4 ms·

The most alarming thing is that they are explicitly cutting anything to do with climate change (there's a more comprehensive overview here: https://www.washingt

by fmap 10y ago

The most alarming thing is that they are explicitly cutting anything to do with climate change (there's a more comprehensive overview here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-presidential-budget-2018-proposal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-presi...). That's also a large part of what the NASA budget cut is aimed at...

knz 10y ago
It's also incredibly shortsighted. The military and insurance industry are both well aware of the implications of unmitigated climate change. Likewise with the public health implications from increased pollution. These are tangible impacts that will cost us more than the "savings" proposed in this budget. It's like skipping oil changes on a car to save money.... NPR is also reporting that the Army Corp of Engineers has a proposed -16% cut (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520305293/trump-to-unveil-hard-power-budget-that-boosts-military-spending http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520305293/trump-to-unveil-hard...). Are they not responsible for mitigating the natural hazards that are expected to increase due to climate change?
- finid 10y ago
  Just remember that whatever "savings" from these cuts are designed to fund the $54 billion gift to the military. So there's really is no savings.
finid 10y ago
I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he believes, or does not believe. And he was explicit about it. If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale.
- SamPhillips 10y ago
  It was alarming before when he said it, and then alarming then he followed up and did it, for exactly the same reasons. The scientific community is clear & unambiguous: this is a huge problem now with civilization-level consequences, and the political answer is "this is all a fairy tale, let's not look into it any more". Alarming is 100% correct. It should alarm everyone.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he believes, or does not believe. Hitler (hypothetically, not I recreated a I discussing whether or not this was his belief) genuinely believing Jews were a dangerous threat that could be dealt with by no means short of extermination does not reduce the degree to which his action on that belief would rightly be seen as alarming. > If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale. OTOH, I also remember his official campaign staff and unofficial campaign surrogates repeatedly saying that his statements on most policy issues should not be taken literally. A position that Co tinted to be uswd, in various forms, by his White House staff (e.g., in claiming that his statements explicitly referencing wiretapping are not literally about wiretapping but other activities.) If one is alarmed at Trump's explicit statements, the response is "calm down, stop taking him literally". If one is later alarmed that Trump acts in accord with such a statement, the response is "calm down, he's just doing what he explicitly said." Aside from the obvious game being played here, doing what you previously said doesn't make an action less alarming, in much the same way that acting in accord with your own genuine (if unjustified) belief does not.
  - finid 10y ago
    I think you and @SamPhillips missed my point. My point is, he said he was going to do all these things, but he was still voted in anyway. The only thing that surprises me about Trump is this: He's from New York City. I'm not even talking New State, NYC! How did a guy like this come out of NYC?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      I think you misunderstand "alarming" to mean "surprising" (or, otherwise, the point you now describe is simply a non-sequitur where you presented it.)

by fmap 10y ago

knz 10y ago

It's also incredibly shortsighted. The military and insurance industry are both well aware of the implications of unmitigated climate change. Likewise with the public health implications from increased pollution. These are tangible impacts that will cost us more than the "savings" proposed in this budget. It's like skipping oil changes on a car to save money.... NPR is also reporting that the Army Corp of Engineers has a proposed -16% cut (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520305293/trump-to-unveil-hard-power-budget-that-boosts-military-spending http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/520305293/trump-to-unveil-hard...). Are they not responsible for mitigating the natural hazards that are expected to increase due to climate change?

finid 10y ago
Just remember that whatever "savings" from these cuts are designed to fund the $54 billion gift to the military. So there's really is no savings.

finid 10y ago

I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he believes, or does not believe. And he was explicit about it. If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale.

SamPhillips 10y ago
It was alarming before when he said it, and then alarming then he followed up and did it, for exactly the same reasons. The scientific community is clear & unambiguous: this is a huge problem now with civilization-level consequences, and the political answer is "this is all a fairy tale, let's not look into it any more". Alarming is 100% correct. It should alarm everyone.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I don't see what's alarming there. The guy is staying true to what he believes, or does not believe. Hitler (hypothetically, not I recreated a I discussing whether or not this was his belief) genuinely believing Jews were a dangerous threat that could be dealt with by no means short of extermination does not reduce the degree to which his action on that belief would rightly be seen as alarming. > If you recall, he said something along the lines of climate change being a Chinese fairy tale. OTOH, I also remember his official campaign staff and unofficial campaign surrogates repeatedly saying that his statements on most policy issues should not be taken literally. A position that Co tinted to be uswd, in various forms, by his White House staff (e.g., in claiming that his statements explicitly referencing wiretapping are not literally about wiretapping but other activities.) If one is alarmed at Trump's explicit statements, the response is "calm down, stop taking him literally". If one is later alarmed that Trump acts in accord with such a statement, the response is "calm down, he's just doing what he explicitly said." Aside from the obvious game being played here, doing what you previously said doesn't make an action less alarming, in much the same way that acting in accord with your own genuine (if unjustified) belief does not.
- finid 10y ago
  I think you and @SamPhillips missed my point. My point is, he said he was going to do all these things, but he was still voted in anyway. The only thing that surprises me about Trump is this: He's from New York City. I'm not even talking New State, NYC! How did a guy like this come out of NYC?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    I think you misunderstand "alarming" to mean "surprising" (or, otherwise, the point you now describe is simply a non-sequitur where you presented it.)