The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

Just how much money do you have invested in solar and wind companies, Mike?

None. All my money is tied up in global socialism.

Originally Posted by irv

Do you honestly believe, like the link you posted, what you are reading is factual and written by real scientists without an agenda?
Do you not even find it just a little bit suspect that the alarmist movement even tries to justify record cold weather as being part of global warming?

No offense, but you sound as brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional and crazy as Bill Nye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubpN72D6AI

So, presenting math and science to you to show that global warming is real means I'm a sheep who can't think for myself, I'm brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional, crazy. Scientists lie and have an agenda. But you, you know the "truth." By the proclamation of Irv, any scientist that doesn't believe in the "truth" of Irv isn't a real scientist but is a liar and is pushing a hidden agenda. So sayeth Irv! In order to not be brainwashed, delusional, crazy sheep, we must all blindly agree with the "truth" of Irv! So sayeth Irv!!

Baaaaa!!

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

None. All my money is tied up in global socialism.



So, presenting math and science to you to show that global warming is real means I'm a sheep who can't think for myself, I'm brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional, crazy. Scientists lie and have an agenda. But you, you know the "truth." By the proclamation of Irv, any scientist that doesn't believe in the "truth" of Irv isn't a real scientist but is a liar and is pushing a hidden agenda. So sayeth Irv! In order to not be brainwashed, delusional, crazy sheep, we must all blindly agree with the "truth" of Irv! So sayeth Irv!!

Baaaaa!!

Yes, especially when I asked you your own thoughts but instead of doing so, you provide me with a link to an alarmist website that has been proven over and over again to be nothing but a funded biased/fake climate news site. You would have been further ahead to post an article from the National Enquirer.

It's OK, Mike. You keep on believing one day some of the 41 predictions, (so far), that have never come true, will, and instead of using real empirical evidence, rely on the computer modelling instead like you and all the other alarmists like to do.

"The Science is settled" Just ask Obama, Al Gore, Bill Nye or David Suzuki. They know!!.............

[packs]

Can you please succinctly discuss the reasons why you don't support clean living? I feel like there are principles you could adopt in your daily life that would be good for you regardless of their effect on climate. Why not recycle? Why not support efforts to create clean, breathable air? What is more important than clean drinking water?

[Mark17]

I support all of that because it is logical and true. I do recycle consistently. Plastics in the oceans, for example, are a real problem that needs a solution.

But the whole man made CO2 is cooking the planet schtick is at best, ridiculous, and at worst, a lie designed to frighten people, especially children, to push a socialist agenda. CO2 is not a pollutant - it is plant food. And a better argument can be made that there is not enough of it rather than too much.

If the "green" movement stuck to real problems and proposed logical solutions, and if they left the political agenda out of it, I'd probably be one of them.

[packs]

That is such a small part of the whole that I can't see why you would dismiss everything because you have an issue with one thing. I'm not sure if we agree but I don't think there is anything negative about cutting emissions. Why would you choose to breathe them in? I don't think there is anything negative about curtailing pipelines either. Water is a precious resource.

Just one last point from me: CFC's were banned in 1996 due to the damage they were doing to the ozone layer. Their negative effect on the ozone layer is fact. I would think a depleted ozone layer, and certainly no ozone layer at all, will have an impact on the climate of the planet. I think that demonstrates that man can affect the kind of change we're talking about, even if not specifically through the actions in question. So, with all due respect, I can't agree with anyone who says man's actions can't affect climate change.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

But the whole man made CO2 is cooking the planet schtick is at best, ridiculous, and at worst, a lie designed to frighten people, especially children, to push a socialist agenda.

The following organizations all believe humans are causing adverse climate change. According to you, they are all "ridiculous" or pushing "a socialist agenda." Hmmm, interesting. American Foresters are potentially socialists. Who knew? Could you please go through the list and let us know which are simply ridiculous and which are dangerously pushing a socialist agenda?

1. American Academy of Pediatrics
2. American Anthropological Association
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science
4. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
5. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
6. American Astronomical Society
7. American Chemical Society
8. American College of Preventive Medicine
9. American Fisheries Society
10. American Geophysical Union
11. American Institute of Biological Sciences
12. American Institute of Physics
13. American Medical Association
14. American Meteorological Society
15. American Physical Society
16. American Public Health Association
17. American Quaternary Association
18. American Society for Microbiology
19. American Society of Agronomy
20. American Society of Civil Engineers
21. American Society of Plant Biologists
22. American Statistical Association
23. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
24. Botanical Society of America
25. California Academy of Sciences
26. Crop Science Society of America
27. Ecological Society of America
28. Environmental Protection Agency
29. Federation of American Scientists
30. Geological Society of America
31. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
32. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
33. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
34. National Association of State Foresters
35. National Center for Atmospheric Research
36. National Council of Engineers Australia
37. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
38. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
39. National Research Council
40. National Science Foundation
41. Natural Science Collections Alliance
42. New York Academy of Sciences
43. Oklahoma Climatological Survey
44. Pew Center on Global Climate Change
45. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
46. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
47. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
48. Society of American Foresters
49. Soil Science Society of America
50. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
51. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
52. Woods Hole Research Center

Originally Posted by Mark17

CO2 is not a pollutant - it is plant food. And a better argument can be made that there is not enough of it rather than too much.

Sh!t is used as plant food and is not a pollutant. You obviously want more of that also since you (and especially Irv) seem to spend a lot of time peddling it.

[Mark17]

The title of this thread is: The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal. This is a specific piece of proposed legislation. The New York Times quotes from the text of The Green New Deal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/c...s-answers.html

The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.

You can pretend really really hard that the part I have bolded is science and not a political agenda if you want.

As far as all those organizations you list, that is what has been consistent in your posts. You keep referring to other peoples' opinions, rather than thinking for yourself. Had you been my classmate in 6th grade, in 1970, you, like me, would've been afraid of global COOLING, because that's what all those scientists were insisting was happening. And people who didn't believe them then were stupid.

Somehow you, and they, are able to conveniently forget all the times they have been so dramatically wrong with their predictions, while insisting their NEXT predictions will be right. So far, they just never are.

[JOEMLM]

i have shared this video with every tree hugger i could, many cried. the deep state used the left and greenies to perform another hoax, one of many. what people missed from the docu-film is that, our tax money is used to build those tree burning plants, obviously to scam a tree hugger, you cannot call the plants what they are, 'tree burning plants' they do not burn trees according to the liars involved and the brainwashed green new stealers, who believe the group think, they burn 'bio-mass' = WRONG! this is another example and proof the media is fake news. also the idea that there is a left and a right, in politics, nope, wrong again, they are all crooks shouting, 'look over there' 'we are good', THEY are bad, do not look at our wealth, i never had a job,' 'i earned it'... someone in the thread shared shared a meme, also, not true, greta is not a high schooler, she is diagnosed retarded, and 'home schooled' and about aoc, also repeating her lies, she was not a bartender, she was fired from that job after a few days or hours according to some people. she could not make any mixed drinks, just ask her for an any drink recipe, standing behind a bar does not make you a bartender, she was actually a waitress, and always has been! among her many lies, i can go on...they are deforesting america to burn the trees for energy, as the docu-film shows, they are actually creating MORE pollution just shipping the trees to get burned. again, show the movie to a tree hugger or enviromentalist, the green new deal is another new world order lie. ask any of them, 'CO2 is the problem', 'too much C.O.2 is causing global warming' = what is the only thing that eats CO2 to survive? TREES! they are actually making the CO2 problem worse with every tree they burn. according to gibbs, one of the people behind the docu-films, they had hours of footage they did not use. they left out a lot of stuff, i wonder what.

just like the current madness in the u.s., especially in illinois and chicago, the governor of illinois is funneling millions of your tax dollars, the 'covid aid relief' funds through businesses he owns and some charities he started. the governor and mayor of chicago, i call #lockdownnazi's... chicago beaches are still closed and not opening soon. all other cities have opened beaches to a degree, even NYC, the worst hit with covid, our leaders say it is all due to 'the science', since when in a free country do we take 'ORDERS' from public SERVANTS? several countries never locked down. ever been to japan? the cities there are bigger and more crowded than you can imagine, they did not lockdown, it has nothing to do with a virus that is less dangerous than the flu
fyi: you can pay a scientist to say anything you want, for example, are eggs good and/or safe to eat? just look up what 'scientists' say about that, and the FAKE research they use to prove it!

in school i was going to get a science degree, i even went on several 'field research trips' i was a scientist! lol we did a lot of 'research' too, we had the 'latest tech' = freezers full of beer and booze! we had 'cases of supplies' = several cases of vodka, whiskey, etc, etc. we did a lot of 'research' lounging at a beach resort, partially funded by the school, and government grants = your tax dollars. the science class i was in had 8 guys for every 2 girls. on the every field trip, we had up to 8 girls for every guy, and i can tell you for a fact the professor was banging some of them, i can tell you for a fact, we did no research, and i can tell you someone did write a 'research paper' documenting what we did = all lies because we did nothing! and yes, you guessed, it was peer-reviewed! does anyone recall the research trip that went to the south pole to prove the ice cap was gone? remember what happened to that ship? it STUCK in the ice! did you know that ship had some great supplies, store rooms and coolers full off booze and several pounds of assorted pills and drugs were found when the ship was finally recovered after everyone on board was rescued and removed from the 'research vessel' = a charter cruise ship! it was nothing more than a taxpayer funded party cruise!

turn off the tv and read a book, may i recommend 'profiles in corruption' it shows you how some politicians and their families are super-rich and many of them never did a days work in their lives. it shows how they are all so rich, yes, you guessed, they raise your taxes to line their wallets. read the book for proof, if you want a copy i will send you a digital one, i actually bought several copies of the printed book but gave them all away already, i am going to buy multiples of this docu-fim too, and give those away too.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The title of this thread is: The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal. This is a specific piece of proposed legislation. The New York Times quotes from the text of The Green New Deal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/c...s-answers.html

The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.

You can pretend really really hard that the part I have bolded is science and not a political agenda if you want.

You can try to change the subject all you want, but you and others have been arguing that climate change is a hoax/schtick/lie. That it's "ridiculous."

You even said, "In a nutshell, this is what the whole man made global warming movement is all about." Not the "Green New Deal" but the whole man made global warming movement. You'd be telling a lie if you now want to claim you were only talking about the Green New Deal.

Originally Posted by Mark17

As far as all those organizations you list, that is what has been consistent in your posts.

Trying to change the subject again I see.

You said: "But the whole man made CO2 is cooking the planet schtick is at best, ridiculous, and at worst, a lie designed to frighten people, especially children, to push a socialist agenda."

I listed those organizations because I was curious as to which are simply ridiculous and which are pushing a socialist agenda. Those are your words. So, which are ridiculous and which are pushing a socialist agenda? You seem to be an expert on ferreting out people's hidden agenda.

Originally Posted by Mark17

You keep referring to other peoples' opinions, rather than thinking for yourself.

Don't forget, I'm just a sheep. Not a single original thought by me in this entire thread. When I refuted your bad math earlier I luckily found a website that had already refuted your post. Saved me from having to think for myself. Also, I'm surprised that you would value my opinion over the opinion of people who actually work in the field of climate change.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Had you been my classmate in 6th grade, in 1970, you, like me, would've been afraid of global COOLING, because that's what all those scientists were insisting was happening. And people who didn't believe them then were stupid.

Since you didn't go back to post 49, let me post it again:

Who's "they?" Not the scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0...8FA33&index=37

An excellent paper in the American Meteorological Society (2008)

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...2008BAMS2370.1

A couple highlights:

"One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. "Collectively," the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey "tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling" (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978)."

A survey was done on literature published in the '70s. The survey looked for "papers projecting climate change on, or even just discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales from decades to a century." It found 71 papers. "The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming." The other 20 were neutral. Six times as many scientists in the '70s were predicting warming versus cooling.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Somehow you, and they, are able to conveniently forget all the times they have been so dramatically wrong with their predictions, while insisting their NEXT predictions will be right. So far, they just never are.

Who is this "they" that "have been so dramatically wrong with their predictions"? And, what were their predictions?