toad

Ocasio

Recommended Posts

10 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

My apologies. I thought that you lived farther west, I must be thinking of someone else.

Share this post


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

Then perhaps more careful wording is imperative?  Y'all that like what you think she intends are willing to afford a great more leeway in interpretation than are those of us who consider much of what she wants to do to be misguided.    Kinda the nature of political disagreement, isn't it?  

Reducing fossil fuel consumption is misguided? It's coming man look at Aramco's reserves (down further than people thought)  look at how much cash was invested in Shale Oil plays in the US and what a money loser that industry is.

Share this post


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

You are the one that is not getting it.  It is currently technologically feasible to replace all natural gas heating in the US with electric.  But we are not going to do it.  Further, the poor and the middle class can't afford it.  And there is only so much you can get from the rich, so you better pick your crisis well.  You can't have it both ways.  You want the rich to pay for your health care or your high speed train system?

And why should we spend all of this money that we can't afford?  It has turned out that CO2 emissions are actually benefiting the planet. 

So add increased air travel to the predictions of now through 2050.  Greener Earth.  Less poverty.  Less environmental deaths.  More food.  The case for CO2 and fossil fuel simply could not get any better.  No one here has been able to refute any of it.

That doesn't mean you can't ride the train and eat food produced from electric tractors.  Just don't be taking energy choices away from the rest of us.  It is just not going to happen.

 

I am inclined to think you are just stupid. 

Where to start?

I post about transportation energy and you respond with home heating.  By the way, how are you generating the electricity with which you are heating those homes?  Natural gas?  Coal?  Um, yeah.

Then, you promote we continue, even increasing, our CO2 emissions.  You may just be a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 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".

How's the train gonna go across the pond?   Don't misunderstand - I *like* trains!  When I'm going from home to NYC?  I'll usually park at the Reston Metro stop, and take the metro to Union Station and then take Amtrak to Penn Station.  It's easier, cheaper and more fun than driving and paying for parking.   On a work trip to Africa a few years ago, we had to make a stop in Stuttgart to do some stuff before heading south.  Flight was Paris - Jedda - Addis - Djibouti.   We looked around, and the TGV from Stuttgart to Gare du Nord would put us at CDG an hour and a half faster and $200 cheaper.  We hit an indicated 197MPH ( as indicated on my blackberry GPS ) and the ride was smoother and quieter than my car.   

The point?  I *like* trains - and I think that focusing on improving our rail infrastructure would be a beneficial thing.  I don't think that reduction or elimination of air travel is a worthwhile objective, and shouldn't be part of the consideration.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Reducing fossil fuel consumption is misguided? It's coming man look at Aramco's reserves (down further than people thought)  look at how much cash was invested in Shale Oil plays in the US and what a money loser that industry is.

Not at all, and if she'd articulate her ideas as "here are a few things we should look at to contribute to that reduction"?  We'd be having a different conversation.  

What is misguided in her description of the GND?  "updating every building in the country in 10 years" certainly is.   Providing a guaranteed income for those who don't want to work certainly is.  Establishing pie in the sky objectives that have no basis in reality certainly is.  Addressing meat consumption as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions certainly is.   


Edited to add: BTW - how'd your illegal friends like their supper? 

Share this post


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

How's the train gonna go across the pond?   Don't misunderstand - I *like* trains!  When I'm going from home to NYC?  I'll usually park at the Reston Metro stop, and take the metro to Union Station and then take Amtrak to Penn Station.  It's easier, cheaper and more fun than driving and paying for parking.   On a work trip to Africa a few years ago, we had to make a stop in Stuttgart to do some stuff before heading south.  Flight was Paris - Jedda - Addis - Djibouti.   We looked around, and the TGV from Stuttgart to Gare du Nord would put us at CDG an hour and a half faster and $200 cheaper.  We hit an indicated 197MPH ( as indicated on my blackberry GPS ) and the ride was smoother and quieter than my car.   

The point?  I *like* trains - and I think that focusing on improving our rail infrastructure would be a beneficial thing.  I don't think that reduction or elimination of air travel is a worthwhile objective, and shouldn't be part of the consideration.  

It appears you are still stuck on the misunderstanding of air travel being eliminated is what is being proposed.

That is just not so.

Share this post


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

It appears you are still stuck on the misunderstanding of air travel being eliminated is what is being proposed.

That is just not so.

Not stuck on anything - that was in the wording she used, and that's the point.   If you look at my initial comment on the matter - you can see what I thought she meant.  

Share this post


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

I am inclined to think you are just stupid. 

Where to start?

I post about transportation energy and you respond with home heating.  By the way, how are you generating the electricity with which you are heating those homes?  Natural gas?  Coal?  Um, yeah.

Then, you promote we continue, even increasing, our CO2 emissions.  You may just be a troll.

Is this a real post?  If you want to eliminate fossil fuel, you are going to have to heat homes with something besides fossil fuel.  What are the choices?

We will take this step by step, so it is easier for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Who is? How many righties bump this thread with their daily "OMG AOC said something that might be construed as less than perfect" vs. lefties bumping this thread and saying "her written proposed laws are the best ever".

I find most of the opposition to "her ideas" is opposition to strawmen. i.e. "making air travel less necessary" becomes "eliminating air travel".

You are just misinformed.  Did you read her fact sheet press release:

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Green-New-Deal-FAQ-Fact-Sheet-Feb-7-2019.pdf

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero."

You know, the "draft" press release that her staffer, who was having a bad day, released early?  The one that they have not yet corrected?

She is an embarrassment.  But she has pizzazz and charm.  And she is cute.  So at least there is that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when the girl wonder says "fully get rid" of airplanes, what does she mean by that?

Share this post


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

So when the girl wonder says "fully get rid" of airplanes, what does she mean by that?

From your quote, it appears she means that she realizes that we can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

Is this a real post?  If you want to eliminate fossil fuel, you are going to have to heat homes with something besides fossil fuel.  What are the choices?

We will take this step by step, so it is easier for you.

I was talking about transportation.  Like everyone else was.

You started talking about heating homes.

Why not inject every other use of energy to derail the conversation?

Share this post


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

From your quote, it appears she means that she realizes that we can't.

We can't fully get rid of airplanes in 10 years.  

Why is she talking about fulling getting rid of something she never intends to fully get rid of?

Share this post


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

I was talking about transportation.  Like everyone else was.

You started talking about heating homes.

Why not inject every other use of energy to derail the conversation?

Yeah, we should inject every other use of energy in the AOC thread given that she has proposed transforming every other use of energy as well.  

Share this post


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

So when the girl wonder says "fully get rid" of airplanes, what does she mean by that?

From your quote, it appears she means that she realizes that we can't.

Of course she knows, and we know, that getting rid of airplanes is folly. 

We know this because we can read the actual document and it says nothing of the sort.

If this were a Republican saying outlandish stuff, the Faithful would be in here telling us it is "hyperbole" of an "embellishment" or an "exaggeration" or a "rhetorical flourish".

I challenge anyone to find the part of this in which it calls for us to "get rid of airplanes".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

Share this post


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

Of course she knows, and we know, that getting rid of airplanes is folly. 

We know this because we can read the actual document and it says nothing of the sort.

If this were a Republican saying outlandish stuff, the Faithful would be in here telling us it is "hyperbole" of an "embellishment" or an "exaggeration" or a "rhetorical flourish".

I challenge anyone to find the part of this in which it calls for us to "get rid of airplanes".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

Hard to believe you post such stupid nonsense.  I already quoted it from her press release:

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero."

It is the press release from her office.  Discussing exactly what she wants to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that her clearly stated goal, "exactly what she wants to do" is to "get [carbon emissions] to net-zero" and that she recognizes that it won't be possible to "get rid of" airplanes or farting cows.

At least, that's the impression I get when I read her own words.

Share this post


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

It seems to me that her clearly stated goal, "exactly what she wants to do" is to "get [carbon emissions] to net-zero" and that she recognizes that it won't be possible to "get rid of" airplanes or farting cows.

At least, that's the impression I get when I read her own words.

Is that because you don't speak English?   

"we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast"

What did she mean by "that fast?"  Did she mean that she wants to fully get rid of airplanes, but isn't sure that she can do it in ten years?  When she says she "ins't sure," doesn't that imply that she thinks there is a chance?  And that chance is more probable than not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what she meant by "that fast". Do you? No, you don't. You can interpret and spin and ridicule, but you don't know.

Perhaps that would be a good agenda item for Congress to address during discussion of the GND.

What you DO know from your quote is that her goal is to get carbon emissions to net-zero in a decade. Beyond that, she sets some possible goals. I'd have to go outside of your quote, but I believe the stated intent of the GND was to generate discussion on the issue.

(As a quick aside, if you're going to insult someone and question whether they speak English, you should really proofread your posts for things like "ins't sure". Typos like that really make you look bad. Someone might attack you for that. Just sayin'.)

Share this post


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

I don't know what she meant by "that fast". Do you? No, you don't. You can interpret and spin and ridicule, but you don't know.

Perhaps that would be a good agenda item for Congress to address during discussion of the GND.

What you DO know from your quote is that her goal is to get carbon emissions to net-zero in a decade. Beyond that, she sets some possible goals. I'd have to go outside of your quote, but I believe the stated intent of the GND was to generate discussion on the issue.

(As a quick aside, if you're going to insult someone and question whether they speak English, you should really proofread your posts for things like "ins't sure". Typos like that really make you look bad. Someone might attack you for that. Just sayin'.)

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  She wants to fully get rid of airplanes in 10 years, but she is not sure she can fully do it in that time period.  She is not SURE she can.  She thinks she might be able to, but she is simply not SURE. 

What is so hard to understand?  Read the plain English.  

It was a stupid thing for her to say, and you should just call her on it.

Share this post


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

It appears you are still stuck on the misunderstanding of air travel being eliminated is what is being proposed.

That is just not so.

Gotta love someone who tells us not to mis-understanding and, at the same time, insists on mis-understanding what he's reading.  

The trolls here and in Congress are diving deep into the reductio ad absurdum form of argument.  Never a good place to start a dialogue.  But then, they don't want a dialogue. 

Share this post


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

Gotta love someone who tells us not to mis-understanding and, at the same time, insists on mis-understanding what he's reading.  

The trolls here and in Congress are diving deep into the reductio ad absurdum form of argument.  Never a good place to start a dialogue.  But then, they don't want a dialogue. 

There is no other way to read "we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."  

Share this post


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

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  She wants to fully get rid of airplanes in 10 years, but she is not sure she can fully do it in that time period.  She is not SURE she can.  She thinks she might be able to, but she is simply not SURE. 

What is so hard to understand?  Read the plain English.  

It was a stupid thing for her to say, and you should just call her on it.

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  

Since she didn't say it, it wasn't a stupid thing for her to say.  That's a tautology, dude.  Move along.

Share this post


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

You don't really believe that.  You are just tap dancing.  

Since she didn't say it, it wasn't a stupid thing for her to say.  That's a tautology, dude.  Move along.

No one is moving along.  Your girl said it.  It was stupid.  You should call her on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, even other people have called AOC on the bullshit in her press release, and we all know what she said.  She didn't try to say that the press release doesn't say what it says, she said her staffer was having a bad day and released a rough draft early.  Where is the final draft?

Share this post


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

No one is moving along.  Your girl said it.  It was stupid.  You should call her on it.

What she said was stupid.

Is that wording part of the actual document?

Or, is it an example of exaggeration/embellishment/hyperbole?

Share this post


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

What she said was stupid.

Is that wording part of the actual document?

Or, is it an example of exaggeration/embellishment/hyperbole?

It is the actual document from her press release.  I linked to it for you.

Share this post


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

It is the actual document from her press release.  I linked to it for you.

How about the actual Congressional Resolution I linked?

Share this post


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

Of course she knows, and we know, that getting rid of airplanes is folly. 

We know this because we can read the actual document and it says nothing of the sort.

If this were a Republican saying outlandish stuff, the Faithful would be in here telling us it is "hyperbole" of an "embellishment" or an "exaggeration" or a "rhetorical flourish".

I challenge anyone to find the part of this in which it calls for us to "get rid of airplanes".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to actual document, provided (yet again) by Bus Driver. The actual text of the resolution

(I rather prefer primary sources over things like press releases, whether released prematurely or not, or media coverage, or inane arguments from internet trolls. But that's just the way I was educated. Damn liberal colleges with their "help them learn how to think" approach, rather than the more acceptable "teach them what to think".)

So, jzk, do you have some objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal of net-zero carbon emissions within a decade? I think everyone (including AOC, if we are to believe her press release) accepts that cow farts and airplanes will still be around in a decade. Can we get past that and on to a more productive discussion?

Share this post


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

What she said was stupid.

Is that wording part of the actual document?

Or, is it an example of exaggeration/embellishment/hyperbole?

She is not stupid...she does not express herself very well due to her naivete and  ignorance....they'll bring her ignorance up to speed. The DNC is Allowing her and the 2 others to run their mouths and do the dirty heavy lifting setting the bar for the future...creating the new normal narrative...kind of like a "rabbit" in a distance race....she has clearly stated her vision for the future

Share this post


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

How about the actual Congressional Resolution I linked?

Is it really your position that if Donald Trump tweeted something or released a document expressing a platform position on something, we could all just dismiss it as not being true on the basis that he hasn't introduced it as legislation?

Share this post


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

How about the actual Congressional Resolution I linked?

It was linked before - by me. Jerk-z would rather read his heritage foundation lies & distortions.

Share this post


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

Is it really your position that if Donald Trump tweeted something or released a document expressing a platform position on something, we could all just dismiss it as not being true on the basis that he hasn't introduced it as legislation?

donald trump can't introduce legislation moron. he can, and does, announce policy via twitter. Which AOC can't do, or make.

anyways - you've got to be the dumbest, stubbornest fucking ~50' boat owner I've ever encountered, if you aren't just a social media zombie. it's the same stupid pingpong, same stupid shit sources.

Share this post


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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to actual document, provided (yet again) by Bus Driver. The actual text of the resolution

(I rather prefer primary sources over things like press releases, whether released prematurely or not, or media coverage, or inane arguments from internet trolls. But that's just the way I was educated. Damn liberal colleges with their "help them learn how to think" approach, rather than the more acceptable "teach them what to think".)

So, jzk, do you have some objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal of net-zero carbon emissions within a decade? I think everyone (including AOC, if we are to believe her press release) accepts that cow farts and airplanes will still be around in a decade. Can we get past that and on to a more productive discussion?

This is the AOC thread.  

But, I do certainly object to the government transforming our economy into a net zero CO2 emission economy in the next decade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

donald trump can't introduce legislation moron.

you've got to be the dumbest, stubbornest fucking ~50' boat owner I've ever encountered, if you aren't just a social media zombie.

He can as long as it is through a member of the House of Representatives, such as the annual federal budget.  

Share this post


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

It was linked before - by me. Jerk-z would rather read his heritage foundation lies & distortions.

NPR, my friend.  NPR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the thing.  Not only do I think it is stupid to reduce emissions to zero in 10 years, so do all of the countries on the planet.  That is why they aren't going to do much of any reducing, let alone 100% through 2050.

Share this post


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

Here is the thing.  Not only do I think it is stupid to reduce emissions to zero in 10 years, so do all of the countries on the planet.  That is why they aren't going to do much of any reducing, let alone 100% through 2050.

LOL.....the big polluters are not going to change there way....China,India and many many of smaller  shithole countries

Share this post


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

He can as long as it is through a member of the House of Representatives, such as the annual federal budget.  

so he can't is what you are saying. the "annual federal budget" Trumps admin submits is just an idea of what he wants; Congress decides what funds to allocate. This is all on youtube bright boy.

like I said, this is fucking baffling.

Share this post


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

so he can't is what you are saying.

the "annual federal budget" Trumps admin submits is just an idea of what he wants; Congress decides what funds to allocate. This is all on youtube bright boy.

Which he submits to Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are really making the case that statements and other document releases by AOC are irrelevant, and not worthy of criticism?   You are presenting that as a plausible idea?

Share this post


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

This is the AOC thread.  

But, I do certainly object to the government transforming our economy into a net zero CO2 emission economy in the next decade.  

That wasn't my question. No it's my turn to ask: Do you understand English? Because you seem to have an unnatural affinity for adding words and changing the meaning of things that are actually said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

So, jzk, do you have some objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal of net-zero carbon emissions within a decade? 

Do I have objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal?  By whom?  I don't object to you considering discussion about it.  I do object to actually doing it though.

Share this post


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

You are really making the case that statements and other document releases by AOC are irrelevant, and not worthy of criticism?   You are presenting that as a plausible idea?

If your position is you'd rather to shit on drafts than legislation because it's a better target for your distortions, have at it.

Share this post


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

Do I have objection to considering discussion about the proposed goal?  By whom?  I don't object to you considering discussion about it.  I do object to actually doing it though.

Oh! I see what you did there. You're so smart and tricky. I wish I could be like . . . well, not you.

So the take away from this is that you are narrow minded and not open to discussion. You are set in your ways and prefer to stay in your safe place.

Clearly, any adult discussion won't include you.

Thanks!

(And in case I haven't greeted you properly: Fuck Off, Newb!)

Ciao!

Share this post


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

Oh! I see what you did there. You're so smart and tricky. I wish I could be like . . . well, not you.

So the take away from this is that you are narrow minded and not open to discussion. You are set in your ways and prefer to stay in your safe place.

Clearly, any adult discussion won't include you.

Thanks!

(And in case I haven't greeted you properly: Fuck Off, Newb!)

Ciao!

Did you just shit your pants?  What are you even trying to discuss? 

Share this post


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

Did you just shit your pants?

No. If you smell something, though, have your nanny check your diaper.

JZK, I'm done playing word games with you. You are deliberately being obtuse and it is a waste of my time.

Share this post


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

No. If you smell something, though, have your nanny check your diaper.

JZK, I'm done playing word games with you. You are deliberately being obtuse and it is a waste of my time.

I will miss you.  Criticizing AOC for her statements in her press release, twitter, and elsewhere is perfectly legitimate.  

I don't want to get rid of air travel EVER, let alone in 10 years.  I want to fly more.  I want more people to go more places, see more things, and do business with more people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

JZK, I'm done playing word games with you. You are deliberately being obtuse and it is a waste of my time.

It's not deliberate - it's his natural state of being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
3 hours ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

JZK, I'm done playing word games with you. You are deliberately being obtuse and it is a waste of my time.

It's not deliberate - it's his natural state of being.

There is a beauty in the silence when jizkid is put on ignore, or at least not quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

It's not deliberate - it's his natural state of being.

You are the guy that believes in catastrophic climate change, but doesn't give a shit and drives a supercharged V8 anyway saying that when the shit hits the fan, you will be long gone, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

I will miss you.  Criticizing AOC for her statements in her press release, twitter, and elsewhere is perfectly legitimate.  

I don't want to get rid of air travel EVER, let alone in 10 years.  I want to fly more.  I want more people to go more places, see more things, and do business with more people.  

I want a lot too.  And most of the things I have ever wanted in life I have.  It took sacrifice and hard work.  It can happen.  Sticking your head in the sand won't make your dreams come true.  Has that worked for you so far?

Share this post


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

I want a lot too.  And most of the things I have ever wanted in life I have.  It took sacrifice and hard work.  It can happen.  Sticking your head in the sand won't make your dreams come true.  Has that worked for you so far?

Now that we have everything we want, I want the rest of humanity to flourish as well.  To do that, they need cheap, affordable energy.  And the cool thing is that by using that energy, they will also be improving plant life on the planet just like we are.

Share this post


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

Point well taken, Ish. Apologies.

But then who will I get bored with?

Share this post


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

Now that we have everything we want, I want the rest of humanity to flourish as well.  To do that, they need cheap, affordable energy.  And the cool thing is that by using that energy, they will also be improving plant life on the planet just like we are.

Most of the world, including DOD and the big corporations disagree with you.  Damn, I wish you were right.  Time will tell.  And there may come a time that it will be too late.  I believe in that knowledge idea.  It is far from perfect, unlike you, but it beats the hell out of just pulling shit out of your ass.  Go suck down some filtered air.  It is good for you.

Share this post


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

Most of the world, including DOD and the big corporations disagree with you.  Damn, I wish you were right.  Time will tell.  And there may come a time that it will be too late.  I believe in that a whole knowledge idea.  It is far from perfect, unlike you, but it beats the hell out of just pulling shit out of your ass.  Go suck down some filtered air.  It is good for you.

That is where you are wrong.  You are the fringe.  Most of the world agrees with me.   Sure, they might go to your climate church on Sunday for appearances, but during the week, they burn fossil fuel.   That is why CO2 emissions will increase through 2050.  It is because that is the only way to keep people out of poverty.  

Share this post


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

That is where you are wrong.  You are the fringe.  Most of the world agrees with me.   Sure, they might go to your climate church on Sunday for appearances, but during the week, they burn fossil fuel.   That is why CO2 emissions will increase through 2050.  It is because that is the only way to keep people out of poverty.  

I walk to work.  I leave my fuel burners in the garage.  I like sailboats.  I walk to restaurants.  The world is coming to cities.  We don't want to sit on the freeways.  I'd like the freeways turned into bike paths.  My utilities are $40 per month.  My daughter lives on the side of a mountain and plays music.  She has another occupation which supports her.  The world is not committed to fossil fuels.  It has become a huge problem.  The industry doesn't assume the externalities. And yes, the developing world really doesn't need your pollution.

You can deny climate change.  You can deny anything you want.  Denial is a psychological condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't deny anything, he is standing up for what he has been told he believes.

Share this post


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

I walk to work.  I leave my fuel burners in the garage.  I like sailboats.  I walk to restaurants.  The world is coming to cities.  We don't want to sit on the freeways.  I'd like the freeways turned into bike paths.  My utilities are $40 per month.  My daughter lives on the side of a mountain and plays music.  She has another occupation which supports her.  The world is not committed to fossil fuels.  It has become a huge problem.  The industry doesn't assume the externalities. And yes, the developing world really doesn't need your pollution.

You can deny climate change.  You can deny anything you want.  Denial is a psychological condition.

This is a delusion.  We have become rich enough to be able to play music on the sides of mountains, but that is not the case for the rest of the world.  How do you suppose your food is grown?  How is it delivered to all of the people in the world that consume it?  Are you going to walk it to them?

The good news is that the only measured externality caused by our CO2 production is increased vegetation on the planet.  How cool is that?  Maybe some mild warming if you can believe the temperature record, but that is questionable.  It keeps changing.  Here is your high priest James Hansen describing US warming from 1949 to 1999: " in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country"

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

 

Share this post


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

This is a delusion.  We have become rich enough to be able to play music on the sides of mountains, but that is not the case for the rest of the world.  How do you suppose your food is grown?  How is it delivered to all of the people in the world that consume it?  Are you going to walk it to them?

The good news is that the only measured externality caused by our CO2 production is increased vegetation on the planet.  How cool is that?  Maybe some mild warming if you can believe the temperature record, but that is questionable.  It keeps changing.  Here is your high priest James Hansen describing US warming from 1949 to 1999: " in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country"

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

 

jzk

I am not a scientist.  I don't know that the world is not flat.  My church will not threaten death when their beliefs are challenged by science.  Maybe you should read more and believe less.  I expect your opinion will matter little.  

Share this post


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

And yes, the developing world really doesn't need your pollution.

You can deny climate change.  You can deny anything you want.  Denial is a psychological condition.

China is building huge coal railway infrastructure to move coal around China in unprecedented volumes:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/asia/single-view/view/xinjiang-coal-railway-inaugurated.html

China knows it needs fossil fuel to continue lifting its people out of poverty.  It has no intention of reducing CO2 emissions nor has it even agreed to do such.

Let's watch what happens.  I bet the Earth continues to green, poverty continues to be eliminated, fewer people die from climate, and agricultural output continues to increase.  And 50 years from now, we will have plenty of coral and honey bees.  What do you think will happen?

You are the one with your head in the sand.

 

Share this post


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

jzk

I am not a scientist.  I don't know that the world is not flat.  My church will not threaten death when their beliefs are challenged by science.  Maybe you should read more and believe less.  I expect your opinion will matter little.  

Well that much is clear.  It is your very church of climate clowns that is threatening all sorts of human catastrophe if we don't bow down to it.  But very few people will.  They like eating and being warm in the winter.   And they like air travel.  

Share this post


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

China is building huge coal railway infrastructure to move coal around China in unprecedented volumes:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/asia/single-view/view/xinjiang-coal-railway-inaugurated.html

China knows it needs fossil fuel to continue lifting its people out of poverty.  It has no intention of reducing CO2 emissions nor has it even agreed to do such.

Let's watch what happens.  I bet the Earth continues to green, poverty continues to be eliminated, fewer people die from climate, and agricultural output continues to increase.  And 50 years from now, we will have plenty of coral and honey bees.  What do you think will happen?

You are the one with your head in the sand.

 

China is a dying society.  They have more millionaires.  Folks like that want to come here.  And we let them.  Japan was the boogeyman.  Can Japan still make you jump in the dark?  Do you jump in the dark because you are jumpy? 

Share this post


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

Well that much is clear.  It is your very church of climate clowns that is threatening all sorts of human catastrophe if we don't bow down to it.  But very few people will.  They like eating and being warm in the winter.   And they like air travel.  

You cut right to the chase.  You know nothing and want everyone to know you are a moron.

Share this post


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

China is a dying society.  They have more millionaires.  Folks like that want to come here.  And we let them.  Japan was the boogeyman.  Can Japan still make you jump in the dark?  Do you jump in the dark because you are jumpy? 

You think China is a dying society?  Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but China is just getting started.  

Share this post


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

China is building huge coal railway infrastructure to move coal around China in unprecedented volumes:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/asia/single-view/view/xinjiang-coal-railway-inaugurated.html

China knows it needs fossil fuel to continue lifting its people out of poverty.  It has no intention of reducing CO2 emissions nor has it even agreed to do such.

Let's watch what happens.  I bet the Earth continues to green, poverty continues to be eliminated, fewer people die from climate, and agricultural output continues to increase.  And 50 years from now, we will have plenty of coral and honey bees.  What do you think will happen?

You are the one with your head in the sand.

 

China is having a huge public health problem due to air pollution.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-health/china-cuts-smog-but-health-damage-already-done-study-idUSKBN1HO0C4

Reuters News is of course a libtard screech-fest, so you can safely ignore the facts from the real world. But the Chinese are probably smarter than you are, so they appear to be doing something about the problem

-DSK

Share this post


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

China is having a huge public health problem due to air pollution.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-health/china-cuts-smog-but-health-damage-already-done-study-idUSKBN1HO0C4

Reuters News is of course a libtard screech-fest, so you can safely ignore the facts from the real world. But the Chinese are probably smarter than you are, so they appear to be doing something about the problem

-DSK

China's air pollution problem is caused mainly because people burn coal for heat.  And, the government is pro industrialization at all costs, so the kinds of cleaner coal burning technology that we use in our power plants is often skipped over there.  The Chinese government believes in the collective and isn't too concerned about individual rights of the citizens.  I sure hope that changes.  

Share this post


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

China's air pollution problem is caused mainly because people burn coal for heat.  And, the government is pro industrialization at all costs, so the kinds of cleaner coal burning technology that we use in our power plants is often skipped over there.  The Chinese government believes in the collective and isn't too concerned about individual rights of the citizens.  I sure hope that changes.  

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2166542/air-pollution-killing-1-million-people-and-costing-chinese

It probably will, because the Chinese are a lot smarter than you are. Instead of making shit up to try and sound smart, they actually look at what is really happening around them.

You will not approve, because Chinese culture is quite different and you cannot understand anything outside your own little fantasy world.

-DSK

Share this post


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

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2166542/air-pollution-killing-1-million-people-and-costing-chinese

It probably will, because the Chinese are a lot smarter than you are. Instead of making shit up to try and sound smart, they actually look at what is really happening around them.

You will not approve, because Chinese culture is quite different and you cannot understand anything outside your own little fantasy world.

-DSK

What they are going to clean up is their particulate pollution, and they certainly should.  And they are going to increase CO2 emissions well past 2050.  Do you deny that fact?  

Share this post


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

I walk to work.  I leave my fuel burners in the garage.  I like sailboats.  I walk to restaurants.  The world is coming to cities.  We don't want to sit on the freeways.  I'd like the freeways turned into bike paths.  My utilities are $40 per month.  My daughter lives on the side of a mountain and plays music.  She has another occupation which supports her.  The world is not committed to fossil fuels.  It has become a huge problem.  The industry doesn't assume the externalities. And yes, the developing world really doesn't need your pollution.

You can deny climate change.  You can deny anything you want.  Denial is a psychological condition.

Move to Victoria, you would fit right in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When reading a Jerk post it is always advisable to see what he is cherry picked.  The paragraph before his selected quote about 1947-1999 US temperatures not rising was this:

“A picture of how U.S. climate change during the past half century compared with the rest of the world is shown in Figure 2. This map shows that the trend has been toward warmer temperatures in most of the world. There has been nearly ubiquitous warming in the tropics, especially in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, where the largest warming coincides with the location of more frequent strong El Niños. The strongest warming has been in Alaska and northern Asia. Warming in Alaska is often associated with El Niños. A suspicion of many climatologists — as yet unproven — is that an increasing greenhouse effect may cause more frequent and intense El Niños. Asia has long been predicted to show the largest warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, especially in the winter, and observations are consistent with that.”

of course to Jerk, this means we will all live happy toasty vegan lives.  Whoohoo

Share this post


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

When reading a Jerk post it is always advisable to see what he is cherry picked.  The paragraph before his selected quote about 1947-1999 US temperatures not rising was this:

“A picture of how U.S. climate change during the past half century compared with the rest of the world is shown in Figure 2. This map shows that the trend has been toward warmer temperatures in most of the world. There has been nearly ubiquitous warming in the tropics, especially in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, where the largest warming coincides with the location of more frequent strong El Niños. The strongest warming has been in Alaska and northern Asia. Warming in Alaska is often associated with El Niños. A suspicion of many climatologists — as yet unproven — is that an increasing greenhouse effect may cause more frequent and intense El Niños. Asia has long been predicted to show the largest warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, especially in the winter, and observations are consistent with that.”

of course to Jerk, this means we will all live happy toasty vegan lives.  Whoohoo

the cherry pick was not done by me, but rather your high priest James Hansen.  

Here is a NYT article citing a NOAA study that found no warming in the USA from 1895 to 1989:

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html

But, of course, that was before NASA "fixed" the previous temperature record.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight out of Wikipedia.  

 

The threat of acidification includes a decline in commercial fisheries and in the Arctic tourism industry and economy. Commercial fisheries are threatened because acidification harms calcifying organisms which form the base of the Arctic food webs.

Pteropods and brittle stars both form the base of the Arctic food webs and are both seriously damaged from acidification. Pteropods shells dissolve with increasing acidification and the brittle stars lose muscle mass when re-growing appendages.[113] For pteropods to create shells they require aragonite which is produced through carbonate ions and dissolved calcium. Pteropods are severely affected because increasing acidification levels have steadily decreased the amount of water supersaturated with carbonate which is needed for aragonite creation.[114] Arctic waters are changing so rapidly that they will become undersaturated with aragonite as early as 2016.[114] Additionally the brittle star's eggs die within a few days when exposed to expected conditions resulting from Arctic acidification.[115]Acidification threatens to destroy Arctic food webs from the base up. Arctic food webs are considered simple, meaning there are few steps in the food chain from small organisms to larger predators. For example, pteropods are "a key prey item of a number of higher predators – larger plankton, fish, seabirds, whales".[116] Both pteropods and sea stars serve as a substantial food source and their removal from the simple food web would pose a serious threat to the whole ecosystem. The effects on the calcifying organisms at the base of the food webs could potentially destroy fisheries. The value of fish caught from US commercial fisheries in 2007 was valued at $3.8 billion and of that 73% was derived from calcifiers and their direct predators.[117] Other organisms are directly harmed as a result of acidification. For example, decrease in the growth of marine calcifiers such as the American lobster, ocean quahog, and scallops means there is less shellfish meat available for sale and consumption.[118] Red king crab fisheries are also at a serious threat because crabs are calcifiers and rely on carbonate ions for shell development. Baby red king crab when exposed to increased acidification levels experienced 100% mortality after 95 days.[119] In 2006, red king crab accounted for 23% of the total guideline harvest levels and a serious decline in red crab population would threaten the crab harvesting industry.[120] Several ocean goods and services are likely to be undermined by future ocean acidification potentially affecting the livelihoods of some 400 to 800 million people depending upon the emission scenario.[10]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Media Matters reports that in 42 days, from February 25 through April 7, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was mentioned on Fox News and Fox Business 3,181 times.

Share this post


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

 

Media Matters reports that in 42 days, from February 25 through April 7, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was mentioned on Fox News and Fox Business 3,181 times.

That's almost as many times as Trump lied in that period.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make up bullshit about AOC and deliver stupid fucks that watch Fox News and regurgitate stupid storys

Sell ads for gold, other crap products.

Cash checks ads placed on the bullshit delivered.

It's an industry and you rightwing ijiots feed it.

Share this post


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

Two sides to every coin, no?

That's the same side of the coin- Trump lies, Fox & hate-spewers spread the lies like manure on farm fields; Fox & hate-spewers spew about AOC to Trump and his bases' applause.

How does it feel to have your string jerked by a NYC asshole you don't even support? Apparently you like, and you so-o independent!!

-DSK

Share this post


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

That's the same side of the coin- Trump lies, Fox & hate-spewers spread the lies like manure on farm fields; Fox & hate-spewers spew about AOC to Trump and his bases' applause.

How does it feel to have your string jerked by a NYC asshole you don't even support? Apparently you like, and you so-o independent!!

-DSK

People who oppose AOC and the GND must be hate spewers.  

Share this post


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

People who oppose AOC and the GND must be hate spewers.  

Only a hate spewer would ever disagree with whatever AOC is complaining about this week.

Right now it seems to be anyone who dares criticize Rep. Omars comments at the CAIR event. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about this freshman congress critter that have the nuts so wound up?

 Is it because she speaks her mind instead of what she's supposed to say via the corporate sponsors?

 Is it because she actually has a mind, instead of just a skull shaped lock box for speaking points?

I think they don't like her because she's honest, and (so far) un-corrupted.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go Ocosio.

the opposition to her proposals is proportional to the myriad of ineffectual and evil fucking cunts who make up most of the gubmint and also half of the 'murcan public in general. cringeworthy clowns like ronaldreagan and donnie shitbag became prezident (ycmtsu), she sure as fk would be vastly more appropriate for the position. I'd actually vote for her with a bit of enthusiasm.

I smell a good 'ol fashioned reichwing propaganda smear campaign right around the corner to discredit her and her cause.

 

-fuck righty-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now she is saying that printing images of 911 on the front page of a newspaper is an incitement of violence against progressive women of color:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 3to1 said:

go Ocosio.

the opposition to her proposals is proportional to <middle school bullshit redacted>

First of all, you might want to learn to spell her name.

Then, consider that the opposition is to her proposed ineffectual methods, not her causes?

Share this post


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

First of all, you might want to learn to spell her name.

Then, consider that the opposition is to her proposed ineffectual methods, not her causes?

Yeah?

If that's true, then why all the misquotes, and ignoring the statements she makes that are true? She's just the far rights latest hate-hate-hate. And she's a young good looking woman, photogenic and threatening at the same time.

How much attention does the lefty media pay her?

-DSK