Politicians who oppose the Green Deal, better do so quietly

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Mar 27, 2019.

  1. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AOC hasn't a clue. If she did, the last thing she'd want is an end to fossil fuels or nuclear power. She's an idealist regurgitating the ideas a Progressive education has taught her. She needs to look at reality and ask herself: is the destruction of those who are mankind's best hope, the capitalists, worth pandering to the envy and fears of her constituents in exchange for political power?

    She needs to consider that fate of Lysenko, a scientist who rejected reality for political power. The result of his betrayal? Famine.

    "He ordered millions of acres of farmland to be sown using his methods with varying results.

    By 1939 the Soviet educational system taught “Lysenkoism” views to the exclusion of all other “bourgeois” genetics.

    He bizarrely claimed to have produced rye from wheat plants and cuckoo birds from warblers.

    In 1940 he became director of the Institute of Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a position he held for 25 years.

    Prominent Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was repeatedly denounced by Lysenko and died in a labor camp in 1943.

    Lysenko published his book “Heredity and Its Variability” in 1943 which detailed his views that heredity can be changed by husbandry.

    In 1948 Lysenko published a report to the Russian Academy detailing his genetic theories and denying the existence of genes and chromosomes. His unique views became more widely known throughout the world. British evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley was particularly outspoken and scathing regarding Lysenko’s views.

    Lysenko advocated ‘close planting’ of trees which was put into practice on a large scale in 1949 believing incorrectly, that saplings would “sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the species”.

    “the death of individual saplings in the group occurs not because they are crowded, but for the express purpose of ensuring that in the future they will not be crowded.” https://www.famousscientists.org/trofim-lysenko/

    There once was a scientist that wasn't
    Who preached genetics were mostly nothing
    He planted the crops
    The crops, they flopped.
    His fields were sickly and rotten.

    "The disastrous effects of Lysenkoism, a term used to describe the impact of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko's (1898-1976) influence upon science and agriculture in the Soviet Union during the first half of the 20th century, darkly illustrates the disastrous intrusion of politics and ideology into the affairs of science. "

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/disastrous-effects-lysenkoism-soviet-agriculture

    Are we seeing the start of "Ocasio-ism"?

    Hmmm. I'm thinking Global Warming...intrusion of politics and ideology into science...the end of the "politically incorrect" fossil fuels...the mass death of a nation's population...AOC? America's Lysenko?
    What will the future bring mankind? Whatever it deserves.

    Ayn Rand: "Ecology as a social principle . . . condemns cities, culture, industry, technology, the intellect, and advocates men’s return to “nature,” to the state of grunting subanimals digging the soil with their bare hands."http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecology-environmental_movement.html
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  2. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everything except protecting it... And telling the truth.

    If they did "everything", and they still couldn't protect it. That means "everything" is not enough. "Everything" needs to be revisited.

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...l-was-nearly-twice-as-big-as-transcanada-said
     
  3. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  4. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    42,722
    Likes Received:
    7,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So whats the problem ? The original estimate was off. The spill was cleaned up and not a single surface water body or drinking water aquifer was contaminated.

    Of course you avoided the fact that claims in relation to the TOPIC - whether Cortez is qualified - were completely false.
     
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're not talking about it being "off". We're talking about it being double what they reported.

    Reuters has claims to possess and made available to authorities documents showing that the company has leaked more oil and more frequently than they have reported to regulators.

    https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HE0T7?__twitter_impression=true

    Debatable.... sure. But the Trump administration has refused to investigate. So it is clearly not a sign that AOC doesn't know what she is talking about. Absolutely not an indictment of the GND. And most definitely not anywhere near a sign that AOC can't lead. Because she is leading. And doing so very effectively.
     
  6. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Leading? Like lemmings to the killing fields.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    42,722
    Likes Received:
    7,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The articles states this -
    What this means is that prior to the start of operations = no oil had been leaked because operations had not yet begun - the company gave an estimate of what the leak risk was. Since then more oil has been leaked than what was estimated in the risk assessment.

    Leaks happen - and some are impossible to predict. Got it.

    This is not justification for blocking a pipeline. The fact that AOC 1) has no clue what she is talking about with respect to the global environmental equation and 2) is blocking the pipeline on the basis of "helping the environment" 3) not realizing that by blocking the pipeline she is facilitating the transfer of Jobs and pollution overseas shows that AOC does not know what she is talking bout.
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly!

    So you have made the best case possible for the GND. You have proven AOC right in that we need to deal with this problem now. Because the alternative is to either live with a quantity that is impossible to predict, or transfer the pollution overseas.

    AOC is leading. Do you see anybody else leading? At least effectively? If she's leading effectively and nobody else is, then she's the perfect leader!

    I have no idea what it is you are arguing, given that throughout your whole discourse, every sentence in which you mention AOC is an ad hominem (i.e. whether she's right or not about the keystone pipeline is irrelevant. The fact that she leads is the only relevant factor as to her leadership abilities). And every sentence that you don't is an endorsement of what she's doing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    42,722
    Likes Received:
    7,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are you talking about ... you just make stuff up on the fly and float it as reality. Yes .. we can not predict whether or not an asteroid will hit the pipeline but we do not make economic decisions on that basis.

    In no way shape or form does this prove AOC correct. You say "we need to deal with the problem now".. What problem are you talking about ? Pipeline leaks are not a problem in comparison to the alternative = transferring the pollution overseas - something Cortez is claiming not to be doing when in reality she is doing exactly that.

    She is trading a small probability of pollution - for a large certainty of pollution. The "Problem" you are referring to - regardless of whether it was 5000 barrels or 10,000 barrels - had no long term environmental effects. This spill- while rather large for a pipeline spill - was a rounding error in relation to the BP disaster or the Exxon Valdez). Further - a spill on land is easy to clean up - and can be cleaned up very quickly. No so much for a spill in the Ocean - spills that are orders of magnitude greater.

    The idea that offshore activities or shipping in tankers is a better solution to the problem than a pipeline from Canada is dumb and dumber on Steroids FULL STOP.

    What is twice as dumb as tankers and Offshore - is getting it crude from a polluting nation such as Nigeria - a nation that thinks nothing of dumping heavy metals and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) into the ocean - has no safety standards, does not create any jobs in the US, and does not benefit us economically like buying from Canada does.

    Somewhere in that brain of yours you know I am right. We should be cheering on the Keystone as the greenest solution - hands down - no comparison .. not even close.

    This is not a choice of oil or no oil. As stated previously- not building the Keystone will not change oil consumption by one drop. Not building the Keystone only changes where we get the supply from - and there is no greener option.

    You have not been in the environmental industry and you don't know how things work - and you don't know how the politics work. We have smart people - way smarter than AOC with respect to this issue - doing dumb things on the basis of Political nonsense and partisan politics.

    I did not just wake up this morning and start learning about these issues - YOU DID - and so did AOC. Blocking these pipelines is NOT helping the environment .. it is hurting the environment.
     
    Badaboom likes this.
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What??? "Economic decisions"? What does that have to do with anything I wrote?

    What do you think this thread is about? What "problem" do you think the GND addresses?

    And you have not been able to produce a single quote or... anything... to support that claim.

    Destroying an aquifer would have a permanent environmental effect. The 2017 did not quite reach an aquifer, but came close.

    Look.... this is ridiculous. This is about the GND. You have not been able to quote and rebut any proposition in the GND. Even less show that AOC cannot lead, given the fact that she is already leading. Or show who else who could lead, given that nobody else is leading as effectively as she is.

    So, bottom line, you have shown absolutely nothing. You are just going around and around in circles.

    Show something concrete... Or don't. But you are just wasting our time.

    No. But I'm very good at bringing self-proclaimed experts back down to Earth. You are obviously not an expert on leadership. So you chose the wrong area to try to attack AOC on. If you want to challenge her on her environmental activities, attacking her personally (i.e. her leadership abilities) does not make you look knowledgeable Because you have produced absolutely no objective arguments to actually challenge her position. No quotes. No counterpoint. No alternative solutions....

    Sorry mate, but you write too many words, and not enough content. You might want to try doing it the other way around. Be sparing on the number of words, and unleash the content.

    Example:

    This is a quote from AOC: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit." taken from http://thiswebsite.herehere.com This is wrong because .... Maecenas aliquet lacus eu elit condimentum egestas. Nulla in vestibulum nunc. Curabitur bibendum nibh nec suscipit vehicula.
    Simple. To the point. Few words. Complete but no B.S.
     
  11. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s spring, I’m freezing. Coldest weather in decades. I want my GD Global Warming and I want it FKN now. Frigging politicians. Promises. Promises. And I’m still wearing winter clothing. FK!
     
  12. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,013
    Likes Received:
    6,599
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The trouble is rather simple when it comes to the Green New Deal. We cannot replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and geothermic produced energy. Sure, we can use these sources of energy, where applicable, to supplement energy produced from fossil fuels, but this presumption behind green energy, i.e. that it is possible to replace fossil fuel energy with green energy is currently impossible, and a pipe dream of people who simply do not understand the details, the facts.

    And this idea, of humanity stopping climate change, is preposterous, and any serious educated person should know that, unless of course you want to stop the growing demands of humanity for energy and living standards. But like any religion, based upon hope and faith, bringing these true believers back down to reality is not something you should ever bet on.

    Sure, we can suppliment fossil fuel produced energy with the green energy, but until we discover a way to source a new energy source, like zero point energy, or use fusion, we are dependent upon fossil fuels, which by the way is the source of energy that has created all involved in modern civilization. Without it, we would still be basically living in the 18th century, in more ways than one.
     
    navigator2 likes this.
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And we can't possibly get a man to the moon and bring him back before the end of the decade, President Kennedy.

    There's one thing about lack of vision.... It has always been present throughout history. It's the reactionary force that drives the right.
     
  14. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,013
    Likes Received:
    6,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That isn't a valid analogy. Getting to the moon, using a yet discovered means of propulsion, like an anti gravity drive, would be a valid analogy.

    In order to replace fossil fuels as the primary source of energy, in a world with more and more energy demands, we would need a new source of energy, like being able to source and use something like zero point energy, locked up in the vacuum of an atom.
     
  15. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,964
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ironically it's the "progressives" that impede progress with that kind of thing, like nuclear energy. :roflol:
     
  16. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    4,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There was nothing about the Apollo missions violated the laws of physics.

    Everything about AOC's NGD defies the laws of physics, and most laws of economics to boot.

    There comes a time when starry-eyed vision hits the brick wall of physics.

    Not being able to see that wall doesn't make you a visionary, it makes you blind to reality.
     
  17. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,013
    Likes Received:
    6,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, but you know, nuclear energy scares the crap out of me, even with a decent safety record, overall. At least the fission produced energy.

    I fear what earth quakes, and the inevitable Carrington scaled event, and what those kind of things would do to nuclear reactors. I live close to the San Madrid fault, and can read about how long and how badly the last activity was, and what this would do to nuclear reactors.

    Yet, we can always use nuclear if we have to, even with the risks involved. Nice to have at least one ace.
     
    navigator2 likes this.
  18. Draco

    Draco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    11,088
    Likes Received:
    3,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More fake news.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/are-natural-disasters-on-the-rise/

    "Small disasters", often times things we didn't "count" as a disasters have gone up. "Large disasters" however have gone down.

    The link explains it all, but after reading thorugh it, most of it looks pretty normal over time. Again, large disasters have gone down.

    MORE FAKE NEWS AND LIES FROM THE MEDIA TRYING TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA.
     
  19. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First of all, Zero point energy has been discovered. There are already devices that use ZPE. It just needs to be perfected. Pretty much like much of the technology available in 1961. And some that didn't exist at all back then.

    In any case, there are many sources of energy that are more than enough to power everything. The goal set by the Paris Agreement is to reduce Carbon emissions by 50% in 12 years. There is no reason why we couldn't exceed that by perfecting the available sources of energy.
     
  20. unkotare

    unkotare Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male


    Now if that ain’t lemming talk...
     
    Longshot and navigator2 like this.
  21. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,964
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113



    Sorry but your Utopian dream of a 3rd world USA took a major setback. No amount of taxation will change what nature has in store. :deadhorse: Sorry for your luck! :grin:
     
  22. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,964
    Likes Received:
    9,416
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amazing, isn't it?



    AOC math.jpg
     
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great! Now we are going to see our very own poster quote a part of the GND, and quote a law of physicis that it defies.

    Go!

    Because... this wouldn't be just B.S., would it? Nah! That would lead people to laugh and point at you, and... we don't want that, dp we?
     
  24. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    42,722
    Likes Received:
    7,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the one that is short on content and a complete waste of time - continuously going around in circles. Then when evidence is presented that conflicts with your nonsensical and unsupported beliefs you go running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial - followed by trying to project your failings on to me.

    Case in point:

    To which you say: "And you have not been able to produce a single quote or... anything... to support that claim" -which is a complete falsehood.

    I have given you a plethora of information that supports this claim. Only an idiot does not realize that not building the Keystone will not reduce oil consumption by one drop. This means that if we do not get oil from Canada - we need to get it from somewhere else.

    FACT: We import a large percentage of our oil from many different nations (told to you previously)

    https://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

    This means that if we do not get oil from Canada - we have to get it from somewhere else. - or if we build the Keystone - we can buy less from heavy polluters such as Nigeria - nations that dump heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants directly into the Oceans (told to you previously).

    So not only do you spew falsehoods with respect to information already given to you .. that you would demand a quote to prove to you that Nigerian crude is a bigger environmental problem than Crude from Canada is disingenuous denial of the obvious on steroids- akin to denying that water is wet .. which is both pathetic and obtuse.

    Nigeria has some of the world’s most polluted cities—and that isn’t about to change

    https://qz.com/africa/1433597/niger...olluted-cities-and-that-isnt-about-to-change/
    So Cortez wants to buy oil from Nigeria rather than Canada because. those dirty Canadians are even worse than Nigeria in relation to pollution. This is what you are arguing and it is complete nonsense.

    So tell me - how is Cortez blocking the Keystone helping the overall environmental equation. How is this not transferring the pollution problem somewhere else ?

    You can lie and spew falsehoods about me if you like - but quit lying to yourself.

    Obviously building the Keystone is the alternative to transferring our pollution problems somewhere else. That is both a counterpoint - and an alternative.

    You had quotes from the Keystone spill - which was orders of magnitude less than the BP spill (drilling in the Ocean) and the Exxon Spill. How is a Pipeline then not better than these alternatives .. and how is me not saying this not offering a counter point or an alternative.

    What disingenuous joke. Fk off.
     
  25. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16,321
    Likes Received:
    5,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If lack of vision is so prevalent in right-wing-land, what would we expect in Pepe the Frog territory?

    Nobody expects you to help or even... understand the problem..... Just get out of the way. Or you'll get trampled by the Parkland generation. They're not taking crap from anybody. They'll just run right over you..
     

Share This Page