The Green New Deal is not radical, but reactionary to an endangered world

[meangreenlax]

23 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I can tell you the company I work for was able to keep and add jobs in the US that had been slated for Mexico. In addition, they have made capital investments ahead of schedule.

Good for them. That is not what is happening across the entire economy. 

[FirefightnRick]

On 3/13/2019 at 8:36 PM, meangreenlax said:

Good for them. That is not what is happening across the entire economy. 

Yeah,...especially in Long Island City and Queens New York.

 

Rick

[ntmeangreen11]

1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:

Yeah,...especially in Long Island City and Queens New York.

 

Rick

 

Imagine being so one sided and consumed by politics you actually are passionate and convinced humans are having no effect on the climate because the folks on fox news told you it was BS made up by democrats.

The 3-4 hours of fox news ya'll consume every day is bad for your brain. The same goes for MSNBC and the democrats.

[FirefightnRick]

1 hour ago, ntmeangreen11 said:

 

Imagine being so one sided and consumed by politics you actually are passionate and convinced humans are having no effect on the climate because the folks on fox news told you it was BS made up by democrats.

The 3-4 hours of fox news ya'll consume every day is bad for your brain. The same goes for MSNBC and the democrats.

 

 

Nope...Fox &  msnbc wasnt around in 1975.

 

Rick

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

So how can a study from nearly 50 years be wrong?! Science is always right! 

I guess in your world science is a religion... that has all the answers. When reality science is living and constantly collecting and analyzing data. New technologies, new research, new avenues all open and and allow for more peer review on studies. 

But to that end, here is what the author of the original 1975 article has to say: https://www.insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong

 

[El Paso Eagle]

I do agree that people should listen to both sides and make us their minds. I usually put much less, to zero credence on those for either side who claim to be the only ones that know what's correct and if you disagree with them, on anything, your wrong.

All things being said, a lot of predictions, on both sides are crapshoots. Have you ever notices there seems to be a correlation between the results and those funding the studies

Since the 60's we were going to -

• Run out of breathable air 
• Run out of water 
• Run out of fossil fuels
• The next ice age was coming 
• Global temperatures would rise to the point where would all melt   

And so on and so on. As the Billy Joel song said so well, "We didn't start the fire".

Can and should changes be made - yes. Has progress been made - yes. 

One of my frustrations is that many want to put the blame and responsibility on the U.S. and us alone. Not many seemed to have issues with the fact that the Paris Accord would not hold many other countries to the standards that the US was to be held to, but they were expecting us to pay the largest share. Also, places like China, Russia, and India are not measuring and reporting the same way we do.

Some other, Have you ever wondered ....

• How do these protesters for both sides afford to fly all over the place?
• How many of the ones preaching fly in private planes?
• How many of these Global conferences are help in the most expensive and luxurious locations?

 

[LongJim]

21 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I do agree that people should listen to both sides and make us their minds. I usually put much less, to zero credence on those for either side who claim to be the only ones that know what's correct and if you disagree with them, on anything, your wrong.

All things being said, a lot of predictions, on both sides are crapshoots. Have you ever notices there seems to be a correlation between the results and those funding the studies

Since the 60's we were going to -

• Run out of breathable air 
• Run out of water 
• Run out of fossil fuels
• The next ice age was coming 
• Global temperatures would rise to the point where would all melt   

And so on and so on. As the Billy Joel song said so well, "We didn't start the fire".

Can and should changes be made - yes. Has progress been made - yes. 

One of my frustrations is that many want to put the blame and responsibility on the U.S. and us alone. Not many seemed to have issues with the fact that the Paris Accord would not hold many other countries to the standards that the US was to be held to, but they were expecting us to pay the largest share. Also, places like China, Russia, and India are not measuring and reporting the same way we do.

Some other, Have you ever wondered ....

• How do these protesters for both sides afford to fly all over the place?
• How many of the ones preaching fly in private planes?
• How many of these Global conferences are help in the most expensive and luxurious locations?

 

Pretty good post.

And by the way, that whole "97% of scientists believe..." deal?  It speaks to your point above that I have bolded.  Follow the $.  It will never lead you astray.  There is an entire industry in place and continuing to be built.  And the great thing about it, is that it is self-sustaining with your tax $ for "more research", which they are ALWAYS going to need to prevent the impending catastrophe.  It's the perfect machine!

Again--we should be mindful of and good stewards of the earth's resources.  Just don't sell me chckensheet and tell me it's chicken salad.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

 

[UNTLifer]

3 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

I do agree that people should listen to both sides and make us their minds. I usually put much less, to zero credence on those for either side who claim to be the only ones that know what's correct and if you disagree with them, on anything, your wrong.

All things being said, a lot of predictions, on both sides are crapshoots. Have you ever notices there seems to be a correlation between the results and those funding the studies

Since the 60's we were going to -

• Run out of breathable air 
• Run out of water 
• Run out of fossil fuels
• The next ice age was coming 
• Global temperatures would rise to the point where would all melt   

And so on and so on. As the Billy Joel song said so well, "We didn't start the fire".

Can and should changes be made - yes. Has progress been made - yes. 

One of my frustrations is that many want to put the blame and responsibility on the U.S. and us alone. Not many seemed to have issues with the fact that the Paris Accord would not hold many other countries to the standards that the US was to be held to, but they were expecting us to pay the largest share. Also, places like China, Russia, and India are not measuring and reporting the same way we do.

Some other, Have you ever wondered ....

• How do these protesters for both sides afford to fly all over the place?
• How many of the ones preaching fly in private planes?
• How many of these Global conferences are help in the most expensive and luxurious locations?

 

Amen and thank you. 

[UNTLifer]

3 hours ago, LongJim said:

Pretty good post.

And by the way, that whole "97% of scientists believe..." deal?  It speaks to your point above that I have bolded.  Follow the $.  It will never lead you astray.  There is an entire industry in place and continuing to be built.  And the great thing about it, is that it is self-sustaining with your tax $ for "more research", which they are ALWAYS going to need to prevent the impending catastrophe.  It's the perfect machine!

Again--we should be mindful of and good stewards of the earth's resources.  Just don't sell me chckensheet and tell me it's chicken salad.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

 

Amen and thank you as well. 

[DeepGreen]

3 hours ago, LongJim said:

Pretty good post.

And by the way, that whole "97% of scientists believe..." deal?  It speaks to your point above that I have bolded.  Follow the $.  It will never lead you astray.  There is an entire industry in place and continuing to be built.  And the great thing about it, is that it is self-sustaining with your tax $ for "more research", which they are ALWAYS going to need to prevent the impending catastrophe.  It's the perfect machine!

Again--we should be mindful of and good stewards of the earth's resources.  Just don't sell me chckensheet and tell me it's chicken salad.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

 

This is a worthwhile post too.  Thanks.

And there is an entire industry in place.  Just ask Al Gore.

[Censored by Laurie]

you guys do realize that industry and technology developing around credible/innovative science is pretty much the entire foundation of the American economy of the last 200 years, right?

you do also realize Billy Joel sucks, right?

 

[meangreenlax]

 

On 3/15/2019 at 2:15 PM, LongJim said:

Pretty good post.

And by the way, that whole "97% of scientists believe..." deal?  It speaks to your point above that I have bolded.  Follow the $.  It will never lead you astray.  There is an entire industry in place and continuing to be built.  And the great thing about it, is that it is self-sustaining with your tax $ for "more research", which they are ALWAYS going to need to prevent the impending catastrophe.  It's the perfect machine!

Again--we should be mindful of and good stewards of the earth's resources.  Just don't sell me chckensheet and tell me it's chicken salad.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

 

Ah, yes the Big Science lobby. Of course... BP, Exxon, Shell, etc pale in comparison to those LIBERAL academics trying to take over the world.

[meangreenlax]

On 3/7/2019 at 9:47 AM, FirefightnRick said:

 

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

all of you are too old for memes.

[LongJim]

15 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

you guys do realize that industry and technology developing around credible/innovative science is pretty much the entire foundation of the American economy of the last 200 years, right?

I'm all for credible/innovative science.  This doesn't check those boxes for me.

Billy Joel wrote the soundtrack to many a youth's teenage years, sir.

[Rudy]

15 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

you do also realize Billy Joel sucks, right?

 

You and I have had our disagreements, but this, sir, is fighting words. I challenge you to a duel.

 

*slaps you with glove*

[Censored by Laurie]

9 hours ago, LongJim said:

I'm all for credible/innovative science.  This doesn't check those boxes for me.

Billy Joel wrote the soundtrack to many a youth's teenage years, sir.

could I see your CV and peer-reviewed data? 

[Censored by Laurie]

20 hours ago, meangreenlax said:

 

Ah, yes the Big Science lobby. Of course... BP, Exxon, Shell, etc pale in comparison to those LIBERAL academics trying to take over the world.

scientists are making thousands...THOUSANDS...off this climate change hoax. 

[LongJim]

20 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

could I see your CV and peer-reviewed data? 

No.  But 97% of my friends sort-of agree with me, but not really.  Just trust me--I'm telling the truth!

[FirefightnRick]

On 3/16/2019 at 7:31 AM, Censored by Laurie said:

you guys do realize that industry and technology developing around credible/innovative science is pretty much the entire foundation of the American economy of the last 200 years, right?

Agree.  The sticky part is when it turns solely political and the warning signs are ignored....

Rick

Edited March 20, 2019 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

6 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

Agree.  The sticky part is when it turns solely political and the warning signs are ignored....

Rick

wait...does Bear Sterns mean that the housing market and finance aren't real? 

or does it actually mean that private companies and industries should have both more stringent and more efficient over-sight and regulation? 

[MeanGreenTexan]

On 3/16/2019 at 7:31 AM, Censored by Laurie said:

...
you do also realize Billy Joel sucks, right?

 

There are a lot of facts being presented in this thread.

None are truer than this one.  Thank you for your courage.

[FirefightnRick]

On 3/20/2019 at 6:17 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

wait...does Bear Sterns mean that the housing market and finance aren't real? 

or does it actually mean that private companies and industries should have both more stringent and more efficient over-sight and regulation? 

Bear Stearns wasn’t a private company,  and  investment banking and securities trading and brokeraging isn’t a private industry.  But if a private company is gonna take a loan from the government it certainly invites government oversight & regulation, and Solyndra received very little of either.

Rick

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Government funds an incredible amount of private companies. You, and your ilk, tend to focus on one company when drawing attention to public funding. It is quite impressive confirmation bias.

Let's just look at the privatization of the space. Who is funding those companies?

"SpaceX received millions from the Air Force for development of the Raptor engine through an OTA (Other Transaction Agreement). However, so did Orbital ATK, Aerojet Rocketdyne, and United Launch Alliance.

• On Jan 13, 2016, SpaceX was granted $33.6 million, Orbital ATK $46.9 million.
• On February 29, 2016, under the same OTA, Aerojet Rocketdyne was awarded $115.3 million, and ULA $46.6 million.
• Oct 19, 2017, SpaceX’s award under that OTA was increased by another $16.9 million."

How about Tesla -- that are pretty good success story, no? 

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

 

..but sure... keep harping on a failed company without recognizing how funding new technologies benefits us all. And the only reason we have to back door public money into private industry is because of your kind absolutely hating everything government and wanting to reject anything it may do. 

[UNTLifer]

"You and your ilk..."

"Your kind..."

The typical Left playing card.  I don't like you so I will stoop to name calling or stereotyping.

Tesla?  Thanks for a three year old article.  Success?  Depends on your definition.

https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-q2-2018-earnings-call/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/30/teslas-profits-disappoint-renewing-concerns-about-growth/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d86e2f0b127