KyussB wrote: » Media Bias Fact Check has direct links to a member of a propaganda think thank (it's founder, no less...) - what more do you need to know? Are you so gullible that you will trust someone who is a member of a think-tank that is proven to put out bullshit, as being an arbiter of truth? If it was the reverse situation - someone publishing e.g. climate change research which justifies immediate-action/alarm, with membership of a Soros-linked think-tank - you'd be all over it...you're a hypocrite, so long as it aligns with your rhetoric/views.
KyussB wrote: » Media Bias Fact Check has direct links to a member of a propaganda think thank (it's founder, no less...) - what more do you need to know? Are you so gullible that you will trust someone who is a member of a think-tank that is proven to put out bullshi, as being an arbiter of truth?
KyussB wrote: » Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1180104921678569473 Direct thread, here:https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1180000492707024897
KyussB wrote: » Here I am careful to point out that the Green New Deal is based upon a transformation of capitalism, to preserve capitalism from the effects of climate change - yet other posters accuse me of being the one to bring up communism, when it's always other posters accusing me of that... Face it: You lot don't support Capitalism, you support Oligarchy (which is anathema to true capitalism), and the preservation of the current order of fossil fuel oligarchs like the Kochs. I support Capitalism - and I provide the template, in the Green New Deal, that Capitalism needs to survive the threat of climate change (a threat which capitalism itself produces). Nobody has challenged the ideas I put forward - they only have ideological objections, not practical ones.There is no popular consensus that market solutions will arrest climate change fast enough, as you claim - cite that. 100% Green Energy is simply a matter of producing enough renewable energy production and storage - that still requires a lot of R&D to reduce rare-earth usage, before it's viable, but it's perfectly possible.Nobody has suggested a 100% Job Guarantee. Do some actual reading up on the JG - it's for providing jobs when the private sector doesn't want the unemployed.You accused me of engaging in alarmism and scaremongering earlier: That's precisely what you're doing with your 'hammer and sicle' bullshit. I'm more of a capitalist than you/others who object are - you lot support oligarchy, not capitalism.The Green New Deal supports massive investment in science - in a R&D program that is a couple/few orders of magnitude greater than what private industry can support. Calling that 'anti-science' is bollocks. Climate change denialism is anti-science.
KyussB wrote: » I'll make this current for posters again, seeing as it got drowned out in the last pages: Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1180104921678569473 Direct thread, here:https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1180000492707024897
lleti wrote: » It's all a massive plan to take power away from the Saudis and Russia. Not that I like Saudi Arabia or anything but the whole "save the planet" thing is just a cover so they take power back from SA.
Warren Buffett has admitted as much. In 2014 he explained: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate [. . .] We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit.”source
KyussB wrote: » I'll make this current for posters again, seeing as it got drowned out in the last pages: Predictably - given that the supposed climate change 'skeptics' on this thread, have a complete lack of skepticism towards the sources they shit out onto this thread, so long as it backs their rhetoric - the 'eat your babies' woman at the AOC town hall meeting, was a Trump supporter and member of the LaRouche cult:https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1180104921678569473
The movement originated in radical leftist student politics of the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of candidates, some with only limited knowledge or connection to LaRouche or the movement, ran as Democrats in the United States on the LaRouche platform.[1][2][3] In 1988, LaRouche and 25 associates were convicted on fraud charges related to fund-raising. The movement called the prosecutions politically motivated.source
Thelonious Monk wrote: » It amazes me how afraid you all are of having less money and lower standard of living. That is essential for a cleaner earth. How would you ever have survived in harder times in the past? And you call us pink haired folk snowflakes... Bring on massive carbon taxes and less money and stuff for everyone I say.
windy shepard henderson wrote: » Less money??? The biggest culprits at the moment in terms of climate changes are the 3rd world and far east,.... Not a good idea my friend
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Per capita we are some of the worst in the world. Less money means buying less crap.
windy shepard henderson wrote: » Climate change an ozone layers don't work on a per capita basis If you are destroying your eco system or mass polluting it does not take into account of your per cap basis..... So this argument makes zero sense
Pa ElGrande wrote: » About the LaRouche movement. It is the left wing eating its own.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Well we already destroyed our eco system and turned it into a giant cattle farm many moons ago.
windy shepard henderson wrote: » Ah no not another one...
KyussB wrote: » Here in Ireland, generally we just lump such groups - cults like LaRouche/Libertarians/etc., the likes of Gemma O'Doherty, extreme Marxists/anarchists etc. - all into the same 'loony' bin, rather than considering them a part of the political spectrum, as they all have more in common with each other than anyone actually involved with politics here.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » It amazes me how afraid you all are of having less money and lower standard of living. That is essential for a cleaner earth. How would you ever have survived in harder times in the past? And you call us pink haired folk snowflakes... Bring on massive carbon taxes and less money and stuff for everyone I say, if only to annoy the right wing loonies in this thread.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » The truth hurts