ADVERTISEMENT

HELENE Set to Devastate Several Red States

Unfortunately, the GFS model has another one headed to Tally next weeked.
IMG-4869.jpg
That’s more the Destin/Panama City area.

Way, waaaaay more coastal development there than in Stienhatchee.
 
Meanwhile, even though TN is under water, this country’s bizarre infatuation with maintaining the empire must go on. Talk about horrific timing. :rolleyes:

 
While I’m not a climate denier, it is a global issue. So, until we can other countries…like China and many others…who are major polluters on-board…it seems like America is likely going to foot the expensive bill on climate change initiatives. Without a concerted world response, unfortunately I don’t see the United States being able to make a major dent on climate issues.
This is just an excuse that you’ve been fed by the oil industry/GOP.

The US is the greatest polluter per capita. We are the ones that have to change and other countries will follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC Nole OX
And you got MAGA pieces of shit saying don't donate to the Red Cross
Libs beat'em to it:

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2...cross-houston-hurricane-harvey-irma-interview

The easiest thing to do after a disaster strikes is to make a quick donation to the Red Cross. Millions of us have done it: You send a text, contribute $10 or $20, and imagine you’ve done a good deed.
But in an article last week for Slate, journalist Jonathan Katz urged readers to stop doing that. Katz, who was the Associated Press’s bureau chief in Haiti during the 2010 earthquake (and later wrote a book about it), argued that the Red Cross “has proven itself unequal to the task of massive disaster relief.”
The problem, as Katz sees it, is that the Red Cross is a dysfunctional organization that excels at raising money but has shown little evidence of its ability to spend that money wisely or meaningfully. The Red Cross takes in close to 3 billion annually, refuses to open its books to the public, and, according to Katz, has consistently failed to produce a useful breakdown of its spending after major disaster efforts.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
Libs beat'em to it:

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2...cross-houston-hurricane-harvey-irma-interview

The easiest thing to do after a disaster strikes is to make a quick donation to the Red Cross. Millions of us have done it: You send a text, contribute $10 or $20, and imagine you’ve done a good deed.
But in an article last week for Slate, journalist Jonathan Katz urged readers to stop doing that. Katz, who was the Associated Press’s bureau chief in Haiti during the 2010 earthquake (and later wrote a book about it), argued that the Red Cross “has proven itself unequal to the task of massive disaster relief.”
The problem, as Katz sees it, is that the Red Cross is a dysfunctional organization that excels at raising money but has shown little evidence of its ability to spend that money wisely or meaningfully. The Red Cross takes in close to 3 billion annually, refuses to open its books to the public, and, according to Katz, has consistently failed to produce a useful breakdown of its spending after major disaster efforts.
Where did he say not to donate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
A few issues with this post ... because there's always folks who like to point to isolated alarmist takes as evidence that alarmism-takes have little credibility.

First: Herculean efforts were taken to reduce pollution to Lake Erie ... significant environmental controls were implemented to reduce a lot of said pollution.

Second: In the USA, because actions were taken AND because infrastructure was funded to deal with water-treatment, potable water is relatively available in the USA. However, world-wide, accessible potable-water is a signficant issue world-wide.

Third: As it relates to global-warming, it's not isolated voices raising the alarm ... it's a freaking chorus. What's more, the data that clearly demonstrates it is freely-available for anybody to peruse and draw their own conclusions. Skeptics with scientific aptitude who actually check out the data often end up being the most-vocal alarmists ... the data is that obvious (and damning).

Fourth: Energy is what makes everything "go." We see direct observations of global warming manifest by the fact that more of Earth's EM-radiation (as infrared) remains trapped due to the "greenhouse-effect." With the Earth storing more energy and given the heterogenous nature in how it's distributed - this creates gradients (in temperature, pressure, and humidity) that are all crucial as it relates to weather patterns. Given that oceans are "dark" as viewed from space, hopefully it's obvious that they're immense absorbers of this energy. Given sea- and ocean-temperature data, it's equally obvious that ocean temperatures are higher than they've ever been. What used to be ordinary tropical storms or hurricanes get amplified due to the increased availability of energy. Thus, the question isn't that we get storms ... but rather, that those storms end up being more catastrophic than they ever were before.

The saddest thing about this is that so many folks are scientifically illiterate ... and the only way that they choose to be informed is from unvetted sources of information ... information flowing from individuals like politicians, pastors, and the like.

For instance, my father-in-law loves to bring up how a scientist in the 70s/80s was being an alarmist as it relates to global-cooling. However, the problem with the analysis of that scientist was that they were using principle-component analysis to describe dynamics that were inherently non-normal. Folks who know anything about local stability analysis of non-normal operators know that PCA fails miserably ... you need to care more about doing a singular value analysis instead. The point here being that scientific and mathematical illiteracy prevents people from discriminating between proper analysis and bullshit ... and the populace ends up just latching on to whatever is consistent with whatever narrative serves as confirmation bias of their own world-view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4
A few issues with this post ... because there's always folks who like to point to isolated alarmist takes as evidence that alarmism-takes have little credibility.

First: Herculean efforts were taken to reduce pollution to Lake Erie ... significant environmental controls were implemented to reduce a lot of said pollution.

Second: In the USA, because actions were taken AND because infrastructure was funded to deal with water-treatment, potable water is relatively available in the USA. However, world-wide, accessible potable-water is a signficant issue world-wide.

Third: As it relates to global-warming, it's not isolated voices raising the alarm ... it's a freaking chorus. What's more, the data that clearly demonstrates it is freely-available for anybody to peruse and draw their own conclusions. Skeptics with scientific aptitude who actually check out the data often end up being the most-vocal alarmists ... the data is that obvious (and damning).

Fourth: Energy is what makes everything "go." We see direct observations of global warming manifest by the fact that more of Earth's EM-radiation (as infrared) remains trapped due to the "greenhouse-effect." With the Earth storing more energy and given the heterogenous nature in how it's distributed - this creates gradients (in temperature, pressure, and humidity) that are all crucial as it relates to weather patterns. Given that oceans are "dark" as viewed from space, hopefully it's obvious that they're immense absorbers of this energy. Given sea- and ocean-temperature data, it's equally obvious that ocean temperatures are higher than they've ever been. What used to be ordinary tropical storms or hurricanes get amplified due to the increased availability of energy. Thus, the question isn't that we get storms ... but rather, that those storms end up being more catastrophic than they ever were before.

The saddest thing about this is that so many folks are scientifically illiterate ... and the only way that they choose to be informed is from unvetted sources of information ... information flowing from individuals like politicians, pastors, and the like.

For instance, my father-in-law loves to bring up how a scientist in the 70s/80s was being an alarmist as it relates to global-cooling. However, the problem with the analysis of that scientist was that they were using principle-component analysis to describe dynamics that were inherently non-normal. Folks who know anything about local stability analysis of non-normal operators know that PCA fails miserably ... you need to care more about doing a singular value analysis instead. The point here being that scientific and mathematical illiteracy prevents people from discriminating between proper analysis and bullshit ... and the populace ends up just latching on to whatever is consistent with whatever narrative serves as confirmation bias of their own world-view.

Now, re-read what you posted in light of Chevron Doctrine being overturned.
Where judges will make decisions on all kinds of regulatory policies with little to no STEM background.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4


President Biden is on the ground in Florida, seeing firsthand the storm damage and speaking with local officials.

Props to Senator Scott for stepping up and welcoming the president. As for Governor DeSantis, he was invited but didn’t show—probably too worried about catching heat from Trump.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Joes Place
Maybe DeSantis was too busy tossing out paper towels or granola bars or laundry detergent or whatever else he could throw out. Just like Bonespurs did.
 
MAGA lying and dividing at a time we should all be coming together.

BAU

Party over country

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT