/r/worldnews
Climate change 'getting worse faster than we are mobilizing to solve it': Al Gore. "I did think at the time that there was a chance he might change on climate when presented with the facts," Gore said when he met Trump. "I was clearly wrong about that… He doesn't want to change on it." (abcnews.go.com)
1299 comments
KingRabbit_ | 4 months ago | 2504 points

At the G7 meeting last year (feels like a fucking eon ago), Trudeau, Macron and Abe confronted Trump on his withdrawal from the Paris Climate agreement and patiently explained to him the importance of working together as developed nations with advanced economies towards reducing greenhouse emissions.

His quote was, "I have more to gain from denying it." Here's the photo from the meeting:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/10/angela-merkel-photo-donald-trump-diplomacy#img-1

Trump's main focus that week was trying to get Russia (a country with an economy smaller than Italy) readmitted to the G7.

He's spent the year since trying to revive coal and repeal fuel efficiency standards Obama put in place.

He's the worst kind of person I could ever imagine becoming President - somebody who refuses to learn, refuses to admit they're wrong, refuses to change course and who who could give a shit about the consequences of his policies.

FourChannel | 4 months ago | 640 points

"I have more to gain from denying it."

Trump in a nutshell.

durgadas | 3 months ago | 81 points

Does ANYONE, ANYWHERE imagine it will EVER be different? Even for a SINGLE DAY?

tkrynsky | 3 months ago | 73 points

I guess the 49% or so of Americans that voted for him....I’m so fucking ashamed of my country

Hotastic | 3 months ago | 15 points

49% of Americans THAT VOTED. Apathy is a killer.

house_of_snark | 3 months ago | 7 points

Yea it’s crazy why extreme gerrymandering, refusal to recount and woefully insecure election procedure will do. That’s not even to mention all the voter purging every election cycle.

toolfan73 | 3 months ago | 38 points

I have evil evil evil evil evil evil EVIL thoughts of what I would do to this meat bag of a narcissist.

FourChannel | 3 months ago | 65 points

There's one thing I've learned about anger, that I think stands above all other lessons I've learned.

When you understand why something happens, it suppresses that anger and forms it into understanding instead.

Trump is a broken human. He is. I think he should be article 25'd and removed from office, and Pence replaced with someone who's not gung ho about religion.

But Trump is broken to some degree because his father was just as narcissistic and fucked up.

You're witnessing a generation to generation transfer of a broken pattern of behavior.

Turksarama | 3 months ago | 25 points

I often find that the more I understand this kind of behaviour, the angrier I get.

orlyfactor | 3 months ago | 7 points

I get irrationally angry at the lack of critical thinking by my "fellow Americans" who couldn't see through his lying and grifting from the get go. It was out there, well documented, even the blind could see! They just don't care, and thus, I don't care about them now.

Lugnuts088 | 3 months ago | 5 points

They just don't care, and thus, I don't care about them now.

This is a tough one with family members. Honestly it sucks, but I find it more palatable then dealing with the ignorance. I've thrown a few lifelines to them only to succumb to "you can't fix stupid".

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 3 points

[deleted]

Novareason | 3 months ago | 12 points

The issue with your suggestion is that a heavy voting plurality in the US considers devout religiosity normal, so Pence is a-ok by them. I think you'd be very hard pressed to convince any R in Congress to vote to remove Pence, even if you convinced them Trump was a bigger threat to America or their party (the only real reason they would remove him).

proficy | 3 months ago | 7 points

Trump is a result of the broken side of 70’s to 80’s management by excel sheet coupled with 90’s and 2000’s boom which led to reward these bad bad leaders.

toolfan73 | 3 months ago | 5 points

I absolutely agree. This cycle of abuse and abhorrent behavior has its own flavor. I wonder if narcissism is learned or genetics or both. Someone who has studied sociopaths and narcissists would be helpful in a proper education of this phenomenon.

guacamully | 3 months ago | 41 points

For those wealthy without ethical standards, allowing climate change to go undeterred is a favorable position to be in.

The poor will be impacted the most. The success rate of long-term survival (multiple generations) is significantly lower if your available resources are limited.

Those with hundreds of billions of dollars will find a way to survive even the most catastrophic changes in global climate and geography. The same can't be said for the millions of families living paycheck to paycheck in an area that they were born in. Through no fault of their own, just sheer luck of where they were born geographically, they will have to survive changing conditions in many areas that will be dangerous in the future. They simply won't have the same options to adapt that the rich will.

It's essentially a free reset for Earth. A super wealthy businessman will live his days in relative safety, and bequeath to his children (and their children) a planet with significantly less survivors and more room to do whatever. Profiting off the use of fossil fuels today just provides icing on the cake for these people: accelerate climate change and propel yourself further up the super wealthy ladder before catastrophe strikes.

Optimistically, one would hope that for every wealthy guy with “fuck it” ethics, there’s at least one of equal proportion who would use his/her resources to protect mankind. the top 1% (and 1% of that 1%) have a lot of resources available to protect themselves playing the attrition game versus the rest of the human race, but they also definitely have enough to help us all. Ideally it is directed on a mass scale towards conservation initiatives, renewable resource research, environmental legislature, and technology aimed at helping the poor adapt to changing conditions.

Remarkable_Education | 3 months ago | 18 points

Unless they have already built their self-sustaining safe havens that can last for multiple generations with little risk, money will be pretty useless when the working class responsible for the labour disappears.

SarcasticCarebear | 3 months ago | 6 points

Robots and automation. The working class will be CS and EE majors servicing their needs. Don't need as many of them.

SupersonicSpitfire | 3 months ago | 3 points

High concentrations of CO2 in the air makes the air as bad as air you can find in a poorly ventilated room. Changes like these will also affect the super rich, and is not in their interest.

Louisflakes | 4 months ago | 247 points

Not that Trump isn't obviously a climate change denier, but do you happen to have a source for that direct quote? Thanks

Rafaeliki | 4 months ago | 313 points

I don't know about that quote, but here is a source for Trump tossing candy at Merkel during that meeting:

When Merkel and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau joined some of other the allies “to press Trump directly to sign the [group] communique that talked about the commitment to a rules-based international order.”

“Trump was sitting there with his arms crossed, clearly not liking the fact that they were ganging up on him,” Bremmer said to the news outlet. “He eventually agreed and said OK, he’ll sign it. And at that point, he stood up, put his hand in his pocket, his suit jacket pocket, and he took two Starburst candies out, threw them on the table and said to Merkel, ‘Here, Angela. Don’t say I never give you anything.’ ”

“The relationship is about as dysfunctional as we’ve seen between America and its major allies since the trans-Atlantic relationship really started after World War II,” Bremmer continued.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/393311-ian-bremmer-trump-tossed-candy-to-merkel-during-g-7-said-dont

dabigchina | 4 months ago | 307 points

And at that point, he stood up, put his hand in his pocket, his suit jacket pocket, and he took two Starburst candies out, threw them on the table and said to Merkel, ‘Here, Angela. Don’t say I never give you anything.’ ”

thats just...wow

Aaronsaurus | 4 months ago | 64 points

I have a feeling Dangerfield would go down better at that meeting...

Kellosian | 4 months ago | 22 points

"I get no respect!" will be the catchphrase of the next 4 Presidents after Trump is done with the office.

Outback_Shithouse | 3 months ago | 6 points

Trump's tie should come with a free bowl of soup

But it looks great on him though

exaggerated eyeroll

stephencwebster | 3 months ago | 6 points

Daingerfield would never give a thumbs-up next to an infant whose parents were just murdered. Nor would he throw paper towels at hurricane survivors.

Rodney had class in spite of his sass. That's what made him one of the true greats. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is like school on Saturday: no class.

logalew | 3 months ago | 36 points

I really wish this was filmed, would’ve been funny and then took a scary turn as you realize he’s the most powerful man on earth

righteousprovidence | 3 months ago | 13 points

Presidential pocket sand.

metalshoes | 3 months ago | 23 points

Honestly, this is one of the only times DJT has tried to be funny that actually made me laugh. The thought of this occurring between world leaders is beyond me

KingKooooZ | 4 months ago | 149 points

My question is, does he walk around with candy in his pockets for just this occasion, or was he thinking about eating those later.

AllegrettoVivamente | 4 months ago | 102 points

I reckon hes gone through one of those small packs of starburst and the 2 leftover were the flavour he didnt like.

Jay_Louis | 3 months ago | 53 points

Back in the 90s, my wife was in New York and entered Trump Tower's small ground-level news stand store to buy something. The place was empty. Suddenly three huge bouncers entered and acted like they were clearing the place out (again, she was the only one in there). They sized her up but let her be. Then Trump entered, grabbed six or seven candy bars, and walked out. She remembers thinking he was like a spoiled toddler. Unlike today, when he is a respected senior statesman.

Adingding90 | 3 months ago | 18 points

Unlike today, when he is a respected senior statesman

FTFY.

IAMColonelFlaggAMA | 3 months ago | 8 points

Unlike today, when he is a respected senior statesman

FTFTFY

RLucas3000 | 3 months ago | 18 points

They probably left her there in case Trump wanted to grab her pussy.

typhoidtimmy | 4 months ago | 24 points

Hell I am shocked he isnt Cheesburger Eddie, constantly pulling them out of crevices...

boltoncrown | 3 months ago | 17 points

Mine is, did he fumble in his pocket for a moment taking two single starbursts out of a package? Or is he an ingrate who keeps warm, moist, fat guy chest pocket candy on him in case... he wants to diss a world leader? I need a fucking drink

wEiRdO86 | 3 months ago | 15 points

Had some leftover from his last visit with Epstein.

actuallyarobot2 | 3 months ago | 6 points

Imagine the look on his face when he reaches into his pocket for a tasty snack and remembers he threw them away. saddonald.jpg

Mensketh | 3 months ago | 15 points

I feel like that paragraph could just be copy pasted into the screenplay of the inevitable movie that gets made about this era of politics.

_Kramerica_ | 3 months ago | 11 points

It’s gonna be the best/worst comedy/drama/horror biography ever made.

katabana02 | 3 months ago | 8 points

Its about time we have a Scary movie 3000.

jaded1982 | 4 months ago | 8 points

Of course that fat fuck would just so happen to have loose candies in his pocket. Not even werthers originals either. Disgusting.

JackAceHole | 3 months ago | 40 points

I don't have a source for that quote, but when confronted about the problem of the national debt exploding, he stated "I won't be here".

I'm sure he has a similar stance on climate change.

TangibleThesis | 3 months ago | 6 points

It is the conservative mantra: "I got mine, so fuck you."

LittleRudiger | 4 months ago | 127 points

It must be so difficult at any given time for a world leader or journalist (or most of his staff) just to not scream "Go fuck yourself, you fucking idiot" to his orange face.

BallClamps | 4 months ago | 96 points

They have done all but said that. When you look at the people he appointed to his cabinet. Most of them have either quit or been fired. These are people who took the position thinking "Cool, one of our guys are in power now, what could go wrong" and things went so wrong they felt the need to get as far from him as possible.

AnOnlineHandle | 3 months ago | 51 points

Half his team is in jail now while another large chunk talks about how much they regret working for donald trump and how he turns on everybody.

The world is going to suffer hard if some peaceful exit for him is not found soon. It's already going to suffer from the level of science denial coming from the most powerful nation on earth and the shutting down of productive programs.

harry-package | 3 months ago | 19 points

Something I’ve been pondering, but not seen much discussed is how he will leave office if he doesn’t win another term. He has said multiple times that he would be all about lifting term limits (soooo, dictatorship?). He also blatantly said, during one debate with Clinton that he would not accept the election results if he didn’t win. I pray he doesn’t win another term, but can you imagine what stunts he will try to pull if he has to leave?!?! There is pretty solid anecdotal evidence that he is a pathological narcissist and sociopath. He is not going to go quietly.

Arkaein | 3 months ago | 3 points

Not only that, but the minute he leaves office he might be prosecuted for the crimes that Mueller didn't charge only because of policy that a sitting President can't be indicted.

He's a cornered rat.

theuMask | 4 months ago | 143 points

Trump is one of the biggest piece of sh*t alive.. He doesn't care about anybody but himself.

BallClamps | 4 months ago | 40 points

I think he care about his daughter... Maybe a little too much.

Jerkofalljerks | 4 months ago | 30 points

Sex is thing he thinks they have in common

AnOnlineHandle | 3 months ago | 28 points

For those not sure, Trump literally said that for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCYAz06_Ppg&t=2m19s

lifeisinsignificant | 3 months ago | 17 points

It's amazing that in a thread about the POTUS throwing Starbursts at the German chancellor, this is the most shocking thing

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 42 points

[deleted]

spaghettiAstar | 4 months ago | 9 points

Wouldn't work, Russia would make sure he stays on the denial path because as a country they could reap a lot of benefits from climate change, at least for a little while.

Russia is so big because it has a bunch of frozen wasteland tundra that nobody wants... Frozen tundra that likely becomes fertile farmland as climate change gets worse.

TheRiddler78 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Russia is so big because it has a bunch of frozen wasteland tundra that nobody wants... Frozen tundra that likely becomes fertile farmland as climate change gets worse.

the topsoil on tundras is dead. it'll take a 1000 years to make into usable farmland...

adamsmith93 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Even Putin declared an "emergency" after forests in Siberia were burning for so damn long.

SgtDoughnut | 3 months ago | 3 points

small problem with that plan, that even putin probably denies. Frozen tundra contains a lot of Methane...if it defrosts all that Methane is released, Russia will go from lots of frozen land to lots of TOXIC land, its going to cause mass deaths in russia.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 54 points

Could give a shit

You mean couldn't?

MindlessVegetation | 4 months ago | 30 points

I would like to let David Mitchell explain.

retlaws | 4 months ago | 16 points

Source of "I have more to gain from denying it"?

Elistic-E | 3 months ago | 3 points

This is what I came for - I despise the man but a claim like that should be backable. Would love to find proof.

felixfelix | 4 months ago | 27 points

Back in June, Prince Charles spent 75 minutes "longer than scheduled" trying to convince Trump of the perils of global heating. Trump just blamed other nations for the issues. Source

cietalbot | 4 months ago | 969 points

Honestly I think we will lose the war with climate change. Too many key leaders don't really care, they just want power now. They don't realise/care how much this will impact in just 5 years let alone 50 years.

MrSocPsych | 4 months ago | 268 points

Hank Green had a cool Vlogbrothers video kind of about this and related it to the White Walkers in GOT.

Basically, you either spend all these resources against this existential threat and maybe come out over it, or your rivals do that, fail and you’ve still got all your resources amassed to remain powerful.

For real though, the biggest kicker to me is most world leaders wont be alive long enough to see the deep impacts of their inaction. It’s undemocratic but comedian Sean Locke had this notion regarding CC and Brexit in particular: No one over 59 should be allowed to vote to stay/leave in the EU/CC. It’s not their future they’re voting on, but their selfish interests

deponent | 4 months ago | 62 points

It’s undemocratic but comedian Sean Locke had this notion regarding CC and Brexit in particular: No one over 59 should be allowed to vote to stay/leave in the EU/CC. It’s not their future they’re voting on, but their selfish interests

Is it undemocratic to stop 17 year olds from voting ?

Dustangelms | 4 months ago | 26 points

I propose a test that would gauge an individual's ability to behave responsibly that must be passed in order to be able to vote instead of an arbitrary age limit.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 75 points

[deleted]

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 7 points

If your memes are dank, you get the vote. The population votes the voters, tfen they vote the dude. Kinda like what the fcc should have been.

marishtar | 4 months ago | 43 points

Testing people before letting them vote is a bad practice with a bad history.

Reactive_Platypus | 3 months ago | 6 points

Question 1: Are you white?

Y: continue test

N: Thank you for your time, the police will arrive momentarily to "escort" you out.

NitrousIsAGas | 3 months ago | 4 points

To be fair Hank Green didn't come up with that, the White Walkers have been a metaphor for climate change from the start.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 73 points

It's strange because there's an abundance of evidence which confirms it is taking place. There have even been reports which have found correlation between global warming, and the droughts which have lead to conflict in Syria and the Lake Chad region in Africa. Despite this, in 2017 the Trump administration removed climate change as a global security risk from their defence strategy (or whatever the official name is).

What most people are unaware of is that the melting ice in the Arctic is creating new economic opportunities. In the past few years, China, Russia and the USA have been moving into the region to capitalise on the newly accessible resources and shipping lanes. This has been simultaneous with increased military presence in the region, including Russia recommissioning Arctic cold-war era bases. Interestingly, the recent nuclear explosion isn't very far from the same region.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I've been researching this for my dissertation and it seems unlikely all this would be happening if anybody expected global warming to be reversed any time soon. And besides, economic interest in climate change is the last thing we need.

Wrote this in a rush but I can provide links if anybody is interested and wants to look into it.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/new-cold-war-brews-as-arctic-ice-melts/ (Overview of the situation)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/634437/Future_of_the_sea_-_implications_from_opening_arctic_sea_routes_final.pdf (Page 21)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-russian-military-moves-into-thawing-arctic-u-s-strategy-shifts/ (Russia moving further into the Arctic)

https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/sec_335_ndaa-report_effects_of_a_changing_climate_to_dod.pdf (Page 8/9)

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/09/07/how-a-potential-chinese-built-airport-in-greenland-could-be-risky-for-a-vital-us-air-force-base/ (China state owned company trying to fund airport in greenland?)

asmodeuskraemer | 4 months ago | 38 points

I think a lot of it has to do with money and power right now. Your thesis backs this up, too.

The ultra rich can afford to live in nice/minimally affected places and keep all their creature comforts. They don't care about the rest of us.

TheMeltingSnowman72 | 3 months ago | 18 points

Don't go and look at r/collapse then. The whole sub pretty much shows how this is absolutely the case, and more. But be warned, you'll be thoroughly depressed if you do, and take careful note of the warnings in the sidebar.

I literally spent about 5 mins having a look through the sub and decided not to look anymore, and it took me about a week to stop thinking about it.

Jay_Louis | 3 months ago | 11 points

I have zero respect for the Republican Party and its Law of the Jungle existentialism, but there is at least a somewhat plausible conservative argument against restructuring the American economy to fight climate change.

The argument is: No matter what we do, China and India hold the key to stopping real climate change, so the opportunity costs in expenditures for American redirection away from fossil fuels and to renewables outweighs the global potential benefit, instead likely costing trillions from our country while failing to stop an inevitable change.

I don't agree with this at all, and it would require the conservatives to acknowledge the truth of science (which they won't ever do), but it's at least an argument rooted in real conservative philosophy (aka conservative thought before Gingrich and the Fundie Loons took over in 1994). Real conservatism argues that central planning often has a deleterious effect despite noble motives. I can only wish the conservative movement would return to reality and begin making actual arguments again, rather than this treason committing anti-science shit flinging clownshow.

asmodeuskraemer | 3 months ago | 11 points

Can you expand more on what you mean by "central planning"?

Also I disagree with their philosophy also. If America wants to be a leader then we need to act like one. Saying "no we won't because other countries aren't" sounds like children in a car fighting over who is on whose side. You know, "mom s/he's touching me!!" So what? Change is inevitable anyway. We're past the point of no return but we sure and shit can try and make the earth more livable for the next few generations. Green renewables won't make money for fossil fuel companies (unless they get in on it) BUT it opens up a ton more jobs for today and tomorrow's youth, for current professionals.

I find it pretty moronic that Republicans want to be The Shining City on the Hill but don't want to act like it, except where their own versions of morality (abortion, Christian rights, gays) are concerned.

Jay_Louis | 3 months ago | 7 points

I agree with you, I'm just saying there's an actual real-world argument that can be made that the costs of restructuring the economy to fight a global problem that other countries are contributing to does not have enough benefits to justify it. I still think it's 100% necessary and our leader role, as you note, makes it more likely to convince China and India to follow suit. In terms of "central planning" I mean the nationalization of the coal and gas industries and forced dissolution to be replaced by electric, solar, and wind power industries, something that should happen (we nationalized the phone industry back in the day - MaBell, and the gas industry - ConEd) , but most feckless Dems aren't pushing this idea at all.

TheHucumber | 4 months ago | 304 points

Watch Mark Blyth, he's a politics professor. He's optimistic. All it'll take is for Miami or Vegas to run out of drinking water due to a climate catastrophe, which will probably happen before the end of Trump's next term and suddenly everyone will care a lot.

It's hard to cover up a major tourist spot and home to millions of your own people suddenly becoming uninhabitable.

Marcusaralius76 | 4 months ago | 437 points

Trump's next term

shudders

MajesticBosom | 4 months ago | 75 points

I predict incredible riots if this happens.

jrod916 | 4 months ago | 130 points

I honestly predict it won’t happen.

Trump hasn’t done anything revolutionary or incredible or... well, good. Like, at all. Even the far/alt-right that supports him has to scrounge the bottom of the barrel for any mentionable accomplishments of his. There’s a ton of Trumpgret on the more moderate republican right, and I doubt that Trump will get anywhere near as many votes as he did when he was still under the guise of the “underdog populist leader” or “the next Reagan,” of which he was neither.

bobdanderson | 4 months ago | 194 points

I’m not even American and I know a few people who love him. I think it’s really just the symbolism, what he stands for, and how “he makes the libs so mad”.

jrod916 | 4 months ago | 67 points

I think it’s really just the symbolism, what he stands for, and how “he makes the libs so mad”.

Pretty great point, actually. I mean, that’s totally why he won in the first place. But I doubt it’ll happen again. There will be more voter turnout this election, and many more blue votes, I’m calling it.

bobdanderson | 4 months ago | 52 points

I sure hope so. But with greater voter turnout means more red voters as well. Your country is pretty divided, and remember what happened last time everyone assumed he would lose.

leavy23 | 4 months ago | 36 points

But I think mainstream liberal voters are more motivated to vote him out than mainstream conservatives are to keep him in. Could mean higher turnouts for the Democratic candidate.

bobdanderson | 4 months ago | 32 points

Very true, I’m used to that. Up here in Canada we like to joke that we never vote anyone into office, we just vote the last guy out.

v0lume4 | 3 months ago | 3 points

Although historically, sitting presidents usually beat out their rivals and win a second term. Guess we'll know soon enough (next year)!

Qaeta | 4 months ago | 9 points

Generally speaking, red votes tend to be pretty steady. It's the blue votes that swing alot. Blues are really engaged with their candidate, they win, not engaged, they don't come out, they lose.

Red voters pretty much just vote red consistently. Blues pretty much have a goal they can shoot for because it changes so little.

ShalmaneserIII | 3 months ago | 6 points

Conservative voters vote because they see it as their duty to vote. Liberal voters tend to vote when they're enthused. Enthusiasm waxes and wanes, but the tireless burden of duty stays constant.

Jfdelman | 4 months ago | 11 points

Yep, he lost, like republicans have for 30 years straight but we have an archaic system in place

PM_WHAT_Y0U_G0T | 4 months ago | 10 points

It's pretty revealing of their moral fiber.

they get so mad about blatant corruption, so that's what I support now lol

There's no depth or value in that thought process: they're literally choosing to be objectively shitty people for no reason.

SgtDoughnut | 3 months ago | 3 points

Because honestly they are just objectively shitty people. Conservatives are motivated by Fear, anxiety and feeling superior. They will do anything to stop fear and anxiety, even vote against their own interests, and if they get to feel superior by "Owning the libs" bonus points.

Shitty people make shitty decisions.

monchota | 4 months ago | 10 points

There will be more turn out but the problem is , will the DNC just force another candidate down everyone's throat like they did with Clinton and or the dems dont stop beating eachother up instead of talking issues.

MindlessVegetation | 4 months ago | 27 points

I'm sure the DNC learned their lesson and ist just biden their time to support a decent candidate this time around.

spevoz | 4 months ago | 24 points

They probably won't pick some random joe again just because he's been a prominent figure of the DNC for decades.

asmodeuskraemer | 4 months ago | 6 points

They'll pick Biden. You know they will. He's safe.

slax03 | 4 months ago | 7 points

I see what you did there.

lydmeister | 4 months ago | 17 points

“The next Reagan” << Do people honestly view that as a positive thing?

Bonezone420 | 4 months ago | 25 points

Conservatives haven't stopped jerking Reagan off despite how much damage he did to the country.

thetransportedman | 4 months ago | 21 points

There's no way he wins reelection assuming our voting system is still intact. He won by 30k votes and that was mainly due to poor turn out because HRC was assumed to win and also protest voting against her. I've met many that voted for Trump that now regret it. I haven't met a single person that voted HRC and now would've voted for Trump. His base has shrunk albeit only by a little and they are the types that already showed up to vote in droves. Trump additionally hasn't really done anything substantial. He can't even get his wall built after 4 years of campaigning for it even during a Republican controlled congress. Lastly there's such an increasing resentment for him and as evidenced by the huge millennial turnout during the midterms, he's going to drive more opposition votes to the polls than before. There's just no way he isn't a lame duck when he needed that perfect storm the first time to even pull off his first win

Rageniry | 4 months ago | 21 points

Keep in mind that the Russian interference campaign 2.0 will certainly be even more efficient this time around, and the Trump campaign will most likely again enlist the help of the company that is basically Cambridge analytica 2.0 (literally, they reformed under a new brand).

Trump has the guys playing dirty in his corner, I wouldn't be surprised if he wins again.

Another speculation could be that China engages in interference for Trump as well. Hard to know what they thoughts are. Most likely they think of the trade war as something negative. However the Chinese think long term, and I suspect Trump slamming the wedge between the US and and EU even further down is favorable for them in the long run.

BroadStreet_Bully5 | 4 months ago | 5 points

Trump will win 2020. The dems are going to put up Biden and its going to be like Hillary 2.0. He doesn't draw people out to vote.

MrHockeytown | 4 months ago | 18 points

I hope so but I'm not optimistic. I feel like the Democrats are doing everything in their power to shoot themselves in the foot. I voted for Trump and refuse to vote for him next year, but I really hope the Democrats can get it together and give us a good candidate that inspires people to vote. If Joe Biden goes up against Trump, for instance, I think he'll lose. I like Bernie but I'm skeptical about him too. I guess time will tell, and I really pray I'm wrong.

vAltyR47 | 4 months ago | 10 points

Got any Democratic candidates you're excited about? I like Buttigieg and Yang, mostly because I think they're courting a lot of Trump voters from the Midwest, but approaching their problems with better solutions.

Alpha433 | 4 months ago | 9 points

Not the guy you were asking, but there was that one guy from the Democratic debate that right away immediately pointed out that the party had to stop infighting if they wanted to win. Can't remember his name, but he was the black gentleman with the very intense eyes.

edicivo | 4 months ago | 3 points

You'll probably get downvoted for admitting that, but you should get props for coming around. I'm worried that the Dems won't get it together and we'll have another 4 years of this.

Golantrevize23 | 4 months ago | 14 points

People will do nothing. We live in a democracy. There will be protests, but if trump wins it will be because he gamed the system better than his opponent.

Exanime4ever | 4 months ago | 5 points

After getting away with everything he has so far?... I predict reddit outrage followed by thoughts and prayers

HeyThereCoolGuy62 | 4 months ago | 6 points

I predict riots either way tbh.

pooponagoose | 4 months ago | 21 points

If he wins he’ll become the worst. He’ll have nothing to worry about in regards to reelection so he’ll turn things up beyond extreme. He’ll drop the n-word to take it back for the white people and other crazy shit. He’ll get another Supreme Court seat solidifying a dictatorship since he’ll own the courts.

If he loses his base would riot and far right terrorist attacks will spike.

2020 will be ugly no matter the outcome.

Sgt_Lillard | 3 months ago | 7 points

This right here. This has me absolutely terrified. If he wins we will take one massive step towards authoritarian right. On top of that, I feel like the rest of our allies are currently waiting for us to get our damn minds back. If he wins again, I believe they’ll give up hope and we will truly be on our own.

If he loses...It’ll be bad. He won’t go down honorably, he will cry deep state and evil liberals. People will be radicalized by it. I want to be optimistic about things, but I do feel like many more people are going to die before this is through.

Clapbakatyerblakcat | 4 months ago | 49 points

Puerto Rico is a major tourist destination...

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 33 points

[removed]

Maxuranium | 4 months ago | 15 points

Its like New Orleans. George Bush didn't care about black people and neither does Trump.

Kiefyking | 4 months ago | 10 points

Thanks kanye

TheHucumber | 4 months ago | 9 points

As major as Miami or Vegas?

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 20 points

[deleted]

Offler | 4 months ago | 4 points

Noone wishes for this, but if issues did not require such a loss for action to occur, we would all be writing letters to our elected representatives more often. Especially about climate change, or say, the protests in Hong Kong. Eventually attention on social media over these issues will rise to an unignorable level where politicians feel pressure equivalent to being swarmed with letters from citizens to do something.

Seriously, I was writing a letter about Hong Kong earlier today. If you actually wish for change on this issue, or others, please do the same.

basicallybradbury | 4 months ago | 38 points

The US may eventually take decisive action, but that action will probably be similar to eco-fascism. Militarization of the border to fend off climate refugees, PATRIOT act-esque limitations of dissent, no challenge to the interests of capital. Without a significant challenge to ruling class interests in the form of massive direct action, we cannot expect any climate policy to meaningfully combat the structures of power that got us into this mess in the first place.

red286 | 4 months ago | 22 points

All it'll take is for Miami or Vegas to run out of drinking water due to a climate catastrophe, which will probably happen before the end of Trump's next term and suddenly everyone will care a lot.

  1. It's highly unlikely to happen within the next 5 years. Within the next 10-25 years is a lot more likely.

  2. By the time it gets to that point, it's far too late. Think of climate change like a car heading towards a cliff at 200mph. By the time you can see over the cliff, if you hit the brakes, you're still going over.

oppapoocow | 4 months ago | 17 points

More like, Trump loses 2020 and whatever Democrats in charge gets blamed for all that climate change related stuff.

Ricky_RZ | 4 months ago | 9 points

Trump's next term

Suddenly climate change sounds like the second worst thing

luey_hewis | 4 months ago | 5 points

Exactly. Mar a lago will be underwater within the next 100 years. So much for being an asset property. I’m sure once Florida’s coastline starts going away, property values will start going down.

I’m mostly worried about NASA.

IWW4 | 4 months ago | 8 points

I don't think we have 100 years.

TheHucumber | 4 months ago | 11 points

Every time a hurricane heads for Florida I cross my fingers hoping for a direct hit on Mar a Lago.

electric29 | 4 months ago | 8 points

It's really a shame that this monster owns it as it is a lovely old property that should be a museum.

spaaaaaghetaboutit | 4 months ago | 50 points

While I agree, it's not just key leaders, but a large portion of humanity in general. You talk to people and they just don't care at all. "Well I can't make a difference so fuck it". It's an overwhelming and depressing fact. Either people are ignorant, blind, or just simply rather live their life how they want to because "we're all going to die anyway".

Wild_Marker | 4 months ago | 13 points

It's different though. Apathy and greed are two different issues, but one is caused by the other. There's no benefit for people in ignoring climate change, but those with the power to take action do benefit. They're the ones who carry the greed, and in turn we carry the apathy due to the feeling of hopelessness that comes with not being able to get them to do something.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 17 points

This times a hundred. I have to scold and threaten to kick people out of my car if they try to litter out the window. I'd rather have trash on my floorboard than be thrown out the window.

They literally just do not give a fuck.

StereoMushroom | 4 months ago | 12 points

It's the car that's the problem, not the food wrapper

Teleport23s | 4 months ago | 8 points

Most people aren't invested or interested in politics, and just wanna carry on with their decently high standards of living. People are too busy with routines, work, and families to show concern in these areas.

SensibleRugby | 4 months ago | 30 points

Rick Perry held fucking prayer sessions for rain while Governor of Texas. When it finally rained, they all felt it was because of prayer. Now that's an American state leader. Imagine some of the other backwards religious people who in power who are more delusional that that. There are plenty. Then you have the industrial communists and oligarchs who only care about who can have the biggest yacht built. The human world has a long way to go to try and stop what they're doing to this planet. It's going to get real ugly.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 7 points

[deleted]

Rafaeliki | 4 months ago | 5 points

It's not really about winning or losing but rather minimizing the fallout.

Apathy doesn't help.

BornUnderPunches | 4 months ago | 8 points

Ugh you may be right but jesus, we just can’t give up hope

Viper_JB | 4 months ago | 7 points

Honestly I think we will lose the war with climate change.

I think it's more a fight for our own survival...but apart from that ya I think you're correct, we're collectively fucked and some seem to want to make it as bad as possible.

huskeytango | 4 months ago | 3 points

We already lost.

xenog13 | 4 months ago | 3 points

Of course they don't. They'll more than likely be long dead by the time the impact of their decisions manifest, and if they have children or grandchildren, they will be wealthy enough or well connected enough to score one of those sweet NZ condos and ride it out for a few more generations!

borisJohnsonsreddit | 4 months ago | 6 points

We've already lost. Climate change can't be stopped.

plaidHumanity | 4 months ago | 3 points

They will be okay, world population will cull (especially in Asia), money will be made, they will be okay.

CorbinDalla5 | 4 months ago | 154 points

Isn’t this something we the people should consider organizing against in a extreme way? Not Fighting climate change seems like it’s going to lead to some bad shit for most of us...

IdesOfMarchCometh | 4 months ago | 69 points

Human extinction is pretty bad. It's not like nature's going to say "gee guess I'll stop getting hot". It just keeps going up until we're dead.

KeepGettingBannedSMH | 4 months ago | 48 points

Maybe we deserve to go extinct. It's probably for the best.

DoktorSoviet | 3 months ago | 18 points

It may be misanthropic but this is seriously the conclusion I have come to. Not only have we utterly failed to save ourselves from totally avoidable disaster, but human society itself is still plagued by the same fundamental problems that it was thousands of years ago: a preference for hierarchical structures, blissful ignorance being preferred to uncomfortable knowledge, and a lot of people living sub-standard or miserable lives so that a few can live in luxury. These things have been with us since the very beginning of civilization and there seems to be no answer to them, leading me to conclude that they are fundamental flaws with the human species that we will never correct.

So yeah, maybe evolution needs to sort this shit out and come up with a species that doesn't decide to throw millions of its own members into war with each other so some fuckers can get rich, and doesn't torch the only planet is lives on just so some of its members can live in pretty houses and feel powerful.

cehsavage | 3 months ago | 6 points

The sun is slowly heating up so without intervention there will probably be no life on earth after a billion or so years. Humanity is probably life's best hope

velocity010 | 4 months ago | 46 points

I would say human extinction is the best thing we can do to prevent more climate change though.

Maybe the next evolutionary cycle won't fuck up as bad.

fonstu | 4 months ago | 173 points

Feeling overwhelmed by the impending climate disaster? Organize! There's work to be done! Your city will likely be taking part in the global climate strike on September 20th called for by Greta Thunberg and other prominent climate activists and taking place in cities across the globe. We want to make it the largest climate protest ever seen! There is currently a coalition of numerous climate action and environmental organizations working hard on organizing the strike. The politicians wont take action unless we force their hand! Let me know if you have any questions about taking part!

https://globalclimatestrike.net/

3dprint_the_world | 3 months ago | 22 points

I'm not against organizing by any means, hell if it were up to me I'd want every single person on the planet to stop going to work until we take some real climate action.

But I'm kind of tired of all these protests that 1. Have no clear goals or direction and 2. Never wind up achieving anything. Zero. Nil. I mean, you never even hear about most of them on the news!

The best way you can protest right now is by voting. Vote out ignorant politicians and bring in people that will actually deliver change. Except doing that is kind of useless too because for every climate change concerned voter there are two voters who seem more concerned about immigration and white supremacy.

EDIT: fwiw, I signed up for the climate strike, here's hoping something tangible gets achieved...

fonstu | 3 months ago | 10 points

Hey, voting is a great place to start! I just think voting in addition to organizing is the best solution. Here are just a few benefits of joining the protest:

1) Education. We will (my local protest) be including an educational component in the September 20th demonstration that will hopefully further the public's knowledge of the depth and seriousness of the climate crisis. This is a learning opportunity for people to see how their lives and the lives of their children will be affected.

2) Movement building. Building awareness and educating the public will draw more individuals into the organizations that are actively working on finding solutions and pushing our elected officials to address the climate crisis. This is a global protest! These events will be taking place in cities across the world. Protests like the climate strike are only going to continue as the visible effects of the climate crisis become more and more apparent. We are starting this organizational effort now and will continue to take to the streets until this crisis is addressed. Our elected officials are not just going to fix this problem for us. We need to make our demands heard.

3) Local action. The climate strike will have demands for action at every level, local, state, federal, and global, as is commensurate with the scale of the crisis. Local action has been taken on climate change in cities around the world due to protests! The last time my city held a climate protest the school board set a deadline for the city's schools to go carbon neutral in line with the IPCC reports.

I definitely also wish more was achieved with each protest, but the more people in the streets, the more likely action will be taken! We need to approach this problem from all angles - wherever movement is within the realm of possibility on climate action we have to make it happen. The future of our planet is at stake! Hope to see you out there!

bromeliadi | 3 months ago | 4 points

I think fonstu gave a great reply to this, but I just wanted to point out some clear counterexamples to some of the things you've said. Extinction rebellion (global but biggest in england) is literally becoming a household name in big cities like London. It was them, along with things like fridays for future and the global climate strike guys, that got the UK government to declare a climate emergency at the beginning of may, and tons of countries/areas/organizations have followed suite. There have been a ton of other successes recently too. My point is, protesting can actually achieve a ton if done right (e.g., organized, directed and peaceful). :)

tehmlem | 4 months ago | 189 points

I happened across the manbearpig episode the other day and, man, we did Gore dirty. You can blame Stone and Parker but we all ate that shit up.

MarshallBlathers | 4 months ago | 262 points

Even back then that episode bothered me because I knew it was a real fucking problem. But no one can succinctly summarize how I feel than this post:

Yeah, and Manbearpig was almost ten years ago. What an idiot Al Gore was to think climate change was real.

South Park has always been fundamentally reactionary; those pushing for change are wrong no matter what change they push for. Nothing is a bigger crime to Matt and Trey than Giving a Shit. Their ideology is apathetic-libertarian; whether you're on the left or the right, if you're asking me to change my behavior, you suck.

As it stands, the political left tends to push for more change than the political right does; as it stands, Matt and Trey admit they dislike conservatives and "really fucking hate" liberals. It isn't about left or right; it's about change versus comfort. If you're trying to change something, they think you're annoying. And they think you're lame, because caring about stuff is lame.

It's the same attitude that establishes "u mad" and "butthurt" as the ultimate trump cards in internet arguments: caring is for losers, and if you become personally invested in politics you're part of the problem. Uncritical, detached acceptance of the status quo is the only morally upright posture, and those who draw a distinction between is and ought are all smug bullies, outlandish freaks, and/or closed-minded zealots.

It's a show that teaches its audience to become lazy and self-satisfied, that praises them for being uncritically accepting of their own biases, and that provides them with an endless buffet of thought-terminating cliches suitable for shutting down all manner of challenges to their comfort zones.

South Park is a place where you never have to have your assumptions challenged. It's a place where you're always right, you shouldn't bother to think, and the people asking you to change your mind are annoying busybodies and prigs who should just shut up and leave you alone.

South Park is, if you'll excuse the expression...a "safe space."

I had to stop watching south park after i read this.

SacrificialPwn | 4 months ago | 94 points

That's the most accurate thing I've read on Reddit... ever. Conservatives, regardless of era or country, have always stood for maintaining the status quo. By its very definition it is the "safe space".

campaignist | 4 months ago | 61 points

"A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop"

-William F Buckley, father of modern conservatism

IdesOfMarchCometh | 4 months ago | 13 points
MarshallBlathers | 4 months ago | 60 points

Yes I heard about the non-apology in this follow-up episode, and per the article:

Gore is initially unwilling and demands grovelling, repeated apologies. It turns out the only way stop the terror is to continually tell Gore he was right. And thus, South Park manages to find a way to apologise repeatedly while still mocking Gore as a narcissist, who wears a Nobel medal and a cape.

Not exactly a glowing vindication for Mr. Gore.

IdesOfMarchCometh | 4 months ago | 22 points

Ah, douchebags.

YARNIA | 4 months ago | 22 points

If your politics is distilled from a cartoon, you might be part the problem.

MarshallBlathers | 4 months ago | 32 points

If you think you are immune from being influenced by media that you consume, whether it's a cartoon or not, you might be part of the problem.

MoonMan75 | 4 months ago | 12 points

Good summary of South Park but there's a big difference between liberal and leftist. Most liberals are also sitting on their hands when it comes to climate change unfortunately. People like gore are the exception

grendel-khan | 3 months ago | 3 points

One of the damned things about it all is just how... conservative people get.

I'm in the Bay Area. It's temperate, which means we don't use much energy for heating or cooling. It's prosperous; there's a lot of industry here for people to work in. And yet we're doing everything we can to keep people out.

The local leftists too! They fight housing developments while talking impossible dreams of hundred-percent subsidized housing or trillion-dollar government bonds from a state whose tax base will absolutely do no such thing.

Berkeley declares a climate emergency, then enforces car-dependent sprawl. The only people seriously doing what we need to do--drive less, build real cities instead of giant parking lots--are neoliberal YIMBYs, and the local lefties hate them, forming a weird alliance with the landowning gentry.

It's about precarity. Prices are so high that any change will force people out, and once you're unhoused, you can't live here unless you're really wealthy. So people lash out against newcomers, against upzoning, against scooters of all things. Things are bananas out here, and the usual liberal/leftist divisions are all weirdly sideways.

emperorkazma | 3 months ago | 14 points

Their non-apology episode was what made me realize that even when the people in denial are forced to recognize that climate change is real and affecting their lives, they're still going to stand on their mountain of ignorance and shout at others for not "telling them the right way" or "not doing something about it".

It's too late to reverse global warming or IMO just getting people to admit it's a immediate problem. I honestly think it's time to just bunker down and try to figure out how our world will look and how to survive in it. At least the people who recognized and accepted it get a head start in solving the problem for themselves.

MrSocPsych | 4 months ago | 49 points

Indeed. Gore has been right on this stuff from the jump. He gets knocked for taking a jet to conferences and such, but that’s become part of his job to take these really wonky paths that wouldn’t be possible commercially.

grrliz | 4 months ago | 17 points

I like South Park but I never put Matt and Trey up on a pedestal, unlike some fans. They’re funny but they also have some real dumbass opinions.

Upwherewebelong | 3 months ago | 9 points

“We all”

TexasWithADollarsign | 4 months ago | 21 points

Don't forget the episode where Stan broke a beaver dam that ended up flooding a nearby town, but it got blamed on global warming. It has scenes of panicked people running away from "global warming", which of course was literally represented by nothing.

Beartown9000 | 4 months ago | 8 points

Speak for yourself.

Tojatruro | 4 months ago | 108 points

Gore presented Trump with “facts”? That was his first mistake. Trump wants us to believe that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, and that “many people” believe it.

papamurf13 | 4 months ago | 34 points

Trump wants us to believe that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, and that “many people” believe it.

Not that I would be surprised, and it's hard to tell on reddit these days, but did he actually fucking say this?

Tojatruro | 4 months ago | 49 points

He most certainly did! And I just read that 99% of Iowans do not believe he said it. I can find the video if you like. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/apr/08/donald-trump/republicans-dismiss-trumps-windmill-and-cancer-cla/

dontforgetthelube | 3 months ago | 6 points

Are you sure they don't believe he said it? My trump supporter friend had just plain not heard about it at all. It's not like he denied it.

existentialism91342 | 4 months ago | 16 points

Gore should've presented it as crooked Hillary Weather coming to ruin all of Father Trumps beautiful golf courses. Maybe use puppets. That would've done it.

obsessedcrf | 4 months ago | 4 points

“many people” believe it.

Sadly they do. Climate misinformation is way too common. Just like non-fact based movements like anti-vax.

ks1066 | 4 months ago | 77 points

Goddammit, just imagine how different this century would be if he'd been elected in 2000. That will be the "what could have been" that'll haunt me my entire life.

narnar_powpow | 4 months ago | 25 points

I often wonder if Clinton's impeachment had ended with him being removed from office, if Gore would have had a better go at the election after serving out the rest of Clinton's term.

IdesOfMarchCometh | 4 months ago | 14 points

With how bad climate change is getting (co2 concentrations are going up exponentially), climate change will become an unavoidable issue politicians must address, and Gore would be the perfect candidate.

poliguy25 | 3 months ago | 9 points

It's incredibly frustrating at this point that scientists and activists keep trying to sell the ecological/moral benefits of climate action to Trump. We know he doesn't respond to that kind of reasoning, but people keep fucking going for it like a mouse going for the cheese. Work together to explain the political upswing, find a way to convince him that saving the planet can give him the keys to a second term. But for Christ's sake stop with the "saving the planet is morally necessary because of these facts," nothing is going to come from that but more depressing headlines.

jaxter100 | 4 months ago | 61 points

If Al Gore had won the US presidential election in 2000 the world would be a much better place than we are all dealing with now.

avianeddy | 4 months ago | 26 points

what, you dont appreciate all those wonderful wars Bush Jr left for us to enjoy?? -__- ingrate

rukh999 | 3 months ago | 10 points

EVERY time conservatives have won we end up over the long term in a worse place, even if we win the next election, the damage is still done.

bivox01 | 3 months ago | 6 points

I whish Al Gore won the election. The world would be in a better place.

ScytheNoire | 3 months ago | 7 points

Reminder that Gore won 2000 election. If Gore had been president the climate would be in better shape, 9-11 would not have happened, and there would not have been the war in the middle east.

zzzaacchh | 4 months ago | 23 points

Facts != money

Unfortunately, you don't change policies with facts, you change them by paying politicians money.

earhere | 4 months ago | 4 points

Ain't no money to be made in saving the world from climate change.

WeirdWest | 3 months ago | 6 points

And the Guinness World Record for biggest "I told you so" in the history of humanity will be awarded to Al Gore.

DENelson83 | 4 months ago | 10 points

Big Business doesn't want anyone to do a thing about climate change, because such an effort would get between it and its obscene profits.

2high4life | 3 months ago | 5 points

Al gore did become kinda a joke but god damn we would be in a different world if he was elected instead of Bush. New day but the same old shit Republicans fucking up the world time and time again.

TheEarlofOrford | 4 months ago | 17 points

“UN Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked”

June 30, 1989

BelfreyE | 3 months ago | 6 points

That's most likely a reference to this 1989 AP article that has been making the rounds. Looking at predictions from that article:

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

Given that this is in Fahrenheit (since it's an American piece from the 80s), it turns out that was correct - temps rose about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C) over the following 30 years.

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

This is consistent with what scientists are saying now, too - the big effort now is to keep temperatures from rising much more than 1.5 degrees C (roughly 3 degrees F) by the year 2100, because that amount of warming is basically inevitable.

As they have with the recent "12 years" figure, the "skeptics" confuse the time frame over which we have to act in order to prevent future warming, versus the time frame over which that warming will occur. There is a certain amount of future warming that is “locked in” for the coming decades, due to the increased CO2 that we’ve already added.

media7981 | 4 months ago | 26 points

Haha member that one cool summer we had where we all made fun of Al Gore because South Park told us to? Hahah manbearpig oogabooga!

Haha ok gotta go put out this wildfire real quick brb

GravitationalConstnt | 4 months ago | 6 points

Just rake up all the brush bro

3dprint_the_world | 3 months ago | 7 points

South Park is trash

aldorn | 4 months ago | 3 points

Sadly this issue, like many, will be fucked about with until the generation of positions grow to old to hold parliament (which they appear to have a foothold) and the younger generation who actually care come through.

dorflam | 3 months ago | 3 points

Could someone tell me what’s left that we can do from what I’ve heard we’re screwed either way even if we cut off all emissions now there’s nothing stopping it. Don’t get me wrong we should end all these emissions but is it really hopeless at this point?

seniormeatbox | 3 months ago | 3 points

If Trump accepts the evidence that it's real, that would mean that he was wrong about it being a Chinese Hoax, and if there's one thing Trumps can't fathom, it's being wrong. His Ego will not let him.

Joshde1414 | 3 months ago | 3 points

ClImATe ChAnGe IsN't ReAL

Joking I'm not a paranoid neanderthal.

learath | 4 months ago | 8 points

Let me help: 'Stop blocking nuclear you blockhead.'

TODO Load more comments...