Green new deal equals magical thinking

[SkyDekker 1,122]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

LMAO - what is it that you think is going to happen to say - China - if we spend an unprecedented trillions of dollars, by (following the NGD) cleaning up the US?

That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to your insinuation that nothing should be done unless there is proof of something actually taking place right now.

[billvon 2,400]

29 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

It is for me.  

The impact is what is in question.

I really like irony, and the 1% that will be losing their investment properties, and the celebrities that will be losing their mansions kinda makes me giddy.  

Yes, that's the new GOP approach; as long as you hurt the right Americans it's all good.  

But the people who are really going to feel the brunt aren't the top 1%.  They will end up making money on the deal like they always do.  The people who will really feel it are the bottom 10% who can't afford to move out of Bangladesh.

Quote

The problem I have is that most of the alarmist predictions are mostly false.

YET, somehow, and for some reason, we are still supposed to take them seriously.

Whats the saying? The proof is in the pudding?  

Yes, the proof is in the pudding.  And given how accurate the IPCC has been - that's a lot of pudding.

[billvon 2,400]

16 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

LMAO - what is it that you think is going to happen to say - China - if we spend an unprecedented trillions of dollars, by (following the NGD) cleaning up the US?

Then we will once again take the lead in solar and wind, and start exporting again.

Up until about three years ago, the US was exporting more solar equipment than it was importing - it was one of the few areas where the trade imbalance went in our favor.  Then we gave up on that.  Now we import a lot more than we export.

Wouldn't it be nice to have China sending us billions because they want our stuff?  And instead of playing with tariffs to protect our weak industries, we had industries that were so strong that other countries found it hard to compete with us?

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Then we will once again take the lead in solar and wind, and start exporting again.

Up until about three years ago, the US was exporting more solar equipment than it was importing - it was one of the few areas where the trade imbalance went in our favor.  Then we gave up on that.  Now we import a lot more than we export.

Wouldn't it be nice to have China sending us billions because they want our stuff?  And instead of playing with tariffs to protect our weak industries, we had industries that were so strong that other countries found it hard to compete with us?

You assume that China is going to foot a similar bill as AOC would have us pay.

That's a pretty large assumption.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yes, that's the new GOP approach; as long as you hurt the right Americans it's all good.  

But the people who are really going to feel the brunt aren't the top 1%.  They will end up making money on the deal like they always do.  The people who will really feel it are the bottom 10% who can't afford to move out of Bangladesh.

Yes, the proof is in the pudding.  And given how accurate the IPCC has been - that's a lot of pudding.

Are you equating IPCC with the Alarmists now?

I'm talking about the disingenuous claims by people like AOC. 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to your insinuation that nothing should be done unless there is proof of something actually taking place right now.

Perhaps you can show me where you took that out of context?

ETA: Should have said ,came to a faulty conclusion'

Edited May 2, 2019 by turtlespeed
Clarification

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

Perhaps you can show me where you took that out of context?

When you started discussing validity of claims related to science by politicians.

Your argument is: I don't believe science because a politician said something stupid.

[billvon 2,400]

6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Are you equating IPCC with the Alarmists now?

I'm talking about the disingenuous claims by people like AOC. 

Nope.  I am specifically separating them.  It's a mistake to listen to alarmists or deniers.

Quote

You assume that China is going to foot a similar bill as AOC would have us pay.

Again, no.  I am assuming that reducing our trade deficit would be a good thing.

 

[wmw999 2,122]

9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You assume that China is going to foot a similar bill as AOC would have us pay.

That's a pretty large assumption.

Chinese cities have had enough air that masks are designer accessories. The people will end up wanting cleaner air, and solar is known a  way to get that.

and we only care what China is doing if we clean up if we’re competing. Are we?

wendy P. 

[turtlespeed 212]

10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Chinese cities have had enough air that masks are designer accessories. The people will end up wanting cleaner air, and solar is known a  way to get that.

and we only care what China is doing if we clean up if we’re competing. Are we?

wendy P. 

It was an example.

I do not want to feel the financial burden of the GND. 

Its totally ridiculous in its current form.  Bill says its not wise to listen to alarmists - 

Then why are so many here defending an alarmist?

[billvon 2,400]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Then why are so many here defending an alarmist?

No one is.

Quote

Its totally ridiculous in its current form.

I wouldn't want to see it implemented in its current form.  But it has some very good ideas in it, and the counterproposals it has garnered are considerably better. 

It's a discussion we have to have, and I am glad the GND has pushed the US to have it.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

47 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

It was an example.

I do not want to feel the financial burden of the GND. 

Its totally ridiculous in its current form.  Bill says its not wise to listen to alarmists - 

Then why are so many here defending an alarmist?

You are fielding a $1.4 TRILLION burden to give rich people a tax break with little to no complaint. Actually my guess would be tat you wee generally in favour of that tax cut.

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

When you started discussing validity of claims related to science by politicians.

Your argument is: I don't believe science because a politician said something stupid.

That IS the point, I don't care if some scientists want to have an esoteric discussion on the potential impact of elevated CO2.  I have a BIG problem when the politicians get ahold of it and want to "save the planet" by spending billions and  even TRILLIONS of dollars that would be better spent on schools, roads and bridges.

[billvon 2,400]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That IS the point, I don't care if some scientists want to have an esoteric discussion on the potential impact of elevated CO2.  I have a BIG problem when the politicians get ahold of it and want to "save the planet" by spending billions and  even TRILLIONS of dollars that would be better spent on schools, roads and bridges.

That is the classic penny-wise, pound-foolish approach.

There are ice melters that are far more environmentally friendly than rock salt.  But they are more expensive.  And even though using the salt alternatives could save hundreds of millions of dollars in bridge repairs every year, no municipality wants to spend the thousands of dollars more a winter on the alternative.  Different budgets.  And the town NEEDS that money to put on their fall carnival!  They need a bigger fireworks show.  Let the state deal with fixing the bridges.

As climate change progresses, we will need taller levees, better water transportation systems, larger dams and bigger water pumps.  We will need the money to transport entire towns away from the coast.  The military will need money to adapt their vehicles/bases/housing for the changes.  And that will be many trillions.

We could avoid much of that by spending billions now, to reduce the warming we will see in the future.  But people NEED more Ford Expeditions, so no money for that.  Better to pay trillions in twenty years than billions now; let someone else deal with it.

[turtlespeed 212]

54 minutes ago, billvon said:

  Better to pay trillions in twenty years than billions now; let someone else deal with it.

Ahhh - but Billions now IS trillions in 20 years.

I do not advocate doing nothing - 

I do advocate being responsible about it.

The left seems to be of the mind set that we should stop all funding except for the GND

[gowlerk 1,912]

22 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The left seems to be of the mind set that we should stop all funding except for the GND

This fear of an all powerful and united "left" is absurd. The left has no such mindset. There are just a few people trying to push new ideas. Saying the left is of a mind is like saying the right are all studying Mein Kampf .

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

 

We could avoid much of that by spending billions now, to reduce the warming we will see in the future.  But people NEED more Ford Expeditions, so no money for that.  Better to pay trillions in twenty years than billions now; let someone else deal with it.

Bill, I hope you realize that we (the U.S.), could reduce our carbon footprint to ZERO and global CO2 would continue to rise.

[gowlerk 1,912]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, I hope you realize that we (the U.S.), could reduce our carbon footprint to ZERO and global CO2 would continue to rise.

Well then, maybe "Team America" could behave as though it is part of the rest of the planet. I know, globalism is another one of the evil things you hate. But the fact is that the good 'ol USA is located on planet Earth. No nation is going to stop emitting CO2. All nations are going to try to reduce the rate emissions are growing. Throwing your hands in the air and saying you can do nothing because you are too small is fucking ridiculous.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Well then, maybe "Team America" could behave as though it is part of the rest of the planet. I know, globalism is another one of the evil things you hate. But the fact is that the good 'ol USA is located on planet Earth. No nation is going to stop emitting CO2. All nations are going to try to reduce the rate emissions are growing. Throwing your hands in the air and saying you can do nothing because you are too small is fucking ridiculous.

Obvious global warming is not impacting the US, we are currently experiencing below average temperatures. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Obvious global warming is not impacting the US, we are currently experiencing below average temperatures. 

I suppose that is an attempt at humour?

[brenthutch 383]

Yes, but on a more serious note, when has CO2 ever been the primary driver of global climate?

[wmw999 2,122]

About the same time as when smoking has been the primary driver of human health. After all, my father was 91 when he died, and he smoked until he was 65!

Wendy P. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yes, but on a more serious note, when has CO2 ever been the primary driver of global climate? 

CO2 has been one of the primary drivers of our climate since the Earth was formed basically. Plants evolving was a key event in reducing it and adding O2 making other life possible. Without CO2 in the atmosphere our planet would be much cooler on it's surface.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41671770

 

I see now that your question, which I mistook as honest curiosity on your part is actually from one of the current claims made by the denier community. I should have known better. But here is a more direct answer to those misleading lies.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/#.XMw1QKR7mUk

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by gowlerk

[kallend 1,623]

41 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

 

I see now that your question, which I mistook as honest curiosity on your part is actually from one of the current claims made by the denier community. I should have known better. But here is a more direct answer to those misleading lies.

Brenthutch's posts are indistinguishable from what I'd expect from a Russian troll.

I'm not claiming that he IS a Russian troll.  Just that he is indistinguishable from one.

[normiss 622]

The renewable energy sector is projected to generate more electricity than coal during the month of April, according to a recent report published by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That's never happened before.

Coal, long the king of the power sector, has already been dethroned by natural gas, a much cleaner burning fossil fuel. Now, coal is facing intensifying pressure from wind and solar power.

"Five years ago this never would have been close to happening," Dennis Wamstead, research analyst at IEEFA, said in an interview. "The transition that's going on in the electric sector in the United States has been phenomenal."