Interior Dept. ordered Glacier park chief, other climate expert pulled from Zuckerberg tour

[Thebobo]

Once again the Trump administration plays its petty card. So Zuckerberg is visiting Glacier national park to see first hand and learn about effects on climate change and what little is left of the Parks Glaciers. Despite it being planned months in advance the Trump admin refuses to let the park superintendent tour with him. It's just mind boggling the paranoid and pettiness of this administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-ceo-mark-zuckerberg/?utm_term=.1f62ef5f0503

Excellent diagrams, information and animation of Glaciers disappearing glaciers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ars-of-ice-loss-in-glacier-national-park.html

 

[UNCjigga]

New on the tour: "The glaciers are disappearing because God willed it! But if you visit our new prayer tent, for $5 you can sit and pray away the melting in hopes that God changes His mind!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Once again the Trump administration plays its petty card. So Zuckerberg is visiting Glacier national park to see first hand and learn about effects on climate change and what little is left of the Parks Glaciers. Despite it being planned months in advance the Trump admin refuses to let the park superintendent tour with him. It's just mind boggling the paranoid and pettiness of this administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-ceo-mark-zuckerberg/?utm_term=.1f62ef5f0503

Excellent diagrams, information and animation of Glaciers disappearing glaciers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ars-of-ice-loss-in-glacier-national-park.html

I don't think there is anything mind boggling about it. I think they go out of their way to stab liberals in the eye. They see liberals as worthless as you see them and that implies that whatever they can do to punish you is fully deserved and fully earned and the more you moan and cry about it the more it feels to them like an orgasm.

Maybe if liberals concentrated more on getting a message together that might appeal to more voters, instead of telling us all what idiots they are and happy to stab you back, we could get somebody in office who cares about the common good rather than getting even.

 

[PottedMeat]

should have taken a sick day and showed up with the group lol

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think there is anything mind boggling about it. I think they go out of their way to stab liberals in the eye. They see liberals as worthless as you see them and that implies that whatever they can do to punish you is fully deserved and fully earned and the more you moan and cry about it the more it feels to them like an orgasm.

Maybe if liberals concentrated more on getting a message together that might appeal to more voters, instead of telling us all what idiots they are and happy to stab you back, we could get somebody in office who cares about the common good rather than getting even.

Maybe, instead of telling liberals how stupid they are for telling conservatives how stupid they are you should start singing the praises of liberal policies and spread your own message of hope.

 

[Thebobo]

I don't think there is anything mind boggling about it. I think they go out of their way to stab liberals in the eye. They see liberals as worthless as you see them and that implies that whatever they can do to punish you is fully deserved and fully earned and the more you moan and cry about it the more it feels to them like an orgasm.

Maybe if liberals concentrated more on getting a message together that might appeal to more voters, instead of telling us all what idiots they are and happy to stab you back, we could get somebody in office who cares about the common good rather than getting even.

Thats a great idea but beyond the scope of what this forum can do other than to get people try and get folks riled up to do something about it.

 

[Commodus]

I don't think there is anything mind boggling about it. I think they go out of their way to stab liberals in the eye. They see liberals as worthless as you see them and that implies that whatever they can do to punish you is fully deserved and fully earned and the more you moan and cry about it the more it feels to them like an orgasm.

Maybe if liberals concentrated more on getting a message together that might appeal to more voters, instead of telling us all what idiots they are and happy to stab you back, we could get somebody in office who cares about the common good rather than getting even.

I know what you're trying to do, but how does that really help in a case like this? Science is right; Trump is wrong. How do you get a more broadly appealing message when there's no real room for compromise?

 

[ivwshane]

I know what you're trying to do, but how does that really help in a case like this? Science is right; Trump is wrong. How do you get a more broadly appealing message when there's no real room for compromise?

What he's referring to is the messaging. Repubs are good at messaging that comes from the gut and that feels right. Dems try to appeal to reasoning and its frankly not as appealing as something feels right.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Killing the messenger does not change the facts. Willful ignorance, your name is Trump appointee.

 

[Moonbeam]

I know what you're trying to do, but how does that really help in a case like this? Science is right; Trump is wrong. How do you get a more broadly appealing message when there's no real room for compromise?

In the first place a more broadly appealing message changes where the compromise lies. This notion that compromise is evil is deeply imbedded in our consciousness. I think the narrative has to change. For one thing a save the this or that message heard by people who feel they are drowning feels like abandonment and disrespect and I promise you that we hate ourselves and come into any debate punching from that feeling that we don't even know we feel. What is saving the planet from global warming all about. It's about mitigating the damage to farmers and people who like to eat,, people who can't afford to move etc, and jobs. We need to tool up industry to get off fossil fuels, provide cheap energy with renewables redo the electrical system, and we will need a lot of people to do and maintain that work. It's all about message and I am sure smart people can find better ones than I just gave.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thats a great idea but beyond the scope of what this forum can do other than to get people try and get folks riled up to do something about it.

Riled up people is what I call a mob. Not too much rational goes on. Riled up is just another word for angry which is another word for full of hate.

 

[Commodus]

In the first place a more broadly appealing message changes where the compromise lies. This notion that compromise is evil is deeply imbedded in our consciousness. I think the narrative has to change. For one thing a save the this or that message heard by people who feel they are drowning feels like abandonment and disrespect and I promise you that we hate ourselves and come into any debate punching from that feeling that we don't even know we feel. What is saving the planet from global warming all about. It's about mitigating the damage to farmers and people who like to eat,, people who can't afford to move etc, and jobs. We need to tool up industry to get off fossil fuels, provide cheap energy with renewables redo the electrical system, and we will need a lot of people to do and maintain that work. It's all about message and I am sure smart people can find better ones than I just gave.

I see what you're getting at, but at the same time... that's not going to change what the Trump administration is doing right now, and I don't think there's much in the way of messaging that's going to sway Trump supporters. I mean, these are people who literally don't care that the President and his party tell blatant lies every day, and that their health care 'dream' would kill thousands of people. How do you pitch absolute scientific fact to someone who "rolls coal" just to piss off the left?

 

[Moonbeam]

I see what you're getting at, but at the same time... that's not going to change what the Trump administration is doing right now, and I don't think there's much in the way of messaging that's going to sway Trump supporters. I mean, these are people who literally don't care that the President and his party tell blatant lies every day, and that their health care 'dream' would kill thousands of people. How do you pitch absolute scientific fact to someone who "rolls coal" just to piss off the left?

Would you take a job in coal over a job in solar or wind?

 

[Thebobo]

Emails of the development of Zuckerberg visits to Glacier and the subsequent snubbing by the administration. No superintendent, no glacier expert, but hey he got the parks dog to tour with him.

Washington post article

When Facebook’s communications chief approached the National Park Service to ask the agency to show company founder Mark Zuckerberg how the warming climate is melting ice sheets at Glacier National Park, scientists, park rangers and public affairs staff were giddy with excitement.

“This is going to be great!” wilderness specialist Kyle Johnson wrote in an email June 21 to Facebook’s Derick Mains as planning for a July 15 tour got underway. When Mains had approached him two days earlier, Johnson responded, “I think something like this would be outstanding for all. … Thanks for helping us showcase Glacier.”

The U.S. Geological Survey’s public affairs office was thrilled to make the park’s top climate scientist, a USGS staffer, available to Zuckerberg to explain how global warming is altering the ecosystem of the northern Rockies.

political appointees at the Interior Department, the Park Service’s parent agency, demanded that they walk back their generosity, according to documents The Washington Post obtained through a Freedom of Information Act ential donors and dignitaries.

“This seems like a lot of government resources to dedicate to a celebrity’s personal PR tour,” Interior press secretary Heather Swift wrote in an email to a Park Service spokesman three days before the scheduled tour.

request.

The Trump administration was far less keen on Zuckerberg — who has been increasingly vocal in his criticism of the president — and apparently balked at giving him the red-carpet treatment that national parks often roll out for lawmakers, pot

 

[Bitek]

Is he going to close NWS too?

"Nobody look at all the hurricanes in the gulf about to wreck shop! Nothing to see here, no worries, let's not do anything, everything is just dandy. Drill baby drill."

At some point you have to feel the South deserves to be pummeled by hurricanes if this is the policies they want to drive.

Why worry about rising seas and increased hurricane strength when we have federal flood insurance and Jeevas to save us?

 

[agent00f]

In the first place a more broadly appealing message changes where the compromise lies. This notion that compromise is evil is deeply imbedded in our consciousness. I think the narrative has to change. For one thing a save the this or that message heard by people who feel they are drowning feels like abandonment and disrespect and I promise you that we hate ourselves and come into any debate punching from that feeling that we don't even know we feel. What is saving the planet from global warming all about. It's about mitigating the damage to farmers and people who like to eat,, people who can't afford to move etc, and jobs. We need to tool up industry to get off fossil fuels, provide cheap energy with renewables redo the electrical system, and we will need a lot of people to do and maintain that work. It's all about message and I am sure smart people can find better ones than I just gave.

How's convincing people who already know that evolution and climate change are legit but lie about it for political ends been coming along?

 

[agent00f]

I know what you're trying to do, but how does that really help in a case like this? Science is right; Trump is wrong. How do you get a more broadly appealing message when there's no real room for compromise?

I don't think you see what moonbeam is doing. He's aware that conservatives like buckshot know evolution is scientific fact. They wouldn't be degenerates otherwise, but rather helmet-wearing stupid as liberals often accuse.

BTW, degenerates are motivated mainly by immediate self-interest. For example, if they had to suffer the repercussions of natural disasters caused by climate change, they'd learn a lesson instead of democrats tripping over themselves to ensure they never do.

 

[JSt0rm]

well the southern states getting hammered with 3 or 4 hurricanes a year wont be our problem after it happens year after year. At some point all that land will be considered lost. And the dumble fucks will have to leave their states.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think there is anything mind boggling about it. I think they go out of their way to stab liberals in the eye. They see liberals as worthless as you see them and that implies that whatever they can do to punish you is fully deserved and fully earned and the more you moan and cry about it the more it feels to them like an orgasm.

Maybe if liberals concentrated more on getting a message together that might appeal to more voters, instead of telling us all what idiots they are and happy to stab you back, we could get somebody in office who cares about the common good rather than getting even.

I am increasingly of the opinion that there is no messaging to reach the vast majority of people on the right. The right's pathological hatred of all things liberal is constantly stoked by propaganda that they willingly expose themselves to. This propaganda is usually dishonest about the actual behavior of liberals, most commonly because it seizes on only the most objectionable behavior of a small number of liberals, and casts it as typical. So, while I think there is some behavior of liberals which can be problematic, the perception of it on the right is vastly exaggerated relative to the reality of it, and there is nothing we can do about this propaganda or the perception it instills. We can have more inclusive messaging, and I agree we should, but that messaging is more likely to be effective at people who are borderline - independents, centrists, moderate conservatives, Trump hating conservatives, and the like. The mainstream right is just too far gone.

What really needs to happen is for the right to just lose. They either need to just lose at the ballot box, or win, like they did last year, then wreck the country to the point where they can't win again. Losing is something they can understand. Anything else we say or do, they're pretty much not even listening these days. So far as messaging, if being more inclusive helps us win by swaying enough swing voter types, then we should do it. But the vast majority of Trump voters are beyond hope.

 

[fskimospy]

I am increasingly of the opinion that there is no messaging to reach the vast majority of people on the right. The right's pathological hatred of all things liberal is constantly stoked by propaganda that they willingly expose themselves to. This propaganda is usually dishonest about the actual behavior of liberals, most commonly because it seizes on only the most objectionable behavior of a small number of liberals, and casts it as typical. So, while I think there is some behavior of liberals which can be problematic, the perception of it on the right is vastly exaggerated relative to the reality of it, and there is nothing we can do about this propaganda or the perception it instills. We can have more inclusive messaging, and I agree we should, but that messaging is more likely to be effective at people who are borderline - independents, centrists, moderate conservatives, Trump hating conservatives, and the like. The mainstream right is just too far gone.

What really needs to happen is for the right to just lose. They either need to just lose at the ballot box, or win, like they did last year, then wreck the country to the point where they can't win again. Losing is something they can understand. Anything else we say or do, they're pretty much not even listening these days. So far as messaging, if being more inclusive helps us win by swaying enough swing voter types, then we should do it. But the vast majority of Trump voters are beyond hope.

How are they supposed to lose more completely than they did in 2008? I mean it had everything, ruinous wars, economic collapse, total electoral defeat, etc. What did they do? They went even MORE crazy. I feel like what you want to happen already happened and had no effect. If anything, being defeated made them worse and more extreme.

 

[woolfe9998]

How are they supposed to lose more completely than they did in 2008? I mean it had everything, ruinous wars, economic collapse, total electoral defeat, etc. What did they do? They went even MORE crazy. I feel like what you want to happen already happened and had no effect. If anything, being defeated made them worse and more extreme.

No, I want them to lose and keep losing. The trouble is they lost, but then they won, first in mid terms, then last year. Their first win came just two years after their Big Disaster.

There's a couple of ways a longer term change in fortunes can happen. One is the demographics finally get to the point where their gerrymandering and voter suppression aren't enough anymore. These demographics aren't just about the increasing percentage of minorities. It's also about the fact that older voters are dying off, while the millennials are the most liberal generation this country has ever seen. The other way is that someone like Trump screws things up badly enough that they lose their least hardcore voters, which right now might be about 20% of the Trump voters at best, but is easily enough to turn elections. If the GOP cannot win anymore by pursuing its unpopular policies, they will have to shift their platform. Both parties have done so many times in the past.

So far as the bulk of their voters, they're beyond hope. I am under no illusion that they will change their minds. Like I said, they repeatedly expose themselves to the same propaganda and there is literally zero we can do about it. One thing which could happen is if the GOP gets on a longer term losing streak, they start to moderate their policies, and these loons then either start to not vote or consistently back far right third parties, which would totally wreck the GOP. We can already see the seeds of this, given the amount of dissatisfaction there is on the far right with the mainstream GOP.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Once again the Trump administration plays its petty card. So Zuckerberg is visiting Glacier national park to see first hand and learn about effects on climate change and what little is left of the Parks Glaciers. Despite it being planned months in advance the Trump admin refuses to let the park superintendent tour with him. It's just mind boggling the paranoid and pettiness of this administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-ceo-mark-zuckerberg/?utm_term=.1f62ef5f0503

Excellent diagrams, information and animation of Glaciers disappearing glaciers.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ars-of-ice-loss-in-glacier-national-park.html

Mark definitely seems like he's setting himself up for a presidential run. He might be fine at it who knows. I do find it worrisome because I believe in individual privacy and he's pretty much the antithesis of that, but unfortunately it doesn't seem like anyone other than Rand Paul would do anything about it. Trump's (and the majority of Republicans in general) denial of climate change - caused by humans - is absurd. It's one thing to not want to spend .gov money to address or regulate it, but another thing entirely to take part in a propoganda war that it doesn't exist.

 

[FelixDeCat]

No one is voting for an idiot who only wears grey t-shirts everyday and only claim to fame is allowing people to post pictures of their dinner online.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I want them to lose and keep losing. The trouble is they lost, but then they won, first in mid terms, then last year. Their first win came just two years after their Big Disaster.

There's a couple of ways a longer term change in fortunes can happen. One is the demographics finally get to the point where their gerrymandering and voter suppression aren't enough anymore. These demographics aren't just about the increasing percentage of minorities. It's also about the fact that older voters are dying off, while the millennials are the most liberal generation this country has ever seen. The other way is that someone like Trump screws things up badly enough that they lose their least hardcore voters, which right now might be about 20% of the Trump voters at best, but is easily enough to turn elections. If the GOP cannot win anymore by pursuing its unpopular policies, they will have to shift their platform. Both parties have done so many times in the past.

So far as the bulk of their voters, they're beyond hope. I am under no illusion that they will change their minds. Like I said, they repeatedly expose themselves to the same propaganda and there is literally zero we can do about it. One thing which could happen is if the GOP gets on a longer term losing streak, they start to moderate their policies, and these loons then either start to not vote or consistently back far right third parties, which would totally wreck the GOP. We can already see the seeds of this, given the amount of dissatisfaction there is on the far right with the mainstream GOP.

I agree if they kept losing for 2, 3, or 4 elections they might jettison the far right that currently dominates the party but it's hard for me to see a situation where that happens any time soon considering the combination of differential turnout, geographic concentration, and gerrymandering.

We can lay the foundations for that by hopefully retaking a lot of state houses to un-gerrymander some districts and maybe SCOTUS will strike down partisan gerrymanders but even then I imagine a strong GOP bias will remain. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 my money would be on a similar right wing meltdown, with similar effects.

We basically have to wait for the boomers to die off.

 

[Thebobo]

I agree if they kept losing for 2, 3, or 4 elections they might jettison the far right that currently dominates the party but it's hard for me to see a situation where that happens any time soon considering the combination of differential turnout, geographic concentration, and gerrymandering.

We can lay the foundations for that by hopefully retaking a lot of state houses to un-gerrymander some districts and maybe SCOTUS will strike down partisan gerrymanders but even then I imagine a strong GOP bias will remain. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 my money would be on a similar right wing meltdown, with similar effects.

We basically have to wait for the boomers to die off.

Um I ain't dieing off and I bet I'll be waiting longer than u7=... .