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

I watched a video of his on nuclear power, very switched on bloke.

These renewables types will destroy the planet. Nuclear is the only solution.

 

I agree in that if she is ever going to be taken seriously by people who are not kool-aid drinkers then she needs to shut her mouth and begin studying a myriad of things having to do with government theory and practice as well as the rudiments of science; that is, if she is going to stick with environmental issues.

 

In this environment, I don't think it would make any difference.
Know why? Because anything proposed will be screeched at as

"SOCIALISM!!!!"



When you guys are ready to turn off the giant John Birch machine, maybe we can talk.

 

I don't care if I change it or not. I just want rational and sane people to know what they're up against.

 

I'd like to filter out the trolls and talk to the rational folks.
Yes, rational conservatives included.
I have not been here long enough to figure out who the white supremacists and crypto-nazis are yet.

And there's no sub forum where people are free to call them out for what they are or else I would subscribe to it.

 

You wouldn't care if she got a PH.D and won the Nobel Prize. She's not conservative and therefore you won't listen.

 

Yeah?

And, so what?

So she didn't take the train and RW heads are exploding?

Go figure.:smfh:

 

I haven't said anything about the green deal being a law. I've been arguing the whole time that the entire premise of it is terrible, and cannot achieve it's intended goals, no matter how well intentioned they are. But the only argument in return has been the false idea that the government must force people to invest in unproven technologies in order for those technologies to become viable. It's not only untrue, the act for forcing people to invest in things they believe to be unwise actually prevents investment in technologies that could better address the problem.

 

Ehh - wrong on both counts. No one I'm aware of is saying it's a law. What it IS is a representation of what goes on inside that naive lil' mind of hers, and to a degree, what her party has signed onto - a bunch of pie-in-the-sky dreams and fantasies. Her own FAQ - getting rid of airplanes and farting cows in ten years? Retrofitting every darn building there is? Paying people who don't want to work? It's not a law but it IS a window into her innocent soul. By extension, it's also an indication of what the Democrats want, both financial, social, and economic.

And as for the right thinking she is the entire political world - look, it isn't the right discussing her love for press-on nails. It's the press that's fallen in love with her; the right is just laughing at her - and there's quite a lot to laugh at every time she speaks.

 

Ever hear of the stock market? It's not just a bunch of guys lamenting the fact that they didn't buy Apple stock 40 years ago. The entire purpose is to invest in the prediction of future development.

Tell me, how much government investment do you think was required to transition to fossil fuels in the first place? When that transition happened, did they have to mandate that every house in the nation had to switch from wood heating to coal and oil? Were the factories all forced off of steam and stream power? Hell no. New technologies made the transition a wise choice. The infrastructure fell in place around those wise choices.

You're not going to win the argument by telling people they have to make a bunch of stupid choices now in order for everything to be Utopia in the future. Instead, produce better choices and people will make those choices.

 

Yep, and nobody can predict the stock market either. That's why market timing doesn't work. The few % who win timing the market are just lucky, they usually don't realize that, though.

Government investment wasn't needed for the transition to fossil fuels because it was a transition from a lower quality energy source (wood, coal) to a higher quality one. This next transition is the opposite. That's why it will me much harder.

Tell me, when the next oil crisis hits, and it will, would we be better off if we depended on fossils for 81% of our energy needs, as currently, or only, say 50%, 30%???

Also, when the next oil crisis hits, how quickly can the free market ramp up development and production capacity of alternatives? What will the price for those be when they will be in short supply?

This is really not rocket science, all these things WILL happen if nothing is done, it is just a question of when will that time be. Conservatives just put their head in the sand and dream that those times never come.

 

You mean like how leftists HOWLED "Racism!" in regards to everything under the sun for eight years under Obama and then wondered why nobody wanted to engage in serious talks about racism with you?

 

YES. It's very hard to predict which companies will be successful and which will fail. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT DOING IT. When the government fails, everyone fails. When Joe investor picks the wrong stock, that's only on him. Picking the right stock is exactly the same kind of risk as picking the wrong technology to support. If Joe is the guy who picks, that risk is limited to Joe. Everyone else can pick what they want. After all, the reason people lament not buying Apple stock 40 years ago, is that people did. People did predict correctly. Allowing the government to force us to pick is a bad idea because for every Apple, there's 100 Betamax. I mean follow your own logic. It's impossible to predict which horse will win the race. For this reason we must let the government pick the horses. Bad idea. The odds that the government would pick the wrong horse for everyone are much higher than the odds that some people will pick the right horse on their own. Once people see the right horse winning more often, they're smart enough to pick that horse too.

The transition from good to bad is not a good idea. It's a bad idea. The transition will happen with ease when the technology to produce superior energy sources is produced. See my first paragraph about how that will happen.

I can answer that with actual data. I know of a place where an oil crisis hit where everything was completely controlled by the government. How'd that turn out?

 

1) According to evolution, which is nothing else than what the free market does, the wrong thing has to be tried to know that it is not viable. That's how evolution works, it kicks out the losers. We can now speed up evolution in the test tube, see for example the SELEX method to evolve RNA. There is nothing saying that we can't do it on the scale of the economy.

If we, however, let the chips fall where they may, there will be a lot of losers. Are you fine with that? Your kids may fall into the loser category.

2) Yes, the transition form a higher quality energy source to a lower quality is bad. However, in face of the higher quality energy source being NON-RENEWABLE, we will have no other choice. Is it better to wait until the inevitable happens, or prepare beforehand? I always like to be prepared.

3) If everything else fails, point to Venezuela. That's a poor debate habit.

 

If she took the train they'd be criticising her for wasting the "nations" time. The Orange Monstrosity uses the Presidential Air Fleet to transport him and his family to their gold toilets in FL nearly every weekend and nobody says a word.

 

Sounds like your computer was all jammed up with conservative bullshit. Mine translated automatically and filed it under good ideas

 

She doesn't take the train or the subway in NY even though the stations are within walking distance of her apartment. Why is she preaching others do so and then come up with her "I'm more important than anyone else, my time is more valuable than anyone else" excuse?

 

No a proposal so lets see who on the Democrat side supports the proposals to get rid of fossil fuels in ten years and stop eating cows and the other ludicrious suggestions?

What do you consider "John Birch" hysteria, give me some examples.

Over what and how?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44113494

It seems deforestation is a myth.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/06/bezos-microsoft-bet-on-a-10-trillion-energy-fix-for-the-planet.html

Weird. Did the government have to force them to make that investment?

 

Near-future development, not long-term development. The stock market is great at destroying companies and leaving shareholders busted, even thought that's not beneficial to anyone but the looters.

Massive government funds for road-building were required to make cars practical.

Tell us, as rural electrification isn't profitable, how would it have happened without a government? How does your "the magic free market makes anything happen?" address such issues, where there's no profit to be made? How does it address diffuse pollution sources, where there's nobody who can be sued?

Infrastructure largely financed by government.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

Except Greenpeace itself, who parted ways with him decades ago and indicated he has no such license or expertise you claim he does. But I don't want to take away your only love, by all means, love it all you want! Said your mom to your hand.

Anyway, that said, the "New Green Deal" is a lot like the original "New Deal," much is idealistic and not going to happen any time soon. That said, there's nothing wrong with being idealistic, just ask Thomas Jefferson about "all men being created equal." He sort of missed the mark on that one, and yet, do we hold it against him? Against the country? No. So you may not like her politics, and I don't live in the Bronx so I didn't vote for her, but if you think we can burn all the oil and coal we want and have no impact to our quality of life and economy, then it's you that is lacking expertise. Also, those squiggly red lines are your friends before you hit post.

 

No, but without the government having funded basic physics research for decades, they wouldn't even know where to start to make fusion happen.

BTW: People who dream about generating energy through fusion reactors should be careful what they wish for. With the energy of the sun comes the temperature of the sun. Global warming will go into overdrive once that happens.

 

Bull crap. Idealism sans logic, knowledge, or common sense is simply a TYPICAL leftist recipe for disaster. That's all it's ever been.

 

Exactly! Misery for us, special perks and privileges for Socialist Overlords. They’ll stifle innovation, drive providers out of business, and increase costs on the surviving providers. When Americans notice that they’re paying more, getting less, and waiting longer, Democrats will scream, “We need wider powers!”