Co-Founder of Greenpeace RIPS Ocasio-Cortez: “Pompous Little Twit… You Would Bring About Mass Death”

Another denier! ))

 

She'd be great to watch in the debates.

 

That would simply be cruel, for America and her reputation. Her spouting off like a moron on the sidelines makes sure her stupidity is spread out and can be used against liberals over and over. Too much exposure and even Democrats would have to silence her...

 

Can you think of any case in which the free market did not advance when a new viable technology emerge?

 

Do you think the United States, and the US alone is the sole user of coal and oil? As the OP said, it's the dear freshman representative who wants to take us back to the stone age, rather than a progressive technological era. Even if the US pursued this radical ambition, the US would not be able to save the world(sorry). Russia and China are still heavy polluters. In fact, at last check the United States is middle of the pack, and that's actually #1 among first world countries.

Among the first world, we pollute the least.

And no, it's not wishful thinking. It's been the story of the human race(and America specifically) for the last 50-60 years. Developing technology, it's what we do. And we do it pretty well. To me, providing the economic incentives and financial opportunities for both small and large organizations to contribute is the best path forward to solving the problem.

Innovation has given us so much, and it's going to give us the solution here too.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if the chioice was between the grid powered by fusion and solar drawing power from every painted surface? Would we get this lucky?

We should be mindful the solution must be one that works better than fossil fuels for Asia, Africa, and Central and South America.

 

If the Democrats nominate a moderate, Trump is likely to lose.

 

A moronic drinks waiter and two islamic dog whistles....all class......

 

And we're making this warming cycle a whole lot worse. We put BILLIONS of TONS of a crucial trace gas into the atmosphere annually, It's absurd and insane to think that will have no effect.

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

 

Well, lets not forget the 1700 private jets which landed in Davos recently....wasnt that for a climate change conference....sorry I forgot...different rules for them.....

 

So Wiki is wrong about Gateway Pundit?

Prove it.

 

Any 'moderate' Democrat would become a Republican.

 

Don't bother with links. Support your own posts.

 

Don't tell me what to do.

The original OP is nothing more than propaganda from a right wing fake news site.

How come you don't tell the OP to not bother with links and support their own posts? Hmmmm???

The "expert" is a fraud. End of thread.

 

Internal combustion engines were not invented as a result of government demand to solve the environmental problem posed by horse manure. Exactly zero bug eyed politicians were needed to demand the complete cessation of equine fuel sources. There was zero government action required to solve that problem. Odd that you would bring it up, since it directly contradicts your following point.

There was no manure panic that required the government to promote the development of internal combustion engines. The problem was solved through the natural progression of human innovation. In point of fact, the development of the engine had nothing to do with horses or even transportation at all. They were used as prime movers in factories for almost a decade before people started putting them in vehicles.

 

Do you honestly think that attacking the person behind a line of argument refutes the argument? Is that really how you intend to convince people who disagree with you to agree with you? I've got actual news for you.

It won't.

If you really want to convince me that it's fake news you can start by explaining how an industry with an infrastructure developed over 100 years to rely on fossil fuels is not really dependant on fossil fuels and can be easily converted to portable energy sources that don't currently exist. Oh yeah, And I'd love to know how it's going to happen in just 10 years time simply because some lady with exactly zero climate credentials, zero engineering credentials, zero farming credentials, and incredibly dubious economic credentials says it's possible.

Until then, your post is fake news to me.

 

There is nothing that would convince any of you of anything...except the words from a right wing propaganda site and an "expert" who is a fraud.

Well.....

My only point in posting in this thread was to show that the site that wrote the article is a right wing fake news site, and the "expert" is a fraud. Most every thread started by a right-winger is based on that sort of thing.

 

So you're a waste of time. Got it.

If you want to be a serious person, I'd suggest addressing the argument instead of attacking the man. If the man is such a fraud it should be easy.

But you don't have any idea how to do that do you?

You might want to think about that reality a bit.

 

No, this thread is a waste of time, as is any that starts with propaganda from a fake news site and a fraud...imo.

Just like the other guy, you try and insult me as not being a "serious person", yet the OP, who is spreading stories from a right wing fake news site and a fraudulent expert gets a pass.

Start serious threads if you want "serious arguments".

 

Translation: You CANNOT counter the arguments and thus you don't even try.

 

Translation:

You read and spread fake news.

 

Not with Trump and social conservatives in the party. Opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and racism are offensive. The serming indifference to income and weakth disparity, much greater than in many successful European countries, Canada, and Australia is another turnoff.

 

Funny, it seems to be the whole basis of this thread and tons of others is to attack AOC and declare her stupid without actually discussing the argument, namely, that fossil fuels energy generation is old and dirty technology and needs to be changed.

Second, I haven't seen you address my question I asked you in a previous post:

If the country has become so dependent on fossil fuels in the last 100 year, and knowing that fossil fuels are NON-RENEWABLE, wouldn't it be prudent to take ANY step necessary to decrease this dependence? It clearly is a problem being dependent on something that isn't sustainable.

 

Per capita the US is the larges energy consumer.

Second, technology is good. Blind faith in technology to solve problems related to basic physical principles that cannot be overcome is bad. That is, in fact, wishful thinking, or dreaming of the tooth fairy. Don't conservatives usually have pride in themselves to be realists?