Jump to content

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, jzk said:

Present some actual real world data showing this problem.  

What? That the desert regions of the world are expanding? You are not that ignorant are you? Perhaps the immigrant problem in Europe is an illusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How much will it take for you to shut the fuck up and never post here again Mis Raz'r Jib? That was fun.

One of the few things you posted I agree with.  It is however the only (legal) entity that has the power to send people with guns to bend you to it's will.

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Laker said:

What? That the desert regions of the world are expanding? You are not that ignorant are you? Perhaps the immigrant problem in Europe is an illusion.

You think that the immigrant problem in Europe is due to expanding deserts?  

Is that really your position.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

AOC continues to impress during congressional hearings.  Today at the Financial Services committee she asked good questions was well prepared and heaped praise on Jamie Dixon for cutting off funding to companies that run private prisons which is an idea that left or right we can all agree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jzk keeps asking posters to define things, doesn't recognize climate change as an issue, thinks unregulated capitalism is a fine idea so......

jzk:  Define the physical universe. Please be precise and concise. Provide at least 2 examples.  TIA.

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

You think that the immigrant problem in Europe is due to expanding deserts?  

Is that really your position.

Yes, at least the UN considers it a major source of political instability.

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

You think that the immigrant problem in Europe is due to expanding deserts?  

Is that really your position.

Yes.

Years ago, he was only -near- the desert. Then, while he was standing still, the desert approached and finally surrounded him

Ask for his lat and long

-DSK

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

Yes, at least the UN considers it a major source of political instability.

We can discuss the problem of expanding deserts if you like, but you have to do more than just general broad strokes.  

If we know that plants on earth are increasing, and climate related deaths are plummeting, then it is hard to see this desert thing as much of a big picture issue.  But, again, discuss if you like.  Specifically discuss how AOC's plan is going to fix the desert problem.

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

It seems as if the Sahel is greening, so that is good, right?

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf

 

Sounds like evidence of a measurable shift in climate.  On a human time-scale.

Hopefully, those areas on which we depend for our food supply will not see a shift.  If they do.....

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

Sounds like evidence of a measurable shift in climate.  On a human time-scale.

Hopefully, those areas on which we depend for our food supply will not see a shift.  If they do.....

The good news is that the Earth is greening and agricultural yields have more than doubled since the 1960s.  So much winning.

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

Yes, at least the UN considers it a major source of political instability.

Guess what?  The UN got it wrong about the Sahel:

https://www.refworld.org/docid/4847bb8f0.html

"What does climate change mean for the region? 

Scientists have differing opinions on whether the Sahel is going to get wetter or drier because of climate change, but either way the outlook is bleak."

I wouldn't put too much stock in UN predictions.  Go with actual real world data instead.

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

The U.N. is about as usefaul as tits on a log and as trustworthy as Bill Clinton in a women’s dorm.

Iz nize yuu larn de lankwich! Nex larn de spellink, Eh!?

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

The U.N. is about as usefaul as tits on a log and as trustworthy as Bill Clinton in a women’s dorm.

Or Trump anywhere at all...teenage girl's dressing rooms, making mushroom cream pie with porn stars, or hob-nobbing with Epstein and some young ladies...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

 

Global warm 2.jpg

Yeah, about that image.  Lots of folks dismiss predictions of Climate Change when the reality doesn't match the model. 

Take a look at that black line from 1998 forward.  Does that match what we have observed? 

Pick your source - https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+years+on+record&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS721US721&oq=hottest+years+&aqs=chrome.0.35i39j69i57j0l4.5602j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Regarding those "experts", I just love their bios - 

"Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." (As rated by whom?)

"Since age 11, he has compiled nearly 100 weather scrapbooks that detail major events throughout the U.S. and the world on a daily basis." (Oh boy.  He scrapbooks.)

"He has been quoted in CNN and "Not by FIRE, but by ICE" by Robert W. Felix." (Isn't CNN "Fake News"?)

and - 

"Meteorologist Randy Mann has been recognized by the American Meteorological Society since 1988." (Recognized as what?)

"In the past decade, Randy has also designed other weather-related publications that include two North Idaho weather calendars, the International Traveler's Weather Guide, Tom Loffman's Sacramento Weather Guide, the Vermont Town and Weather Almanac (7 Editions), the award-winning 1997 Frederick County Weather Almanac and the 1998, 1999, Year 2000 and the 2001 Frederick County Weather Almanacs." (I'd take those over peer-reviewed publications, any day.)

 

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

What? That the desert regions of the world are expanding? You are not that ignorant are you? Perhaps the immigrant problem in Europe is an illusion.

You haven't made a case that this is a problem worth wrecking human civilization to solve.   Given that vegetated areas on the planet are expanding, there is plenty of room for everyone.

That being said, I am probably the most pro-immigration person on the forum.  I am happy to stop preventing unproductive people from moving to where they can be more productive.  

Poor people need affordable energy.  Otherwise they die, and before they die, their life sucks.  If you want to kill a bunch of poor people, you are going to have to do better than just tossing out buzz words like "ocean acidification" and "expanding deserts" as justification.  

Or you can just continue the circle jerk on this forum.  No problem. 

Meanwhile, human C02 emissions will grow steadily well past 2050.  Coal will continue to be a major source of energy for the masses.  

And all the while, plant life on the planet will continue to thrive, agricultural output will increase, and human deaths as a result of the environment will continue to decline.  The few people still chanting that the world will end will become even more marginalized than they are now.  

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

Yes, denial works for awhile.

Save the "denial" bullshit.  Look at the facts.  Which facts have I stated incorrectly?

More green, more food, less human deaths, less poverty, longer lifespans.  All is good my friend.  Don't go fucking it up.

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

You don't get out much, huh?

That is a great PA circle jerk response.  But how about something actually relevant?   What do you see when you go out?

roser_poverty_shares.0.jpg

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

Trash. Plastic bits everywhere, flying and floating.

Where do you live?  You know that trash is not a real problem unless you just dump it in the river which goes to the Ocean like some countries do.

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

Shithole countries, just like yourself.

Yeah, we have landfills.  We take care of our trash.  Some obnoxious people are rude and just throw their shit anywhere.  Not much you can do about them.  It isn't going to destroy the planet, but I agree that it is rude.

This is why socialism will never work.  People don't give a fuck about other people's shit.  Why do you suppose people throw their gum into urinals?  Some poor guy is going to have to reach into the urinal with his hand and clean that, but a certain percentage of people just don't give a shit.

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

No, you don't.

Yes, we do.  You are making up a problem where none exists.  Like the facebook meme's that claim nestle is trashing the planet by selling bottled water.  Just nonsense.  

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

If you don't see plastic in the planet's food chain as a problem, you're the one in denial.

I am all for throwing trash into a landfill.  Other countries dump it into the river.  Not cool at all.  We are both against it.

But let's have some perspective.  How much is it really hurting the "planet?"  Yeah, that straw up the turtle's nose had to hurt, but at least we pulled it out for him.

I bet you have killed some bugs with your car before.  Lots of bugs being killed.  A small price to pay for bringing the masses out of poverty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I crossed the gulfstream a couple of weeks ago, I saw a party balloon and a white bottle.  Not cool.  But not exactly destroying the planet either.  Just plain not cool.  Don't do that shit.  I notice that Bahamians often toss their trash anywhere.  Really not cool.  They should stop that.  I also went fishing in Manitoba last year, and I noticed that the Native American guides there also just toss their garbage into the pristine lake.  I don't understand why they don't give a shit.  They should.  But, they are still not putting the planet in any danger.

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

You don't understand the web of life, the "interconnectedness" of species, do you?

 

From this conversation, it is looking like you are the one that lacks the understanding.

But, please, do tell.  But try to make a complete case rather than just throwing out a buzz phrase like "ocean acidification" and the like.

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

because you convey the impression that AOC is somehow unique in making gaffes or being idealistic or being occasionally clueless. I submit she is not compared to her peers. I also submit there's a partisan bias where saying something like, "I want  to abolish the Department of Energy" (Rick Perry) or "you can't get a BA degree in a real science" (Massie, yesterday) is somehow... fine. And that's BS.

Can we abolish the departments of education and agriculture?

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

lol "I pulled plastic from one turtle, plastic pollution doesn't matter".

what a fucking assclown.

Why are you such a fucking liar?  Can't you make a case with the truth?  I know you could if you really put your mind to it. 

Why don't you try again?

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

From this conversation, it is looking like you are the one that lacks the understanding.

But, please, do tell.  But try to make a complete case rather than just throwing out a buzz phrase like "ocean acidification" and the like.

Suppose the population of bees were to take a nosedive. What would happen?

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

Suppose the population of bees were to take a nosedive. What would happen?

Suppose AOC implements her green new deal?  What would happen?

I am against both AOC's gnd and killing all the bees.

Good thing we aren't killing all the bees.  It is a further good thing that plastic isn't killing them either.

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

Suppose the population of bees were to take a nosedive. What would happen?

It is happening!

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

because you convey the impression that AOC is somehow unique in making gaffes or being idealistic or being occasionally clueless. I submit she is not compared to her peers. I also submit there's a partisan bias where saying something like, "I want  to abolish the Department of Energy" (Rick Perry) or "you can't get a BA degree in a real science" (Massie, yesterday) is somehow... fine. And that's BS.

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. 

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

Not in some folks' minds apparently.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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
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? 

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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. 

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

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?

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!

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.  

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.

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. 

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.

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.  

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?

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?

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.

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.  

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?  

 

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. 

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.

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.

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
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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites