Those who know more than I about the climate are not in total agreement, Mikey.
Your ten medical doctors are and I would take their diagnosis as fact.
Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder and self-aggrandizement appears to be your bag...Mikey.
Green New Deal - like all progressive ideas, it will win history
- Thread starter BartenderElite
- Start date
Those who know more than I about the climate are not in total agreement, Mikey.
Your ten medical doctors are and I would take their diagnosis as fact.
Arrogance is in the eye of the beholder and self-aggrandizement appears to be your bag...Mikey.
they are sold as wood pellites - they also put crap in the air
BartenderElite
Verified User
Does anyone seriously think that are current consumption and general habits as a species are sustainable for more than another generation?
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Wrong. That particular data is derived from a conglomeration of geological boreholes, you dickless lazy fuck. Hit the books.
Climate science is in it's infancy. They don't even know how clouds impact the climate. You are way out of your league here, son. Hit the books.
what you should be looking at is the acidification and garbage dumping of oceans, and deforestation -not carbon taxes.
we have drastically reduces carbon by going to nat gas
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Your question is too vague to be answered.
But I CAN tell you that CO2 will not kill our species within two generations.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
What is the GREEN NEW DEAL? Mostly a slogan- just like MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Those are two of the most abused, misunderstood, confusing, argumentative, and totally subjective slogans of the Trump Era!
Take MAGA for example- Sounds good as a first thought- BUT WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT REALLY MEAN? I mean, what time period are we talking about here that we could all agree on that America was at it's greatest? I do not think any two Americans could even come up with the same answer!
And even though DOnald Trump ran his entire 2016 campaign under the promise of Making America Great Again- As some kind of Administration initiative or Agenda- There are no two people going to agree on how the initiative was met- or how the initiative failed. TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE RIGHT?
There is nothing to measure it by, because it was never defined, in the first place, as to what era of American History was so great!
I personally thought the slogan MAGA was stupid, as I don't think it's intelligent to even think America has ever met it's potential of being what I consider GREAT yet.
The Slogan MAGA actually says more about going backwards- Than it does in moving forward.
Now take the GREEN NEW DEAL for example, the name refers back to the New Deal, a set of social and economic reforms and public works projects undertaken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression. The Green New Deal combines Roosevelt's economic approach with modern ideas such as renewable energy and resource efficiency.
Legislation efforts have tried and failed to pass Green New Deals of some kind by just about every Congress and Presidential Administration in the last 50 years.
SO THE GREEN NEW DEAL has become a politicized Catch-Phrase.
So, as long as the initiative for renewable energies and resource efficiencies are going to be forever politicized and tied to any of the initiatives of past Green New Deals of Congress or Administrations, WE SHOULD STOP CALLING THEM GREEN NEW DEALS!
SO FIND ANOTHER SLOGAN PLEASE- AND LET'S STOP ALL OF THE ARGUING AND POLITICIZING FOR ARGUING AND POLITICALIZING'S SAKE- FOR FUCKS SAKE!
Those are two of the most abused, misunderstood, confusing, argumentative, and totally subjective slogans of the Trump Era!
Take MAGA for example- Sounds good as a first thought- BUT WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT REALLY MEAN? I mean, what time period are we talking about here that we could all agree on that America was at it's greatest? I do not think any two Americans could even come up with the same answer!
And even though DOnald Trump ran his entire 2016 campaign under the promise of Making America Great Again- As some kind of Administration initiative or Agenda- There are no two people going to agree on how the initiative was met- or how the initiative failed. TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE RIGHT?
There is nothing to measure it by, because it was never defined, in the first place, as to what era of American History was so great!
I personally thought the slogan MAGA was stupid, as I don't think it's intelligent to even think America has ever met it's potential of being what I consider GREAT yet.
The Slogan MAGA actually says more about going backwards- Than it does in moving forward.
Now take the GREEN NEW DEAL for example, the name refers back to the New Deal, a set of social and economic reforms and public works projects undertaken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression. The Green New Deal combines Roosevelt's economic approach with modern ideas such as renewable energy and resource efficiency.
Legislation efforts have tried and failed to pass Green New Deals of some kind by just about every Congress and Presidential Administration in the last 50 years.
SO THE GREEN NEW DEAL has become a politicized Catch-Phrase.
So, as long as the initiative for renewable energies and resource efficiencies are going to be forever politicized and tied to any of the initiatives of past Green New Deals of Congress or Administrations, WE SHOULD STOP CALLING THEM GREEN NEW DEALS!
SO FIND ANOTHER SLOGAN PLEASE- AND LET'S STOP ALL OF THE ARGUING AND POLITICIZING FOR ARGUING AND POLITICALIZING'S SAKE- FOR FUCKS SAKE!
TexanManWithPlans
Verified User
But there is no conflict among climate scientists over global warming and its causes. There is no debate.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
How's the prototype in Germany (Energiewende) working out? How's Spain's version coming along? How about Australia's?
The New Green Deal will destroy the American economy thoroughly and completely. It is nothing short of idiotic.
TexanManWithPlans
Verified User
Wrong. That particular data is derived from a conglomeration of geological boreholes, you dickless lazy fuck. Hit the books.
Climate science is in it's infancy. They don't even know how clouds impact the climate. You are way out of your league here, son. Hit the books.
Says the moron who puts himself against the international scientific community because he cares more about capitalism than the planet.
BartenderElite
Verified User
That's the tried & true scare tactic.
We have to address what we're doing to the planet, or the ramifications for the economy and our basic way of life are going to be impacted significantly. Intelligent people can work w/ the framework of the Green New Deal to put us on a new path in a way that can positively impact jobs and livelihoods, and protect the planet.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Answer the questions I posed. How are these other countries that have already committed to doing things the New Green Deal calls for doing?
Here's what the New Green Deal calls for:
https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal
https://www.gp.org/gnd_full
https://economicreconstruction.org/GreenNewDealPlan
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...-deal/761873c26ec4075c609b/optimized/full.pdf
Just taking one of the plan's points:
So, we're to move entirely to solar, wind, and geothermal by 2030 while eliminating fossil fuels. Question. How will people in say Michigan, or Maine, or for that matter Alaska, heat their homes in wintertime? How will a large commercial building or factory do that?
This plan calls for this graph to eliminate everything outside the "renewable" slice and replace it in ten (10) years. Is that realistic?
If "green" energy is so desirable, why does it cost so much?
I want you to put some facts behind your rhetoric on the New Green Deal. I can, and just have. It's a disaster everyway you look at it. It's an unrealistic pipedream concocted by morons and championed by idiots and the stupid.
BartenderElite
Verified User
Answer the questions I posed. How are these other countries that have already committed to doing things the New Green Deal calls for doing?
Here's what the New Green Deal calls for:
https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal
https://www.gp.org/gnd_full
https://economicreconstruction.org/GreenNewDealPlan
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...-deal/761873c26ec4075c609b/optimized/full.pdf
Just taking one of the plan's points:
So, we're to move entirely to solar, wind, and geothermal by 2030 while eliminating fossil fuels. Question. How will people in say Michigan, or Maine, or for that matter Alaska, heat their homes in wintertime? How will a large commercial building or factory do that?
This plan calls for this graph to eliminate everything outside the "renewable" slice and replace it in ten (10) years. Is that realistic?
If "green" energy is so desirable, why does it cost so much?
I want you to put some facts behind your rhetoric on the New Green Deal. I can, and just have. It's a disaster everyway you look at it. It's an unrealistic pipedream concocted by morons and championed by idiots and the stupid.
The same could have been said about ANY major transition in American history - transportation, energy, technology...you name it.
Computers used to fill 2 rooms. A lot of people & companies had to try & fail - spectacularly - before we got to where we are today. Which is place that has created millions of jobs and improved our productivity and general quality of life immeasurably.
Oh, dear - some countries have tried and failed. Guess that's it for that one. We should just stick with an unsustainable, environment-destroying course and hope that the real negative stuff doesn't kick in during our own lifetimes.
Like I said - GND is a framework. It needs to work through Congress, and have bipartisan input and support. Timelines likely need to be changed, and provisions built in for specific circumstances around the nation. They can craft it in a way that helps jobs & the economy.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Complete bullshit. There has never been a major transition in any of those over just a decade.
In transportation, rivers and canals were the primary transportation systems used (and not just in the US) prior to the introduction of the railroad. Those (canals) were dug over years and expanded over many decades, even centuries.
Roads for travel remained few and sketchy until the automobile showed up. The Romans are one exception to that.
The railroad started in roughly 1840 and grew over decades. Its expansion continued well into the 20th century and didn't reach a peak until about 1920 -30 or there about.
Air travel started in the 1920's and is still evolving today.
Energy?
Nuclear started in the 1950's and was commercially viable about 1970. That makes this a technology that is about a half century old and has lots of room to grow technologically if the idiots and irrational would stop fear mongering it.
Oil got its start about 1900 give or take so it's been around for about a century.
Coal became a big thing in roughly 1800 or two centuries and is still in use
Before that it was chopping down forests and burning the trees that provided energy.
There has never in history been a transition like the New Green Deal calls for in a mere decade. What they want isn't even possible.
So? Electro-mechanical computers have been around for over a century. Fully electronic ones for over half a century. They didn't evolve over a mere decade to get where they are. Vacuum tubes were around in the late 19th century (from about 1880 on) in their earliest forms. The first really usable ones like a diode tube showed up about 1900.
When you see country after country try what the New Green Deal proposes and massively and utterly fail at it, you should get the hit. After all, one definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again while failing miserably and completely at it.
The NGD is a fantasy concocted by morons, backed by idiots and the stupid.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Someone asked the question in this thread- IF GREEN ENERGY IS SO GOOD, WHY DOES IT COST SO MUCH!
OK, here is a Green New Deal for you- Something as simple as a light bulb. Light Bulbs, as everything does now days, became a political argument- OF ALL FUCKING THINGS! We argued about LED light bulbs for over a decade, before they became the defacto standard for Home Lighting because of attrition and eventual common sense- NOT POLITICS. Politics basically got in the way of the improvement for over a decade. I'll never forget how Republicans made the argument- IF I WANT TO USE NOTHING BUT INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS IN MY HOME, I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO.
I remember when My MOM used to decorate her house with Christmas Lights every year. She would light up the entire town with strings of old incandescent Chistmas lights to a point that you could watch her Electric meter look like a speedometer of a car going 100 miles per hour.Her December and January electric bills were 1,000% over all the other 10 months.
I started buying her strings of the newer LED outdoor Christmas lights, and convinced her this was the way to go, and the initial investment cost me about $150 bucks. But her electric bill only showed a 10% increase in those same 2 holiday months. So they paid for themselves the very first year in energy savings.
After that we replaced every Light Bulb in our homes to LED bulbs and noticed that we brought our electric bills down by about 1/3rd!
So all I can say is yes, Greener Energies does take you to greener pastures when it comes to innovation, keeping up with technology, AND STRAYING AWAY FROM POLITICS.
Never let your politics prevent you from improving the quality of your lives.
YES! GREEN ENERGIES- ON A WIDER SCALE IS AN INVESTMENT- AND ONE THAT OFTEN TIMES PAYS OFF IN JUST LITTLE TIME.
BUT YOU PEOPLE GO AHEAD AND ARGUE ABOUT IT! ARGUE FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE!
BUT I KNOW WHICH LEADERS I WILL FOLLOW! AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE LEADERS WHO HAVE THE SAME VISION I DO ABOUT GREENER ENERGIES!
ANd I will never follow those who just argue for Political or ARGUMENT'S SAKE
OK, here is a Green New Deal for you- Something as simple as a light bulb. Light Bulbs, as everything does now days, became a political argument- OF ALL FUCKING THINGS! We argued about LED light bulbs for over a decade, before they became the defacto standard for Home Lighting because of attrition and eventual common sense- NOT POLITICS. Politics basically got in the way of the improvement for over a decade. I'll never forget how Republicans made the argument- IF I WANT TO USE NOTHING BUT INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS IN MY HOME, I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO.
I remember when My MOM used to decorate her house with Christmas Lights every year. She would light up the entire town with strings of old incandescent Chistmas lights to a point that you could watch her Electric meter look like a speedometer of a car going 100 miles per hour.Her December and January electric bills were 1,000% over all the other 10 months.
I started buying her strings of the newer LED outdoor Christmas lights, and convinced her this was the way to go, and the initial investment cost me about $150 bucks. But her electric bill only showed a 10% increase in those same 2 holiday months. So they paid for themselves the very first year in energy savings.
After that we replaced every Light Bulb in our homes to LED bulbs and noticed that we brought our electric bills down by about 1/3rd!
So all I can say is yes, Greener Energies does take you to greener pastures when it comes to innovation, keeping up with technology, AND STRAYING AWAY FROM POLITICS.
Never let your politics prevent you from improving the quality of your lives.
YES! GREEN ENERGIES- ON A WIDER SCALE IS AN INVESTMENT- AND ONE THAT OFTEN TIMES PAYS OFF IN JUST LITTLE TIME.
BUT YOU PEOPLE GO AHEAD AND ARGUE ABOUT IT! ARGUE FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE!
BUT I KNOW WHICH LEADERS I WILL FOLLOW! AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE LEADERS WHO HAVE THE SAME VISION I DO ABOUT GREENER ENERGIES!
ANd I will never follow those who just argue for Political or ARGUMENT'S SAKE
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
The international scientific community? The ISC? ... never heard of them. Do they receive taxpayer dollars form politicians?
You care more about virtual signaling in your $80k, taxpayer subsidized, coal fueled Tesla, ... than you do about "the planet" or the 3rd world poor.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
No, the GND is not a slogan like the Hopey Changey thing. It is an actual House resolution that failed in the Senate 0-57 with most senate Dems voting present, for fucks sake.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
TexanManWithPlans
Verified User
The international scientific community? The ISC? ... never heard of them. Do they receive taxpayer dollars form politicians?
You care more about virtual signaling in your $80k, taxpayer subsidized, coal fueled Tesla, ... than you do about "the planet" or the 3rd world poor.
So you've conceded your argument. Bye.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Wrong.
Run away now little turd. Go back to the kiddie table where you belong.