So what happens if a real disaster/crisis shows up?

[ordnance11]

Like:
1. A disease outbreak
2. A natural disaster
3. A terrorist attack - domestic or international
For me #2 would be the most terrifying right now - why? No FEMA head. That might be slightly better than the wrong FEMA head. Remember Katrina?
For #1 and #3 - No ambassadors and right now, no head of FBI. Coordination with other nations? What other nations?
Those who say well the acting heads can do the job? Small problem..most of the are civil servants. They run the day to day operations and they might be aware of the looming crisis, they don't have the authority to allocate resources to plan and initiate action.
There 's a model called he Swiss Cheese Model to illustrate why disasters/lack of preparedness to disasters happen. You got "holes"/deficiencies in every organization. Most of the time they don't align and nothing or minor things happen. It's when they do align you got major issues. When the biggest hole is at the top?
It's not a question of if. More like when.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Bob Schroeck]

Well, we're getting a double-whammy of #2 right now...

[Labster]

Actually, having most of the political appointee positions being vacant might be a best case scenario for real crises.  No director of FEMA means we have an acting director that's a professional bureaucrat.  The same with NOAA, and lots of other parts of government.  Much better than having a director who wants to eliminate the department they head, like with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The downside to this is that these departments don't have a lot of political levers to pull if they need it.  And given that there are pretty likely going to be budget cuts, this means the departments could weaken in the long term.  But in the short term, we can rely on the strength of the deep state.

Trump though, he thinks he's doing great, cutting by not hiring political appointees.  Which is the usual thing of completely missing the point that he does.

[Bob Schroeck]

It's not helping that Rush Limbaugh is yammering about how the hurricane forecasts and reports are actually "fake news" designed to sell climate change, and the storms aren't really as powerful as reported.  He apparently goes right up to the edge of claiming the storms are artificially engineered as part of a propaganda campaign.

[Spoilsport]

"Damn! He's on to me! Igor! Pack the hurricane machine, they've figured it out!"*

Alex Jones might have something to do with it. The Infowars founder — who has an “amazing” reputation, according to Trump — has for years promoted the notion that the U.S. government possesses the power to conjure and control weather events. Just last week, as Hurricane Harvey battered Texas, Jones devoted part of his show to questioning why the government didn't “use the technologies to kill [the storm] out in the gulf.”

Well clearly, now that the Republicans control the Administrative, Legislative and are undermining the Judicial branch, it's the secret "deep state government" fighting them! (You know, those folks who make the government work when elected officials spend 30 hours a week on their re-election.)
*Note to self: NO! YOU CAN"T WRITE A FENSPACE WEATHER MACHINE STORY! YOU HAVEN'T WRITTEN ANYTHING IN MORE THAN A YEAR AND THAT'S WHAT YOU COME UP WITH?!

[Matrix Dragon]

It's not helping that Rush Limbaugh is yammering about how the hurricane forecasts and reports are actually "fake news" designed to sell climate change, and the storms aren't really as powerful as reported.  He apparently goes right up to the edge of claiming the storms are artificially engineered as part of a propaganda campaign.

Okay, that? That's pure fucking evil. In case you had any more doubt about that monster.

[Bob Schroeck]

You want evil?  He's telling people to ignore evacuation orders, not to bother getting emergency supplies and just sit tight.  I suppose that's so they can be witnesses to the evil liberal forces that will sweep in and fake hurricane damage while everyone's gone, but it will get someone killed, guaranteed.

However, while I hate to sound callous, I have to admit that the thought has occurred to me that anyone who listens to him deserves to be removed from the gene pool by the storm.

[Black Aeronaut]

Uhm.... Isn't it possible for him to get fucking crucified? Like, literal indictments and federal charges for telling people to ignore a mandatory evacuation order?

Because I am 100% positive that First Amendment Rights do not cover telling people to literally put themselves into a potentially lethal situation.

[Spoilsport]

Sadly, he isn't yelling "fire!" in a theater, and the reverse (yelling "fake news!" when the truth is about to hit you in the face) isn't an impeachment offense chargeable crime. Even a civil suit would get thrown out, as the idiots chose to heed bad advice (or the entire stock market would have been destroyed years ago): "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes?!"

On the other hand, Houston didn't order evacuation because there is greater risk to being caught on the road during a killer storm/flooding. Houson didn't have as much lead time (somehow) as Florida has.

Stay safe out there, folks!

[robkelk]

...
On the other hand, Houston didn't order evacuation because there is greater risk to being caught on the road during a killer storm/flooding. Houson didn't have as much lead time (somehow) as Florida has.

Stay safe out there, folks!

To be fair, Florida gets a major hurricane or two each year, and Texas doesn't. Needing to deal with something on a regular basis means the process to deal with it gets known.

[Black Aeronaut]

Uhm.... He's telling people in Florida to not evacuate. Despite mandatory evacuation orders.

If that isn't endangering public safety, I don't know what is.

[Spoilsport]

I suppose the distinction lies in that, while a recognized, public figure (I hesitate to use the word "celebrity", in as much as I know the difference between "famous" and "infamous"), Limbaugh has zero authority over those who listen to his program; he is not compelling them to stay, he's offering a bullshit excuse to not go. It also wouldn't surprise me to find the specific language he used is such that he's given himself an "out" for any claims of culpability: an "if" here, a "could be" there.

Morally, he's scum (no news there). Legally, he's just another asshole selling fact-defying "entertainment" for sponsors (and there's no law against that).

[robkelk]

Is criminal law in the USA really that different from criminal law in Canada?

The Criminal Code of Canada, section 22, is quite clear:

22 (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.

(There's more that doesn't apply to this particular circumstance.)

And the person who breaks the law doesn't need to be convicted, either:

23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence.

In short, if you tell somebody to break the law in Canada, you're an accessory to whatever crimes that person commits because of what you told him or her.

And I do believe failing to comply with a mandatory order is a crime, no?

[Spoilsport]

First, I in no way intend to defend Limbaugh's assinine behavior, speech, or general position. It is entirely possible (though unlikely) that there could be prosecution for whatever combination of legalese that could be brought to bear.

Second, I'm no lawyer, so apart from a few Google search results that in general support it being theoretically an offense (depending on the state's position of mandatory evacuation), my opinion is that there would be little chance of him being prosecuted by a state or municipal court (just as I'd be happy to hear he is). It's probably marginally more likely for civil suits to be brought, but even those would be tenuous. Just a guess.

[Spoilsport]

Did some other searches, found this transcript of
The specific show itself

I couldn't take more than the first 2 or 3 insults of his "climate change hoax" conspiracy theory pandering.

[SilverFang01]

Right now I am waiting at home for Irma to hit. I live in Jacksonville so we should get a pounding but it won't be as bad as those at the *checks latest report* south and west and...*YIKES*

Okay, we are maybe getting a lot more than I expected based on earlier reports (remembers hurricane Georges back in Puerto Rico). At least my brother and his family got out of Miami on time.

There are several things that this hurricane season has put in stark relief:

1) There is no more denying climate change -- Four hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, José, and Katia) with a rapid intensification I have no memory of seeing before. Surface sea temperature is still way up there. And the fact that the western part of the country looks like Mordor. 

2) We really need to reconsider land use and zonification in light of the damage to Houston and how close Miami came to be erased off the map (which may still happen) plus all the damage Irma will do on its way north.

3) Evacuation infrastructure -- our transportation system cannot handle the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get out of an evacuation zone. If I remember correctly, it was the disaster that resulted from trying to evacuate Houston previously which helped to decide against evacuating this time. Maybe Harvey would not have been so bad on its own, but the fact that it stalled and tried to move the Gulf of Mexico some miles inland shows that we cannot always count on weather systems behaving normally.

---

It's not helping that Rush Limbaugh is yammering about how the hurricane forecasts and reports are actually "fake news" designed to sell climate change, and the storms aren't really as powerful as reported.  He apparently goes right up to the edge of claiming the storms are artificially engineered as part of a propaganda campaign.

  After I heard about that, I wanted to grab him, cover him in copper and tie him on a beach on the path of Irma.

[Rajvik]

he lives and works in Naples, if he truly believes what you all say he is spouting he won't be on air much longer

that said, i have never said myself that there is not climate change, i just argue that the "Evidence" in support of "Man made Global Warming" has always been bullshit. Our recorded history of weather is way to short to make any realistic and accurate predictions where the weather is concerned, to a degree and on a smaller scale Irma being a prime example. Over the course of about 24-30 hours that one storm's course predictions were changed from the East side of the state to the West side. Right now i sit with most of my windows boarded up because i feel relatively paranoid about this storm coming as far west as Pensacola, or even close enough to seriously effect us. Tomorrow i will finish boarding up my windows and then hunker down and wait.

The entire East Anglia issue didnt help matters in my mind either. We have argued all that before and i won't bother getting into that argument and will agree to disagree with the majority of you.

Final thoughts; I don't know how old each of you are, i am 38 myself and if my mind isnt running summers together i have seen back to back storms like this before, damn conga line of them stretching back across the damn Atlantic a couple of times. But then again my memory could be screwing with me, i would have to check.

Also, Irma is the strongest Atlantic storm ON RECORD, you do realize that this record does not include the unnamed hurricane that WIPED PENSACOLA OFF THE MAP, unnamed because in the 1600's they didnt do that. But for that storm, Pensacola would be the oldest settlement in the US, not Saint Augustine.

[robkelk]

We're talking about climate, not weather. And the evidence we have for climate - including ice cores from glaciers - goes back for millennia.

As for Pensacola, Irma has already wiped every town on Barbuda off the map, has already wiped every town on St Martin off the map (including the third-largest airport in the Caribbean), and is still going. And Jose is hot on its heels. Katia has "jumped the queue" and has already made landfall - but you might not have heard about that because it hit Mexico, not the USA. Veracruz state has taken damage.

Climate is changing - we have four major hurricanes (H, I, J, and K) active at the same time.

[Inquisitive Raven]

Final thoughts; I don't know how old each of you are, i am 38 myself and if my mind isnt running summers together i have seen back to back storms like this before, damn conga line of them stretching back across the damn Atlantic a couple of times. But then again my memory could be screwing with me, i would have to check.

Is it possible you're thinking of 2005? Everyone remembers Katrina, but that was also the year the Weather Service ran out of letters and started using the Greek alphabet.

[Rajvik]

actually i think it was '94 or '95 when Erin and Opal both came through the Pensacola area, and in all honesty that little cat 1 that was Erin did more damage than the cat 4 that was Opal did, of course if memory serves Opal downgraded to a cat 2 just before it made landfall

[hazard]

that said, i have never said myself that there is not climate change, i just argue that the "Evidence" in support of "Man made Global Warming" has always been bullshit. Our recorded history of weather is way to short to make any realistic and accurate predictions where the weather is concerned, to a degree and on a smaller scale Irma being a prime example.

Actually, we've over a thousand years of admittedly scattered reporting on the weather in Europe, drawn from various abbey and church records speaking of particularly potent storms, floods, harsh and lengthy frost periods, draughts and heatwaves. As the reports are scattered and none of the early ones have anything approaching proper data on temperature, precipitation or pressure, a fair amount of interpretation is needed to say anything about the weather conditions of that time, but it is possible.

[SilverFang01]

Here is the evidence that has shown that we bear responsibility for the increase in CO2:

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...s-updated/

http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-4/explanation-3.php

So, your assertion, Rajvik,  that "the "Evidence" in support of "Man made Global Warming" has always been bullshit," as you put it, is not borne by the actual evidence. Our fingerprints are all over this one.

I don't know why you keep holding to your "skepticism" in the face of all the studies and scientific consensus.

[Labster]

that said, i have never said myself that there is not climate change, i just argue that the "Evidence" in support of "Man made Global Warming" has always been bullshit. Our recorded history of weather is way to short to make any realistic and accurate predictions where the weather is concerned, to a degree and on a smaller scale Irma being a prime example. Over the course of about 24-30 hours that one storm's course predictions were changed from the East side of the state to the West side. Right now i sit with most of my windows boarded up because i feel relatively paranoid about this storm coming as far west as Pensacola, or even close enough to seriously effect us. Tomorrow i will finish boarding up my windows and then hunker down and wait.

You can argue that the evidence is bullshit, but that doesn't make it true.  If you can prove that any of the evidence is bullshit, I'd invite you to publish in one of the AMS journals, or JGR.  I'd be happy to be a coauthor, and I'm a real meteorologist.

It's very difficult to make good predictions of weather over time, because the modeling the atmosphere involves solving several partial differential equations as both an initial value and boundary value problem.  Boundaries can be generally approximated pretty well, but the initial condition is terrible because you might have one observation over 100 square kilometers, and you gotta assimilate that sparse data into what observations have "blown in" to the area.  It's worse in the tropics because (1) more ocean = less obs, (2) poorer countries = less obs, and (3) satellites = lower quality obs.  All that said, being off by only about 30km for the storm's center is actually pretty good.  Both objectively and in terms of what we expect in forecast model performance.  Yes, that means the opposite side of the state gets hit, but hey, it's not like we haven't been forecasting a "cone of uncertainty" all along.

Final thoughts; I don't know how old each of you are, i am 38 myself and if my mind isnt running summers together i have seen back to back storms like this before, damn conga line of them stretching back across the damn Atlantic a couple of times. But then again my memory could be screwing with me, i would have to check.

There have definitely been seasons with more storms.  Irma is an anomaly in terms of how large it is; having had time to go through 5 eyewall generation cycles made it a very large storm.  The conga line is actually less dangerous, though, because each storm is going to take a portion of the available energy from the sea that the next storm could have used.  It's why José fizzled.

Also, Irma is the strongest Atlantic storm ON RECORD, you do realize that this record does not include the unnamed hurricane that WIPED PENSACOLA OFF THE MAP, unnamed because in the 1600's they didnt do that. But for that storm, Pensacola would be the oldest settlement in the US, not Saint Augustine.

We're all quite aware of how short the record is on storms.  It's largely because of accurate weather predictions that we were able to save tens of thousands of lives in Irma alone.  Between the science of forecasting to the engineering of building codes, we've made this a pretty death-free affair.  It's like you're accepting the results of some science, while rejecting the work of some of the same scientists because you don't like it.  I mean, what?

[Spoilsport]

I don't know why you keep holding to your "skepticism" in the face of all the studies and scientific consensus.

A guess would be there's a false humility in denial: if we are a minor blip, we couldn't possibly cause that much harm. 
What it points to, though, is a violated sense of justice ("they didn't have to, why should I?"). 

Compare it to the US national debt: no one (in politics) is willing to stand up and say "this is going to hurt, but we have to do it, and it's going to take a long time!" Instead, it gets punted, "Let 'future me' deal with it later."

[Black Aeronaut]

Another way of looking at it:

If we're a minor blip, then what makes you think we'll last long if we keep doing nothing to better our situation?