this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
117 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19346 readers
2685 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
 

Summary

Chris Wright, Donald Trump’s energy secretary nominee, faced criticism during his Senate confirmation hearing for downplaying links between climate change and wildfires, calling concerns “hype.”

Democrats, including California Senator Alex Padilla, challenged his stance, citing catastrophic wildfires in the state.

Wright acknowledged climate change is real and caused by increased CO2 levels but defended expanded fossil fuel use, arguing energy sources have tradeoffs rather than being "clean" or "dirty."

Despite opposition, Senate Republicans support his nomination, while scientists confirm climate change exacerbates wildfire frequency and severity.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cultsuperstar 8 points 19 hours ago

So, if I rob someone with a gun, and during my escape I ditch the gun. It's found with my fingerprints on it. They link it to me. I can say "linking that gun to me because of the fingerprints is hype" and I'll get off Scott free? Sweet.

[–] CharlesDarwin 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Looks like Idiocracy came early.

[–] cabron_offsets 2 points 6 hours ago

Idiocracy would be a substantial improvement over current circumstances.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 20 hours ago

Nope. We aren't going to have a President who listens to the experts around him and tries to find solutions to the problems. Idiocracy is a movie about a timeline where we made terrible mistakes in the past but are trying to make things better with the limitations we now have. That isn't this timeline.

[–] NocturnalMorning 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

As always (exchange between a climate science with 3 decades of his/her life spent researching the topic, and random dipshit1)

Climate scientists - "These wild fires have been exacerbated, and linked to climate change"

Dipshit1 - "Nah bro, it ain't like that."

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh they know damn well it's like that. It's just that doing anything about it will cut into their political donors' pockets. I don't believe for a second that most climate change denying politicians actually believe the shit they are spewing. The oil industry knew over half a century ago that what they were doing is wrecking the planet.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

That's the insanity of it .... I agree with you .... I think most of these climate denying morons are very intelligent people but they use their intelligence to evil ends by doing their very best to deny scientific knowledge and humanity in general.

In the end they are dumber than the dumbest most ignorant person you can imagine because they've used their intelligence to promote and protect the dumbest ideas.

[–] NocturnalMorning 1 points 1 day ago

Plenty of people actually believe this. There's gonna be people that just believe it, and people that are lying. Politicians are regular people, they just have a lot more narcissism than most people.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes 2 points 18 hours ago

Somebody should tell him that "hype" isn't usually used to mean "plainly and obviously true".

[–] Lasherz12 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The tone of the next 4 years

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think he was wearing a coat, a hat and had a shit eating mustache. If we split up, one of us is bound to find him and can holler so the rest will come running. If nobody finds the bastard within the hour, we'll regroup at the bar.

Somebody let's out a badly timed "Good job, everybody."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

"Well you tell that bastard Climate Change that I'm going to find him and tally his Wacker!"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Get your BDSM gear in order folks, because the future is going to look a lot like Mad Max.

Though Antarctica is looking to be some prime real estate!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Why else do you think Trump wants Greenland and Canada?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago

Delusions of grandeur

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

oh yeah. hot and dry conditions are totally not conducive to fires. for sure. /s