America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by izonfire. 193 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
The Green Dream...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
victor809 Offline
#51 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:30 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Ah... I found it!
It's from the FAQ!

So... That's really dumb... On everyone's part.
The FAQ for the bill (not a congressional document, just a random page on document cloud... So no guarantee it's from her people) states "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work".

The bill itself doesn't really provide for that....

So we have journalists who aren't looking past an uncontrolled FAQ to look at the actual bill... And we have politicians theoretically promising something while proposing a bill that doesn't really cover it (no real surprise there j suppose).
Speyside Offline
#52 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:32 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Knee jerk reaction Victor. This usually happens on the right and far right when a Democrat speaks. Here proposal is not viable, but there are a lot of good ideas in it. As a country in the past we reached for the impossible. Putting a man on the moon would be an apt example of this. I like that she is reaching for the impossible now. Maybe we can recover that greatness and quit being so small minded some day.
Phil222 Offline
#53 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:35 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
That is definitely interesting.
MACS Offline
#54 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:38 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
victor809 wrote:
MACS.... Why do you believe ball and not any of the other scientists?

Just curious... What about his academic credentials causes you to think his statement is more credible than another scientist?


He's not the only one. The 97% consensus was false, and has been retracted. Any scientist will tell you a consensus doesn't mean fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWqDBudgC8c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqejXs7XgsU&t=141s

Christopher Monckton is another who disputes 'global warming'.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#55 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:40 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I worked fur the consensus bureau once, gathrin names and such... Didn't do such a gud job...
victor809 Offline
#56 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So... Sorry I'm piecing this together post by post... I wasn't following it, so I'm just digging up info as I go.

Correction to my previous post, the FAQ was originally posted on her AOC website or some other source. But was removed after everyone jumped on the "unwilling" phrase. Currently it can only be found in locations various people have uploaded it (hence why I was initially suspicious of whether it was her group.. I didn't see the original location).

After reading the FAQ, the context seems pretty clear. The phrase "unwilling to work" is around economic security. Throughout the FAQ they reference wages which can support a family, so it seems reasonable they are trying to imply that they want to provide jobs which will allow single income households...

But, that's reading into it. And it's just the FAQ. The bill itself doesn't provide for people to sit at home drinking and smoking anywhere... So doesn't really matter what we read into the FAQ.
victor809 Offline
#57 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS. You missed the point of my question.

So why do you believe Monckton over other scientists? What about his academic credentials do you believe makes his statement more accurate than another?

I'll keep asking this question until you answer it about some scientist...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#58 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:42 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
The exact language comes from a summary of the bill authored by proponents of the bill...
victor809 Offline
#59 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
And yes Macs... I know consensus doesn't equal fact.
But I know you well enough to know you aren't bucking the consensus because you have some sort of specific knowledge or deep understanding of climate science that others don't.
victor809 Offline
#60 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
(Opel, see posts 51 and 56)
delta1 Offline
#61 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:44 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
I dunno spey...the right has retracted so far into an anti-science cocoon that it seems unlikely any serious expansive thinking by government entities will occur any time soon...an un-informed electorate is an easily led one...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#62 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:45 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I only gots it in pdf...

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf
opelmanta1900 Offline
#63 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:46 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
(Opel, see posts 51 and 56)

Not talking No...
victor809 Offline
#64 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hehe...
MACS Offline
#65 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:50 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
victor809 wrote:
MACS. You missed the point of my question.

So why do you believe Monckton over other scientists? What about his academic credentials do you believe makes his statement more accurate than another?

I'll keep asking this question until you answer it about some scientist...


I'll ask you the same question. Why do you believe the alarmists?

I believe him and the others who took the time to review the 97% consensus, break it down, and show that it was manipulated to the extreme. I believe him because he, and the other scientists in those videos, have specific climate science credentials unlike Bill Nye the science guy.

Can you dispute Dr. Ball's claim that the Earth has been hotter than today for 95% of the last 10,000 years?
delta1 Offline
#66 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:55 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
MACS wrote:


Christopher Monckton is another who disputes 'global warming'.



Monckton, who has an MA in Literature/Classics and has a diploma in journalism, has no scientific training in his back-ground (read: ordinary opiner) has been widely dismissed by real scientists...

the lack of authentic students/practitioners of climate science who dispute climate change theories explains why someone like Monckton has been elevated to spokesperson for climate change skeptics...
victor809 Offline
#67 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:56 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... so it has nothing to do with his credentials, and only has to do with how he explained something to you?

I could put together a video clearly and concisely explaining how premarital sex caused the dinosaurs to become extinct. That doesn't mean I'm correct. Without any background in data analysis or statistics, how do you know he's telling you the truth?

And I didn't look at the videos. I will read a paper if you want to link one. Video is not a medium where actual data is shown.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#68 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 6:59 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I heard it was cuz you touched yurself... Same thing with volcanoes...
MACS Offline
#69 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
So why do you believe otherwise? Oh, so it has nothing to do with credentials... it's just how it was explained to you?

You bought into the 97% consensus?

I won't hold my breath waiting on your dinosaur video. Like most things, I assume you're just talking out your ass.
ZRX1200 Offline
#70 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:12 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday vowed to defund U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and said all Latino people must be exempt from immigration laws because they are “native” to U.S. lands as they are descendants of Native people.


She’s a treasure trove......
victor809 Offline
#71 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:19 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Oh my God.

MACS.
For f-ks sake.

That's who you believe is telling you the "truth"????

I had to look it up. Because I hate not knowing something. And I have to tell you I'm really really f-king disappointed.

I searched for Tim Ball's claim that it's been warmer 95% of the past 10k years. I get to an article he's posted a few times with the same graph since 2016.

The graph is central Greenland. He's using the temp in one location of the globe to "prove" global temps have been warmer 95% of the time?

That's problem number 1.

Problem number 2 (I had to look this up, because I started getting amazed that this is who you put up against people who publish data) apparently his "temperature today" he was measuring from is the 1855 temperature... So 0 is 1855 on his chart... He apparently misplaced the middle ages... And the little ice age.

(Note problem #2 is read from an analysis of this ball guy, I am not smart enough to pick this stuff out).

So... I don't know what to tell you MACS. But if you're watching videos on YouTube by guys who are literally misplacing the little ice age ... You may want to reconsider criticizing the actual climate scientists out there.
delta1 Offline
#72 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:20 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
^ #70 ^only those who are 100% indigenous...no Pocahontas...
victor809 Offline
#73 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
This Ball guys errors go deeper than what I just wrote.

There's a very good reason these people aren't accepted by academia... It doesn't have to do with them being "controversial".
opelmanta1900 Offline
#74 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:25 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
What does a lumberjack with a speech impediment say?
deadeyedick Offline
#75 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:27 PM EST
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,089
MACS wrote:
According to Dr. Tim Ball, an historic climatologist... It is a fact that our planet has been hotter than it is today for 95% of the last 10,000 years.



After reading through 10-12 books on climate change, I believe this statement to be mostly true.

The scientific community agrees with this through fossil records and hundreds of peer reviewed studies. This is why we find the remains of water creatures in the southwest deserts. It was under water thousands of years ago. But this statement says nothing about human induced climate change.

The other 5% of the hottest years have all been in the last century and continue to set records almost every year worldwide. Whether this is caused by humans or part of earth natural cycles is the question.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#76 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:27 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
TimBall!
delta1 Offline
#77 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:29 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
those two doctors on MASH seem pretty sharp...I'd trust them to operate on me if I got shot...

that autistic doctor on the Good Doctor is heart-wrenchingly talented...my daughter and SIL should take their kids to him when they are ill...

Monckton sure makes a compelling case for why climate science is a lie...he sounds so authentic and earnest...
MACS Offline
#78 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
Victor has spoken ya'll!

He hasn't refuted anything, mind you. Just posted a bunch of rubbish claiming Dr. Ball's credentials are no good and his deductions are faulty. So what are your credentials, Vic?
MACS Offline
#79 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,779
delta1 wrote:
those two doctors on MASH seem pretty sharp...I'd trust them to operate on me if I got shot...

that autistic doctor on the Good Doctor is heart-wrenchingly talented...my daughter and SIL should take their kids to him when they are ill...

Monckton sure makes a compelling case for why climate science is a lie...he sounds so authentic and earnest...


You should totally let them operate on you... don't even wait until you get shot.
ZRX1200 Offline
#80 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:34 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
MABA

Make
Alexandria
Bartend
Again
victor809 Offline
#81 Posted: Fri, Feb 8 2019, 7:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS... How have I not refuted it?

He literally starts his data in 1855.... He is using Greenland temp as a proxy for the entire globe.

If you don't think that's a good reason to be skeptical of his claim maybe you need to consider why you're so skeptical of the other scientists.

And... Most significant (and hinted at by ded)... If we are seeing a spike in temperature over the past few hundred years due to our impact... Does it matter that we haven't gotten it to rise over the temperature it was 5000 years ago?

Do I need to make a video? If temp was changing by a couple of degrees over a thousand years... And now we're making that same change over 100years... It doesn't matter if we haven't beat that temp yet. We will pretty quickly.
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#82 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 12:24 AM EST
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
victor809 wrote:
Ah... I found it!
It's from the FAQ!

So... That's really dumb... On everyone's part.
The FAQ for the bill (not a congressional document, just a random page on document cloud... So no guarantee it's from her people) states "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work".

The bill itself doesn't really provide for that....

So we have journalists who aren't looking past an uncontrolled FAQ to look at the actual bill... And we have politicians theoretically promising something while proposing a bill that doesn't really cover it (no real surprise there j suppose).


I just figured this out myself. She had a fact sheet posted on her site yesterday that contained the "unwilling to work" phrase. This is where I had read it. After receiving harsh criticism, the fact sheet was removed from her web site, so it wasn't there today when you went to read the bill. More then likely the FAQ you found was based on the removed fact sheet.

David
victor809 Offline
#83 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 12:29 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Yep... I think you're right.
DrafterX Offline
#84 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:03 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Buying votes... Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#85 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:45 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
It’s what they do, power at any cost. Gotta get that end game baby!
tailgater Offline
#86 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 11:20 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Victor and spey,
If the best options are renewables and/or cost effective, then I'm all in favor. I thought I was clear on that.
I'm against a mandate that eliminates any option that includes fossil fuels.
Don't disagree because I wrote it.
AOC isn't looking to help the earth. She's looking to pad her pockets. Big government.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#87 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 11:33 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
tailgater wrote:

AOC isn't looking to help the earth. She's looking to pad her pockets.

Ya, And Hitler was just trying to organize power...

If aoc was just looking to get rich she wouldn't be any more dangerous than any other politician....
DrafterX Offline
#88 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 11:37 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Hitler only had one ball... or so I heard... Mellow
opelmanta1900 Offline
#89 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 11:39 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
So, not a juggler then?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#90 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 11:41 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Not talking I'm still mad nobody laughed at my lumberjack joke...
RMAN4443 Offline
#91 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 11:52 AM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
opelmanta1900 wrote:
So, not a juggler then?

Not a very good one anyway...d'oh!
DrafterX Offline
#92 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 12:06 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
opie's a lumberjack and he's ok...Whistle
Phil222 Offline
#93 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:20 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
tailgater wrote:
AOC isn't looking to help the earth. She's looking to pad her pockets. Big government.

What makes you believe she's looking to pad her pockets? I thought she had already publicly slammed the best ways to get rich in government...corporate donations...lobbying...stock manipulation...etc.
Phil222 Offline
#94 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Not talking I'm still mad nobody laughed at my lumberjack joke...

I laughed.
tailgater Offline
#95 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:28 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
...an un-informed electorate is an easily led one...


I think that's Elizabeth Warren's campaign slogan.
delta1 Offline
#96 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:34 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
what does a gay guy call a rainbow flag?
delta1 Offline
#97 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:35 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
ThimBall...
tailgater Offline
#98 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:35 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Ya, And Hitler was just trying to organize power...

If aoc was just looking to get rich she wouldn't be any more dangerous than any other politician....


I said pad her pockets. I then defined it as big government.
Then you conclude that I suggest she's "just looking to get rich".

Forum posts can be misleading, but please read through to the end prior to
opelmanta1900 Offline
#99 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:36 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
thilly...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#100 Posted: Sat, Feb 9 2019, 1:37 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
tailgater wrote:
I said pad her pockets. I then defined it as big government.
Then you conclude that I suggest she's "just looking to get rich".

Forum posts can be misleading, but please read through to the end prior to

Not talking No...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Back to Top