We are entering the twilight zone of politics...
The latest green new deal is one example of common sense going out the window.
We have serious politicians and political commentators and media types talking seriously about this. How is this possible?
What is in the air and water that allow this to carry on...?
The proposals are so extreme and over the top, there is no starting point for discussion.
It should go into the trash bin of history...
If anyone is serious about combating climate change, you must first learn the science.
This topic is much more complex than Al Gore and climate scientists realize.
They are only scratching the surface...
The problem is complex and the solutions are illusive.
It is the ultimate hubris on the part of some that think we can change the weather or climate. This phenonmenon has been around forever and past cycles have shown there are numerous natural cycles at work here. There are ice ages that occur every 100,000 years or so. There is a cycle of 400 years for drought. There is a 60 year cycle due to our sister planet of Saturn, there is a 11 year cycle of sun spots...and many more...
All these cycles interact like waves of different frequency. You will get troughs and peaks as a result. Can we tell by looking at the last 100 years since the industrial revolution to know what is going on? Not really...Just give us all an explanation of how climate change really works, Jack. Those dang scientists can't hold a candle to your research and studies, and how could they?
You don’t have to believe me.
Those proposals as outlined in the Green New Deal is as Cuomo say...”pie in the sky...”
They are not realistic.Correct Jack, you're the only realistic person studying the subject. Those scientists are simply pulling the wool over our eyes because....er…..why do they do it now? Someone is paying them to stir up this mess and all of them are on the payroll, correct?
Well, if your research funding is tied to the study of climate change, guess what all their research is on climate change.
Yeah sure, Jack. It is the biggest secret of all since literally thousands of scientists are in on it.
But you Jack, being the self proclaimed climate genius you are, will get to the bottom of the scam where everyone else has failed. You are indeed great....Jack: George W. Changed the wording from Global Warming to Climate change. It is a hard sell because we have so much cold and severe weather in the U.S. However Global Warming is about the world's ocean temperature becoming warmer. That is a scientific fact. The other thing that is a scientific fact is that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at an alarming rate. Scientist have proven it is the highest it has been in the last 650,000 years, by studying ice core samples.
Please read this article;
https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/k … proof.htmlHey there peoplepower73. This may seem like a criticism, but it is really just an effort to take a political bias out of your response.
George W. Bush was not responsible for changing climate warming to climate change. While there are stories that his administration preferred the latter term, the actual change came from climate scientists.
I know that you can Google it as well as I did, so no links, but here is just a short blurb that sort of dates the change:
"Even years before that, international institutions had paved the way for “climate change” to eventually become the prevalent term. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was negotiated in 1992, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988."
Your other scientific facts are correct, so I just thought it would be helpful to make this "fact" correct too. I wouldn't suppose you intended to pair the Republicans with the change, but that is how your comment read.
I did read your link, and I don't think there can be any dispute about the CO2 levels, however, I think I recall that among climate change deniers there is a dispute as to CO2 carrying sole responsibility for climate warming.
Just sayin'
GAThe problem is if you go back millions of years, the earth had much higher CO2 concentration...how do you explain that?
Did you know Greenland had a much moderate climate in the distant past.
Why do you think it was called greenland?
The problem is, the current warming trend is within the natural variability of the earth...it cannot be determined it is caused by human activity, even if part of it was, it is not the primary driver. The sun is the ultimate source of energy an it has variability that affect our climate to a larger extent than humans..."A great mass-extinction event occurred 251 million years ago (0.251 Ga) marking the boundary of the Permian and Triassic periods. Oxygen levels dropped from 30% to 12%, and carbon dioxide levels reached about 2000 ppm. This was Earth's worst mass extinction and it eliminated 90% of ocean dwellers and 70% of land plants and animals. The cause of this mass extinction is thought to have been a series of volcanic events in Siberia that lasted for about one million years and released large volumes of carbon dioxide and gases containing sulfur, chlorine and fluorine."
Volcanic activity, it appears, caused CO2 to rise far beyond today's levels. About 5 times what we see today, in fact. And yes, temperatures rose worldwide as the level rose:
"When the carbon dioxide concentration was 2,000 ppm 55 million years ago during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the North Pole's temperature averaged 23°C (73.4°F)"
https://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/t … ition.html A short but interesting dissertation on the composition of our atmosphere since the earth was formed. The current make-up is but a blip on the overall picture.Wilderness: So your logic is if you go back 55 million years ago and state the C02 levels were exceedingly high then. Therefore it is safe to conclude that our global warming is just a blimp on the overall picture. But the problem is that blip is what we are living in. This is from the last paragraph in your link.
"Earth's future atmosphere.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750, humans have been burning coal and petroleum products to provide the energy to power machinery. The combustion of fossil fuels has been generating large quantities of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The chart below shows the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the last millennium and the sharp rise during the twentieth century.[2] The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide today is approximately 400 parts per million (ppm) and the North Pole's mean annual temperature is -20°C. When the carbon dioxide concentration was 2,000 ppm 55 million years ago during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), the North Pole's temperature averaged 23°C (73.4°F).[3] It is thought that elevated levels of greenhouse gases will cause global warming and influence weather patterns. Many cities bordering the coastal areas will be permanently flooded if the ice deposits in Greenland and Antarctica melt."
Hi jackclee, to your point about higher CO2levels millions of years ago, I see that Wilderness has offered a great explanation.
Why did you not look for the same information before posing your question?
Yes, I did know that Greenland fact. But I didn't know about Wilderness' North Pole fact.
GA"Scientists drilling off the coast of Antarctica made a startling discovery recently that could hold clues to the Earth’s future — especially if climate change keeps warming the planet.
According to a study published in the journal Nature, the frozen continent was home to a “near-tropical” rainforest 52 million years ago, when temperatures measured about 68 degrees Fahrenheit. "
Just another interesting tidbit. You don't get rainforests on a land covered in ice. It is all too easy to decide that the earth's climate today is what it always has been, simply because it is all man has seen. Or at least hasn't forgotten; we've also seen ice ages and tend to forget and ignore those, too, simply because they were a few thousand years ago.
"The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/ … 33597.html
https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleis … epoch.htmlEverybody: Here is an article from NASA on everything you wanted to know about Global Warming but were afraid to ask. It is long, but also very thorough.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … balWarmingThis kind of "science" doesn't satisfy those who want to reshape the world with the manmade climate change agenda.
I seriously doubt that this crowd of control freaks will ever gain enough control to push their agenda on the world. Though as you know, I believe other kinds of control freaks will.Here's the folks that WILL rescue us all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VZC5vFVJJY
Randy,
All those climate scientists are just wrong. Surfing the internet and doing your own research will bring you to the real truth.
Can you imagine applying that logic to all topics? I'm sure bias will have no effect. Did you know the earth is flat? I found it on the internet!
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Freq … _Questions
And by the way, did you know that the sun revolves around the earth? One in four Americans believe this, so it must be true.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … urvey-says
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-princ … looks-likeStop your condecension...why don’t you do a little digging and see how this global warming has been politicized. It is not the scientists driving the agenda but the political hacks. You and others have been brain washed to beliving everything. Stop and use your own eye and ears and common sense if you still have any left.
Jack,
You are right in this situaiton. It is a topic that has been seriously politicized. Even NOAA – for liberals that is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – has demonstrated it is not taking a scientific approach but an ideological one. This is not science, it's politics. But, let us agree, gullible will always only see what they want.
“Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Could it be that CO2 is not warming the climate at all? It is a topic that bears investigation. NOAA has not tackled this problem, likely because of ideological reasons. NOAA probably considers CO2 as a “pollutant.” It has been slow to change, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi … y-is-quiteReadmikenow: This is from your link above. S Fred Singer is the author of your article.
"BY S. FRED SINGER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/29/18 02:00 PM EDT 196 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL"
Here is the what NASA writes about Global Warming.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu … balWarmingMike, nothing gets your attention like a good debate on climate change. How's it going? Hope all is well with you.
The link you provided from NASA didn't work for me.Yeah, most interpretations of information are based on an opinion. This just is a legal note to say he doesn't work directly for the hill. This article has been published in other publications.
Here my point...Climate change caused my man is NOT settled science. If the data from NOAA and NASA can't agree...can an agreement be reached?
So smart. Condescending is the only thing left.
And, oh yeah, I'm going to believe a couple of internet goofballs over pretty much all of the world's climate scientists, including quite a few I actually know. Like guys with Ph.Ds who have absolutely no political motivation at all.
But wait, I forgot, you're smarter than they are. You listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Scientific fact: increased CO2 in the atmosphere heats the earth.
Scientific fact: the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing.
Scientific fact: the earth has been heating up. the last five years were the hottest in recorded history.Again, I am not a few goofballs. There are plenty of people on my side, including nobel scientists...
Please get informed. This topic has been debated since 1990s. It is so easy and take the shortcut and let the experts handle it...
Except in this instance, there are very little experts.
Most of the climate scientists are clueless.
They are studying a narrow field and all they can say is the globe is warming. But they cannot say the cause is definitive.
It is that complex.
The solution is much more robust than just cutting down on fossil fuel.
I wish all who are claiming the flat earth society would just dig a little deeper as I have done. You are where I was 30 years ago.You are so smart. I'm very impressed. Most climate scientists are clueless? Who knew? I'll let them know.
You will have to read my hub and judge for yourselve...
No one want's read your junk if it contains as many errors as your forum posts, Jack. If they were worth a darn you'd have billions of views instead of your present numbers. Make sense to you? Of course not, people just do not recognize genius when they see it. Take me for example..
You are as delusional as your TDS...blinding you to the truth.
No skin off my back.
Time is on my side. With each passing year, mark my words, you and the rest of the climate change believers will be disappointed...
The world will not end in 12 years or 120 years or 1200 years... at least not due to global warming.
It may end due to our stupidity with wars or with an asteroids...
Why in the world would I, or any intelligent person, read your article on global warming when I can read the research of thousands of people who have spent their entire professional lives studying the subject?
Because you know more than the climate scientists?
That is the very definition of "goofball".Because unlike most of you, I actually attended their talks. I ask questions they can't answer...
They are clueless because they buy into the theory of the greenhouse effect, lock, stock and barrel. They don’t ask the right questions. When I pose to them the most basic questions, they have no answers.
What does that tell you?
I don’t know why you refuse to read a simple article. You spend more time arguing here. Why don’t you read what I discovered before knocking me down? I thought liberals are open to ideas? The big tent? And all that? Appparently you are just as close minded as the people you accuse others being.
Wrong on so many levels. The earth has had CO2 levels much higher than now in the distant past...
CO2 has been rising above 400ppm - granted.
However, the climate models have all projected much higher temperatures than recorded. Why?
The case of the missing heat.
That is what the whole climategate emails were about.
The scientists admitted privately among themselves that they don’t understand where the heat went...
That is when they came up with the new theory that the heat is stored in the deep oceans...No, CO2 in the atmosphere does not "heat the earth". The sun and radioactivity does that without any help from Carbon Dioxide, although it does prevent some loss of the heat already here.
The hottest in recorded history, yes. Of course "recorded history" is less than an eye blink in the history of the earth: even the entire life of homo sapiens isn't an eye blink in the grand scheme of things.
So you might want to mention as well that Antarctica once sported rain forests and the North Pole average temperature was in the 70's. Might mention that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is a quarter of what it has been in the past. Just to present the "whole truth", you know.
Don't confuse sarcasm with condescension, Jack. Spout all the nonsense you please, and don't mind us laughing at your silly statements. Just keep telling yourself everyone else is wrong and you're right. That's your comfort zone....
Here's more information for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74f7BSUhulk
Oh yes, and it bewilders me... Not to mention scarce me.
Don’t be scared. The world will be fine, with or without global warming.
The reason is simple. We are put here by God to be the good steward.
He will provide all we need to take good care of us and the animals and the environment.
With every aspect of science, I am convinced we are not here by accident.
Not evolution but by intelligent design.
Everything has a purpose and an order.Jack: How about all the severe weather that wipes out thousands of people globally every year and it is getting worse? I'm curious to know why God would ordain that? The seas are getting higher and coastal seaboards are not even safe anymore because of the severe weather? What is God's purpose and order of that?
Check out my hub on extreme weather of the past 200 years...
People have a short memory but fortunately, we have The old Farmers almanac...
Extreme weather is a fact of life.
We always had them since the dawn of time, remember the great flood...
To think we are causing these events is the height of hubris...Jack: Yes, but this is what you said about God: "He will provide all we need to take good care of us and the animals and the environment." In my view, he hasn't done that. So if he hasn't done that then why do we have all of these crisis?
To you it is a crisis but to God, which we have no idea of his intent, perhaps it is exactly what he wants. Did Noah know why he was building the Arc?
All I am saying God provided the animals and plants and the natural resources like fossil fuel for us to use.
When the right time comes, it will be replaced with the next big thing...
It is not up to us to decide to stop using fossil fuel just because it creates global warming based on human theory...Here is my article on extreme weather of the past...
“hubpages.com/education/Extreme-Weather-from-the-Past”
This proofs that we are not living in a extreme new world of global warming...if anything, we are probably going into a cooling cycle with the sun being inactive recent years.
Check out the sunspot cycle...it comes every 11 years...and they have been very quiet.Jack: What other kind of theory is there other than human theory? So it's up to God to decide when it is time to quit using fossil fuel? Didn't God create us so that we could make decisions on are own?
If you consider that man is part of nature, then whatever man decides is also natural. I like to think the universe is unfolding as it should and we are part of that natural order.
If it is proven that green house gas creates warmer temperatures, which in turn leads to global warming, which in turns leads to severe weather conditions, which in turn leads to catastrophes aren't we part of the process? It doesn't matter what happened millions of years ago. We are suffering the effects of it now. How about we quit using fossil fuel because renewable energy is more efficient than fossil fuel?Yes, you question is valid only if you believe we are causing the global warming...by using fossil fuel...
What if the earth is going through a natural warming cycle?
So far, we don’t have a viable alternative to fossil fuel.
Yes, solar and wind accounts for only 5% of our energy use.
What should we do in the meantime?
I was in China a few years ago, in the northern part. These people rely on coal which is cheap and abundant. If you stop them from using coal, what do you wnat them to do? Just die?
That is the problem with the Green New deal...
It is not realistic in 2019.
We have not found a viable alternative as yet. When that day comes, I will be on board.Jack: So, there are some people in the remote areas of China who are going to die because of coming off of coal. No one has said they have to quit using coal.
But you are not concerned about all the people who have died from severe storms caused by global warming. How are you going to know when that day comes when you can come off of fossil fuel? Will God tell you?
Have you ever thought that day has passed and it is already too late to take action that that will be effective. Your original comment stated that the left said we should be off of fossil fuel by 2030. That is about 10 years from now, you don't think technology will be such that we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, except for the people in China that you cited.
Is it really about a reliable alternative or just your reluctance to believe in global warming?
There are currently many car manufactures that are offering electric vehicles in many forms and they are all viable alternatives to using fossil fuels.The answer is simple. Just like in the 1900s when we went off using whale oil to light out lamps...
It is economics. When a new energy source, whatever that may be, solar, wind, fuel cell, becomes economically cheaper and better, then the world will naturally switch over. God does not need to get involved with the details. It is called economics.Jack: So it has nothing to do with whether you believe in global warming or not. It is all about the dollar (economics). It doesn't matter to you if severe storms have caused the deaths and/or displacement of thousands of people. It's all about economics? How about the economics of national emergencies of what we pay for "natural disasters" caused by global warming? All you are concerned about is cheaper energy.
It is not just about economics. It is about practicality. There are places in out globe that cannot live without fossil fuel. It is high and mighty for people in NY and SF and London and Paris to push green energy... they can affort it. I have a neice in LA that bought a Tesla for $90k. But most people do not have the luxury or resources to spend more money for energy use. The people in China rely their livelihood on coal. Without it, they probably would starve. Would you want to wish that on those people?
My main point is, I am a skeptic on human caused global warming. It is only a theory and yet to be proven. Until it does, I want to be sure we are responding with the right measure. There are many mitigation techniques to deal with it. Also, I don’t think it is that soon...we have some time to deal with this crisis...like decades. Who knows what could be invented to change our environment impact...?Jack: Let's face it. Most conservatives don't believe in global warming because it would cause companies to have to comply with regulations that would affect their bottom line. That is what this is about. So they do and say all kinds of things to deny global warming exists.
However, the effects of it are here and now whether you and others like it or not. You can say that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles and we are just a blip on the total scheme of things. But we are living in this blip right now. It doesn't matter what happened millions of years ago. The earth is getting warmer; the oceans are getting warmer and rising. There are more severe storms. More people are dying and being displaced as a result of all of these factors. This is not theory. It is fact. By the time you and others are willing to respond to it, the trends will continue and get worse.
Your idea of waiting decades is yours and others opinions, not scientific fact. Science is science and it is not politics, just ask the polar bears who are sitting out on the ice flows where there used to be solid ice. Physics doesn't work on economics. It works on science.I am an engineer by training and a self taught scientist. I read papers, attend technical talks and try to learn about the problem.
I don’t deny the earth is warming but I am a skeptic as to the cause. There are two causes, one natural and one man-made. I like to know what portion is man-made and what portion is natural? Simple question right, but no good answers... there are many examples of simple questions that climate scientist do not have answers for. They are basing their theory on the greenhouse effect. Yet, we know the climate is much more complex with many feedback loops plus and minus, and various cycles of different periodicity. The current models they have are incomplete. The projections all tend to err on the high side. Why is that?
Finally, even if it is human caused, and I am not convinced it is, the problem is with the proposed solutions. We rely on fossil fuel. It is impossible at this time to replace it with renewable energy. At best, we can do 10-15%. What about the rest? What do you want our 7 billion population to do? Revert back to the stone age?
The other thing is, we have time to mitigate. It is not as dire as they claim.
Look at the documentary by Al Gore. This movie is 10 years old. Go watch it again and tell me if the predictions made have come true.Jack: I beg to differ with you. It's not about eliminating fossil fuel. It's about moving away from the sea boards as these hurricanes become much stronger and take away more lives and property.
It's about setting up infrastructure like they have in Amsterdam where they have movable sea walls to protect them from massive severe storms. It's about moving out of forested areas where the increase in heat has killed all the trees and they have become fuel for massive wild fires. It's about torrential rains that create massive mud slides and take out properties and lives. it's about the mentality to protect ourselves from this phenomenon.
It's not about let's see what percentage is caused by man and what percentage is caused by nature before we do anything. Moving back to the stone age is what staying on fossil fuels is about.
Technology is about moving away from fossil fuel, not back to the stone age. There are electric cars, and trucks, hybrid cars, vehicles that run on CNG, solar panels for residences and businesses that all work and are very efficient.
We don't have to replace fossil fuel all at one time, but we have to move away from it. It's not just a coincidence that the increase in green house gases have increased in the last hundred years along with the increase in fossil fuel industries. All the charts I have seen show that to be the case.I agree with moving away from fossil fuel but at what time frame...is my problem. We have government coercion with tax credits giving $7500 to Tesla buyers. A car 40,000 with tax credit is not competitive, in my opinion. If and when in the future, an electric car can be made for the same price as a gas engine car, then the consumer will naturally choose that car and without the need of the tax payer paying for part of it.
This was how innovation works in the past. Why does our government need to get involved in choosing one technology over another?One need not buy a $40,000 Tesla to have an electric car: both Ford and Nissan sell them for around $30,000. Still a bit pricey, but not too bad. Biggest problem is the infrastructure just isn't there yet, particularly in the west where population densities are not high enough to justify the cost.
But above that, government very often chooses one technology over another and often subsidizes it. Probably the most common is the requirement to use sewer treatment or at least septic systems rather than throw human waste in the street as was done in ages past. How many towns/cities get federal help in building/improving their sewer treatment facilities?
My power company uses a federal grant to give away LED light bulbs, and another to help the poor insulate their home. I get a barrage of ads wanting me to take advantage of federal subsidies (30% of the cost) in installing solar cells.
Such things can be useful to help defray the enormous costs of both development and early sales where scale is still small.
My biggest problem is when these subsidies are only available to the well-to-do. The $7500 tax credit for cars, for example, is only available to those that pay high taxes - the poor or even lower middle class need not apply. The people that need it the most to purchase an electric car, in other words, cannot get it; only those that can afford it without help.I am with you there. If someone have money to buy a 90k Tesla, he should not get the tax credit.
I have a Toyota Prius V hybrid that gets an average of 43.6 MPG. It costs 35 K when new. It is four years old and we love it. I consider myself upper middle class poor.
Again, we don't have to move away from fossil fuels all at once. I live in the Los Angeles basin area. I can remember a few years ago that the basin was so filled with smog, you could barely see your fingers in front of your face. Since they raised the EPA standards and many alternate energy cars came on the market, there is hardly any smog anymore. It is not about an abrupt change it is about a trend.
This argument about how much green house gas is created by man compared to natural causes reminds me of the same argument for gun control. The only analytical way that can be determined is to measure before and after turning off those man made contributors to green house gases. Without doing that, there is not conclusive proof.
So we sit here and do nothing, just like gun control and wait for manna from heaven to solve the problem. In the meantime, the earth becomes hotter, the ice caps melt, the storms become more severe, people die and are displaced because of hurricanes and massive wildfires and mudslides wipe out entire communities. But who cares, because I don't know what percentage is created by man or by natural causes and million of years ago, the earth went through hot and cold cycles."In the meantime, the earth becomes hotter, the ice caps melt, the storms become more severe, people die and are displaced because of hurricanes and massive wildfires and mudslides wipe out entire communities."
You mean the earth continues it's 4 billion year cycle of periodic warming and cooling? And we don't step up and stop it?That is just it...the myth that everything is going south...which is not true. To be objective, you would have to go back 150 years and see what was the historical weather...and determine if we are in a worst situation. The truth is, we are not. The severity of storms for example have not gotten worst. In fact, the last 10 years, we have not had a category 3 or higher hurricane in the US mainland. The $ damage of recent storms has been tremendous but only because there are more people living near coastal areas. The same goes for flooding...and for temperature rise. If anything, there has been a pause of temperature last 17 years. The prediction by some scientists is we are entering a cooling cycle...due to the sun inactivity...
So who is being realistic?Saw yet another landslide in California last night on the news.
Don't build your home on or under a steep, loose slope and it won't be covered in a mudslide, rain or not. It really isn't that difficult to understand.And don't build near the coast because of the impending super storms caused by climate change.
Jack, I seriously doubt that the manmade global climate change folks will ever get the upper hand to the extent they need to impose their agenda. Too many people, not just in the States, won't buy into the "solutions" proposed by them.
"The latest green new deal is one example of common sense going out the window"
It would help if you listed which specific proposal(s) within it you are objecting to.All of them...getting rid of airplanes, refurbish all homes for energy efficiency, getting rid of fossil fuel in 10 years, high speed trains...
Solar and wind power...they don’t work and rhey are not for mission critical needs...". . . getting rid of airplanes . . ."
I missed that part. I saw the part that mentioned:
"overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible . . ."(1)
Can you tell me which part mentions "getting rid of airplanes"?
As for the rest, you object to all of it? So you object to the proposal to:
". . .create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;"
". . . invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;"
". . . secure for all people of the United States for generations to come:
(i) clean air and water;
(ii) climate and community resiliency;
(iii) healthy food;
(iv) access to nature; and
(v) a sustainable environment; . . ."(2)
You object to every single one of those things?
Do you not like jobs, investment in infrastructure, clean air and water etc? Do you consider those things bad?
(1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text
(2) ibidThere are few green jobs...look what happened during the obama admin. He loaned Solyndra 500 million and they went bust...
The government has no business picking winners and losers. Let the private sector develop the technology that will replace fossil fuel.
Once it is viable, the market will take care of it. I am a skeptic when it comes to climate change. There are cheaper and better ways to mitigate climate change.I don't think 2 million green jobs is a small number.
https://www.bls.gov/green/Where are they?
Look to Australia and Germany...where they have made great investment into renewable energy.
Guess what, they had to deal with brownouts...
Currently, wind and solar are just not reliable.
There is no good, reliable, cheap alternatives to fossil fuel. Even nuclear power has its limitations.
Hold on there Jack. Can we acknowledge that the section you interpreted as "getting rid of airplanes" in fact described "[removing] pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible" (my emphasis). So unless there is another section I missed, your reaction was based on misinterpretation.
That raises the question, how much more of your reaction is based on misinterpretation rather than what the resolution actually says?
"There are few green jobs..."
The resolution doesn't say otherwise. It expresses the desire to create them. That's pretty much the point. You may think it's not possible, but do you really object to wanting to create millions of jobs?
Also, government intervention in industry for the public good is a legitimate function of government. In fact it's a necessary function of government with an economic system that inherently favors maximum profit over wellbeing, even in situations where those two outcomes conflict.
"I am a skeptic when it comes to climate change."
Well no one's perfect, but why does that cause you to object to a measure calling on government to ". . . invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century". Surely you don't have to accept climate change to be in favor of investing in infrastructure and industry, do you?From the Green New Deal
“Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary,"
How can air travel stop being necessary? Read this again, this is on the Senate version Mitch McConnell wants to bring up for a vote.
Sorry, to think that high-speed rail can do away with air travel is idiotic.Not sure I want to pay for, or ride on, a train to Hawaii. Or even between Oahu and the big island.
I also have to wonder how freight trains will be powered. That's a LOT of electricity going down those rails!"Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary"
"Read this again, this is on the Senate version Mitch McConnell wants to bring up for a vote."
Neither the House, nor the Senate resolutions contain those words(1)(2).
Facts are important.
(1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text
(2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … on/59/text
Jack, this video is a serious evaluation of the Green New Deal. Relax and enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74f7BSUhulk
Jack, I hope you don't mind. I am going to add a fitting video to this discusson: Here it is-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9poCAuYT-s
The current sociopolitical climate brings this song to mind. This song is more relevant today than ever!Thank you, Jack. It isn't a video but a 1970s song describing the conditions of the world, especially the United States.
Jack, we have indeed entered the twilight zone of politics besides the climate change paradigm. Both parties have become...……….MORE EXTREME. There are conservatives who have become reactionary, even retrogressive in their stance as there are liberals who veered into the left, becoming even revolutionary. The American political world has gone......INSANE.
Related Discussions
- 166
Does Global Warming or Climate Change Really Exist?
by ThunderKeys 11 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
- 207
Can the Earth Survive Four Years of a Trump Presidency?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
- 129
49% of American believe climate change is a hoax or "aren't sure"
by Sychophantastic 8 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
- 322
Did you see this research on global warming??
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
- 52
Mars Also Undergoing Climate Change as Ice Age Retreats, Study Shows
by Kenna McHugh 3 years ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
- 32
is this new info. on climate change...?
by SparklingJewel 6 years ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide...