this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
209 points (96.4% liked)

politics

25143 readers
1986 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hurricanes are getting so strong in a warming world that a Category 6 intensity should be added to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind scale, a new study finds.

Why it matters: The research shows how significantly climate change is altering storm intensity and other characteristics, as well as further underscoring the limitations of the scale.

Reality check: The paper, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, does not represent an official move by the National Hurricane Center to add another hurricane category.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I used to rhetorically say for years that our global oligarchs won't let us steer away from reckless economic growth/metastasis until CAT 6 hurricanes, because they'll need a new level of intensity, are flattening entire cities.

I've grown wiser since then. Literally nothing will stop our global oligarchs from running up their ego competition scores at humanity's expense until civilization truly, completely, entirely collapses, not even from cities being flattened from a single superstorm.

Our species is determined and committed to destroying itself and its only habitat for short term private profit for a few thousand sociopath families. We're a dog with a bone.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think it is the species. I think it's the oligarchs you mentioned. Individuals are really not the big climate change drivers that corporations are. It doesn't even come close.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Theres only about 3,000 billionaires on earth, and only about 28,000 people worth 100 million or more. There are bigger sports stadiums on Earth than that. Our species' true enemy's numbers are tiny.

We the billions to their tens of thousands choose not to end them. That's on us, and moreso the billions of true believer class traitors that will defend them to their dying breath, in pathetic hopes it will one day endear the owner class to them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sorry, you somehow expect 8 billion people to systematically go to every one of those 3000 people's homes and kill them? How many people killed by those billionaires' heavily-armed security forces are you willing to sacrifice? And will you be at the front of the mob staring down the roof-mounted machine guns? Also, are all of those people supposed to go on foot or are you planning on giving them a travel stipend?

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You explain the mass excuses as to why billions of humans live in subsistence to a few thousand sociopath families well. The numbers are the numbers though. They get away with it because we allow it.

That said, we could also end them legislatively, but at least half of the subjugated have been propagandized to see their oppressors as a necessity they must protect. Poor deluded bastards.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How do you end a global problem legislatively?

There is not a global legislature.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Nation by nation of course. That would have to start with a single prominent wealthy nation though.

I just don't see the will. Humanity in all likelyhood will follow the path of least resistance off a cliff without exercising radical violence or radical democracy. I think we're too cowardly to act, and the owners correctly bet on that mass fear and indolence. We largely don't think of our children, only our own immediate consequences.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not all nations have legislatures. Not all nations with legislatures have legislatures that actually represent the will of the people. Not all nations are even democracies or republics.

How exactly do you plan to get the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on board? Because they're a huge part of the problem. Do you think you're going to convince the House of Saud to stop pumping oil out of the ground and selling it?

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Not all nations with legislatures have legislatures that actually represent the will of the people.

"Not all?" rofl almost none. The Nordic nations and that's about it, and the market capitalists will do to them what they've done to the UK and are doing to the rest of Western Europe. That's why I am without hope. I'm just commenting on the ridiculousness of our hopeless situation. It's remarkable in in a dark way. Burning the paradise we inherited as the apex predator because we were conquered by the modern equivalent of the snake oil salesmen of old who convinced us its the only way.

Imho, there is no solution, at least not one humanity is capable of calculating. Enioy the show, it's basically Jackass without the self-awareness on a much larger scale. We're not going to survive our nature with all the technologies we're too primitive to wield responsibly.

Probably that "great filter" astrophysicists use to explain the lack of obvious interstellar civilization activity out there. At some point, a species becomes just smart enough to develop technologies that can destroy it they lack the capacity to wield like grown ups benevolently.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

How do you end a global problem legislatively?

The rulebook includes a pretty straightforward legislative approach to global problems.

Article I Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Granted, we probably shouldn't use that power until we've exhausted all possibility of resolution via treaty, but the tool is in the box, should we decide to use it.

Legislatively, Congress could enact a wealth tax, annually conveying 20% of all registered securities held by billionaires to the IRS for liquidation. They don't have to sell them off suddenly; we're just going to take their shares, and sell them off to the public over a sufficiently long period of time. Monthly sales, totalling no more than 10% of market volume, until the IRS's entire issue is sold. That takes care of American billionaires, including people like Musk and Bezos, whose wealth is in their stocks. It also takes care of any foreign billionaires with holdings in American markets.

For billionaires in the rest of the world, Congress is empowered to decide if they want to follow or violate international law. We can put a bounty on the heads of everyone worth more than a billion.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wait, sorry, so your solution is for the U.S. government to start committing assassinations in other countries?

And you think the other countries would just sit back and let it happen?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was asked for a "legislative" solution in a world without a global legislature. I answered that question.

My "solution" is a wealth tax, targeting the registered securities of the obscenely rich, on the basis that their influence destabilizes the market and the economy, causing harm to the American people.

I would expect other nations to follow suit, and clamp down on their own billionaires in short order.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I would expect other nations to follow suit, and clamp down on their own billionaires in short order.

Why would the House of Saud do that?

Why would Lukashenko do that?

Why would Vladimir Putin do that?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why would the subjects of Louis XVI do that?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I see... so your plan is to make billionaires illegal in the U.S., hope that other countries do to, but if they don't, hope for a revolution, and if that revolution doesn't come, commit war crimes in their countries.

I'm sure the U.S. assassinating a Russian billionaire inside Russia won't have any serious repercussions.

But hey, global thermonuclear war will end global warming, so I guess you did come up with a solution.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
  1. Not illegal. Taxed on their excesses until they are pulled from the stock market.
  2. Louis XVI was not deposed by Americans, but by French citizens. That act was not a war crime. It wasn't even an act of war.
  3. The last time a private, foreign individual directly harmed American citizens, we ended up dumping his carcass in the Arabian sea. That was an act of warfare, but it certainly was not a war crime.
  4. When they leave US markets, they no longer pose a threat to US citizens. Problem solved, without the bounty on their heads. If they want to do business in the US, they can demand their governments impose a similar cap on their wealth.

If they are as rich as an independent nation, I see no reason why we shouldn't treat them as an independent nation.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I'm pretty sure billionaires are a threat to the world, not just the U.S.

And, yes, I get that you think nuclear war is a solution, you've already made that clear.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

How many people killed by those billionaires' heavily-armed security forces are you willing to sacrifice?

Meh, they're all Uvalde cops.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 15 points 2 years ago

Literally nothing will stop our global oligarchs from running up their ego competition scores at humanity's expense

Yes, there is. It's called a "guillotine".

[–] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think it should go to 11

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hurricane strength 6S+ 512GB

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Or even hurricane Ultra

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago

On paper? Sure

In reality? pls no

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not sure this counts as "Politics". It's more "News" or "Science" until Trump picks up a sharpie pen again. ;)

Leaving it for now, might remove later.

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

It references climate change as the cause. One of the most politically charged concepts around the world.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

When it's one of the core disagreements between our only 2 parties that matter, I'd call it political.

Hell, modern Republicans barely have any policy besides "nuhuh" but they still fiercely attack addressing climate change as "commie Leninist socialism."

[–] Rhaedas@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Some native Floridians now dismiss a Cat 4 as not as big deal as a Cat 5, not realizing the very small wind level difference. Adding a 6 would let them downplay a 5. My own stance is that once things start getting picked up by moving air, it's all dangerous and should be prepared for and avoided.

Plus, most deaths in a hurricane aren't from the wind. They're from drowning from flood waters. There's plenty of eyewitness videos now on the internet for anyone to be aware of the seconds it takes to go from safe to shit, but people will always think it only happens to other people.

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, but mine goes to 11....

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

My thoughts exactly. I want them to see the data of how much more common Cat5s are before they start shrugging them off since it’s not the absolute highest level of destruction

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why not just increase the levels for 1-5 to rerate them so that 5 is a little stronger?

Because these go up to 6...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Maintaining proper reference to events in the past for comparison purposes.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I mean, I was making a Spinal Tap joke, but it's not like all scientists wrote down was category labels, they have exact speeds and lots of data.

We could easily apply the updated standard to past records.

Honestly, I don't see why we don't just have an open ended scale instead. 1-5 barely makes sense for app ratings, let alone something as complex as a hurricane.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

You can go have a bite and you'd still be hearing that.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I don’t think adding a category 6 would change anything. I live in New Orleans and the point of the categories is to let the public know the risk and what to do. There’s really not much difference between a direct hit from a category 4 and a 5 now. A category 1 means hunker down. Category 2 means vulnerable areas need to evacuate. Category 3+ (usually) means mandatory evacuation. Category 4 and 5 typically just mean expect the worst.

I’d really rather we replace the Saffir-Simpson scale with something that takes things beyond wind into consideration. Look at Katrina. It was a category 5 at sea (so cat 5 storm surge) but was category 3 at landfall. But it also was organized and covered like half the Gulf of Mexico.

Other storms can be very compact and fast moving and yeah, wind damage is bad but there’s way more to a hurricane than wind. Harvey sat over Houston for days and caused insane flooding.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

There’s also danger in new places getting hit. Superstorm Sandy was equivalent to a category 1 by wind speed when it hit NYC. It wouldn’t have been a big deal in a place where the trees evolved to survive hurricanes and there’s no underground infrastructure to flood but it was a massive deal for NYC.

[–] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean... when the heat dome happened and it was 115°f in the PNW, they had to invent colors because the current spectrum showing temp wasn't enough. The hot areas were magenta and grey.

Also, anyone else keep thinking of the kaiju classifications in Pacific Rim with the class 5 that appears?

[–] Oderus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Love that movie.

[–] guyrocket@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I think we should just call them Fuck-You-i-canes. FUricanes for short.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Furicanes is a closer label to what the storm feels like to be in.

[–] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Afaik the hurricane categories go up to 10, but the category stops mattering after a certain level because there's no construction standards that can withstand the winds once hurricanes are on that level or above.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

You might be thinking of the Richter Scale for measuring earthquakes, that goes from 1-9.9 (a 10 might theoretically be possible if some enormous faults around the Pacific were to rupture all at once)

The saffir-simpson scale we normally use for hurricanes only goest from 1-5.

It's also kind of a shitty scale because it only accounts for average sustained windspeed and not things like precipitation, storm surge, the size of the hurricane, or even the actual maximum windspeed. It's also not a continuous scale, you can't have a category 4.5 for example, storms at the upper and lower end of a category are pretty much exactly the same as far as you can tell from the the scale.

[–] Lennnny@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Stories like this remind me of what my husband says about global warming: The world is not being trashed, it's just being rearranged in a way that is not conducive to life.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This is interesting, but it is not politics.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›