Don't be fooled, man.
I'm still waiting for my obama phone.

I haven’t really taken a good look at the “Green Dream” yet. Not enough for me to have a strong opinion.

I do like that AOC believes in third-parties and primarying incumbent politicians though. She also doesn’t accept PAC money, and speaks on these things openly in the press.

Those three things alone are enough for her to earn my respect. At least until she gives me a reason not to believe her.

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.

Tail....
That's .. just.... Not smart.
Where did you get that? I don't believe you could have come up with that on your own.

You literally just said "if we don't keep the cost of fossil fuels up by using them in America, 3rd world countries will use them" as an excuse not to generally support some environmental initiative?

You want to apply externalities to fossil fuels, but completely ignore the fact that developing fossil fuel alternatives will also impact the use of these alternatives elsewhere.

It's like you're just looking for an excuse... Not like you actually want to solve a problem. That's fine. You don't need to want to solve a problem. I don't want to... It sounds like effort and it doesn't benefit me at all. But I at least don't pretend that I'd really like to solve a problem, but those solutions just aren't good enough.

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?

And additionally, MACS... We already established that the AOC wages for people not willing to work thing is a stretch, mostly something fabricated by a synopsis David read. (He of course has not acknowledged that... Just decided to move on from it...)

Cnbc ran an article this morning with the exact title:

Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal offers 'economic security' for those 'unwilling to work'

I didnt put the quotation marks in, Cnbc did...

Edit: didn't realize I was working with an old version of this thread... Ignore this pot head please...

I don't see it...
Maybe it's there and I missed it in my read thru.

I'll look through those articles to see what they reference.

Tail , you are wrong on a couple of points. Lighting is the low hanging fruit that makes sense both from a financial viewpoint, and an environmental viewpoint. I sold retrofit lighting for a long time. In a typical year I lowered the CO2 footprint by 5 million pounds. As far as unreliability really? The sun shines every day, there is wind every day, there are waves on oceans and large lakes every day, geothermal activity is continuous. The question is where are these forms of energy economically viable. Typically most businesses need to see a 3 year or less payback to consider something a good business decision. A certain percentage of companies use 5 years.

So...this is pretty amazing.
I did a search for AOC and "unwilling" and got a LOT of articles with the exact same title as Opel put above.

I thought... Huh... If this many articles use that exact word "unable to or unwilling to work"... I must be wrong. I must have missed it on my first read through.

So I pulled up the bill again. And this time did a word search for "unwilling". No results. So I thought maybe the format wouldn't allow searches ... So I searched for "the"... Tons of results. Ok. Search is working. So I searched "work"... 3 references none of which are really relevant.

I searched security... And did find the section at the end which I already mentioned.

But this is kind of fascinating. All these articles with the exact same title, which is say... 98.2% wrong? And none of the authors bothered to check the f-king bill?

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).

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.

That is definitely interesting.

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.





Christopher Monckton is another who disputes 'global warming'.

I worked fur the consensus bureau once, gathrin names and such... Didn't do such a gud job...

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.

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...

The exact language comes from a summary of the bill authored by proponents of the bill...

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.

(Opel, see posts 51 and 56)