Stevieluvsye wrote: » Greta ain't no scientist although in her fcuked up brain she probably thinks she knows better than the scientists
lola85 wrote: » It’s excellent. Put her back in her box.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » F*cking sad, it really is. I'm so glad she gets under all you fella's skin though.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Good man.
Tell me how wrote: » Not with that attitude. There is absolutely no reason why cycling infrastructure in Galway, Limerick, Dublin should not aim to mimic what has been done in dutch cities. None of those cities could be considered mountainous and even Cork wouldn't be beyond feasible. This was Amsterdam in the 1970's versus more recently. It's the same street.
Stevieluvsye wrote: » FTR My comment wasn't based on her disease just on the general ****e she comes out with everytime she opens her mouth
Doctors room ghost wrote: » There isn’t one fcuker in Galway using the coca cola bikes.another waste of money.all shapes for the first month and nobody using them since.a small novelty for the eco sheep that wasn’t long going off them. They should land them out to Galway metal and crush them.they are an eyesore rotting in their expensive stands. The novelty of cycling around in the p1ssing rain wasn’t long grounding a few of the dreamers
KyussB wrote: » . . . You only have ideological objections to this - you don't have any actual arguments against it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjkOrQLs5QY The video above features Achim Steiner promoting the Green New Deal in 2009. Back then, it was promoted as a solution to save the economy; now, it is promoted as a solution to save the climate. In both instances, its sole purpose has been to inject growth into a global economic system on the verge of collapse. The main difference today is that the Green New Deal encompasses the assigning of monetary value to nature. This will transform the global financial system itself, bringing into existence a new financial accounting system which has taken well over a decade to refine. The Green New Deal is essentially a Trojan horse for the ultimate corporate coup of the commons.source
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Last time i was in galway it was one giant traffic jam. An absolute nightmare. Are you ok with that
Doctors room ghost wrote: » . . .same crowd wouldn’t work in a fit
KyussB wrote: » As I said: No actual arguments against it.
gozunda wrote: » Oh yes there is :pac: And not just me saying that... The light in the distance isn't a beacon to mark your way - it's a juggernaut with no driver heading straight at you ...https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/11/the-problem-with-the-green-new-deal
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Excellent article from which, a quote:Unless governments can come up with policies to slow global warming, climate change will make life extremely unpleasant for mankind. To prevent a 1.5°C increase temperature relative to pre-industrial times, greenhouse-gas emissions would probably need to be halved by 2030 and brought to zero by 2050.
Pa ElGrande wrote: » The Manhattan projects goal was to produce the atom bomb which destroyed the lives of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...*snip* Massive government funding means either massive taxation, borrowing inflation and rationing or a combination of all of the above. *snip* Are you really that naive that you think launching a war on carbon production is not going to kill lots of people? *snip* There is a reason the green slime is pouring money into the NGOs supporting these green campaigns, they see an opportunity to get rich via wealth redistribution on taxpayer funded subsidies.
gozunda wrote: » Well exactly. You do not have to be accused of being a "denier" to point out much of what is being pushed as the 'solution' is actually bollux.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » It's an opinion piece. So it's opinion. I agree with the piece I quoted. I also agree with this: "...a carbon tax, subsidies for nuclear-power generation, an increase in research funding for carbon-capture and carbon-storage, to name a few."To "name a few" implies other remedies and there are much more required. But this opinion piece is a wonderful example of why nothing of importance will happen. The writer attacks the Green Deal. And the Green Deal people will attack people like the writer. And Donald will attack Greta and Greta will attack Trump. And useful idiots will pretend that climate change doesn't exist. So no consensus will be achieved. Which is why debates such as this thread are just ways of passing time pleasantly.
Professor Moriarty wrote: Excellent article...
KyussB wrote: » Why do you shite random YouTube videos into every post, that nobody watches?If a video makes an argument you want to put forward - then why don't you just put it in your own words, instead of wasting peoples time?Manhattan Project TLDR: In terms of an R&D project, amazing success. None of the other ramblings around it are relevant here, so I'll ignore them. Government funding TLDR: Funding the GND is not a problem - Libertarians are always scaremongering about inflation - going to extremes like rationing etc. is not needed. 'War' on Carbon Emissions TLDR: Economic growth is not inextricably tied to carbon emissions - there's enough energy hitting the planet at every moment to continue with economic growth for centuries, by developing the right tech. The idea of a GND killing poor people is bollocks - not having a GND however, will kill poor people, as the changing climate is going to decimate crop production in lower latitudes, i.e. predominantly where poor people live.'Green Slime' TLDR: What's more likely - a tiny green energy industry with very little influence, being able to mount a giant conspiracy which captures politics and business, usurping the oil industry - or the fossil fuel industry with demonstrated political/business influence/clout going back well beyond a century, which already has control over politics/business and much of our economies, is trying to crush an environmental movement that will end their power?The one thing that is worth noting on that last point, is that there will certainly be attempts to hijack the Green New Deal, to redirect it away from government-led efforts for R&D and arresting carbon emissions - and into NeoLiberal-style solutions to arresting carbon emissions, that are predominantly market-based and doomed to fail. The latter is not what the GND envisaged by AOC/Sanders, and environmentalists in general, is about.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Is there anything to argue about? At present it is just a promise of rainbows and unicorns for everybody with no indication of how this could be achieved. End the fossil fuel industry and all ancillary industries, transport, aviation, plastics etc. Employ all those replaced by the revolution Retrofit all buildings and transport Oh and end economic and racial inequality. Pie in the sky.
Matt Barrett wrote: » When computerisation became the norm hundreds of thousands lost jobs. That was progress, tough s***, move on.Meant more profits you see. Now we've to worry about oil riggers losing work so f*** the environment? It's all down to money. It shouldn't be, but it is. The US is owned by corporations and so too are many nations beholden to them, so it's not going to be easy, if it happens at all.
Eric Cartman wrote: » but computers increased productivity, lowered costs and had a massive environmental saving. All of humanity benefitted from that except those who lost their jobs, but thankfully could retrain as something better. We currently don't have anything better and cheaper than oil, aviation etc... when somebody comes up with something truly better then I'm sure we'd all just gladly make the switch, like the computer.
gozunda wrote: » Oh yes there is :pac: And not just me saying that... The light in the distance isn't a beacon to mark your way - it's a juggernaut with no driver heading straight at you ...https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/11/the-problem-with-the-green-new-deal Here's some more ...https://spectator.org/whats-really-wrong-with-the-green-new-deal/https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/green-new-deal-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-progressive-environmentalism/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/15/the-trouble-with-the-green-new-deal-223977
Matt Barrett wrote: » That's my point Eric. The cry of 'Cheaper', is the problem. What will we do when the oil runs out, give up, go live in a cave? I doubt it.
Eric Cartman wrote: » At the moment these green issues and resolutions are like finding a cure for a disease that only impacts the third world but the cure costs 50,000 dollars a go. If its not accessible to where its needed then it may aswell not exist outside a research lab at all. until you have a solution for energy, transport etc... that is as cheap and as productive as oil we shouldn't be sanctioning oil or trying to put an end to it. Give a real viable alternative and the oil industry will fall into the ground by its own hand.
Stevieluvsye wrote: » Can you share linky please? Can't find it online.
