Green New Deal

[TECSHARE]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

[1713897634]

1713897634

[1713897634]

1713897634

[1713897634]

1713897634

[1713897634]

1713897634

[1713897634]

1713897634

[1713897634]

1713897634

[eddie13]

If you have it in you to see the big picture you can look at almost anything the left does, any action the left takes, and trace it directly back to the quest for the ultimate authoritarian one world government.

Try me.. I will show you..
I am curious to see any leftist policy that I can't relate to advancing their quest of an ultimate authoritarian one world government to gain ultimate power..

[BADecker]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

The interesting thing about this is, that even though there might have been as many as 200 million people murdered by their own governments in the 1900s, the population of the world is higher than it has ever been this side of prehistory.

How puny people are that they can't even kill themselves off successfully!

[soulcancer]

green is the new red....now shut up and enjoy our useful idiocy

[TECSHARE]

Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...

The interesting thing about this is, that even though there might have been as many as 200 million people murdered by their own governments in the 1900s, the population of the world is higher than it has ever been this side of prehistory.

How puny people are that they can't even kill themselves off successfully!

Well that really depends on how you measure success. It seems it was enough to continue concentrating wealth and power. The difference is this time they have robots and AI and really don't need most of us around to work for them any more... People should be worried less about not having a job and more that the people with limitless resources soon will have no incentives to keep you alive.

[coins4commies]

This has gone completely off the rails with a flurry of posts that are either conspiracy theories or straight up lies.  It seems as though none of the responders read the resolution. What a mess!   I will attempt to tidy up a bit...

It is effectively trying to outlaw the use of Airplanes (no fossil fuels after 10 years).

Trump seems to think AOC and democrats should move forward with the Green New Deal

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094375749279248385

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
6:21 PM · Feb 9, 2019 · Twitter for iPhonE

Everything in this post was a lie.   How long would it take to search the resolution for those terms?  Net zero emissions does not mean the same thing as completely eliminating emissions.  Planting trees as well as plants for biofuels can completely offset the limited use of fuel. 

But the president tweeted it so it must be true right?

This is actually a good post by quickseller

This is never going to be put for a vote, as it is dead on arrival in the House. Pelosi has publicly said what amounts to that it will not be put to a vote, and she is smart enough to not put it to a vote based on the amount of ridicule it is receiving alone.

Trump is wanting to give this as much attention it can get to highlight the extremism on the left.

This isn't being released now to get trhough this congress.  The idea is that it gets out into the conversation 2 years before the election as a litmus so the 81% of the population who support and demand these policies can see who is with them and who is against them. This is the end of the Pelosi democratic party and everyone knows it.  A green wave is coming in 2020.

My favorite part is where they say it provides economic security for all, even those unwilling to work.

The Green New Deal is the most fantasyland proposal I’ve ever personally seen proposed seriously in government.

BUY BITCOIN!

You mean a universal income?  The policy that already has been supported by significant amounts of studies and has garnered supports from libertarians as well.  The biggest fantasy at play here is getting people like the ones in this thread to accept research conclusions that are contrary to their preconceived notions. 

I would like to do my part. One steak a day and 2x/day on weekends would be doing my part to reduce the cow population.

Will THE PLAN pay for these?

Buying steak causes the number of cows to increase.  You should limit your meat consumption as much as possible.  If not for the health of the planet, for your own personal health.

EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.

Lie.  I posted the resolution link.  I cannot click on it and read it for you.

In my opinion the entire "Man Made Global Warming" debacle is an ingenious ploy traceable all the way up to those seeking ultimate power by creating a one world government.

At many stages it has attempted global wealth redistribution, to weaken the west and win the hearts of potential benefactor nations.
It attempts to destroy the economies of the west, making us spend money on nonsense to make us more poor so we are easier to take over.
It attempts to make us use less energy, making us weaker and easier to take over.

The CO2 theory is completely debunked in my opinion.

So not only is the entire international scientific community wrong, they are all co-conspirators involved in a secret plot to use faked science to make their own home countries collapse and be taken over.  They have also convinced the political leadership of all those same countries to get on board at destroying themselves as well.  No one could figure it out except some random dudes on the internet.

Tell me again who is extreme?

[mOgliE]

This has gone completely off the rails with a flurry of posts that are either conspiracy theories or straight up lies.  It seems as though none of the responders read the resolution. What a mess!   I will attempt to tidy up a bit...

Don't.

They haven't read it. Of course they haven't. Their Emperor God Trump have already told them what they should think about this proposition.

Anyway you won't go anywhere with such subject here. You have in the same project, ecological, social and economical changes. The people here are also posting in their own thread how climate change is a lie and doesn't exist. The most "reasonnable" ones don't deny climate change but just the fact that it's man made.

You can't discuss logically with people denying what 90% of the scientific community is completely supporting since 2010.

So, close your thread or let them discuss how brillant they are between themselves. But trying to "discuss" with such individuals is pointless.

Good luck though.

[Carlton Banks]

In my opinion the entire "Man Made Global Warming" debacle is an ingenious ploy traceable all the way up to those seeking ultimate power by creating a one world government.

At many stages it has attempted global wealth redistribution, to weaken the west and win the hearts of potential benefactor nations.
It attempts to destroy the economies of the west, making us spend money on nonsense to make us more poor so we are easier to take over.
It attempts to make us use less energy, making us weaker and easier to take over.

The CO2 theory is completely debunked in my opinion.

So not only is the entire international scientific community wrong, they are all co-conspirators involved in a secret plot to use faked science to make their own home countries collapse and be taken over.  They have also convinced the political leadership of all those same countries to get on board at destroying themselves as well.  No one could figure it out except some random dudes on the internet.

That's an exaggeration in many ways.

Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.

And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?


I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO² alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.

[mOgliE]

Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.

Sure. They can be wrong. But guess what? Most of the time peer review works so if nearly all of them say it is, then it probably is.

And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO² alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.

You mean appart from the correlation between human activities, co2 lvl and temperature rise?

[Spendulus]

...

EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.

Lie.  I posted the resolution link.  I cannot click on it and read it for you.

Looks like he's right.

the Green New Deal calls for the entire country to be powered by renewable energy. While solar and wind energy are prominently featured, one power source is deliberately left out: nuclear.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-power/

[Spendulus]

.....

Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.

And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?


I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO² alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.

Since the 1980s, climate alarmist have been pushing a ten to fifteen year ultimatum. They don't stop, they just slide the Doom Year forward. But the Earth has done just fine.

[Carlton Banks]

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too.

Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[mOgliE]

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too.

Ok then my bad, as you didn't refer to anything in perticular I alligned your views on the others on this thread who mostly claim climate change isn't real. Hence I understood you were saying a debate about the existance of climate change.

Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.

The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.

[Spendulus]

No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.

Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too.

Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

What happens is that someone like myself, who has read the IPCC reports and has access to the literature, immediately sees the lies propagated by alarmists who claim "Climate scientists SAY...."

They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.

[mOgliE]

They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.

Or maybe I just made a bad assumption of what he wanted to say, corrected myself and apologized when he explained his thoughts with more details?

You know it's not only people like you and TECSHARE here, some people are actually able to say "oh ok I misunderstood you I was wrong"...

[Spendulus]

They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.

Or maybe I just made a bad assumption of what he wanted to say, corrected myself and apologized when he explained his thoughts with more details?

You know it's not only people like you and TECSHARE here, some people are actually able to say "oh ok I misunderstood you I was wrong"...

I wasn't referring to you with the "They" in that statement. And yes it  is extremely easy to misunderstand with internet conversations.

But in general the mark of a scientific comment is measured preciseness, an attempt to say no more or no less than what is true.

By that standard we can note both climate alarmist and "denier" comments that fall short of the scientific standard. However they may fit within a political framework.

A lot of people are truly sick and tired of being lectured to about how they should reduce co2 emissions by fatcats flying around in big jets.

[mOgliE]

A lot of people are truly sick and tired of being lectured to about how they should reduce co2 emissions by fatcats flying around in big jets.

Hypocrisy of the ruling class is a completely different subject but I'm sure we can agree on it.

[Carlton Banks]

Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.

The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.

I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above.

[Spendulus]

Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.

The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.

I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above.

Consider the following. Suppose the West Antarctica Peninsula is structurally weak, and could break off, resulting in sea levels rising. Suppose further that this is argued to be  the result of recent AGW.

Should people then believe their leaders when they are told that only harsh taxes will solve the problem? When the politicians actually stand up and say they will roll the oceans back?

This planet is a big place with lots of surprises. We could have that peninsula fall off, we could have a super volcano erupt in Yellowstone, the West Coast of the USA could have the big earthquake, an asteroid could hit....

[eddie13]

Climate change is real. The climate has been changing constantly since the beginning of the earth.
Their have been ice ages and major changes in sea level in history. Deserts have become rainforests and rainforests have become deserts. Land has become ocean and barren tundra has become fertile land diverse with life.

Climate change is real and my problem with it only comes when you try to blame it on me, try to say it is my fault, and then punish or hurt me and my family over it..