toad

Ocasio

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Not in some folks' minds apparently.

 

Just now, justsomeguy! said:

What would happen if the population of bees were to drop by 50%?

Stop with that independent science, listen to the industry shills that jerk-z posts. When have they ever lied to us? What are you going to believe - your own eyes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

Stop with that independent science, listen to the industry shills that jerk-z posts. When have they ever lied to us? What are you going to believe - your own eyes?

How is this post relevant to anything posted in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

So to answer your question, if the bee population were to decline as much as it currently has, whatever that is, not much of anything would happen.

No. 50% drop was the question.

What would happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No bees, no farms. No farms, no food.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

No bees, no farms. No farms, no food.

 

Yet we have more food.  Yields continue to increase.  How can this be given the accuracy of the other data you posted?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Please point out where I've ever said anything of the sort.  I think that several of the positions she's staked out are naive and unworkable, but I like her enthusiasm, her efforts to elevate discourse, and hope that she is successful ( I would applaud ANYONE that contributes to this) in moving political discourse to issues and ideas and away from the cult of personality and idiotic memes. 

Elevating discourse by calling Ronald Reagan a racist?  Or calling capitalism irredeemable?  Or saying America is garbage? 

And you don't see AOC's followers as a cult of personality? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J28 said:

And you don't see AOC's followers as a cult of personality? 

yes, you are a cult asshole28. you and the rest of the righties following AOC on social media, bumping this thread with your latest outrage are a cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

they don't care. worldwide wild species decline doesn't matter to jerk-z.

There is a difference between truth and made up crisis that never seem to happen.  

How is this current bee crisis affecting human beings?  Where are the crops suffering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jzk said:

Is this a deposition?  Why don't you tell us?  You want to make some kind of point, so make it.

My point is that you fail to understand the importance of the interconnection of species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, justsomeguy! said:

My point is that you fail to understand the importance of the interconnection of species.

You could really prove that by showing how much damage to the planet is actually being caused by the current bee crisis.  

Can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:
12 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

My point is that you fail to understand the importance of the interconnection of species.

You could really prove that by showing how much damage to the planet is actually being caused by the current bee crisis.  

Can you?

To a reasonable degree, sure..... Probably not to -your- obtuse fascist satisfaction, but then, all he wanted to prove is that you don't understand the interconnection of diverse species in a healthy ecosystem.

You helped a lot, thanks

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

To a reasonable degree, sure..... Probably not to -your- obtuse fascist satisfaction, but then, all he wanted to prove is that you don't understand the interconnection of diverse species in a healthy ecosystem.

You helped a lot, thanks

-DSK

But really, what we actually proved is that environmentalists like to create nothing burger environmental crises as a pretext to implementing their political philosophy.  If it really were true that our food supply was in jeopardy, we should certainly take appropriate action.  Good thing it is not.  Even a better thing is that all of the previous environmental crises that were suppose to cause world hunger and famine were also nothing burgers as well.

There certainly seems to be a well established track record of not understanding, and it sure isn't on this end.

If you look at the thread, Mrleft8 said that "it is happening," and justsomeguy! implied agreement by stating "not in some folk's minds apparently."  So this is being presented as an actual crisis, not just a thought experiment.   So I ask again, given that "it is happening" and that bee population is critical to human flourishing, where is the effects?

Put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that Jizz kid doesn't keep bees, or have a citrus grove, or other fruit trees that depend on pollinators to produce.... Squash, cucumbers, melons, pumpkins, etc. all rely on bees or butterflies to make fruits. About the only crops I can think of off hand that is wind pollinated are corn, wheat, and other grains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, J28 said:

Elevating discourse by calling Ronald Reagan a racist?  Or calling capitalism irredeemable?  Or saying America is garbage? 

And you don't see AOC's followers as a cult of personality? 

I haven't heard her say those things -  if you've got cites, I'd be happy to reconsider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

But really, what we actually proved is that environmentalists like to create nothing burger environmental crises as a pretext to implementing their political philosophy.  If it really were true that our food supply was in jeopardy, we should certainly take appropriate action.  Good thing it is not.  Even a better thing is that all of the previous environmental crises that were suppose to cause world hunger and famine were also nothing burgers as well.

There certainly seems to be a well established track record of not understanding, and it sure isn't on this end.

If you look at the thread, Mrleft8 said that "it is happening," and justsomeguy! implied agreement by stating "not in some folk's minds apparently."  So this is being presented as an actual crisis, not just a thought experiment.   So I ask again, given that "it is happening" and that bee population is critical to human flourishing, where is the effects?

Put up or shut up.

No, what we proved is that you're all output, and with very limited content, at that.

1. dumbed-down economics sloganeering

2. Repeat fossil fuel industry propaganda

3. Anger at "The Left" and accusations of SOCIALISM!!

You never read, listen, learn, or change your tune. Sometimes it's fun to poke you thru the bars of your intellectual cage, but it gets boring after a while.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, what we proved is that you're all output, and with very limited content, at that.

1. dumbed-down economics sloganeering

2. Repeat fossil fuel industry propaganda

3. Anger at "The Left" and accusations of SOCIALISM!!

You never read, listen, learn, or change your tune. Sometimes it's fun to poke you thru the bars of your intellectual cage, but it gets boring after a while.

-DSK

People on this forum call each other stupid routinely.  All in good fun.  But man are you really stupid. Your posts are not very intellectually engaging whatsoever.  Can you prove that this bee crisis is affecting human beings or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, what we proved is that you're all output, and with very limited content, at that.

1. dumbed-down economics sloganeering

2. Repeat hysterical global climate change industry propaganda

3. Anger at "The Right” and accusations of FACISM!!

You never read, listen, learn, or change your tune. Sometimes it's fun to poke you thru the bars of your intellectual cage, but it gets boring after a while.

This is fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

2. Repeat fossil fuel industry propaganda

-DSK

This one little gem of nonsense is classic.  Everyone here uses fossil fuel for all aspects of our lives.  Without such, we would be in a real world of hurt.  Yet we want to blame the people that supply them to us.  What a fucking joke.  Really.  A big fucking hypocritical joke.  As if there is some industry that could force 100% of the population to use its products when they were really not good or desired.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J28 said:

Elevating discourse by calling Ronald Reagan a racist?  Or calling capitalism irredeemable?  Or saying America is garbage? 

And you don't see AOC's followers as a cult of personality? 

What form of capitalism are you saying is irredeemable?  As with all things, moderation works.  Free markets and capitalism have inbuilt failures.  Acknowledging these failures and working with them are important in maintaining a reasonable economy.  What I see is the rejection of many of the failures.  America is not garbage.  It does, however, have its issues. Imperialism brings about issues at southern borders.  Fossil fuels bring about pollution.  Asymmetric warfare is difficult to deal with.  The world is interdependent and economic isolation brings about economic and societal deterioration.  I realize change management is difficult, but it will have to happen and AOC is pointing this out.  Good for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, what we proved is that you're all output, and with very limited content, at that.

1. dumbed-down economics sloganeering

2. Repeat fossil fuel industry propaganda

3. Anger at "The Left" and accusations of SOCIALISM!!

You never read, listen, learn, or change your tune. Sometimes it's fun to poke you thru the bars of your intellectual cage, but it gets boring after a while.

-DSK

Hey Steam Liar  

Still waiting on the other thread for the cite on Barr’s exact words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Laker said:

What form of capitalism are you saying is irredeemable?  As with all things, moderation works.  Free markets and capitalism have inbuilt failures.  Acknowledging these failures and working with them are important in maintaining a reasonable economy.  What I see is the rejection of many of the failures.  America is not garbage.  It does, however, have its issues. Imperialism brings about issues at southern borders.  Fossil fuels bring about pollution.  Asymmetric warfare is difficult to deal with.  The world is interdependent and economic isolation brings about economic and societal deterioration.  I realize change management is difficult, but it will have to happen and AOC is pointing this out.  Good for her.

Nearly all of those things are true.  But what are the failures?  What pollution from fossil fuel should we be worried about, and what is made up bullshit?

AOC has pretty much gotten it wrong on all counts.  She is whipping up crises where they don't exist in an effort to sell herself as the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Nearly all of those things are true.  But what are the failures?  What pollution from fossil fuel should we be worried about, and what is made up bullshit?

AOC has pretty much gotten it wrong on all counts.  She is whipping up crises where they don't exist in an effort to sell herself as the solution.

I don't get that feeling from her.  I don't see her selling herself much. She is however, passionate about the things she cares about, which may come across as selling herself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

She is whipping up crises where they don't exist in an effort to sell herself as the solution.

Or she's marketed by other people to fools like you who buy rightwing bullshit by the barrel. They sell you the image of AOC you want to find, you vomit up the stupid bullshit they sell. Every fucking day. The problems you, fool. Not her. But you are nasty cunt that believes propaganda and spread lies and can't even see whats in front of your eyes, you just believe your little market circlejerk.

fossil fuel pollution isn't a problem? fucking ignoramus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Or she's marketed by other people to fools like you who buy rightwing bullshit by the barrel. They sell you the image of AOC you want to find, you vomit up the stupid bullshit they sell. Every fucking day. The problems you, fool. Not her. But you are nasty cunt that believes propaganda and spread lies and can't even see whats in front of your eyes, you just believe your little market circlejerk.

fossil fuel pollution isn't a problem? fucking ignoramus.

I think you should stop using fossil fuel and see where that gets you.  Why do you allow yourself to continue to be manipulated by the evil fossil fuel companies?

Which lie am I spreading?  Can you name one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do use natural gas for household heat.  Other than that, our electricity comes from hydro or wind.  Trying to think of what other fossil fuel I use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Laker said:

We do use natural gas for household heat.  Other than that, our electricity comes from hydro or wind.  Trying to think of what other fossil fuel I use. 

Do you eat food?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Do you eat food?

A lot of it comes from the nearby farms.  One fellow even has an electric tractor.  Pork and chickens are from nearby sources where I pick it up directly. I would say 75% comes from 100 mile sources.  My last work trip up North was on an airliner, I will give you that.  As with everything.  It is difficult to find an absolute and it can be a bit obsessive if treated that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

Wish I could be as optimistic as jzk...

It's easy.

Do-it-yourself-sales-training.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

A lot of it comes from the nearby farms.  One fellow even has an electric tractor.  Pork and chickens are from nearby sources where I pick it up directly. I would say 75% comes from 100 mile sources.  My last work trip up North was on an airliner, I will give you that.

What materials compose the items you consume?  How are you writing these messages?

If you think fossil fuel use is a big issue, and you are taking active steps to reduce your usage, good for you.  Seriously.  You are then walking the walk where you can.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Laker said:

We do use natural gas for household heat.  Other than that, our electricity comes from hydro or wind.  Trying to think of what other fossil fuel I use. 

Do you drive?  Do you fly?  Do you sail (think sail material)?  Do you use anything shipped on a truck?  Do you use anything made of plastic, packaged in plastic or shipped in/on plastic?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Laker said:

A lot of it comes from the nearby farms.  One fellow even has an electric tractor.  Pork and chickens are from nearby sources where I pick it up directly. I would say 75% comes from 100 mile sources.  My last work trip up North was on an airliner, I will give you that.  As with everything.  It is difficult to find an absolute and it can be a bit obsessive if treated that way.

You're right - but, please apply this to the things articulated by Mz AOC in the communications she published describing the GND.   Several of the points of contention exist solely because they were described as absolutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

I think you should stop using fossil fuel and see where that gets you.  Why do you allow yourself to continue to be manipulated by the evil fossil fuel companies?

Which lie am I spreading?  Can you name one?

I don't know if you have any idea of how simple and ridiculous your arguments are. The question is not fossil fuels or no fossil fuels, it is a question of how much. Saw an open sport fishing boat in the Lagoon in St Martin (on the Island Water World dock for people who know the area). It was about 24' long and had four 350 hp outboards on it. Must be pretty impressive engineering to support the load. Is this guy better able to go fishing than if he had three 350s or two 350s or even two 150s or does he just have a small dick that he is compensating for? We just need to modify our behaviour and act responsibility toward our neighbours, our descendants, and the planet in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, J28 said:

Do you drive?  Do you fly?  Do you sail (think sail material)?  Do you use anything shipped on a truck?  Do you use anything made of plastic, packaged in plastic or shipped in/on plastic?  

 

Hopefully the manufacturers of the plastics use closed systems now.  They are in WA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're right - but, please apply this to the things articulated by Mz AOC in the communications she published describing the GND.   Several of the points of contention exist solely because they were described as absolutes. 

No, they don't. Here's the GND final from back in February- https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf - it repeatedly says "as much as technologically feasible". Here's an NPR story: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline 

I'm sorry man - you bought the spin. Just because the jerk-z's repeat lies over and over don't make them true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I don't know if you have any idea of how simple and ridiculous your arguments are. The question is not fossil fuels or no fossil fuels, it is a question of how much. Saw an open sport fishing boat in the Lagoon in St Martin (on the Island Water World dock for people who know the area). It was about 24' long and had four 350 hp outboards on it. Must be pretty impressive engineering to support the load. Is this guy better able to go fishing than if he had three 350s or two 350s or even two 150s or does he just have a small dick that he is compensating for? We just need to modify our behaviour and act responsibility toward our neighbours, our descendants, and the planet in general.

I am looking to you to prove them ridiculous.  Can you?

Is it a fact that the Earth is greening?

Is it a fact that agricultural outputs are increasing?

Is it a fact that over the last 60 years human deaths from the environment have declined 98%?

Is it a fact that whatever relationship CO2 has with warming, it is logarithmic?

If that guy had 2 350hp outboards instead of 4, would humans benefit?  How so?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

Hopefully the manufacturers of the plastics use closed systems now.  They are in WA.

Do they use fossil fuel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

No, they don't. Here's the GND final from back in February- https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf - it repeatedly says "as much as technologically feasible". Here's an NPR story: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline 

I'm sorry man - you bought the spin. Just because the jerk-z's repeat lies over and over don't make them true.

I will look for the website that I read - I don't remember the URL off the top of my head, but I think it was her own - it wasn't someone else's re-telling.   I wouldn't be surprised that the verbiage matured - I hope it did, at least - but, that doesn't negate that many of the things she said, when considered in implementation, are untenable - here's a few from the NPR article:  (can't get to the original source - it could be that that's the one I read, as I tend to go to NPR first for most things)
- "upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency - in 10 years?  No mention of cost?  That's simply ludicrous. 

- ""Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"   ( bolding is mine ) - I suspect that she intended that to mean continental travel, but, the idea that you could eliminate air travel?  IIRC ( and if you've got the original cite - please, post the text) she also specified an unrealistic timeline for the implementation of this particular tenet.  

- the original text isn't in the NPR article, and the net-nanny filters won't let me hit any file-storage sites right now, so I can't get to the link you provided, but, as it pertains to the "family sustaining wage" tenet, one particular item I took issue with was the idea of paying people who didn't WANT to work.  

So - I'll agree that I think much of the anti-AOC fervor is hyped up BS, but will also say that her own words justify a portion of the ridicule and the lack of credibility afforded to some of her ideas.   I'm not bashing her, just pointing out that she can do a better job in considering how she says things, and I hope she does. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jzk said:

Do they use fossil fuel?

Not at the plastic bag plant near me apparently.  The feed stock is fossil, but it is a closed system and electric powered.  Can't make any statements about the nearby refinery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I will look for the website that I read - I don't remember the URL off the top of my head, but I think it was her own - it wasn't someone else's re-telling.   I wouldn't be surprised that the verbiage matured - I hope it did, at least - but, that doesn't negate that many of the things she said, when considered in implementation, are untenable - here's a few from the NPR article:  (can't get to the original source - it could be that that's the one I read, as I tend to go to NPR first for most things)
- "upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency - in 10 years?  No mention of cost?  That's simply ludicrous. 

- ""Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"   ( bolding is mine ) - I suspect that she intended that to mean continental travel, but, the idea that you could eliminate air travel?  IIRC ( and if you've got the original cite - please, post the text) she also specified an unrealistic timeline for the implementation of this particular tenet.  

- the original text isn't in the NPR article, and the net-nanny filters won't let me hit any file-storage sites right now, so I can't get to the link you provided, but, as it pertains to the "family sustaining wage" tenet, one particular item I took issue with was the idea of paying people who didn't WANT to work.  

So - I'll agree that I think much of the anti-AOC fervor is hyped up BS, but will also say that her own words justify a portion of the ridicule and the lack of credibility afforded to some of her ideas.   I'm not bashing her, just pointing out that she can do a better job in considering how she says things, and I hope she does. 

 

Political verbiage is an awesome thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

Not at the plastic bag plant near me apparently.  The feed stock is fossil, but it is a closed system and electric powered.  Can't make any statements about the nearby refinery.

Aren't the plastic bags petroleum based? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

Political verbiage is an awesome thing.

Yup - and it's THAT that has to be considered when evaluating whether or not to support a particular proposal or the person proffering it, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I will look for the website that I read - I don't remember the URL off the top of my head, but I think it was her own - it wasn't someone else's re-telling.   I wouldn't be surprised that the verbiage matured - I hope it did, at least - but, that doesn't negate that many of the things she said, when considered in implementation, are untenable - here's a few from the NPR article:  (can't get to the original source - it could be that that's the one I read, as I tend to go to NPR first for most things)
- "upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency - in 10 years?  No mention of cost?  That's simply ludicrous. 

- ""Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"   ( bolding is mine ) - I suspect that she intended that to mean continental travel, but, the idea that you could eliminate air travel?  IIRC ( and if you've got the original cite - please, post the text) she also specified an unrealistic timeline for the implementation of this particular tenet.  

It's a non-binding statement of goals. With caveats. Sorry man, I don't see why this single resolution got so much play in the rightwing echo chamber here or elsewhere. It got far more from everyone else than AOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Aren't the plastic bags petroleum based? 

The feed stock is, but we are talking the pollution attached to manufacture.  It is a lot nicer to polymerize those nice long organic chains than convert than to CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

We do use natural gas for household heat.  Other than that, our electricity comes from hydro or wind.  Trying to think of what other fossil fuel I use. 

Got tires on your car? Any appliances that have plastic components? How about the rubber seat on your bicycle that you ride to work, because you don't own a gasoline/diesel fueled car that doesn't have a plastic interior, or the garden hose you use to water your organic garden? Got a computer? Know what 90+% of it is made from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Aren't the plastic bags petroleum based? 

The ones we used to use were cornstarch-based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

Got tires on your car? Any appliances that have plastic components? How about the rubber seat on your bicycle that you ride to work, because you don't own a gasoline/diesel fueled car that doesn't have a plastic interior, or the garden hose you use to water your organic garden? Got a computer? Know what 90+% of it is made from

Again, plastics can be made without pollution if there is regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The ones we used to use were cornstarch-based.

Cool - I remember when Gateway 2K computers used cornstarch based packaging peanuts that were water soluble.   Good stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laker said:

Again, plastics can be made without pollution if there is regulation.

No, they really can't.  You may be able to reduce processing contamination, but, the acquisition of the raw material ( petroleum ) cannot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's a non-binding statement of goals. With caveats. Sorry man, I don't see why this single resolution got so much play in the rightwing echo chamber here or elsewhere. It got far more from everyone else than AOC.

The issue is that AOC uses externally addressed talk where all that comes from Trump is me,me,me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No, they really can't.  You may be able to reduce processing contamination, but, the acquisition of the raw material ( petroleum ) cannot. 

Pulling the "you can almost put it in your tank" from Newfoundland vs. dilbit is an entirely different game in terms of pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Laker said:

The issue is that AOC uses externally addressed talk where all that comes from Trump is me,me,me.

nah, the issue is the issues. her work, and moreso distortions of it, is pretext to rally the rightys. no one's pushing them to say stupid crap like "Co2 emissions are great for humanity". It's a political choice to believe, and push, that bullshit. One could argue that more emissions are worth the trade off - that's a difference in values. But to push the industry bullshit line? that's just Trumpian extreme right wing politics. Like everything else they step over the supportable opposition position to the unsupportable extreme where they just yammer on trying to turn their lies into truth by repetition. And they succeed amongst the faithful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

nah, the issue is the issues. her work, and moreso distortions of it, is pretext to rally the rightys. no one's pushing them to say stupid crap like "Co2 emissions are great for humanity". It's a political choice to believe, and push, that bullshit. One could argue that more emissions are worth the trade off - that's a difference in values. But to push the industry bullshit line? that's just Trumpian extreme right wing politics. Like everything else they step over the supportable opposition position to the unsupportable extreme where they just yammer on trying to turn their lies into truth by repetition. And they succeed amongst the faithful.

Lotsa that going around...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Lotsa that going around...  

sorry, I'm off to give a 5-course dinner and a night with my gf to some illegals I just met to welcome to the US, I'll have to get back to you with a longer post ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

sorry, I'm off to give a 5-course dinner and a night with my gf to some illegals I just met to welcome to the US, I'll have to get back to you with a longer post ;)

Pics or it never happened. ;-) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No, they really can't.  You may be able to reduce processing contamination, but, the acquisition of the raw material ( petroleum ) cannot. 

Sure you can, the regulations force the production offshore to countries that sign every agreement that is not binding on them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usIXDp2eUrI

Here is our girl saying we have 12 years to cut our emissions 50%, and the internet records everything.  

Emissions will rise steadily through 2050 no matter what the US does.  When nothing bad happens, will that convince the superstitious?

If you don't buy this climate catastrophe bullshit, you are just like those who opposed black Americans and African Americans from voting.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

- ""Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"   ( bolding is mine ) - I suspect that she intended that to mean continental travel, but, the idea that you could eliminate air travel?  IIRC ( and if you've got the original cite - please, post the text) she also specified an unrealistic timeline for the implementation of this particular tenet.  

Given the affordability, convenience, speed, and comprehensive service, air travel is damned near "necessary" if you are traveling more than a few hours from home.  

Saturday morning, my wife, daughter, and I fly from BWI to Raleigh-Durham for college visits.  Flight time is 75 minutes, cost is $69 each (one way).  Sure, we could drive.  But, my time is money and flying is damned near "necessary".

Expanding the rail system and incorporating high-speed could lessen the need to take to the air.

"Stops becoming necessary" does not mean "eliminate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

I'm guessing that Jizz kid doesn't keep bees, or have a citrus grove, or other fruit trees that depend on pollinators to produce.... Squash, cucumbers, melons, pumpkins, etc. all rely on bees or butterflies to make fruits. About the only crops I can think of off hand that is wind pollinated are corn, wheat, and other grains..... and DNC voters

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Given the affordability, convenience, speed, and comprehensive service, air travel is damned near "necessary" if you are traveling more than a few hours from home.  

Saturday morning, my wife, daughter, and I fly from BWI to Raleigh-Durham for college visits.  Flight time is 75 minutes, cost is $69 each (one way).  Sure, we could drive.  But, my time is money and flying is damned near "necessary".

Expanding the rail system and incorporating high-speed could lessen the need to take to the air.

"Stops becoming necessary" does not mean "eliminate".

If you use the phrase "until it stops becoming necessary" to describe something that will never stop becoming necessary, then you are a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you use the phrase "until it stops becoming necessary" to describe something that will never stop becoming necessary, then you are a moron.

Oh, FFS. 

Obtuse doesn't even begin to describe you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Oh, FFS. 

Obtuse doesn't even begin to describe you.

 

I love these guys like Chessie and the rest who can't parse the intent of a straightforward bit of political rhetoric and then demand clarifying footnotes to every phrase or they will insist on mis-interpreting it.   They are as bad as the dogmatic Stalinists who demanded purity of thought and gave 5 hour speeches so that no mis-interpretation was possible.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

They are as bad as the dogmatic Stalinists who demanded purity of thought and gave 5 hour speeches so that no mis-interpretation was possible.  

Did the Stalinists have the internet?

'Cause these people do, and they speechify much longer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Did the Stalinists have the internet?

'Cause these people do, and they speechify much longer.

 

They had the KGB, which could gather and act on anti-stalinisms at the speed of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

They had the KGB, which could gather and act on anti-stalinisms at the speed of thought.

The speed of thought..... Wow....

 What's the speed of stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

What's the speed of stupid?

Same as the speed of dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justsomeguy! said:

Oh, FFS. 

Obtuse doesn't even begin to describe you.

 

The very best thing about this whole climate clown debate is, as the girl wonder stated in her face stuffing video, the internet never forgets.  This will all be memorialized forever.  There is exactly zero chance that we are going to reduce our CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years.  In fact, barring a severe recession, they will steadily increase past 2050.  The Earth will become even greener, agricultural output will still be increasing, human environmental deaths decreasing, poverty virtually eliminated, and you will still be a clown.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Same as the speed of dark.

.......Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................!.

That would explain my mother-in-law......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

There is exactly zero chance that we are going to reduce our CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years.

Mr. Obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Mr. Obtuse.

Excellent.  Keep writing this shit down fior posterity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Excellent.  Keep writing this shit down fior posterity.  

Confidence in how correct you are while the overwhelming consensus is you are wrong.

Please don't ever think you are mistaken.

It is much more fun to discuss with an individual who knows it all.

Tell us about black holes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hasher said:

Confidence in how correct you are while the overwhelming consensus is you are wrong.

So you believe we can cut CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years, as your leader AOC says?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Given the affordability, convenience, speed, and comprehensive service, air travel is damned near "necessary" if you are traveling more than a few hours from home.  

Saturday morning, my wife, daughter, and I fly from BWI to Raleigh-Durham for college visits.  Flight time is 75 minutes, cost is $69 each (one way).  Sure, we could drive.  But, my time is money and flying is damned near "necessary".

Expanding the rail system and incorporating high-speed could lessen the need to take to the air.

"Stops becoming necessary" does not mean "eliminate".

Flight time is 75 minutes. How long does it take to get to the parkinglot at BWI, then wait for an hour in line to get on the plane, then sit on the tarmac while waiting for deicing/ground stop for WX or other traffic, then deplane, get to the rental car desk, catch a shuttle to the rental place, get yourself into a car and drive 10 miles to the college?

 I'm guessing longer than if you drove your family car at off peak traffic hours. And the cost of the rental car and parking?

 $69 is great, but that doesn't include airport taxes, or other "fees"....

 Yes, not driving through DC is great, but you can always find a way around.... I know.... I've done it many times. The few  times that I thought  I'd chance it and take the beltway, I've regretted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So you believe we can cut CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years, as your leader AOC says?

 

"Your leader"? She's been in office less than 5 months.

 Get a grip.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hasher said:

Confidence in how correct you are while the overwhelming consensus is you are wrong.

Please don't ever think you are mistaken.

It is much more fun to discuss with an individual who knows it all.

Tell us about black holes. 

Silly climate clown.  The consensus has already been proven wrong.  All of the facts that I have cited are not controversial.  The world is getting better for both the planet and humans.  Virtually nothing is getting worse.  Maybe NASA can try adjusting the data a few more times to keep the alarm going, but the whole house of climate clown cards is falling down.  No one but the super religious are buying it anymore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow............ The stupid is strong tonight....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Wow............ The stupid is strong tonight....

Sunspots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So you believe we can cut CO2 emissions 50% in 12 years, as your leader AOC says?

 

We can, but we wont.  There will be an extension of agriculture to the northern states at the expense of the southern states, but overall, the food situation within the US will not change significantly.  Fossil fuel will still be pushed in a marketing sense that will overpower the pull of alternate energy.  An "I'm all right, Jack" sense will pervade and the response to external pressures from those affected such as southern peasants will be met with force.  Bigger and better walls.  There may be some significant conflicts in this time. The US will continue on its course of isolation and its economy will stagnate, but at a high level, as a result.  But there is hope.  In another generation, these old white men will all be dead and given the present birth rate, the diminishing number of their sons and daughters will have less and less power.  It is at that point that a much changed world will start adapting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Laker said:

We can, but we wont.  There will be an extension of agriculture to the northern states at the expense of the southern states, but overall, the food situation within the US will not change significantly.  Fossil fuel will still be pushed in a marketing sense that will overpower the pull of alternate energy.  An "I'm all right, Jack" sense will pervade and the response to external pressures from those affected such as southern peasants will be met with force.  Bigger and better walls.  There may be some significant conflicts in this time. The US will continue on its course of isolation and its economy will stagnate, but at a high level, as a result.  But there is hope.  In another generation, these old white men will all be dead and given the present birth rate, the diminishing number of their sons and daughters will have less and less power.  It is at that point that a much changed world will start adapting.  

I didn't realize what a racist, sexist ageist you were.

If you want to make it about race, the brunt of the emissions are going to come from other races that want to have good lives like ours.  Good for them.   A few countries might wreck their economies, like Germany, by getting rid of all of their coal and nuclear power plants, but they will prove to be laughing stocks of the world as everything about the planet continues to improve.  

Global emissions aren't even going to stabilize until 2050, even under the "pledges" scenario.  But who here thinks countries will stick to their pledges?

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-emission-scenarios-01.png

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

I didn't realize what a racist, sexist ageist you were.

If you want to make it about race, the brunt of the emissions are going to come from other races that want to have good lives like ours.  Good for them.   A few countries might wreck their economies, like Germany, by getting rid of all of their coal and nuclear power plants, but they will prove to be laughing stocks of the world as everything about the planet continues to improve.  

Global emissions aren't even going to stabilize until 2050, even under the "pledges" scenario.  But who here thinks countries will stick to their pledges?

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-emission-scenarios-01.png

You still can't overcome the fact that the next generation will be less and less white and the attitudes that go with it will change.  On top of the declining birth rate, the sperm count of western culture men is declining at a great rate.   Weber's Protestant Economy is a cultural process.  It is not an inherent law.  Economies will change. This may be the bigger driver of change in a shorter time than climate change.  Twenty years ago the Canadians had a referendum concerning the separation of Quebec.  In the 1950s francophones were 33% of the Canadian population.  At the time of the referendum, it had declined to 20%, but many of the francophones were immigrants.  Francophones are now 18% of the Canadian population and half are immigrants.  There is now no serious issue of separation. The US will see a change as immigrants replace white and black populations.  Interestingly the  indigenous population seems to be rebounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laker said:

You still can't overcome the fact that the next generation will be less and less white and the attitudes that go with it will change.  On top of the declining birth rate, the sperm count of western culture men is declining at a great rate.   Weber's Protestant Economy is a cultural process.  It is not an inherent law.  Economies will change. This may be the bigger driver of change in a shorter time than climate change.  Twenty years ago the Canadians had a referendum concerning the separation of Quebec.  In the 1950s francophones were 33% of the Canadian population.  At the time of the referendum, it had declined to 20%, but many of the francophones were immigrants.  Francophones are now 18% of the Canadian population and half are immigrants.  There is now no serious issue of separation. The US will see a change as immigrants replace white and black populations.  Interestingly the  indigenous population seems to be rebounding.

You can't overcome the fact that all races want to be lifted out of poverty.  That requires energy.  And that energy is coming from fossil fuel.  It is not because of "marketing" but rather efficiency.  it is the Asian people that are leading the world in CO2 emissions, and good for them.  They deserve to flourish just like we are flourishing.  

That being said, if you want to eat food grown with electric tractors, more power to you.  Just don't stand in the way of the rest of the world actually eating and flourishing.  Meanwhile, the benefits of the CO2 emissions outweigh the costs.  That will continue to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jzk said:

You can't overcome the fact that all races want to be lifted out of poverty.  That requires energy.  And that energy is coming from fossil fuel.  It is not because of "marketing" but rather efficiency.  it is the Asian people that are leading the world in CO2 emissions, and good for them.  They deserve to flourish just like we are flourishing.  

That being said, if you want to eat food grown with electric tractors, more power to you.  Just don't stand in the way of the rest of the world actually eating and flourishing.  Meanwhile, the benefits of the CO2 emissions outweigh the costs.  That will continue to be seen.

It must be wonderful to live inside your head...Always entertaining. 

I had a cousin who had a similar condition, her frequently intriguing but disturbing fantasies were finally controlled by meds after she realized that it was less interesting to live in the real world, but better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

It must be wonderful to live inside your head...Always entertaining. 

I had a cousin who had a similar condition, her frequently intriguing but disturbing fantasies were finally controlled by meds after she realized that it was less interesting to live in the real world, but better.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Flight time is 75 minutes. How long does it take to get to the parkinglot at BWI, then wait for an hour in line to get on the plane, then sit on the tarmac while waiting for deicing/ground stop for WX or other traffic, then deplane, get to the rental car desk, catch a shuttle to the rental place, get yourself into a car and drive 10 miles to the college?

 I'm guessing longer than if you drove your family car at off peak traffic hours. And the cost of the rental car and parking?

 $69 is great, but that doesn't include airport taxes, or other "fees"....

 Yes, not driving through DC is great, but you can always find a way around.... I know.... I've done it many times. The few  times that I thought  I'd chance it and take the beltway, I've regretted it.

It's 11:18 PM, so that probably counts as "off peak", right?  It's roughly 328 miles from my house to Raleigh.  Google maps places us at about 5 hour drive time.  The Uber gets us at 6 AM and we will be in the rental car before 10.  Avoiding 95 in NOVA is worth a King's Ransom.

 

My point is the affordability and convenience of air travel makes it damned hard to beat, unless you've got loads of time to sit behind the wheel.

As such, it is essentially "necessary".  No one is saying air travel will, or should, be eliminated.

Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 11.18.30 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It's 11:18 PM, so that probably counts as "off peak", right?  It's roughly 328 miles from my house to Raleigh.  Google maps places us at about 5 hour drive time.  The Uber gets us at 6 AM and we will be in the rental car before 10.  Avoiding 95 in NOVA is worth a King's Ransom.

 

My point is the affordability and convenience of air travel makes it damned hard to beat, unless you've got loads of time to sit behind the wheel.

As such, it is essentially "necessary".  No one is saying air travel will, or should, be eliminated.

Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 11.18.30 PM.png

The train from Seattle to Portland, even with low-tech Amtrak, is far superior to flying.    

180 miles.   1/2 hour slower door to door, if everything goes right, but 3 times the comfort and less than half the cost.  I don't know any business travelers who don't take the train.   High speed rail would take all of that air route's business in a minute.  NY to DC the same thing.  Rail is the way to go.

At 320 miles, your trip is likely tilted toward flying.  If you had rail service, I bet it would come out on top.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Left Shift said:

At 320 miles, your trip is likely tilted toward flying.  If you had rail service, I bet it would come out on top.

Making air travel less (or even un-) necessary. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:
7 hours ago, Left Shift said:

At 320 miles, your trip is likely tilted toward flying.  If you had rail service, I bet it would come out on top.

 Making air travel less (or even un-) necessary.

Almost like was proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global air travel.  I wonder when flying will stop being necessary.  

Graph-of-global-air-travel-passenger-kilometres-historic-1936-2016.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

It's 11:18 PM, so that probably counts as "off peak", right?  It's roughly 328 miles from my house to Raleigh.  Google maps places us at about 5 hour drive time.  The Uber gets us at 6 AM and we will be in the rental car before 10.  Avoiding 95 in NOVA is worth a King's Ransom.

 

My point is the affordability and convenience of air travel makes it damned hard to beat, unless you've got loads of time to sit behind the wheel.

As such, it is essentially "necessary".  No one is saying air travel will, or should, be eliminated.

Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 11.18.30 PM.png

If there's a good way around DC, I have not been able to find it. Last few trips I've just gotten on 495 and put on some relaxing music.

I-95 from Baltimore down to Fredericksburg is usually congested and often slow. A train would be an awesome alternative.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites