The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The title of this thread is: The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal. This is a specific piece of proposed legislation. The New York Times quotes from the text of The Green New Deal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/c...s-answers.html

The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.

You can pretend really really hard that the part I have bolded is science and not a political agenda if you want.

You can try to change the subject all you want, but you and others have been arguing that climate change is a hoax/schtick/lie. That it's "ridiculous."

You even said, "In a nutshell, this is what the whole man made global warming movement is all about." Not the "Green New Deal" but the whole man made global warming movement. You'd be telling a lie if you now want to claim you were only talking about the Green New Deal.

Originally Posted by Mark17

As far as all those organizations you list, that is what has been consistent in your posts.

Trying to change the subject again I see.

You said: "But the whole man made CO2 is cooking the planet schtick is at best, ridiculous, and at worst, a lie designed to frighten people, especially children, to push a socialist agenda."

I listed those organizations because I was curious as to which are simply ridiculous and which are pushing a socialist agenda. Those are your words. So, which are ridiculous and which are pushing a socialist agenda? You seem to be an expert on ferreting out people's hidden agenda.

Originally Posted by Mark17

You keep referring to other peoples' opinions, rather than thinking for yourself.

Don't forget, I'm just a sheep. Not a single original thought by me in this entire thread. When I refuted your bad math earlier I luckily found a website that had already refuted your post. Saved me from having to think for myself. Also, I'm surprised that you would value my opinion over the opinion of people who actually work in the field of climate change.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Had you been my classmate in 6th grade, in 1970, you, like me, would've been afraid of global COOLING, because that's what all those scientists were insisting was happening. And people who didn't believe them then were stupid.

Since you didn't go back to post 49, let me post it again:

Who's "they?" Not the scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0...8FA33&index=37

An excellent paper in the American Meteorological Society (2008)

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...2008BAMS2370.1

A couple highlights:

"One way to determine what scientists think is to ask them. This was actually done in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the eastern United States. "Collectively," the 24 eminent climatologists responding to the survey "tended to anticipate a slight global warming rather than a cooling" (National Defense University Research Directorate 1978)."

A survey was done on literature published in the '70s. The survey looked for "papers projecting climate change on, or even just discussing an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales from decades to a century." It found 71 papers. "The survey identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming." The other 20 were neutral. Six times as many scientists in the '70s were predicting warming versus cooling.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Somehow you, and they, are able to conveniently forget all the times they have been so dramatically wrong with their predictions, while insisting their NEXT predictions will be right. So far, they just never are.

Who is this "they" that "have been so dramatically wrong with their predictions"? And, what were their predictions?