Politicians who oppose the Green Deal, better do so quietly

If you read the link you will see that Mr. Gore was quoting the scientists.

lol

In fact he was quoting the NOAA, the leading scientific agency on climate change. Those were their predictions, not Gore's.

 

Yeah... And if they don't have bread, let them eat cake!

 

I'd say it's a pretty substantial part. So that's 3 things you're wrong about in the above paragraph.

 

If you read the link, you will see that he wasn't.

Arctic sea ice is, without question, on a declining trend, but Gore definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research.​

 

You don't KNOW that global warming is a serious problem, you BELIEVE that it is. I agree that global warming is occurring but the only real effect that I am aware of is the incredible increase in crop yields that has accompanied it. In the end, this all that matters. Can you produce enough food to feed the planet? Given that the average person has gotten fatter every year for the few decades, I think the evidence is quite strong that our food supply has not yet been affected adversely by global warming (it seems silly to believe that warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentration would reduce crop yields.... give the wealth of data showing the opposite).
.
I BELIEVE that a much more serious problem is health care. If we continue with the current growth rate of health insurance (and it has held steady for 16 years) for another 16 years, the cost of annual premiums will reach $55k/year which will place it out of reach for everybody not in the top 10%.

 

Guaranteed jobs and income, universal healthcare, and food security are about 80% of the guesstimate cost of the Green New Deal. Global warming is a distant fourth, or maybe tied for third.

 

You don't think 20% is substantial? Of course, it's not true. It's much more than that.

 

Fifty.

Seven.

To.

Zero.

 

Positive feedback has yet to be proven.

 

Any fool can run around in a circle crying out "Poppycock - its all Poppycock" - but not giving any refutation of the facts and evidence presented. This is something I would expect from a fundamentalist when they come across evidence that the flood story is nonsense. Whats your excuse ?

What is "Poppycock" is your claim that my post had nothing to do with the green new deal. I laid out in specific terms some of the issues with the plan - issues that have been scientifically established.

Your claim "we might not do it in the time frame because of the ignorant right" while in part this is true - the reality is far more complicated is a function of many things - things of which you have no understanding - nor any desire to understand.

A large part of the reason things are not getting done is because of ignorant extremists - like Cortez and supporters who don't understand the issues either - like yourself and so will support stupid things .. things that are actually bad for the environment - such the "Keystone Pipeline" example.

You have no desire to discuss the actual specifics of these issues - such as the Keystone - all you want to do is repeat some propaganda narrative you have ingested .. over and over - similar to a religious zealot or a Trumpette.

In your signature line it is posted "It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments" OK .. then lets hear some "arguments".... something other than ad hom, logical fallacy and name calling.

 

Just the ones that use fossil fuels. Which is all of them.

Your cars have to go too. So do trains and boats.

 

So the GND is so bad its sponsors dont even want to put their name on a non binding procedural vote?

 

Link to verifiable Republicans having a burning desire to kill all blacks and gays.

 

That's one way to look at it. I'm all for reducing the burnt hydrocarbons we add to the atmosphere but only when it makes sense to do it and only if the government is not involved in it. Government isn't competent to handle it and has a huge conflict of interest because it always works toward an increase in its power and control. Take environmentalism out of government and politics and it will make more sense to people.

 

I did! That's not how the Climate Change issue is being addressed in the world. But this discussion isn't about how Climate Change is addressed in the world. It's about the Green New Deal. Which is about how we can address it here. So if you want to change the subject, you are more than welcome to open a new thread.

Of course it's complicated! But you waste your time explaining in a long message how complicated it is. How does laying out the fact that it's complicated help us. Or even advance the discussion?

I have no interest on whether you consider AOC ignorant or not. I'm only interested on whether she's right or not. And neither you, nor anybody else who has attacked her has produced a single word demonstrating that she is wrong. So she's good! And she's acting. So, for now, I'm behind her. Couldn't care less how ignorant the right thinks she is.

This is the perfect place to discuss specifics about the Green New Deal. But the way you discuss specifics is by starting with a specific quote taken directly from the Green New Deal and explaining why that quote is inaccurate.

You started with a diatribe with all this nonsense about China and India and Cows.... and nothing to relate any of that to the Green New Deal.

Exactly! And this is why when I open a thread about something, it's because i have thoroughly researched that "something". For that reason, I do not like attempts at changing the subject. And I suggest you research the subject we are discussing, instead of trying to change it... or open your own discussion.

And, BTW, I have participated in and myself opened threads about China and India and Cows.... Just that they are not this thread. If you want to look them up and continue the discussion there... then that's fine. But your post was going like in fifty different directions at the same time. And, in my experience, such inability to focus is always indication that the poster has not adequately researched any one of the subjects they mention, and will just continue randomly going from topic to topic.

 

No. It's going to be so good, they don't want to put their names on a non-binding procedural vote.

 

Are you under the impression that if we stopped all CO2 emissions we would never have another devastating hurricane, major flood, disastrous forest fire, or drought ever again???

 

Glad that you have figured out the Cow fart issue. This does not change the fact that you are woefully uneducated on other environmental issues - and are now turning around and trying to accuse me of your flaws.

You were the one that asked me what the particular issues with Cortez's plan were. When I lay many of these issues out in specific detail you cry out "Nonsense .. Nonsense ... Poppycock" - without even mentioning a single issue I brought up or giving any rational for your claim.

Then you say that I should have quoted the NGD directly. How can I quote something that isn't there ? The fact that Cortez does not factor in some of these critical issues is why she is not qualified. This is no reason go into your typical ad hom rant - trying to claim that I am the one that is uneducated on the topic - projecting your problem onto me.

But hey .. if you would like some direct quotes for a specific issue - no problem.

I previously brought up the Keystone Pipeline. Anyone who is is "educated" in any significant way with respect to the environmental issues knows that Obama was against the Keystone Pipeline. Cortez has is now carrying that same torch but has no clue what she is talking about.

I agree 100% that we need to take steps in relation to Environmental issues - I am one of the leaders of the charge in this forum on this respect - continuously rebutting dumb arguments by the denialists and explaining "Why" the argument is dumb.

The problem is that Cortez is just as dumb with respect to environmental issues. Extremism on one side is just as bad as extremism on the other. What we don't need is someone who does not understand environmental issues leading the charge. Extremism will not help this cause - in fact - in the case of the Keystone - it hurts the cause.

AOC MANGLES EVERY MAJOR CLAIM IN VIRAL EXCHANGE OVER PIPELINES

If there is a pipeline spill the operator is on the hook for huge dollars - "from cradle to grave" - the idea that this is not the case is just false and the idea that the bank should be responsible is idiocy on steroids.

So what - should we just not build pipelines ? Is this kind of stupidity not a problem ?

How does blocking pipelines - either through legislative action such as putting banks which finance pipelines on the hook for climate change effects - supporting these groups that want to block pipelines - and political opposition to these pipeline projects in general - help the environment ?

Since you claim to be so educated on this topic - and I am obviously and idiot who knows nothing about these environmental issues (despite having worked in environmental cleanup for decades using cutting edge technology - including research, development, and implementation "as in me personally" of new and specialized environmental remediation technologies) - do explain for us how blocking pipeline projects helps the environment ?

 

Unfortunately observed science is no playing along well with the hysteria.

 

The problem isn't the cost it is the time frame.

 

12 years before AOC was born, I had people telling me that global warming was going to destroy the world in 12 years.

 

That... . And there would never be another Republican in the White House. And the Jacksonville Jaguars would win the Super Bowl, and Melissa Benoist would agree to go out on a hot date with me!

Did you think I was some ignorant Trump supporter? Read my sig!!

 

Stop the nonsense and quote the part of the GND that talks about India or China or... any of that....

Aaah! Now... finally we're getting .... uhmmm... nowhere.

Because on your very first post you said (I am quoting you ) "many aspects of the Green New Deal is irrational nonsense coming from a person who does not know what she is talking about."

And you went into that rant when I asked for an example. But, of course, how could you quote "irrational nonsense" (as you call it) that isn't there, right? So instead you made up your very own "irrational nonsense" and criticized that.

But at least now we both know that you don't know what you're talking about, and that you are just here wasting our time.

BTW, if you want to talk about the GND. Which is still the topic of this thread. Even though it doesn't exist...you might want to start here

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

Any other topics, feel free to open a new thread.

However...full disclosure: as far as the Keystone Pipeline.... I own stock in the company that owns it! As a matter of fact, I think it's the single biggest investment in my portfolio. I'd like to divest as soon as I can. But I followed recommendations from my financial advisor. Apparently it's good protection in case of a recession, so.... Not that I'm recommending it but.... There you have it.

 

100% clean energy by 2030? Seriously? I assume they exclude nuclear energy.