Slashdot Mirror
Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low (apnews.com)
President Donald Trump on Monday rejected a central conclusion of a dire report on the economic costs of climate change released by his own administration. Associated Press reports: But economists said the National Climate Assessment's warning of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global warming costs is pretty much on the money. Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, they said. Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The climate report, quietly unveiled Friday, warned that natural disasters are worsening in the United States because of global warming. It said warming-charged extremes "have already become more frequent, intense, widespread or of long duration." The report noted the last few years have smashed U.S. records for damaging weather, costing nearly $400 billion since 2015.
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated. Given that there are a number of constitutional and legal means to dump him, I think that would be a low - although not a new one.
There's Trump quote for every occasion. Back in 2016 he said this about Hillary
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
source (first link on google search)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!
What 10 years without a hurricane. Just because they didn't hit the CONUS doesn't mean there weren't any hurricanes.
Warm winters? Global warming!
Cold winters? That's global warming too!
You suffer from short term thinking. If you want to understand global warming/climate change you need to look at averages over at least 20 year periods and probably a bit longer. What happens in any one or two year period is just natural variability. The noise of natural variability is great enough to overcome the signal of global warming on any short term basis.
Since it is a Republican that Says that.
Well they have done that all by there selfs, They Want you to pick a Siide "THERE SIDE" if you don't then The Sky is FALLING Faster just listen to them they would believe anything they are Told As Long as it Fits there Agenda, And thats the Rub Most of the People Yelling the Most are the Ones invested in Alternative Energy they seem to think that Everyone will Drink the Koolaid and make them all RICH.
I Have been around a Long time the Weather don't seem any different than Years Ago when most of the Ones Crying about it where not even around Yet Check the Data yourself, More than 50 Years ago the Weather was Like it is Now but that Would Break there Model to must so they Seem to ignore what doon't FIT.
No, the black africans were enslaved by other black africans and then sold to muslims, who sold them to portuguese slavers, who brought them to the Americas and sold them there.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
While inflation and density of population both increase the damage done from storms, there is a simple way to figure if the damage is actually going up on a inflation corrected, population density corrected scale.
To be honest, some one else has done most of the work for you.
Homeowners Insurance rates.
Since the number of people in an area, increases the number of insurance plans in that same risk pool, it works out well to a per capita number, and it's pretty easy to correct for inflation... and what you'll find is that homeowners insurance rates are rising much faster than inflation in at risk areas for large scale disasters...
Similar things are happening for auto insurance for things like covering hail damage...
It's ok to be white.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
The tax cuts reduced revenue. Deficits have doubled.
There was an economic benefit due to the fiscal stimulus- but it didn't cause tax receipts to rise by so much that the tax cuts paid for themselves. It never does.
"Voodoo economics" George Bush Snr called it. We are not at the top of the Laffer curve. We are never at the top of the Laffer curve. Tax cuts are a stimulus the economy didn't need and when a recession comes (and it will) the increased defecits will reduce the ability of the government then in power to enact a fiscal stimulus package when it is actually needed.
With unemployment so low there was no need for the tax cuts.
Also the benefits went to the rich. I know it, you know know it everyone knows it.
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
1) The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.
2) Slavery in the American colonies became legal nearly 100 years before any of the "founding fathers" were born. They attempted to outlaw slavery in the colonies but the British Crown Colonial Courts would not allow them to enact anti-slavery laws as British industry was profiting from both the slave trade and the cheap cotton produced.
3) The "3/5ths' Compromise" was a way to limit the number of Representatives Southern slave States could have in Congress thus reducing their ability to overrule Abolitionists.
4) Most of the "founding fathers" abhorred slavery. Thomas Jefferson never bought nor sold a single slave. He ended up inheriting a group of slaves from his in-laws. He could not set them free as it was a hanging offense under British colonial law to free black slaves so he kept them together to not break up families and treated them as well as possible under the laws of the day.
5) The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
6) The US government and military were not racially segregated prior to President Woodrow Wilson(D) who ordered segregation to be implemented.
7) There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs? Where are the proposals for Irish-American slavery Reparations?
That is your red pill for today. You're welcome.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Yea! The election process is too democratic! Who cares what the ordinary people of the country wants! They should only elect who I want to be in charge!
Thats what you just wrote. I just took all the bush beating out of it.
Uhm, you do know that over 2.8mil more people voted for Hillary right? Right?
The people voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.
https://www.270towin.com/2016_...
" The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson."
Not quite correct. He was not the first slave owner in the US but he was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognised. Snopes and Wikipedia seem to be on the same page with this explanation.
"Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court. A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Nonsense, Trump lost money owning three casinos.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Of course it's hard for a politician to switch parties, but the Nixon strategy was about voters switching. Nixon was documented talking about the strategy; and to a large extent, it worked.
Indentured servitude is not another word for slavery.
BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?
He's the first pro-gay-marriage President
LMAO take a look at Trump's "pro-gay-marriage" record:
https://www.vox.com/identities...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
whats amazing is that you people keep saying the exact same thing you have said for 3 years and think THIS TIME!!!! the insults will get people to agree with you
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
Bullshit. Was Nixon pushing to end anti-segregation busing, or not? It happened, it was a way to appeal to pro-segregation racists without openly using racial slurs. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And on the party switch: the number of *prominent* politicians that formally switched parties was three: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin. Many others, though, just started supporting republicans nationally, while continuing to call themselves democrats in local politics. And what really matters here is the voters - the South turned from blue to red, and black voters switched from red to blue.
There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs?
First question: are you purposefully lying to further your partisan agenda, or are you just that ignorant? The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. Two key differences: 1. Servitude is temporary and 2. Servitude is not heriditary (your kids don't become someone else's property the moment they are born). Take your own red pill before spouting more lies.
I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".
Importing foreign labor is a business thing. Business want to minimize their payroll costs. You, with your high standard of living and resistance to exploitation, are not what they are looking for.
My uncle, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, owns a farm in Pennsylvania which covers about 1000 acres. He has Mexicans come up on temporary work visas to work his farm. I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard.
Americans really don't want to do these jobs. At least not for the pay. And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive. Americans just aren't desperate enough. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean they won't wake up at 4:30 in the morning to do hard work. They'd rather leave that to the Mexicans.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You haven't been paying attention to how your Antifa attacks have gone down, have you?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba