase in carbon emissions to the atmosphere (21).
Changing fire suppression tactics alone won't solve our problem. It seems to be spreading.
Hmmm…. We may have start importing wood from, well…, from wherever is cheapest, to pile up and burn on the high plains in order to get our charcoal residue back up to where Petes thinks it should be.
After a day intermittently listening to Radio-Right-Wing to assess their after-engagement attitudes it's become apparent to me that Trump's great sin from last night was that he failed to pound down Joe Biden.
He launched an all-out assholery onslaught against Biden, and Biden just shrugged it off (successfully--not just pretend) Biden never shines at debates, and ya can't say he was shining at the end of this one either, but he successfully shrugged off Trump's fiercest assholery onslaught like it just didn't matter. Which means it just didn't matter. That is what's bugging them today.
So, they're having themselves a day of it, alternately blaming Trump's failure to dominate the proceedings on Chris Wallace. And swearing to one another that Trump did in fact dominate the proceedings. (Often in the same sentences.)
Some are simply keeping a low profile. (Ain't heard from Petes since just after the middle of the debate. I wonder if he finished up his popcorn. Other than that…, well he can't vote anyway, so it's immaterial that he would still vote for Trump if he could.)
Yeah, I snoozed off for the final half hour of the so-called debate. I'd seen enough entertainment and -- despite the circus act with clowns -- it was starting to depress me. America really does deserve the president it gets if these two old fogeys are the best it can put forward. It was like two oul' lads (as we would say) propping up a bar and having an argument that nobody cares about, and even they have forgotten what the point was.
Trump's a disgrace. Biden's just a figurehead for a lot of leftwing nutcases. Plenty of them on Twitter threatening to burn the country to the ground if he doesn't win the election, or if Amy Coney Barrett gets appointed. One of the few reasonable points Trump made was that, like him or not, he was elected for four years. Why _shouldn't_ he nominate his choice?
In every vox pop I've seen today people of all political persuasions are disappointed with the debate. They know a shitshow when they see one.
"Biden's just a figurehead for a lot of leftwing nutcases."
Ah, so now you have a shiny new story to replace your old story about Biden being senile. Scratch the senility story (if Trump can't pound down a senile old man then what's the use of having a senile old man story?), and now Biden's just a figurehead for the guys who wanted the nomination instead of letting Biden have but somehow lost to the guy they now control.
(That one's not gonna pass the laugh test either, as you'll figure out soon 'nuff. And, since you'll figure that out soon 'nuff on your own; I'll just let that happen on its own. You be sure and come back and let us know when you've got the third story to peddle after the "figurehead" story don't work either. But, ya ain't go much time; election's less than five weeks out.)
Part II of Yappy Goes to Fantasy Land has commenced.
[Lynnette]: "Aridification of North America"
Yep, ties in with my assertion that more of the west needs to be allowed to burn, as "unfortunately, climate change and this aridification are likely irreversible on human timescales".
"…Fantasy Land has commenced."
You apparently didn't understand the part where I'm just gonna let you figure out all by yourself that your shiny new second "story" is stupid. (Or, if you did figure it out, you're hoping to drag me into changing my mind.)
But, that's okay. I don't mind you looking stupid here; I'm okay with that.
[Yappy]: "you're hoping to drag me into changing my mind"
Listen Yappy, I haven't addressed anything to you at all. That's just y'all's paranoia and/or delusions of grandeur makin' ya think it's all about you. The only thing I'm hopin' for from you is less yappin'.
That one don't pass the laugh test either. Soon as I offer to let you have the last word you just disappear. If you don't think you'll get me to respond you give it up. (If pushed I'll give the two most recent examples. But, just to make it hard on ya--I'll require you push three (3) more times. Otherwise…)
Ciao for now.
Frank Luntz is a long-time Republican friendly pollster (perhaps only semi-friendly to Trump, but definitely not implacably hostile to him). Luntz worked for the last President Bush's campaigns (both of them, and remained in Dubya's employ even during the interregnum between campaigns) and he's the fella who famously (or perhaps infamously depending on how ya look at it) successfully recommended to George W. that he should ban use of the term "global warming" in government publications and substitute "climate change", on account of "climate change" sounded less threatening and was more amenable to conservative manipulation. Anyway, back to Tuesday's "debate"…
"At the end of the evening, the pollster Frank Luntz convened
a focus group of independent voters from swing states. He
asked them to sum up the performances of each candidate
using only one word or phrase. Among the assessments the
voters offered of Biden were “better than expected,”
“definitely more professional than Trump,” “competent,”
“coherent,” “leader,” “attentive and rehearsed,” “showed
restraint and compassion,” “humanity and integrity,”
“predictable,” “presidential.” Among the reactions they
offered for Trump: “horrid,” “chaotic,” “unpolished,”
“unhinged,” “bully,” “arrogant,” and “un-American.”"
TheAtlantic
("Figurehead for leftwing nutcases" does not appear to have made the list.)
"The Agriculture Department last week began mandating
that millions of boxes of surplus food for needy families
include a letter from President Donald Trump claiming credit
for the program."
Politico
I slept during the debate since it was in the middle of the night here and I had to go to work the next day since we are not locked up in our houses on account of insane fear for a fairly mild flu virus. (Total deaths in Sweden the last two months are below the 10 year average for those months).
Anyway, I tried to watch it on YouTube but just couldn’t. Watched maybe 20 minutes all together, skipping forward hoping it would get better later on. Trump behaved like an asshole and Biden didn’t really put out anything interesting. I have to say objectively this was a score for Biden. Not so much on account of his performance but because of Trumps assholery.
I have to wonder what Trumps strategy was, if he had one. The only think that I can come to think of is he tried to bait Biden into a public fit of rage. And that’s IF he had a strategy. If that was the case he was unsuccessful.
"The only think that I can come to think of is he tried to bait Biden
into a public fit of rage."
Among the dedicated Trumpkins (those who call into Radio-Right-Wing talk shows on the Wednesday following, among others) it seems that the plan was to "dominate" Biden, to beat him down by sheer persistence and thus show him to be the tired-out, senile old man who couldn't stand up under the pressure that Trump could bring to bear, the "spent force" that Trump had been claiming him to be.
And, there was supposed to the sheer delight among all the dedicated Trumpkins get from watching Trump breaking all the rules and getting away with it. They do love that as well.
Only thing is, it didn't work. Biden shrugged it all off like it didn't even matter (except for a few limited slips where he let the aggravation get to him, but only briefly before he composed himself again). And while it certainly did interfere with Biden making a coherent case for his own election, the thing they lamented is that Biden simply shrugged off the worst that Trump could bring and still made something of a case for himself.
Trump wanted to "dominate" and they wanted to see Trump "dominate", because they sure as hell didn't want a real debate that mentioned Trump's record in office. And that was what he was trying to give them, but it didn't work out. So, he did manage to break down the debate, but he was not dominate, merely disruptive.
Short version: A "public fit of rage" wasn't necessarily the goal, although that would have been okay with them. A visible state of exhaustion on Biden's part would have suited them just as well. The point was for Trump to show himself to be the alpha male towering over Biden. That effort didn't work out for them.
[Petes] ...my assertion that more of the west needs to be allowed to burn,...
The problem with that is that more of the west is now occupied than it was in the past when Mother Nature used wildfires to clear out standing brush and what not.
[Petes] Trump's a disgrace.
Always has been, always will be.
[Petes] Biden's just a figurehead for a lot of leftwing nutcases.
If elected Biden will have to act with Congress. The Democrats have shown they prefer a moderate approach. If that weren't the case Bernie Sanders would be running.
The Republicans on the other hand seem to prefer normalizing White Supremacist beliefs. Trump has been running cover for them for the last 4 years.
"The problem with that is that more of the west is now
occupied…"
Ordinarily that would lead the forest service to use "controlled burns", where they stake out a fireline with the necessary men and equipment during a "safe" window (figure mid-winter after a snow or rain, and no wind expected for several days) and burn out the underbrush in patches--one manageable patch at a time.
Problem is, it's gettin' warmer and dryer, even in the winter and they routinely calculate they can't take the risks anymore, "unstable equilibrium" be damned; it's just too risky for them to assume the liabilities now involved. They finally figured out what to do (and have known for several years now; it's not like Petes has had flash of genius there) and yet the problem has progressed beyond their ability to implement the solution at a financial cost they're willing to bear.
"The Republicans on the other hand seem to prefer normalizing
White Supremacist beliefs."
It's a coalition. Without the White Supremacists they drop back to 35-38% (maybe less) public support for their coalition (from the 43-44% they can pull on a good day with the White Supremacists on-board). That's a fairly significant hit on their electoral prospects. So, those who aren't White Supremacists themselves have had to get comfortable with normalizing the White Supremacists. (Or, they just do a high-energy, high-volume exercise in denial intended to drown out any thoughts or sounds other than the denial.)
Personally, I believe in Black Supremacy. Whites are degenerate and must be removed from this earth.
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
Careful what you wish for, Jeffrey.
Both Donald Trump & Melania Trump have now tested positive for Covid-19. Barron has tested negative.
"…Trump have now tested positive for Covid-19."
That gives him cover to withdraw from the remaining debates. And I was thinking that was becoming more likely if the Commission did go ahead with its plan to establish more "structure" on the remaining debates (specifically, giving the moderator a kill switch on the participants' microphones).
Also it'll change the public discussion away from his disastrous performance on the 29áµ—Ê°, which has gotta help him as well.
This is perfect! After two weeks, Trump is immune, now not only a warrior but a survivor!
That guy really is something special!
All Hail the Donald!
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
Well, Trump is not Black, so I can't fully support him.
But at least Trump is not White. He's the Orange Man, of course.
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
Sing along, everyone!
Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the Orange Man, they are the Orange Men.
I am the Trumpster, goo goo g'joob.
Hey everyone, I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together, right?
All aboard, the Orange Express!
Jeffrey (Walrus) -- Ningbo, China
*
[Lynnette]: "The problem with that is that more of the west is now occupied than it was in the past when Mother Nature used wildfires to clear out standing brush and what not."
A couple of points about that ... it wasn't Mother Nature alone -- native Americans used fire as a tool to modify the environment. The other point is that to the extent that it is Mother Nature, she doesn't care who has moved into the area to live. We have a similar problem in the British Isles with people recklessly building on flood plains. Don't complain when those plains do what they do -- flood. Same with hurricanes on the US Atlantic coast: the majority of increasing insurance costs are due to population increase.
Here's an interesting discussion of the fire issue without political posturing. A professor of forestry from Oregon State University advocates prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and says "I think the most important tool moving forward is going to be fire itself".
The Biden campaign has today announced that neither Joe nor Jill Biden test positive for the virus as of today (although it's early yet).
Neither the White House nor the Trump campaign had deigned to contact Joe Biden nor any of his people about the coronavirus infection. I guess they figured that it would be just as well if Biden discovered that Trump had potentially exposed the Bidens from other sources at some later date.
"…discussion of the fire issue without political posturing."
Okay which one of ya'll gonna ask the fat boy which political party he thinks is "pro-fire"?
Yappy gonna yap.
You trying to talk them out of considering that question, are ya fat boy?
(Got a hint for ya here that you ain't gonna take anyway, so I'm free to give it without any fear that it will help you even a little bit. You're not making any headway with your repeated attempts to do a Trump-like "naming" of me. "Yappy" don't bother me any more "Chumpy" did, which is to say, not at all. Your next effort almost certainly won't work any better. You're just not that good at it. (Hell, Trump's not as good at it as he thinks he is.) You're wasting your time.)
Yep. Jes' can't stop yappin'.
It appears that the President may have caught the coronavirus as the traceable consequence of a breakout that has occurred as a direct result of the nomination ceremony of Amy Coney Barrett to be the newest Supreme Trumpkin. "Irony" may the word to apply to that. (Our right-wingers have seemed unable to use the word correctly; perhaps this will assist them in comprehending the usage.)
Typo correction:
"'Irony' may be the word to apply to that."
"…discussion of the fire issue without political posturing."
Petes @ Fri Oct 02, 11:58 am ↑↑
Okay, once again… Which one of ya'll gonna ask the fat boy just which particular political affiliation does he view as "pro-fire"?
Yap. Yap yap.
[Yappy]: "Okay, once again… Which one of ya'll gonna ask the fat boy just which particular political affiliation does he view as "pro-fire"?"
Maybe "ya'll" already realised yore question contains a moronic non sequitur. And since "ya'll" amounts to the sole other contributor on the site, maybe y'all really oughta stop treating Lynnette like the moron y'all are yoreself.
"And since "ya'll" amounts to the sole other contributor
on the site…"
Or, maybe not.
"Marcus said..."
Thu Oct 01, 11:14 am ↑↑
"Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China"
Fri Oct 02, 08:25 am ↑↑ (etc.)
That gives him cover to withdraw from the remaining debates.
Should have been an easier way.
But Trump isn't the only one testing positive. Multiple Republican legislators have also tested positive. One wonders who gave what to whom?
But in any case, where does that leave the Supreme Court nominee hearings and ultimate vote? Especially if those cases become more serious?
Three GOP Senators test positive
[Petes] The other point is that to the extent that it is Mother Nature, she doesn't care who has moved into the area to live.
No, she doesn't. She laughs off climate change deniers.
[Petes] We have a similar problem in the British Isles with people recklessly building on flood plains.
Oh, we have those idiots here too. I don't think people really want to believe that anything catastrophic can happen to them, despite the popularity of apocalyptic novels and movies.
I'll have to read the link later...
Oh, yeah, Kellyanne Conway has also tested positive.
Petes,
Yappy is pretty good. He's like the dog next door chained up but always barking at anything that passes by.
I've been calling him Sheriff Lee C. for years -- maybe fifteen years, truth be told.
Maybe a compromise would be Sheriff Yappy.
Just a thought.
He is one cussed cur, that's for sure. Unique in his own hayseed, cracker way. God love him.
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
Lynnette,
Isn't Conway the spokesperson?
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
I am hearing that Trump is having difficulty breathing and they are giving him Remdesivir. That raises questions of when he actually contracted the virus. These symptoms, if true, are coming along rather quickly.
Speculation is that he was contagious earlier than one might at first think. Questions arise as to when his last negative test actually was?
Isn't Conway the spokesperson?
She resigned just before the Republican National Convention, although she did still speak at it. Both she and her husband pulled back from their competing political activities citing their desire to concentrate on family.
"I am hearing that Trump is having difficulty breathing and
they are giving him Remdesivir."
The Trump administration lies wholesale, has for years. They tell lies when the truth would serve better. That's gonna lead people to all kinds of speculations. But, the Remdesivir story does appear to be true (medical update).
[Petes]: "The other point is that to the extent that it is Mother Nature, she doesn't care who has moved into the area to live."
[Lynnette]: "No, she doesn't. She laughs off climate change deniers."
Believing in climate change doesn't make anyone or their property less flammable. It might be the occasion for a bit of schadenfreude from Nancy Pelosi but that's not helping anyone. The question is: what are you going to do about it? Climate change mitigation will not save the western US from burning in any sort of human timescale. In fact, it won't have much effect at all, since the increased fuel load from a century of fire suppression was out of balance with the climate even before the rapid CO2 increases from the mid 20th century. Climate change will exacerbate the problem, but it's not the root cause. The choice is between controlled burning and out-of-control burning.
"The choice is between controlled burning and
out-of-control burning."
If only it were that simple. "Controlled burning" is a goal, an aspiration. Once the fire has been set it becomes merely a hope.
I just watched the video you linked to Petes. I really have no problem with controlled burning.
A professor of forestry from Oregon State University advocates prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads and says "I think the most important tool moving forward is going to be fire itself".
I am not sure if it is the most important tool, but it is definitely important.
But part of the problem with the increasing "fuel loads" is weather and by definition climate change. I don't really see the problem with combining controlled burning if safely possible with efforts to address climate change.
I would also like to note that the people who thought it was a good idea to hold a gender reveal party using fireworks during a dry season are a part of the problem as well. But then you can't get some people to even wear a little piece of cloth over their faces to help others, so what can you expect? Stupid is as stupid does.
The Trump administration lies wholesale, has for years.
It is what Trump does, so of course his people will too.
Latest is that Trump received both an experimental anti-body cocktail of meds in the beginning and the Remdesivir. He is also on a strong steroid to fight inflammation.
Really when his doctors held the first press conferencedand there were 3 or 4 critical care pulmonary physicians introduced that should have been the first clue that his lungs were more seriously compromised than they first let on.
The next question is if he manages to beat the virus how up to leading the country will he really be? They were talking about Boris Johnson this morning and pointing out that he seems not to have recovered quite to the energy level and focus he had before his illness. Petes may know more about that.
Btw, it appears that Putin takes the virus very seriously, at least for himself.
While Russia has opened up for it's people Putin is still hiding in his bunker not allowing anyone to meet with him unless they have undergone a 14 day quarantine. He does all of his meetings via video. And those who are actually allowed to meet him personally still need to go through a tunnel of disinfectant after their quarantine.
They do say that bullies are the ultimate cowards.
"I really have no problem with controlled burning."
You are ever the optimist. Have you considered how much trouble they're having getting the current crop of western wildfires under control? With the continuing and ever increasing effects of climate change, "controlled burning" ain't lookin' like a safe bet for the foreseeable future either. Eventually perhaps, but any fire set in today's western forests will not look like what the Indians set near their villages. It's not like the extra fuel load is just going to go away and let them set nice, safe "Indian" grade fires.
They'll continue to burn hotter for longer until that built up fuel load disappears, even after Petes and his professor decide to just pretend that little problem away. (Meantime the atmosphere is continually gettin' hotter for longer, and drier as well, as the "unstable equilibrium" strikes back.)
"I don't really see the problem with combining controlled burning
if safely possible with efforts to address climate change."
Combining them is not the problem Petes wants to address--it's the blaming that he wants to address. He want's the problem blamed on something else; something, anything, other than anthropogenic global warming.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Now, if ya wanna go for solving the problem, there'll undoubtedly be some proscribed burning ("controlled burning") that goes into that solution. But getting the accelerate, the global warming, under control is also a major necessary.
Yep, typo in there, but I'm gonna leave it.
"Really when his doctors held the first press conference and
there were 3 or 4 critical care pulmonary physicians
introduced that should have been the first clue that his lungs
were more seriously compromised than they first let on."
None of those 3 or 4 were put in charge of the press briefing either. That PR sales job has fallen to an osteopathic surgeon (I think that's his specialty.) brought over from the White House to do the deed.
I've noticed that, just in these last couple of days, from Friday on through today, the right winger media have come to grips with the knowledge that Trump ain't gonna be debating Biden again for several weeks, probably not at all. As a result they are methodically resurrecting the argument that Biden is senile. I suppose we can expect to see that story reappear here before too long.
[Lynnette]: "I am not sure if it is the most important tool, but it is definitely important. But part of the problem with the increasing "fuel loads" is weather and by definition climate change. I don't really see the problem with combining controlled burning if safely possible with efforts to address climate change."
Interested to know which tool you think is more important. Even if climate remained at the 20th century average, you have a problem with the fuel loads. In the 21st century, a certain amount of warming is already "baked in". Climate change mitigation is not going to change that on human timescales. So what are you going to do about the problem you have now, today?
By all means, make efforts to address climate change. Just don't imagine it's going to fix your fire problem in the west. That suits catastrophists like Pelosi who see it as an opportunity to score political points. For people who have to live with the situation, not so much. There is no point bemoaning lack of climate change action unless you can quantify what you are aiming for and how you will measure its success.
I don't believe any effort you make to address climate change will have any impact in any reasonable timescale. On current trajectories, India will produce more CO2 in ten years than the USA. China already does. The rest of Asia, minus China and India, already does. And those are the worlds huge growth areas too -- +5% for India in 2018 compared to -0.8% for the USA. Sure, it would be nice to see you USians reduce your CO2 per capita to match Europe or better. But it's probably not going to happen -- your society is set up quite differently. And in any case the USA and Europe together produce less than a third of global emissions. We haven't even mentioned Africa, where an additional 1.2 billion people (set to more than double by end of century) would love to increase their energy use but haven't got the resources (yet).
I know it's faddish to blame Big Oil or Republicans or deniers or whomever for lack of action on climate change. The fact is, the US has done quite well with transitioning from coal to natural gas, thanks to that pet hate of the looney left -- fracking. The only other technology available today that could make rapid inroads into CO2 emissions is also a pet hate of the loons -- nuclear. As long as climate activists keep promoting renewables as the great hope we are not going to get out of this mess.
On a totally different topic, another nice story about those peaceful protests.
"I don't believe any effort you make to address climate change
will have any impact in any reasonable timescale."
And yet the guys out there fighting on the firelines routinely pray for cooler, wetter weather. I think they probably know and you probably don't.
"…another nice story about those peaceful protests."
As told by Ann Coulter, who repeated insists that "it's all on tape", but, not surprisingly, never links to the supposed tape.
Trump came out of the hospital today, drove around in a circle in a black SUV so he could wave to his dedicated Trumpkins, and then went back to the Walter Reed Hospital.
New polling is starting to come in, taken after the Tuesday "debate". Biden's national lead has jumped to 14% (53% to 39%)
[Yappy the Wunderdog]: "And yet the guys out there fighting on the firelines routinely pray for cooler, wetter weather. I think they probably know and you probably don't."
They probably know the difference between weather and climate which you, apparently, do not.
They probably also know of the connection between climate and weather, which you would like to ignore.
"And yet the guys out there fighting on the firelines routinely pray for a cooler, wetter climate."
Dudn't really make any sense, now does it Yappy? Reckon y'all was yappin' just for the sake of yappin'.
"I don't believe any effort you make to address climate
change will have any impact [on western fire suppression]
in any reasonable timescale."
Petes @ Sun Oct 04, 05:39:00 pm ↑↑
Didn't make any sense the first time around either; you ain't really that stupid. But, you wrote it anyway. (Just to see if you could get away with it I'd reckon.)
And now that you've brought that up…. This was equally stupid:
"There is no point bemoaning lack of climate change action
unless you can quantify what you are aiming for and how you
will measure its success."
ibid.
Back more immediate matters…
We now have six (6) Republican Senators in quarantine or isolation. It's possible that Mitch won't get his necessary 50 votes (with the addition of Mike Pence as tiebreaker) before the election.
Lynnette:
”While Russia has opened up for it's people Putin is still hiding in his bunker not allowing anyone to meet with him unless they have undergone a 14 day quarantine. He does all of his meetings via video. And those who are actually allowed to meet him personally still need to go through a tunnel of disinfectant after their quarantine.”
I hear they flew Putin up to the moon where he sits in a plastic bubble all alone because he’s deadly afraid of a fairly mild flu virus. And, he allegedly sits there, on the moon, with a laptop from which he hacks the US election to get Trump elected once again because he has blackmail on Trump where Trump gets pissed on by Russian hookers in the very bed Obama once slept in - as per the original Steel Dossier which led to Russiagate to begin with.
Can you imagine it? That rascal Putin up there on the moon in a plastic bubble laughing while Covid kills a Trillion people and meanwhile hacking your election via droll memes on Facebook to get Trump the urine fetishist elected again. Outrageous! But True!
[Petes] I don't believe any effort you make to address climate change will have any impact in any reasonable timescale.
You understand how depressing that is? I also fear you are right. You may think Pelosi is playing politics, but she is saying the same thing in a sense. It's just she is still holding out hope that if we change our behavior the impact will help future generations. As for playing politics, no one does it better than Trump and McConnell. Well, okay, Trump is debatable since he is so obvious. But it seems he still manages to hoodwink some.
[Petes] Interested to know which tool you think is more important.
I should think educating the public might go a long way to preventing acts of stupidity. But, of course, I could be wrong in that.
[Petes] I know it's faddish to blame Big Oil or Republicans or deniers or whomever for lack of action on climate change.
Well, it is the Republicans who are currently running the government. What have they done to address controlled burning? And, no, I don't want to hear about bills held up by Pelosi & Co., if any, because they want to address climate change. Both can be done if everyone works together. You did check out my links to the political ads? They are quite accurate.
And, of course, the worsening drought conditions are just one aspect of climate change. There is that pesky issue of flooding. If the west coat floods it may make the importance of the fire issue moot.
I won't even go into earthquakes...but I've got say I'm wondering why anyone would want to live there.
Trump came out of the hospital today, drove around in a circle in a black SUV so he could wave to his dedicated Trumpkins, and then went back to the Walter Reed Hospital.
Yup, with little to no regard for the safety of his Secret Service detail who had to ride with him. Our Dear Leader in action.
New polling is starting to come in, taken after the Tuesday "debate". Biden's national lead has jumped to 14% (53% to 39%)
Even some of his staunch supporters are calling him a bully.
Can you imagine it? That rascal Putin up there on the moon in a plastic bubble laughing while Covid kills a Trillion people and meanwhile hacking your election via droll memes on Facebook to get Trump the urine fetishist elected again. Outrageous! But True!
lol! Nah, the plastic bubble he's in down here apparently works just fine. But I could see him trying for the moon.
He really has to do something about those pesky leaks though.
We now have six (6) Republican Senators in quarantine or isolation.
And a spokesperson. Although she has no impact on the Supreme Court vote. Yup, now wouldn't that be ironic if the announcement of their pick ends up putting a spanner in the works?
The only sure thing in life is death and taxes, right?
"I don't believe any effort you make to address climate
change will have any impact [on western fire suppression]
in any reasonable timescale."
Petes @ Sun Oct 04, 05:39:00 pm ↑↑
[Lee] Didn't make any sense the first time around either; you ain't really that stupid. But, you wrote it anyway.
It's all in the interpretation. I took it to mean that he believes climate change is already too far along for us to have any ameliorating effect in a timely manner.
That would be depressing. I keep moving my timeframe up as to tipping point. I was thinking 2050 but now I'm not so sure.
"I took it to mean that he believes climate change is already too
far along for us to have any ameliorating effect in a timely manner."
Even that interpretation doesn't hold up. We are seeing the first stage effects almost a generation earlier than most people had expected, movements the other direction are likely to show effects quicker than they had expected as well. (Mother Nature is surprisingly resilient and recuperative.) Complete "amelioration" of climate change is almost certainly impossible in either "timely" or "untimely" fashion. Ain't gonna wake up tomorrow or the day after and find that it's all fixed. However, just "flattening the curve" (to borrow a phrase made popular in another context), just slowing the unfavorable progression, is very likely to be a good thing, considering the alternative.
Or, to put it bluntly, a little rain during the expanding fire season is probably better than none. May not be as good as adequate rain, but it's still better than none.
"Even some of his staunch supporters are calling him a bully."
That's because it didn't work. Biden didn't fold. Had it worked they'd be calling him "strong" and "dominating". (They don't tolerate failure very well, which is why it's important to drag the Republican Senate down with him--make his style of American fascism seem a failure across the board to them; i.e. they can't stand on it either.)
Pope Francis didn't exactly endorse Biden, but ya almost gotta read it as a denunciation of Trump. (Warning: it's long.)
Game's back on. Trump and Biden now have 10 days to prep for their next debate "town-hall" style, currently set for Miami, Florida, beginning at 8:00 pm CDT.
Trump's people are already prepping their campaign presentation of Trump as having vanquished the virus. Politico
"All Hail the Donald!
"Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China"
Fri Oct 02, 10:44:00 am ↑↑
Ireland's National Public Health Emergency Team has called for a return to a "Level 5" response (high as it gets) to the coronavirus.
The Irish government says, "No". They're willing to go back up to "Level 3" (from Level 2 currently). But that's all they're willing to do.
The Supreme Trumpkins have weighed in early to overrule a federal appellate court case suspending South Carolina's "witness" requirement (which calls for the witness and a notary to the signature of the witness) before any absentee or mail-in ballot can be counted.
Lindsey Graham is, surprisingly to most Republican pundits, in a very competitive race for his Senate seat and really needed this ruling. And, of course, they need Lindsey Graham to rush that newest Supreme Trumpkin along to confirmation.
Another unarmed black man shot in the back by a cop, a Texas Ranger this time. WashingtonPost The victim's name was Jonathan Price.
The cop has been charged with a homicide this time, in contrast to custom.
Lee
“ Ireland's National Public Health Emergency Team has called for a return to a "Level 5" response (high as it gets) to the “
Well the alarmists are kinda in a tight spot these days. If an obese and orange 74 yo who eats McDonalds every day is able to shrug Coronavirus off in a matter of days, it’s kinda hard to continue with the doom and gloom of the lockdown proponents.
And as for the 209.000 dead in the US, that’d be a hoax if there ever was one. People dying WITH Covid19 and people dying FROM Covid19 are apples and oranges.
The funniest case of them all was when NYT put out a list of new a Covid deaths and one astute reader commented: “But wait, that guy [name], he got shot in the head, and you reported on it, is his death now Coronavirus?”
There was another one who fell from a ladder and broke his neck. But basically yeah every dead person for whatever reason is tallied into the Covid death stats since months back. It’s fake. The numbers are a hoax. This is a fairly mild flu is all. Dangerous to the very most elderly and infirm but more or less (there are always exceptions) pretty harmless to the rest of us.
"The funniest case of them all was when NYT put out a list
of new a Covid deaths and…
***
"There was another one who fell from a ladder and…"
Yeah, we went over this once before. Name, and date for the one in the NYT list… (and link to the NYT edition in which this name supposedly appeared).
And "another one who fell from a ladder…". Who? (Name.) Where? When? And who reported the ladder death as a coronavirus death? Where is this "report"? published.
These are simple questions, easy questions.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Carl Sagan
We're not even asking for extraordinary evidence--just some easy data. Names, dates, locations, and the publications which perpetrated these hoaxes that you've probably imagined up. (With the help of your favorite 4chan derived inspirations.)
Can’t really find them w a quick Google and I am not inclined to look further, you can do that yourself. Found this though, on my quick Googling:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nypd-man-shot-officers-dies-coronavirus-70941694
“ Officers fired 11 shots at Cardona and struck him seven times in the torso and lower extremities, but preliminary autopsy findings showed his cause of death was coronavirus, with his wounds and underlying health conditions listed as complicating factors, Nieves said.”
Now, does it seem credible to you that that man dies FROM Coronavirus, or did he die WITH Coronavirus?
He lived for five days after the shooting. Gunshot victims typically die before the 5th day after shooting (not always, but usually).
So, yeah, could be in that case the virus is what got him.
"I am not inclined to look further…"
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Carl Sagan
Lacking any evidence, we are logically compelled to dismiss your claims as no more than (false) urban legend.
Pope Francis didn't exactly endorse Biden, but ya almost gotta read it as a denunciation of Trump. (Warning: it's long.)
The missing link?
It’s fake. The numbers are a hoax. This is a fairly mild flu is all. Dangerous to the very most elderly and infirm but more or less (there are always exceptions) pretty harmless to the rest of us.
Putin doesn't think so...
Same as before. "IT"; don't blink or you'll miss it, I guess.
"…but ya almost gotta read it as a denunciation of Trump…"
Trump has "suspended" negotiations for further fiscal relief from the coronavirus induced recession until after the November 3ʳᵈ election at the earliest.
Meanwhile Republican efforts to ram through another Supreme Trumpkin continue unabated.
There will, of course, be dueling claims that the "other party" is to blame for the economic hits the American people will take as a result of the failure to reach some accord on financial relief.
I'm thinking though, that the Republicans up for reëlection have gotta be seriously dejected by this development. They won't admit to that out loud, of course. But I can't see how this is gonna be good news for their side. They'll claim otherwise; they'll claim that the voters will blame Nancy Pelosi, but I just don't see that happenin'.
Same as before. "IT"; don't blink or you'll miss it, I guess.
lol! Yes, indeed, I did miss it
And, yes, I do think you may be right. This sounds familiar:
15. The best way to dominate and gain control over people is to spread despair and discouragement, even under the guise of defending certain values. Today, in many countries, hyperbole, extremism and polarization have become political tools. Employing a strategy of ridicule, suspicion and relentless criticism, in a variety of ways one denies the right of others to exist or to have an opinion. Their share of the truth and their values are rejected and, as a result, the life of society is impoverished and subjected to the hubris of the powerful. Political life no longer has to do with healthy debates about long-term plans to improve people’s lives and to advance the common good, but only with slick marketing techniques primarily aimed at discrediting others. In this craven exchange of charges and counter-charges, debate degenerates into a permanent state of disagreement and confrontation.
Trump has "suspended" negotiations for further fiscal relief from the coronavirus induced recession until after the November 3ʳᵈ election at the earliest.
I have heard he won't negotiate until he is re-elected. So if he is not re-elected we may be waiting until after January 20th.
An interesting update on China today. Maybe Jeffrey has an opinion if he is still around.
[Lynnette]: "An interesting update on China today."
Sounds a bit sensationalist. There's an average of seven cases of bubonic plague in the USA every year, and around 700 worldwide. It's not a virus -- mostly it's easily treatable with antibiotics.
[Marcus]: "The funniest case of them all was when NYT put out a list of new a Covid deaths and one astute reader commented: “But wait, that guy [name], he got shot in the head, and you reported on it, is his death now Coronavirus?”. There was another one who fell from a ladder and broke his neck. But basically yeah every dead person for whatever reason is tallied into the Covid death stats since months back. It’s fake. The numbers are a hoax. This is a fairly mild flu is all. Dangerous to the very most elderly and infirm but more or less (there are always exceptions) pretty harmless to the rest of us."
I don't know the policy on counting deaths in New York or wherever it was, but your conclusion doesn't follow. Many governments were criticised for undercounting Covid cases earlier in the year. A common response has been to count every death of a person who tested positive for the virus in the preceding twenty-eight days. Obviously this is going to overcount some people who have the virus but die of other causes. However, any individual has a pretty small chance of dying within a given 28 day period from any cause. If they died and they had corona virus, chances are they died of corona virus. It's a simple application of Bayesian statistics. The problem is, conspiracy loons who don't understand this commmon method will blame a government hoax.
"Yes, indeed, I did miss it."
Lynnette @ Tue Oct 06, 08:59 pm ↑↑
I'll try to remember to not do that again.
You might want to look further into the Pope's newest encyclical. There's more there that looks like reference to Trump. Weren't just that one paragraph.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
"So if he is not re-elected we may be waiting…"
If he's not reëlected we may find that to be merely the first of several announcements of the hurt he intends to put on this country. He may be getting ready to end his eclectic career as a pampered oligarch living under Putin's protection on the "Russian Riviera" down on the east coast of the Black Sea. (Not a prediction, on account of I'm a little shy of actual hard evidence, but I'll not be shocked. Call it a vague suspicion instead.)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
"It's a simple application of Bayesian statistics."
Oh great, the blind leading the blind and both of them fanatics. This oughta be fun to watch.
[Petes] Sounds a bit sensationalist. There's an average of seven cases of bubonic plague in the USA every year, and around 700 worldwide.
I was actually more interested in the piece that came after about China's economic future. The plague story was probably just a hook to get people to watch.
We tend to think of China as having only a golden future ahead, but they do have their share of problems, not least of which is the overbuilding, which is apparently still going on. Also, the idea that more of China's businesses will feel the tender touch of the CCP may have a withering effect on the Chinese economic model.
I was curious to hear if the 40% poverty rate was factual. I thought Jeffrey might have some insight into that.
You might want to look further into the Pope's newest encyclical. There's more there that looks like reference to Trump. Weren't just that one paragraph.
I admit to being rather intimidated by it's length. I may have to read it in stages.
Had to correct a typo...
If he's not reëlected we may find that to be merely the first of several announcements of the hurt he intends to put on this country.
Yes, there is that. A real concern given his spitefulness.
I see that he is kinda sorta walking back his refusal to negotiate. But I would guess that is just a passing idea to try to make himself not look as bad.
"I may have to read it in stages."
Yeah, well, he almost certainly took his time writing it.
While Pence isn't quite as obnoxious as Trump was he also can't seem to follow the rules when it comes to equal time. They really should give the moderator the option of shutting off the candidate's mike if he/she goes over the allotted time.
And the moderator tonight has no teeth. The continual "thank you Mr. Vice President" isn't going very far to shut him up.
The question is how Trump would protect people with pre-existing conditions if they get rid of the ACA and he's going on about abortion and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.
[Lynnette]: "I was actually more interested in the piece that came after about China's economic future... We tend to think of China as having only a golden future ahead, but they do have their share of problems, not least of which is the overbuilding, which is apparently still going on. Also, the idea that more of China's businesses will feel the tender touch of the CCP may have a withering effect on the Chinese economic model."
Oh, that! Yeah, China is storing up enormous problems. I've never thought of it as having a an unalloyed golden future. You only have to look at what happened to China Evergrande Group last week. Probably most people have never heard of it, but it's among the biggest real estate companies in China with tentacles into a host of other businesses. A couple of years ago it was the world's most valuable property company. It's also China's most indebted with borrowings heading for a trillion yuan (120 billion USD), owed to 250 Chinese banks and shadow lenders. Its shares and bonds plummeted last week amid fears of defaults, but it managed to get bailed out at the last minute.
The Chinese government is caught between a rock and a hard place because the property bubble is a creature of its own making, through all the liquidity it has injected to keep the economy steaming ahead. It has tried to put a lid on borrowing by developers but at the end of the day it will do everything in its power to keep the plates spinning in the property market. Its very legitimacy is in jeopardy if middle class Chinese -- whose wealth is largely in property -- perceive that the house of cards might tumble. Falling prices have already been the cause of riots in some places.
Nothing is going to happen in the short term because of that government commitment. But eventually they will end up treading air, like Wily Coyote going over the cliff but taking some time to realise it. When it eventually happens there will be an economic implosion like nothing we've ever seen, one which will engulf the rest of the world too. But hey! ... it'll probably be good for CO2 emissions ;-)
"Pence isn't quite as obnoxious as Trump…"
The word that came to my mind was "unctuous"; he had a greasy aura about him.
The Republican ticket (Trump/Pence) needed Pence to shine tonight and start eatin' into Biden's lead. Didn't happen. Trump doesn't have enough time left that he can afford to miss a shot to gain ground.
Gotta call this one another win for Biden (and Harris).
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
"When it eventually happens there will be an economic
implosion like nothing we've ever seen, one which will engulf
the rest of the world too."
There'll be a stock market crash for damn sure. But the stock markets have become places where the >1% gamble amongst themselves. Ain't quite as relevant to the rest of us as it used to be. I'm not sure the "implosion" will be that bad for the other 99% (who aren't Chinese--gonna be bad for Chinese across the board, the entire 100%).
"…gonna be bad for Chinese across the board, the entire 100%"
Well, 'ceptin' those who've been diligently stashin' their cash outside China.
Sorry, took me a while to get back to this ...
[Petes]: "I don't believe any effort you make to address climate change will have any impact in any reasonable timescale."
[Lynnette]: "You understand how depressing that is? I also fear you are right. You may think Pelosi is playing politics, but she is saying the same thing in a sense. It's just she is still holding out hope that if we change our behavior the impact will help future generations."
I'd prefer to think Pelosi is playing politics because otherwise she's an idiot. I think popular thinking is very nebulous on climate change. I don't just mean in the USA. We've got a new Green environment minister, courtesy of a weak government that had to do some recent deals with the Greens to make the parliamentary arithmetic stack up. Suddenly we're about to be world leaders on climate change. The very notion is daft. We are responsible for 0.1% of CO2 emissions, maybe twice that in CO2 equivalents if you include methane from agriculture.
The US is obviously on a whole different scale, but it is still not really a culprit in global emissions increases. Quite the reverse, in fact. In recent years it has made the world's biggest emissions cuts. This was true under Bush, under Obama, and it continues under Trump. The singular reason was the advent of fracked gas to replace coal for electricity generation. For all Trump's talk about reviving the coal industry, the economics does not add up, so it won't happen. There was an emissions spike in 2018 but that was due to increased economic activity. Europe experienced it too. The general trend is downward.
Certainly there's scope for the US to cut emissions further as it has the highest per capita emissions of any country. The number is double that of China. Yet total emissions are only half of China's because of the population difference. But I think all of this is beside the point. We need to look at the trajectory of CO2 emissions, where future increases are going to come from, and what any one country can do to prevent it. I think the answer to that last question is: nothing! (with caveats that I'll get into at the end).
The 2018 US/Europe emissions spike was due to economic activity. This was in mature economies with relatively low growth rates. Now think of those 40% of Chinese people living in poverty according to your recent link. They represent an utterly enormous demand for new growth and the emissions that go with it. On their own they number twice the entire US population. Forget about the US, they'd like to get to average Chinese levels of affluence. That would create new Chinese emissions equal to the entire output of the US.
And even China is not where all the action is. They have a huge demographic problem and a population that will soon start to age and decline. India has much more potential for growth. Poverty estimates depend on where you draw the poverty line. The official Indian number is around 20% of the population in poverty, but around 60% live on less than $1,000 per year. That's 700m people -- more than another two USA's worth of people who would love to increase their CO2 emissions. And indeed, even with extremely uneven wealth distribution, India is increasing emissions at a rate of 5% per year.
(cont'd ...)
(... cont'd)
We haven't mentioned the rest of Asia (which has emissions higher than the US) or Africa yet. By 2050 a fifth to a quarter of the world's population will be African, half of them under 25. Africa is eight more USAs waiting to happen. But their CO2 emissions are hardly yet a blip in the world total. Africans, like everyone else in the world, want to be better off. They also have large untapped hydrocarbon reserves which could make that happen. Are we going to tell them they can't develop them because of fires on the US west coast? Would they listen? India already complains about pontification by the west about emissions targets, when the west has already built its mature economies on fossil fuels.
To cut a long story short, global GHG emissions are increasing. The already huge demand for energy will double by 2050, driven by economies expanding to meet the aspirations of people who just want some of what the world's middle classes already enjoy. Low carbon energy sources are expanding too, but they fall well short of even meeting the increase in demand, let alone reversing emissions trends.
Politicians (like Pelosi) love to cynically pretend that they would address climate change, if only evil people didn't stand in their way. The public swallow this nonsense and live in a state of perpetual anxiety. The reality is that economics -- not US presidents -- dictate the trajectory. Most people say they are in favour of emissions reductions but haven't actually had to face the consequent falls in standards of living.
What if US electricity prices were to double, and gasoline prices quadruple? You would then only be on a par with Europe, ready to start decreasing your CO2 emissions by 7.6% annually. Your poverty rate may not look like China or India but it is not pretty either. How will the population feel about further reductions in living standards? And I don't mean the upper middle class who might have to forego a holiday in the Bahamas. I mean people who will face grinding poverty and lives cut short. Then consider the billions in the rest of the world for whom American poverty levels would look very attractive compared to their current plight.
We are not talking about problems that can be solved by solar panels in the Mojave. The world may enjoy beating the US with a stick over withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, but the dirty little secret is that nobody else is meeting their commitments either. You could argue that the US is the least hypocritical among them. On current trajectory, global emissions will be more than double the Paris target by 2030. That's before the world doubles its energy consumption by 2050.
(cont'd ...)
(... cont'd)
My strong advice is to teach yourself to relax about climate change. Yes, the bad news is we probably can't do anything about it. Politicians will beat each other with a stick about it, but none of them has the gumption to break it to the population that emissions reductions on the scale required would mean rolling back a century of wealth increases. The good news is that climate change won't kill us. Indeed, affluence will save us from its worst effects. While the media is showing you their shocking pictures, they never mention how much better things are than for people hit by weather events in the relatively recent past. If you were caught in a wildfire a century ago, there were no helicopters coming to rescue you. There were no advance warnings from remote sensing satellites, and no rescue shelters if you were caught in the 1900 hurricane that killed a sixth of the population in Galveston. Likewise for the 10,000 Europeans killed on average every decade for the last thousand years by North Sea storm surges. By any conceivable measure we are incomparably better off and will continue to be.
I should end by saying that I'm in favour of emissions cuts that make sense. Solar and wind power can be cheaper than fossil alternatives in particular geographies. But they are not a panacea, are not universally available or useful, and have no prospect of reversing emissions trends. They also have their own environmental issues. Technology replacement tends to only occur where the alternative is better and cheaper. That's not the case for solar and wind in general.
There are other technologies that could improve things. Of the existing ones, nuclear power is the most suitable but public hypocrisy stands in the way of its wide scale adoption. It's safer than any other form of energy production and is the only truly high density low carbon energy. It's even renewable, believe it or not. Uranium extraction by filtration of seawater using artificially engineered fibres has recently become economically viable. Seawater uranium concentrations are in a chemical equilibrium with Earth's crust. When you extract it, more gets leached from the rocks.
Also on the horizon are technologies like the Allam Cycle (currently under test in Texas) which could allow burning fossil fuels with zero emissions and lower water use as a bonus. Compact nuclear fusion is also a realistic possibility, even if currently a long shot. But even if we were to turn things around today, the world's energy infrastructure is on a vast scale and would take a century to replace. I think we need to live with the idea that 21st century climate change is baked in, no matter what we do.
(end)
"We need to look at…what any one country can do to
prevent it."
This is the standard Three-Card Monte move from those who just want to keep the oil rigs pumping. The basic argument is that since the global emissions problem can't solved by "any one country", then we should do nothing, relax, kick back. That doesn't logically follow, but they keep using it 'cause it convinces enough illogical people to make it a useful argument.
NewYorkTimes: Trump has pulled out of the next debate (15 Oct '20) after the Presidential Debate Commission announced that they'd be holding it "remotely", with the moderator and the two candidates at different locations. They called this a "virtual" debate, but, it's actually the same format as was used for the 3rd Nixon/Kennedy debate back in 1960, and nobody knew the term "virtual" back then, so they just called it the third television debate.
This is probably good news for Biden. He won the first debate, and almost certainly would have won this one, but "almost" isn't actually certainly, so he can take it as good news that he doesn't have to let Trump infect him, nor does he have to take the blame for the debate getting canceled.
Pete: “ Certainly there's scope for the US to cut emissions further as it has the highest per capita emissions of any country”
That’s just factually incorrect. KSA and a number of other Gulf states have higher co2 per capita emissions than does the USA.
“ The world’s largest per capita CO2 emitters are the major oil producing countries; this is particularly true for those with relatively low population size. Most are in the Middle East: In 2017 Qatar had the highest emissions at 49 tonnes (t) per person, followed by Trinidad and Tobago (30t); Kuwait (25t); United Arab Emirates (25t); Brunei (24t); Bahrain (23t) and Saudi Arabia (19t).
However, many of the major oil producers have a relatively small population meaning their total annual emissions are low. More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions – are the United States, Australia, and Canada. Australia has an average per capita footprint of 17 tonnes, followed by the US at 16.2 tonnes, and Canada at 15.6 tonnes.”
https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2
16.2<49
I think we can agree on that.
By the way, after deciding to pull out of the remaining debates, Trump went back to arguing (on Fox and Friends) that Biden is senile, a charge that he'd had to drop after he was unable (in spite of a mighty effort) to overwhelm Biden in their first debate.
This was predicable, and, in fact, was predicted.
The loonies are circling.
Six men were charged Thursday in an alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, according to a federal criminal complaint.
The alleged plot included plans to overthrow several state governments that the suspects "believe are violating the US Constitution," including the government of Michigan and Whitmer, according to the complaint.
"The loonies…"
They may have been Trumpkins.
Trump was on Hannity's nightly hour and said they (Trump and Hannity) are looking to do a Trump rally in Florida on Saturday night.
So, Trump seems to genuinely be feeling better. This is a good thing.
We want Trump to lose the election, not sick out before the election.
News Flash: Donald Trump was passed over today in his campaign year bid for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Lee C.,
A couple basic questions. Do you make a distinction between someone who is going to vote for Trump and a "Trumpkin"? Is a "Trumpkin" a special category of Trump voter?
You do realize that around half of Americans eligible to vote will cast a ballot for Trump and the other half for Biden, right? In 2016, in my state of Iowa, Trump won 93 of the 99 counties. In all of those counties, Republicans (and maybe you'd call them Trumpkins) live next to people who will vote for Biden. Every county has both Democrats and Republicans. These people don't move very much, and they sometimes they change their vote (Obama won Iowa, but Iowans did not approve of Clinton).
Do you think there's any difference between a Trumpkin and a Bidenite?
Where you live, who are the majority? Trumpkins or Bidenites?
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
They may have been Trumpkins.
Sounds like they identified with the Boogaloo Bois. If you remember there were a couple arrested earlier, one from Minnesota, who were trading guns for money with Hamas.
I don't know if they actually voted for Trump, but I would suspect that at minimum they are taking his lack of clear policy condemning White Supremacism as encouragement.
There are those that are concerned that it doesn't really matter who may win the election because the door has been opened to these types of beliefs.
I suspect though that who wins does matter. We may have issues in the short term, but a continuation of Trump would push those issues into the long term. In short, making them permanent.
Petes, I know I owe you a response, but I've some things to do today so I will have to do that later.
Friday night here in Ningbo. Well, eight or nine months have passed so far from the beginning of the coronavirus, so tonight I thought I'd take a look at how it's doing in my home county in Iowa. Here are my back-of-the envelope calculations.
In Delaware County, around 25% of the residents have been tested.
Delaware County, Iowa: pop. 16,891
Total Tested: 4,222
Individuals Positive: 549
Total Recovered: 450
Total Deaths: 4
Since 25% of Delaware County residents have been tested, let's just multiply by 4 and see what we get:
Total Delaware County Residents: 16,888 (4,222 times 4)
Individuals Positive: 2,196 Positive
Total Recovered: 1,800
Total Deaths: 16
Mortality Rate: 0.1%
Total Confirmed Cases: 2,196
Total Confirmed Deaths: 16
Case Fatality Rate: 1.37%
If you see a mistake, let me know. I think it's pretty close.
It might be interesting if you guys could do the same for your county. No, you don't have to name it like I did, just give the stats. It would be interesting to compare how we're all doing.
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
It’s basically like the flu Jeffrey. It hit hard in the beginning since there was no vaccine but it hit largely those w severe co morbidity. This is most likely a case of where the cure was worse than the disease, in many places.
I'm curious, when's the last time Sweden had 6,000 deaths in one year from the flu? 1916 maybe?
Apparently the Saturday festival with Hannity in Florida has been called off.
Seems Trump's gonna do a speech from his balcony at the White House instead (if he'd wear a feathered hat the image of Il Duce would be complete).
Marcus,
Because this was a novel coronavirus, lots of missteps, hasty judgements, and misinformation were inevitable. Anyone remember ventilators? Very few were used in the end. Thousands sit in boxes in warehouses. In fact, for some, getting put on a ventilator was a death sentence. Doctors learned to adjust their methods as they learned more about the true nature of this viral disease.
It was also inevitable that in the US, because this is a highly contested election cycle, medical issues immediately became politicized.
I followed very little of the political commentary on either side. Instead, I followed people like Dr. Seheult at Medcram. Here's a link to his latest YouTube video from a few hours ago. Like my brother-in-law Chris, he's an ER doctor with lots of experience to share. He's also an excellent communicator and teacher.
Coronavirus Update 111: Masks; New Vitamin D Data and COVID 19; NAC
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
I'm not sure that singling out low-density, overwhelmingly white counties is a rational metric.
According to this Johns Hopkins University Medical Center "dashboard", the (current) "case fatality rate" is 2.8% for the United States as a whole.
Lee C.,
I know the CFR for the whole country, but I was more interested in the local variations, which is why I suggested that you guys add the data from your own county.
Care to participate? Again, you don't need to name your county (or state). Just go through the numbers from your local data. It took me fifteen minutes or so.
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
Trump is planning to give a campaign speech from a White House balcony today.
Just a year ago that would have been seen as a major transgression (not the balcony bit specifically, that would have just gotten eyerolls).
Today it's just more Trump, no big deal.
"I don't know if they actually voted for Trump…"
I don't know if they voted at all. But, they are clearly an increasingly important part of the ever shrinking Trumpkin/Republican "base". And they'll still be there to support him after he loses in November, so he'll be there for them--just like he's there for the right-wing Evangelicals.
Trump ain't goin' away after January, and neither are they.
"…but I was more interested in the local variations…"
Well then, nothing is stopping you from picking out an interesting location--according to whatever is your criteria for interest, and checking it out via the internet as you did for Delaware County, Iowa.
Lee C.,
Sad, sad, really sad. You lack spirit, Lee.
You do realize that your fixation on Trump during most of your waking hours (and perhaps even in your dreams) is guided by Satan whispering in your ear, right?
Maybe you're an atheist and don't believe in Satan. I'm a Roman Catholic and I can assure you that Satan is at your side and is working to take you Down Below. It looks like he'll succeed.
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
There is now a 10.4 positivity rate in France. I think the virus was just waiting for people to get out and about again. It have not went away, despite locking down.
[Petes] The reality is that economics -- not US presidents -- dictate the trajectory. Most people say they are in favour of emissions reductions but haven't actually had to face the consequent falls in standards of living.
Oh, no one ever said dealing with climate change would be easy. The idea of voluntarily paying more for something is kind of a tough sell. But the longer we do nothing the more expensive it becomes. Adding $3 to my electric bill to support renewable fuel is nothing compared to what may be coming.
[Petes] We haven't mentioned the rest of Asia (which has emissions higher than the US) or Africa yet. By 2050 a fifth to a quarter of the world's population will be African, half of them under 25. Africa is eight more USAs waiting to happen. But their CO2 emissions are hardly yet a blip in the world total. Africans, like everyone else in the world, want to be better off.
Yes, they do. Which is why you see so many trying to come to Europe. Even if they were to exploit their natural resources for their own benefit it is usually those in power who benefit, not the average citizen of the various African countries.
But climate change will affect those in Africa, Asia and the Middle East just as it does those in the west. It already is, through drought, floods and hunger.
But the point you make that if all people in the world were to live like those in the United States it would not be sustainable is correct. There simply are not enough planetary resources to support all of us like that. So eventually something will have to give.
There are other technologies that could improve things.
And that will be one of the tools we can use to help people adapt. I agree.
On the micro level, forest management through controlled burning, adjustments to communities in flood prone areas, or new agricultural practices all can play a role.
I don't think any one thing will help us survive in the new world that is coming. But the more time we have to adapt the better. So anything we can do to slow things down a little would be of benefit.
As for me, no I don't lay awake at night worrying about climate change. I can only do so much. I will make an effort to help where I can, but ultimately it will not be me who has to live with the more serious effects for long. I feel sad though for those who will.
Gotta run so can't quite finish all the comments.
But:
[Jeffrey] It would be interesting to compare how we're all doing
There are so many factors that play into this, age of population, medical condition of residents, whether people are listening to medical guidance in their activities.
It looks like the mortality rate for the United States is 2.7% (214K deaths/7.7 million cases). My county's mortality rate is less than that but more than yours.
Case fatality rate
The Republican who could help defeat Donald Trump
Trump ain't goin' away after January, and neither are they.
A company from Tennessee, Atlas Aegis, has been posting a job listing for security positions in Minnesota to "protect" election polls, local businesses and residences from looting and destruction during the election and beyond.
Minnesota has been telling them to cease and desist. They are not welcome here. One wonders why they would think they are welcome at all.
Lynnette,
Case fatality rate
Yes, the mortality rate is much lower.
Jeffrey -- Ningbo, China
*
"…a job listing…"
Not an offer of protection services, but a "job listing"--they're looking for people willing to do that kind of work. You're looking at a recruitment poster there, in case you didn't recognize that.
Post a Comment