Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Old 01-31-19, 05:34 AM
  #1476  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53,733
Received 143 Likes on 106 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Been hearing that the fed offers up to $5/gal write-off for the fuel industry. In other words, the US is paying oil companies to make gas for vehicles. Technically, anything over $5/gal would not be written off. The closer to $5 you get...the higher the profits.
Old 02-05-19, 07:33 AM
  #1477  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 15,744
Received 317 Likes on 229 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

With wind chill considered, it's going to be 80+ degrees warmer today than it was last Monday.
Old 02-06-19, 01:49 PM
  #1478  
Psi
DVD Talk Legend
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,675
Received 117 Likes on 76 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Despite this week's weather in most of the country, and despite Trump's brain freeze, the world is warming. 2018 was the fourth warmest year. What about the other three years that were even warmer? They were 2015, 2016 and 2017.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2...g-to-nasa-noaa

2018 Fourth Warmest Year in Continued Warming Trend, According to NASA, NOAA

Earth's global surface temperatures in 2018 were the fourth warmest since 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Global temperatures in 2018 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.83 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. Globally, 2018's temperatures rank behind those of 2016, 2017 and 2015. The past five years are, collectively, the warmest years in the modern record.

“2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.

Since the 1880s, the average global surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius). This warming has been driven in large part by increased emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activities, according to Schmidt.


The different lines in the graph below are from various meteorological agencies around the world.


Old 02-06-19, 05:27 PM
  #1479  
DVD Talk Legend & 2019 TOTY Winner
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the 870
Posts: 21,694
Received 31 Likes on 26 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei View Post
Been hearing that the fed offers up to $5/gal write-off for the fuel industry. In other words, the US is paying oil companies to make gas for vehicles. Technically, anything over $5/gal would not be written off. The closer to $5 you get...the higher the profits.
at least we have a POtS who believes in science that can lead us away from depending on big oil
Old 02-07-19, 07:24 AM
  #1480  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 72 Likes on 54 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

As I've said before, the Green New Deal calls for a 100% elimination of fossil fuels, as well as a 100% elimination of nuclear power, all within the next 10 years.

While there are solar powered airplanes, they are extremely slow, and can't carry more than a very tiny amount of passengers or cargo.

However, this new article says they want to replace commercial air travel with high speed rail. It doesn't say how "high speed" the rail would be, but I don't think even the fastest high speed rail in Japan or Europe comes anywhere near close to approaching the speed of commercial air travel. I do know they are doing early research on air-free tubes that would allow trains far faster than commercial airplanes.

My own personal preference is for a simple, revenue neutral carbon tax, and then to let the free market respond to the tax in the best and most efficient manner possible. I think the Green New Deal is too complex and bureaucratic. and gives far too much power and control to the government.


https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/69199...w-deal-outline

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline

February 7, 2019

Whether it's a deadly cold snap or a hole in an Antarctic glacier or a terrifying new report, there seem to be constant reminders now of the dangers that climate change poses to humanity.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., think they have a start to a solution. Thursday they are introducing a framework defining what they call a "Green New Deal" — what they foresee as a massive policy package that would remake the U.S. economy and, they hope, eliminate all U.S. carbon emissions.

That's a really big — potentially impossibly big — undertaking.

"Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us," Ocasio-Cortez told NPR's Steve Inskeep in an interview airing Thursday on Morning Edition.

She added: "It could be part of a larger solution, but no one has actually scoped out what that larger solution would entail. And so that's really what we're trying to accomplish with the Green New Deal."

What is the Green New Deal?

In very broad strokes, the Green New Deal legislation laid out by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey sets goals for some drastic measures to cut carbon emissions across the economy, from electricity generation to transportation to agriculture. In the process, it aims to create jobs and boost the economy.

In that vein, the proposal stresses that it aims to meet its ambitious goals while paying special attention to groups like the poor, disabled and minority communities that might be disproportionately affected by massive economic transitions like those the Green New Deal calls for.

Importantly, it's a nonbinding resolution, meaning that even if it were to pass (more on the challenges to that below), it wouldn't itself create any new programs. Instead, it would potentially affirm the sense of the House that these things should be done in the coming years.

Lawmakers pass nonbinding resolutions for things as simple as congratulating Super Bowl winners, as well as to send political messages — for example, telling the president they disapprove of his trade policies, as the Senate did in summer 2018.

What are the specifics of that framework?

The bill calls for a "10-year national mobilizations" toward accomplishing a series of goals that the resolution lays out.

Among the most prominent, the deal calls for "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources." The ultimate goal is to stop using fossil fuels entirely, as well as to transition away from nuclear energy.


In addition, the framework, as described in the legislation as well as "FAQs" from Ocasio-Cortez's office, calls for a variety of other lofty goals:

"upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency;

working with farmers "to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions... as much as is technologically feasible" (while supporting family farms and promoting "universal access to healthy food");

"Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary";

A guaranteed job "with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security" for every American;

"High-quality health care" for all Americans.

Which is to say: the Green New Deal framework combines big climate-change-related ideas with a wish list of progressive economic proposals that, taken together, would touch nearly every American and overhaul the economy.

Are those ideas doable?

Many in the climate science community, as well as Green New Deal proponents, agree that saving the world from disastrous effects of climate change requires aggressive action.

And some of the Green New Deal's goals are indeed aggressive. For example, Ocasio-Cortez told NPR that "in 10 years, we're trying to go carbon-neutral."

According to Jesse Jenkins, a postdoctoral environmental fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, that may be an unreachable goal.

"Where we need to be targeting really is a net-zero carbon economy by about 2050, which itself is an enormous challenge and will require reductions in carbon emissions much faster than have been achieved historically," he said. "2030 might be a little bit early to be targeting."

Similarly, removing combustible engines from the roads or expanding high-speed rail to largely eliminate air travel would require nothing short of revolutionizing transportation.

Likewise, some of the more progressive economic policies — universal health care and a job guarantee, for example — while popular among some Democrats, would also be very difficult to implement and transition into.

On top of all that, implementing all of these policies could costs trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Altogether, the Green New Deal is a loose framework — it does not lay out guidance on how to implement these policies.

Rather, the idea is that Ocasio-Cortez and Markey will "begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution."

And again, all of this is hypothetical — it would be tough to implement and potentially extremely expensive... if it passed.

So did the idea of a Green New Deal start with Ocasio-Cortez?

Not at all.

While the Green New Deal has in the last year or so grown central to progressive Democrats' policy conversations, the idea of a Green New Deal itself is well over a decade old. Environmentalists were talking about it as far back as 2003, when the term popped up in a San Francisco Chronicle article about an environmentalist conference.

It gained traction with a 2007 New York Times column from Thomas Friedman, where he used the phrase to describe the scope of energy investments he thought would be necessary to slow climate change on a large scale.

The phrase was also used around President Obama's 2009 stimulus, which had around $90 billion worth of environmental initiatives.

While the idea gained some currency in Europe and also in the Green Party, it wasn't until after the 2016 election that it really gained broad popularity on the left in the U.S. (Vox's Dave Roberts has a more thorough history here).

This latest iteration is different both in the political energy that it has amassed and the grand scope it is taking. While it was a product of the progressive activist community, Ocasio-Cortez has been perhaps the most visible proponent of the plan, and has helped it gain nationwide attention.

So will it pass?

That looks unlikely.

Yes, there's some energy for it on the left — some House Democrats have already said they will support the bill. However, there are indications House leadership isn't prioritizing the idea as much as those more liberal Democrats would like — Speaker Nancy Pelosi frustrated Green New Deal proponents by not giving them the kind of committee they wanted to put the policies together.

In addition, it's easy to see how the bill could be dangerous for moderate House Democrats, many of whom come from swing districts and may be loath to touch such a progressive proposal.

Among Republicans — even those worried about climate change — the package, with its liberal economic ideas, will also likely be a nonstarter.

"Someone's going to have to prove to me how that can be accomplished because it looks to me like for the foreseeable future we're gonna be using a substantial amount of fossil fuels," said Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., co-chair of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, speaking to NPR before the Green New Deal's text was released.

For his part, Rooney is in favor of a carbon tax, a policy he helped propose with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in November. Information from Ocasio-Cortez's office says that the Green New Deal could include a carbon tax, but that it would be "a tiny part" of the total package of policies.

Meanwhile, there's little chance of a Green New Deal getting a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

If it's not going to pass and it's not even binding, why is it worth even talking about?

It's worth talking about because it already is a politically powerful idea among Democrats.

Already, presidential candidates are being asked whether they support the idea of a Green New Deal, meaning it's easy to see the issue becoming a litmus test for some voters in both the 2020 congressional elections and the presidential election.

To more liberal Democrats, the prospect of such an ambitious economic and environmental package at the center of the 2020 campaign may be particularly energizing.

"I think it's like a really weird instinct that the Democratic Party develops to not be exciting intentionally," said Sean McElwee, co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress. "Most of politics is getting people excited enough to show up and vote for you. And I think that a Green New Deal and Medicare for All — these are ideas that are big enough to get people excited and show up to vote for you."

For her part, Ocasio-Cortez says that a policy like the Green New Deal could get voters excited enough to pressure their Congress members to support it.

"I do think that when there's a wide spectrum of debate on an issue, that is where the public plays a role. That is where the public needs to call their member of Congress and say, 'This is something that I care about,' " she told NPR, adding, "Where I do have trust is in my colleagues' capacity to change and evolve and be adaptable and listen to their constituents."

That said, it's easy to see how a Green New Deal litmus test could backfire on that front, endangering some Democrats — particularly in swing districts.

But, it's not just about national politics. The national-level energy for a Green New Deal could boost efforts in cities and states. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for example, has been pushing a Green New Deal in his state.

Aside from the politics, of course, there's the fact that climate change remains an impending threat — one for which the world has yet to come up with a fix.

"It's a big legislation because it's a huge [expletive] problem! We're all going to die," said McElwee. "Every week it seems like the the risks of climate change become more real, and the amount of devastation it is going to wreak upon humanity becomes larger, and that means we have to do bigger things."
Old 02-07-19, 07:50 PM
  #1481  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 72 Likes on 54 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Here's an article from the Washington Post. My response is after it in this same post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...olutely-right/


Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.


January 24, 2019


Apparently all anyone has any strength or enthusiasm for is applying a literalism test on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s all-too-accurate warnings. She said recently that if we don’t start to address climate change aggressively right now, the world will end in 12 years. I know, let’s feign alarm that she has exaggerated instead of having genuine alarm about the genuine problem she is raising the red flags over.


Here’s another idea. Why don’t we apply the same exactitude of judgment on some other things that have been said about climate change? Here’s a sampler:


“Climate change is a hoax.” “The science is unclear.” “If there were warming, we’d see it.” “If we saw it, we’d do something.” “Maybe it’s cooling.” “It’s too soon to act.” “There’s nothing we can do.” “If this is climate change, I’ll take it!” “It’s arrogant to think humans could change the climate.” “It’s cold today, so climate science is wrong.” “Yes, there’s a problem but hardly a crisis.”


That last position is where the Washington consensus currently resides (President Sir Lies-a-Lot notwithstanding), and it is that position that is dangerously wrong, and what AOC is (correctly) fighting against. The last word on the subject from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not have been more dire.


We need to start NOW, to cut carbon emissions aggressively, or by 2030 we may have passed a tipping point beyond which the planet, and yes you people living on it, is in for a world of possibly permanent hurt. So let’s quibble that AOC said the world will end instead of the world as humans and current species have known it and depended on it will end, forever.


Meanwhile, your friendly corporations believe in climate change, all right. They are planning to bleed your last coins into their pockets selling you generators when the climate disasters wipe out your power grid.


Now tell me who is getting this crisis right and in your best interests.

Here's video of her saying those words:




And now here's my response to her prediction.

I know that manmade global warming is real.

I know that as we burn fossil fuels, we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this makes the atmosphere’s temperature increase.

I am not a denier of global warming.

But I am someone who rejects the ridiculous scaremongering that is going on regarding global warming.

I would now like to propose my own hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

My hypothesis is based on the following four scientific observations:

1) According to this article from Live Science, back when the dinosaurs were alive, carbon dioxide levels in the air were five times as high as they are today. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

2) According to this article from the BBC, back when the dinosaurs were alive, global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

3) According to this article from the Ontario Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Rural Affairs, the owners of commercial greenhouses deliberately pump extra carbon dioxide into the air inside their greenhouses. But this has not caused the world to end. On the contrary, it makes the plants inside the greenhouses grow better.

4) According to this article from NASA, humans’ burning of fossil fuels has caused an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. But the world did not end. On the contrary, the title of the NASA article is “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

So there we have four different real world examples – all verified by scientists – that show that having higher levels of carbon dioxide causes an increase, not a decrease, in plant life.

Animals eat plants.

And other animals eat the animals that eat plants.

Carbon dioxide is plant food.

Carbon dioxide if the bottom of the food chain.

Therefore, to repeat my hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

One of the great things that we learn from the scientific method is that if an event is based on science, then that event can be repeated. Given the four scientific observations that I have posted above, science tells us that having more carbon dioxide in the air makes things better for life, not worse.

Another great thing about the scientific method is that over time, we can find out if our hypothesis turns out to be true or false.

So all we have to do now is to wait 12 years, and we’ll find out who is right and who is wrong about the world ending in 12 years due to our emissions of carbon dioxide.
Old 02-07-19, 08:24 PM
  #1482  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 37,431
Received 475 Likes on 305 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

...but humans couldn’t survive in a prehistoric atmosphere. It’s not about the Earth “dying”...it’s about our cities getting covered in water and all of our crops failing.

Link

Lots of good info but here’s a relavent paragraph:

The issue here isn't so much suffocation. As Baxter points out, CO2 is toxic and can be lethal even when oxygen levels in the air are sufficient for us. So if CO2 ever reached over 15,000 ppm, we'd start to see the effects of CO2 poisoning, which begin with lightheadedness and nausea and may end with unconsciousness and death.

Last edited by Draven; 02-07-19 at 08:31 PM.
Old 02-07-19, 08:41 PM
  #1483  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 72 Likes on 54 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
...but humans couldn’t survive in a prehistoric atmosphere. It’s not about the Earth “dying”...it’s about our cities getting covered in water and all of our crops failing.

Link

Lots of good info but here’s a relavent paragraph:












1) True, but that's because the oxygen level was lower, not because the CO2 level was higher. Today the oxygen level is 20%. Back then it was 10 or 15 per cent. That's like being on a very high mountain, which most people can only tolerate for very short periods of time. I think some Sherpas live year round at that altitude.

OSHA has said that a CO2 level of 5,000 ppm is safe. The current CO2 level is our atmosphere is about 400, so the prehistoric level was about 2,000, which is still well below the OSHA limit.

Even if we burned all the fossil fuel, I don't think the CO2 level would get to more than what it was when the dinosaurs were alive, i.e., 2,000.

I agree that it would be the end of the human species if the CO2 level reached 15,000.

2) A higher CO2 level would be good for crops, not bad.

Last edited by grundle; 02-07-19 at 08:50 PM.
Old 02-07-19, 09:09 PM
  #1484  
Psi
DVD Talk Legend
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,675
Received 117 Likes on 76 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
1) OSHA has said that a CO2 level of 5,000 ppm is safe. The current CO2 level is our atmosphere is about 400, so the prehistoric level was about 2,000, which is still well below the OSHA limit.
You don't know what you are talking about in general, but the most ridiculous thing is that OSHA limit crap. It's been pointed out so many times that it doesn't apply here. When will you stop repeating it? Go breathe your CO2 and...
Old 02-08-19, 03:09 AM
  #1485  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
ultimaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Here's an article from the Washington Post. My response is after it in this same post:




Here's video of her saying those words:




And now here's my response to her prediction.

I know that manmade global warming is real.

I know that as we burn fossil fuels, we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this makes the atmosphere’s temperature increase.

I am not a denier of global warming.

But I am someone who rejects the ridiculous scaremongering that is going on regarding global warming.

I would now like to propose my own hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

My hypothesis is based on the following four scientific observations:

1) According to this article from Live Science, back when the dinosaurs were alive, carbon dioxide levels in the air were five times as high as they are today. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

2) According to this article from the BBC, back when the dinosaurs were alive, global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

3) According to this article from the Ontario Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Rural Affairs, the owners of commercial greenhouses deliberately pump extra carbon dioxide into the air inside their greenhouses. But this has not caused the world to end. On the contrary, it makes the plants inside the greenhouses grow better.

4) According to this article from NASA, humans’ burning of fossil fuels has caused an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. But the world did not end. On the contrary, the title of the NASA article is “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

So there we have four different real world examples – all verified by scientists – that show that having higher levels of carbon dioxide causes an increase, not a decrease, in plant life.

Animals eat plants.

And other animals eat the animals that eat plants.

Carbon dioxide is plant food.

Carbon dioxide if the bottom of the food chain.

Therefore, to repeat my hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

One of the great things that we learn from the scientific method is that if an event is based on science, then that event can be repeated. Given the four scientific observations that I have posted above, science tells us that having more carbon dioxide in the air makes things better for life, not worse.

Another great thing about the scientific method is that over time, we can find out if our hypothesis turns out to be true or false.

So all we have to do now is to wait 12 years, and we’ll find out who is right and who is wrong about the world ending in 12 years due to our emissions of carbon dioxide.
Great news for the dinosaurs I guess, but I'd think the rest of us however would agree that a return to a prehistoric climate could be considered, for us, the end of the world.
Old 02-08-19, 10:41 AM
  #1486  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurt D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,677
Received 277 Likes on 195 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

I get something like CO2 poisoning every time I enter the politics forum ...
Old 02-08-19, 11:13 AM
  #1487  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 37,431
Received 475 Likes on 305 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Kurt D View Post
I get something like CO2 poisoning every time I enter the politics forum ...
That's the methane that comes out of Trump's Twitter account.
Old 02-10-19, 11:57 AM
  #1488  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 72 Likes on 54 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Here's a link to NPR which shows a document for the New Green Deal: https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-New-Deal-FAQ

U.S. Congressional Representative Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) posted the same document on her official Congressional website, but took it down after a lot of people criticized her for wanting to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give "economic security" to people who are "unwilling to work." This is a link to the internet archive of the page of her official Congressional website that had the document. The text there is the exact same as the text on the NPR website: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...n-new-deal-faq

Despite this proof that Ocasio-Cortez wants to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give "economic security" to people who are "unwilling to work," her advisor, Cornell law professor Robert Hockett, claims that Ocasio-Cortex never supported those things, and that it's really just a rumor that was started by "Republicans." Skip to 1:06 in this video:



Furthermore, the Gataway Pundit (a right wing website that is one of my so-called "unreliable sources") published an article with this image of the metadata from the document, which proves that the document was created by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff:




Hockett is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. So I’m 100% certain that he is familiar with the laws against defamation. I hope that he will apologize to the “Republicans” that he falsely accused of lying about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s positions on the above issues.

Old 02-10-19, 01:00 PM
  #1489  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Cellar Door's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,706
Received 325 Likes on 199 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

^Thanks for the reminder that Tucker Carlson is a fucking idiot.
Old 02-10-19, 05:39 PM
  #1490  
Psi
DVD Talk Legend
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,675
Received 117 Likes on 76 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

The disappearing Marshall Islands. I am not sure who lived there during the age of dinosaurs, but maybe fairly soon, there won't be anyone living there so they won't matter anymore.


Old 02-11-19, 09:10 AM
  #1491  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 72 Likes on 54 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Cellar Door View Post
^Thanks for the reminder that Tucker Carlson is a fucking idiot.

Please quote what you consider to be the worst thing that he said in the video.
Old 02-11-19, 09:25 AM
  #1492  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 72 Likes on 54 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Psi View Post
The disappearing Marshall Islands. I am not sure who lived there during the age of dinosaurs, but maybe fairly soon, there won't be anyone living there so they won't matter anymore.



That's really sad - both about the damage caused by manmade global warming, as well as the damage caused by the U.S. using nuclear bombs.

It says the U.S. lets the people of those islands live and work in the U.S. I'd add that we should also give them all full U.S. citizenship. We should also give them financial compensation for their loss of land, which we could fund with a carbon tax.

Yes, Trump did indeed pull out of the Paris Accord. But that's just thousands of pages of bureaucracy and regulations. Also, the fact that they want the Paris Accord suggests that the Kyoto Treaty from more than two decades ago did not work. Why do they think the Paris Treaty would be any different than the failed Kyoto Treaty? I want something that actually works. What would work would be a carbon tax. Whatever you tax, you get less of. If you tax carbon, you get less carbon. I support a carbon tax.

Last edited by grundle; 02-11-19 at 09:53 AM.
Old 02-11-19, 09:38 AM
  #1493  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,823
Likes: 0
Received 72 Likes on 54 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Here's a link to NPR which shows a document for the New Green Deal: https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...n-New-Deal-FAQ

U.S. Congressional Representative Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) posted the same document on her official Congressional website, but took it down after a lot of people criticized her for wanting to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give "economic security" to people who are "unwilling to work." This is a link to the internet archive of the page of her official Congressional website that had the document. The text there is the exact same as the text on the NPR website: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207...n-new-deal-faq

Despite this proof that Ocasio-Cortez wants to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give "economic security" to people who are "unwilling to work," her advisor, Cornell law professor Robert Hockett, claims that Ocasio-Cortex never supported those things, and that it's really just a rumor that was started by "Republicans." Skip to 1:06 in this video:
Spoiler:



Furthermore, the Gataway Pundit (a right wing website that is one of my so-called "unreliable sources") published an article with this image of the metadata from the document, which proves that the document was created by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff:
Spoiler:




Hockett is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. So I’m 100% certain that he is familiar with the laws against defamation. I hope that he will apologize to the “Republicans” that he falsely accused of lying about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s positions on the above issues.

The Cornell professor must have read my post. He just admitted that he was wrong. Good for him.

Meanwhile, Huffington Post and Media Matters have chosen to ignore the forensic evidence from NPR and the internet archive. Shame on them.

Spoiler:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oca...illing-to-work

Ocasio-Cortez adviser admits he falsely claimed Green New Deal didn't promise security for those 'unwilling' to work'

February 10, 2019

A top adviser to New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has admitted that an official "Green New Deal" document posted by Ocasio-Cortez's office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those "unwilling to work" -- but not before he went viral in progressive circles for claiming the exact opposite, repeatedly, in an interview with Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Cornell University Law School Professor Robert Hockett, who counsels Ocasio-Cortez on environmental initiatives, challenged host Tucker Carlson when he quoted from an outline and list of "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) that had been posted on Ocasio-Cortez's official website. A similar version of the FAQ was also shared with NPR.

The FAQ and background materials from Ocasio-Cortez's website stated that the Green New Deal will provide "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work," and the FAQ sent to NPR also noted, "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."

Ocasio-Cortez's office removed the documents from her website amid an online backlash. A version of the FAQ that referred to "farting cows" is still available on NPR's website, and a similar version that was posted to Ocasio-Cortez's website is currently viewable on an Internet archiving service. Both versions of the documents describe providing economic security for those "unwilling to work," and state, "This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline" at a "scale not seen since World War 2."

Carlson asked Hockett at the outset of the interview: "Why would we ever pay people who are 'unwilling to work'?"

In a head-turning moment heard around the Internet, Hockett replied flatly, "Uh, we never would, right? And AOC has never said anything like that, right? I think you're referring to some sort of document -- I think some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating
. ... She's actually tweeted it out to laugh at it, if you look at her latest tweets. It seems apparently, some Republicans have put it out there. I don't know the details."

That was an apparent reference to a Thursday tweet by Ocasio-Cortez that criticized parody versions of the Green New Deal FAQ, including one that said, effective immediately, "males should urinate into an empty milk jug instead of a toilet." The parody versions cited by Ocasio-Cortez in the tweet did not contain any reference to providing economic security for those "unwilling to work."

"When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway," Ocasio-Cortez wrote, along with a picture of the parody version containing the urination reference.

Later in the interview, Hockett doubled down that Ocasio-Cortez's official FAQ did not include a reference to a guarantee of universal economic stability even for those "unwilling" to work: "Definitely not. That's erroneous. It's the wrong document. That's not us."

The exchange prompted a flurry of support for Hockett on social media among liberal audiences. The left-wing activist group Media Matters for America wrote in a widely shared post, "Watch what happens when Tucker Carlson steps outside the conservative media bubble and gets fact-checked on Green New Deal falsehoods."

But over the weekend, Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, admitted that the FAQ shared with NPR and posted on Ocasio-Cortez's website was genuine. Metadata from the document posted by NPR confirmed that Chakrabarti was listed as one of the authors of the FAQ.


“An early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn’t represent the GND [Green New Deal] resolution got published to the website by mistake,” Chakrabarti tweeted. “But what’s in the resolution is the GND.”

Both Chakrabarti and Ocasio-Cortez also referred supporters to a stripped-down resolution they formally introduced in Congress, which does not include the FAQ's language on universal economic support. The resolution is not a bill, and contains only broad language.

Hockett did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment Sunday, but in an email late Saturday to The Daily Caller, he admitted his error. (Media Matters for America, on the other hand, has not corrected its previous post.)

“It appears there was more than one document being discussed yesterday, only one of which I had heard about with any definiteness by last evening after a long day of media appearances – namely, the one referred to by the Congresswoman in her tweet,” Hockett wrote. “I regret that we seem unknowingly to have ended up speaking about different documents for a minute during our longer and otherwise ‘on-the-same-page’ conversation last night.”

On her Twitter account Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez herself acknowledged that a FAQ "got uploaded + taken down," without explaining or providing additional detail.

"There are multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around," she wrote. "There was also a draft version that got uploaded + taken down. There’s also draft versions floating out there."

Still, several media outlets praised Hockett and Ocasio-Cortez's handling of the situation. A headline from Business Insider read: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accidentally released a document that supported paying Americans 'unwilling to work,' and conservatives attacked her for it." The article did not provide support for its contention that Ocasio-Cortez's office had accidentally released the document.

And a report from The Huffington Post asserted that Carlson had been "fact-checked on his own show."

Meanwhile, Hockett appeared to compare Ocasio-Cortez's efforts to the classic novel "Ulysses," which author Virginia Woolf famously called a "memorable catastrophe."

"Literary historians can talk about pirated versions of Ulysses, discarded drafts, notes that Joyce wrote to himself, even his grocery lists," Hockett wrote. "But at some point shouldn't we start reading the actual book -- the huge game-changing work that got signed and published?"

The stakes are high not only for the liberal freshman, but also the Democratic Party at large. The Green New Deal plan, which calls for a massive package of big-government proposals including health care for all, quickly picked up the backing of major 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Cory Booker, D-N.J. -- who all co-sponsored the resolution.

“Our history is a testimony to the achievement of what some think is impossible — we must take bold action now,” Booker tweeted last week.

The White House appeared heartened by the Democratic contenders' support for the sweeping program.

"I think half the announced presidential candidates that are Democrats have supported this, although they aren’t really sure what it is," Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told "Fox News Sunday."

Mulvaney added: "The other half -- I don’t know where the Democrat Party is on this, I know where the Republican Party is, and by the way, it’s fun to be in a party that is united while the other is divided."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0eec79b23b3f3

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Gets Fact-Checked On Own Show Over Green New Deal

An adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez corrected one of the Fox News host’s misleading interpretations of the Green New Deal.


February 9, 2019

An adviser to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Friday night fact-checked Fox News’ Tucker Carlson to his face for peddling falsehoods about the Green New Deal being proposed by left-leaning Democrats.

Robert Hockett, a Cornell University law professor, explained how a claim repeated in the conservative media that the deal ― which aims to render fossil fuels obsolete by 2030 ― wanted to completely replace air travel with rail travel was incorrect.

Carlson noted that the deal proposes “building out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel would stop becoming necessary.” Hockett replied it was “apparently being misunderstood, right? We are really talking about expanding optionality here, we are not talking about getting rid of anything, right?”


“We are talking about basically making it cost-effective to move into more modern forms of technology, more modern forms of production, which would then enable people actually cost-effectively to transition to that stuff,” Hockett added. “We are not talking about requiring anything or prohibiting anything. That’s sort of 1980s-style environmentalism.”

Hockett explained how the aim was really to obtain carbon neutrality. “Then good, then I’m glad, it’s nice to have a smart person on the show to explain this,” Carlson replied, in a tone that some people on social media have suggested was sarcastic.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2...checked/222819

February 8, 2019

Watch what happens when Tucker Carlson steps outside the conservative media bubble and gets fact-checked on Green New Deal falsehoods

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): It says that the Green New Deal would, and I'm quoting, "totally overhaul transportation," and that would mean, quote, "building out high speed rail at a scale where air travel would stop becoming necessary." Hawaii Senator -- Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono responded to that by saying that would be hard for Hawaii. So, I don't think that's made up. The senator from Hawaii doesn't think it is --

HOCKETT: But -- no, no, no, but I mean -- it apparently its being misunderstood, right? We are really talking about expanding optionality here, we are not talking about getting rid of anything, right? We are talking about basically making it cost effective to move into more modern forms of technology, more modern forms of production, which would then enable people to actually cost effectively to transition to that stuff. We are not talking about requiring anything or prohibiting anything, that's sort of 1980's-style environmental.

Last edited by grundle; 02-11-19 at 09:46 AM.
Old 02-11-19, 11:07 AM
  #1494  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 71,383
Received 116 Likes on 78 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

AOC chat can go here now: https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-p...on-thread.html
Old 02-11-19, 03:05 PM
  #1495  
Psi
DVD Talk Legend
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,675
Received 117 Likes on 76 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Yes, Trump did indeed pull out of the Paris Accord. But that's just thousands of pages of bureaucracy and regulations. Also, the fact that they want the Paris Accord suggests that the Kyoto Treaty from more than two decades ago did not work. Why do they think the Paris Treaty would be any different than the failed Kyoto Treaty? I want something that actually works. What would work would be a carbon tax. Whatever you tax, you get less of. If you tax carbon, you get less carbon. I support a carbon tax.
If you want to talk intelligently about climate change, then go read up on the issues instead of obsessing about Ocasio-Cortez and her Green Deal, or repeating Trump administration lies.

- People from the Marshall Islands can already come to the US as permanent residents and legally work here. About 1/3 of them already have. But, even if they get financial compensation (and they don't now), there is nothing that can make up for their loss of homes and country when the entire place becomes uninhabitable.

- And that's the real damage of climate change, not that mankind will go extinct or the Earth will be totally under water. It's the effect of flood, fire, weather extremes, lower crop yield, all the things that didn't kill dinosaurs but yet are unsuitable for human living as we know it today. People have adapted to today's climate and built homes and businesses near coasts and rivers and forests. When environmental conditions change that affect their surroundings, that's how their lives are disrupted. They won't die, but they will lose homes and have their work and livelihood in jeopardy, much like the people of the Marshall Islands.

- The Kyoto Protocol failed. A lot of major carbon-producing nations did not participate for various reasons, including the US, Canada, China and India. I don't know how you can claim that it worked when carbon emissions continued to increase and global temperature rose even more rapidly than before. One big reason for those countries to not participate is that they didn't want to pay penalties applied if they didn't meet their reduction targets -- a kind of global carbon tax.

- That's what the Paris Agreement tried to fix, by still setting reduction targets but without imposing penalties in case of failure to meet. And even then our idiot President and many of his idiot followers still wanted out, because they thought it was a big hoax or didn't want to commit to any reduction.

So while I don't agree with Ocasio -Cortez on her Green Deal (and a lot of other things), in the big scheme of things she is irrelevant. Right now it's Trump who is killing the Earth and wiping out countries and our nature and environment.

Last edited by Psi; 02-11-19 at 03:12 PM.
Old 02-11-19, 03:54 PM
  #1496  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 25,215
Received 528 Likes on 378 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Psi View Post
- And that's the real damage of climate change, not that mankind will go extinct or the Earth will be totally under water. It's the effect of flood, fire, weather extremes, lower crop yield, all the things that didn't kill dinosaurs but yet are unsuitable for human living as we know it today. People have adapted to today's climate and built homes and businesses near coasts and rivers and forests. When environmental conditions change that affect their surroundings, that's how their lives are disrupted. They won't die, but they will lose homes and have their work and livelihood in jeopardy, much like the people of the Marshall Islands.
One of the hilariously dumb things Ben Shapiro said was along the lines of: IF global warming is really a threat, and the seas rise five or even ten feet, then no big deal! People can just sell their homes (homes that are or will be submerged under 10 feet of water permanently ) and move inland!

fake edit: I found it. What a fucking moron. Sadly, this man has not gotten any smarter since then.

Old 02-11-19, 03:57 PM
  #1497  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53,733
Received 143 Likes on 106 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Psi View Post
If you want to talk intelligently about climate change, then go read up on the issues instead of obsessing about Ocasio-Cortez and her Green Deal, or repeating Trump administration lies.

- People from the Marshall Islands can already come to the US as permanent residents and legally work here. About 1/3 of them already have. But, even if they get financial compensation (and they don't now), there is nothing that can make up for their loss of homes and country when the entire place becomes uninhabitable.

- And that's the real damage of climate change, not that mankind will go extinct or the Earth will be totally under water. It's the effect of flood, fire, weather extremes, lower crop yield, all the things that didn't kill dinosaurs but yet are unsuitable for human living as we know it today. People have adapted to today's climate and built homes and businesses near coasts and rivers and forests. When environmental conditions change that affect their surroundings, that's how their lives are disrupted. They won't die, but they will lose homes and have their work and livelihood in jeopardy, much like the people of the Marshall Islands.

- The Kyoto Protocol failed. A lot of major carbon-producing nations did not participate for various reasons, including the US, Canada, China and India. I don't know how you can claim that it worked when carbon emissions continued to increase and global temperature rose even more rapidly than before. One big reason for those countries to not participate is that they didn't want to pay penalties applied if they didn't meet their reduction targets -- a kind of global carbon tax.

- That's what the Paris Agreement tried to fix, by still setting reduction targets but without imposing penalties in case of failure to meet. And even then our idiot President and many of his idiot followers still wanted out, because they thought it was a big hoax or didn't want to commit to any reduction.

So while I don't agree with Ocasio -Cortez on her Green Deal (and a lot of other things), in the big scheme of things she is irrelevant. Right now it's Trump who is killing the Earth and wiping out countries and our nature and environment.
I'll focus on the bold. Obama signed on with the PA, which allowed two major countries (infamous for workers' rights violations and human rights violators) to continue fossil fuel manufacturing, while saying the US was somehow bad for wanting to do the same. Obama was clearly pandering to his base, apparently knowing they were naive and ignorant of anything going on outside the US, while he knew damn well China and India were going to increase their production of fossil fuels...allowed by the PA.

This is one of the major reasons why I continue to believe Climate Change, is just politics. And not science. It's pick and choose science, if anything.
Old 02-11-19, 04:17 PM
  #1498  
Psi
DVD Talk Legend
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,675
Received 117 Likes on 76 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei View Post
This is one of the major reasons why I continue to believe Climate Change, is just politics. And not science. It's pick and choose science, if anything.
Yeah you bolded the right thing.

And even then our idiot President and many of his idiot followers still wanted out, because they thought it was a big hoax or didn't want to commit to any reduction.
Old 02-11-19, 04:20 PM
  #1499  
Psi
DVD Talk Legend
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,675
Received 117 Likes on 76 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
fake edit: I found it. What a fucking moron. Sadly, this man has not gotten any smarter since then.
They are going to have to find a buyer of their homes more stupid than Shapiro, and that's the hard part.

Edit to add: To be fair to him, he is saying that you should sell your homes before they are submerged. Of course no one is going to buy after. Don't misquote him. He is not THAT dumb.

Last edited by Psi; 02-11-19 at 04:26 PM.
Old 02-11-19, 04:36 PM
  #1500  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 25,215
Received 528 Likes on 378 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Originally Posted by Psi View Post
Edit to add: To be fair to him, he is saying that you should sell your homes before they are submerged. Of course no one is going to buy after.
Yeah but... if it's going to happen, who's going to buy those houses before? Surely, nobody could be that clueless as to the completely terrible investment that would be...

Don't misquote him. He is not THAT dumb.
That's fair, and that's why I made an edit to that part of my comment in an attempt to clarify a little bit.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.