Co-Founder of Greenpeace RIPS Ocasio-Cortez: “Pompous Little Twit… You Would Bring About Mass Death”

I brought it up because I generally agree with your point. OTOH, there is good reason for government to have stepped in to divide up the Spectrum.

 

I did not see this response until now. Thank you for pointing it out in a subsequent response. I do not assume that I have the ability nor the inclination to possess such an answer. That's my entire point. The answer itself doesn't exist in the mind of a single person. Problems like this are solved by the success and failure of many thousands of attempted solutions. It's not something that's directed. It's not an answer at the back of a text book. The solution evolves as the problems evolve. The attempts made by the few to force the course of this process in specific directions only do so at the peril of the system. AOC has no clue how to solve this problem. No one in congress has the answer. To accept that they should be the ones to decide how this problem is solved is putting your faith in false gods. The problem isn't solved theoreticly. It has to be tested in practice. And the only way that happens is when individuals are free to innovate on their own.

The premises of your question rely on an understanding of the system that you do not have. All energy is subject to entropy. None of it is "renewable." Something is always consumed. So don't tell me that wind is "renewable" because the turbines that we build to harvest it are not. Solar is not renewable because the panels that we use to convert it are not. Beyond that, how the heck can you possibly know what consequences could arise from removing energy directly from the ecosystem on the scale needed to match the energy density of our current fossil fuel usage? The system is far too complex for you to even begin to guess. People running around with their hair on fire because they believe the solution to man's unnatural effect on the climate is to literally redirect the energy of the sun and the wind need a little bit of perspective on the hilarity of their proposition.

 

You yourself said it: Cannot be overcome. So, what are we even arguing over? Do you think spending meaningless billions on a problem that we can't overcome is a good use of our funds? Let's celebrate living while we can live.

 

Yes. The realist position is that fossil fuel use saves and improves far more lives right now then ever could be possibly saved by not using fossil fuels right now. World poverty has been cut in half in just the last 20 years. That's an astonishing accomplishment owed directly to the energy provided by fossil fuel use.

There's no comparison between that reality, and the proposed eventuality based on climate sensitivity models that have provided questionable accuracy.

 

When someone bucks the established dogma and starts speaking reason, they are labeled deniers. He quit Greenpeace because they became something unrecognizable to the founding.

 

Oh, you forgot to mention renewable energy. They just cut down 3,500 acres of trees in PA for a solar installation.

 

No, it would not be prudent to "take any steps necessary".

Steps are already being taken to replace fossil fuels and people have been working for years on alternatives. Having AOC establish laws to hurry up the process, or prevent people and supplies from moving about, will only exasperate any problems which might exist and create chaos in the country. Don't support this idiocy just because you may share the same political persuasion.

 

I think send her to one of the African townships or squatter camps for a winter.... her eyes will burn and she will choke on smoke from cooking fires that covers the area for kilometres and kilometres, maybe then she will understand.

 

I agree that no energy source is truly renewable. After all, the sun will stop shining in 10 billion years. However, that is a un-imaginable time on the tie scale of human life and civilization. 100 years of fossil fuel use, in which we have used up half or more of the reserves, with the low hanging fruit picked a long tome ago, is merely a blip on the time scale of humanity.

The problem is bot complex and simple. The simple part: We need the energy from fossils to survive and eat. Humankind currently acts like an introduced species from a biological perspective. An example is deer introduced to St. Matthews Island. The deer population had no natural predators and an almost limitless food source, lichen (the analogy of humans stumbling through luck upon oil). Their population grew explosively with exponential math -- until all the lichen was consumed. Then the deer all died.

Humans on Easter Island is another example. Population grew and used up trees at a faster rate than they grew back. Eventually, mass die off occurred because of lack of trees. Maybe there was a discussion there on the merit of saving trees, but my guess is people didn't want to listen, just as people are not listening to calls of saving oil.

From that perspective, my fear is that humans, in a large group, are not any smarter than deer or bacteria growing in a culture dish, they will grow until the resources are used up, and then die.

The positive thing is that humans DO HAVE the ability to do something about it. The advantage is that some of us realize the scale of the problem that we face. Yet, their voice are dismissed.

I agree, the problem is complex. Never before have we moved from an superior energy source to an inferior one. I also agree that the problem will need millions of people thinking about solutions. The free market, however, may or may not provide the solution, it only looks at profit. As I said, relying on the free market to save our behind is like believing in the tooth fairy.

We actually know what we need to do: Start saving energy, diversify the energy supply, invest in EVs, (the electric engine has >90% efficiency vs. 30% of the ICE), invest in energy storage research, invest in building materials to build net 0 energy homes etc. All these things are well known and can be done today without a loss in the standard of living.

 

I don't care what AOC says or does. I care about the future of my children and their children.

 

You can't be serious? Is that the responsible conservative position? Let's live life while we can, who gives a cr%p about the future? I know I am going to die, so lets just borrow money like no tomorrow and spend it with full hands on wants. How does that sound? See a little problem there with that analogy?

 

So you do think man can control the climate as if we have a giant thermostat that liberals can set wherever they want

 

Acorzo is a certifiable moron and it is a good thing she isn't 35 years old yet or the other morons who can't think past the idea of getting more free stuff from the government would vote for her in droves.

 

Which is exactly what AOC proposes we do, except her of course.

 

Quote
Quantum Nerd said: ↑
That's all fine. Then how DO YOU propose to produce the food for a growing world population based on mechanized agriculture when fossil-based fuels become too expensive? Is it smart to have the world food supply rely on a NON-RENEWABLE energy source, half of which we have used up in a mere 100 years?

That won't happen. If battery powered vehicles ever truly catches on, which I doubt, it'll drive the price of fossil fuels lower.
How do you propose to distribute food when there won't be any planes, trains and semis. A railroad across the oceans AOC says, and you believe her.

 

From the green new deal:

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in — (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

I do not see a proposal to go back to the stone ages. I see proposals to attain a more sustainable and clean future economy by promoting energy savings, efficiency, renewable energy technology and reducing pollution. None of those mean that living standards have to decrease. Heck, Germans consume roughly half the energy per capita than US Americans, yet, their living standard isn't any less.

What we do know, however, is that when fossil fuels run out and there are no alternatives, WE WILL go back to the stone ages, and many people will starve in the process.

 

What won't happen? Do you think fossil fuels won't run out?

 

There are no more cheap seats for tax payers.

 

Has she released her tax returns?

 

No, I think we can INFLUENCE the climate. You seem to think we can just pump billions of tons of a trace gas that strongly influences climate into the atmosphere and it will have no effect because the atmosphere is big.. The Earth is big compared to us as individuals but when you look at the effects of 7 billions of us they are more than significant. Look at satellite photos of all the lights there are on Earth at night if you think humans can do nothing to effect the whole planet.

 

He may be one ot those conservatives who thinks we are in the "End Times" Let's not worry about anything because we're all going to be raptured up to meet Sweet Jesus at any minute.

 

Fossil Fuels have done well by us and I think they have a place in the future but it is as a chemical storehouse. We produce just about all of the things that surround us from a handful of metals and the literal plethora of petroleum products. If and when we ever actually do run out of petroleum is going to be a sad day indeed, when we realize we have burned up our own future.

The Industrial Revolution has run through several fuels, we started with wood, moved on quickly to coal and are now using mainly coal and petroleum, all in just a little over 200 years. I don't see any reason why we should have a huge problem in seamlessly moving on to sustainable fuels and can't really understand what all the fuss is about.

 

No I think nothing of the kind. Stop spouting straw man absurdities, it's becoming tedious.

 

If we radcally reduce fossil fuel use it may or may not end global warming

But there is no doubt it will reduce our standard of living

 

I don't believe the transition presents any insurmountable problem either, that is if it's let to occur naturally. The problem arises when small groups of people impose the risk associated with the development of new technologies on to society as a whole. It does this by forcing people to "invest" in investments that they would not normally chose to support. There very well may be valid reasons to support such investment, but if this is so, then these reasons should stand on their own as viable arguments without being compelled by force. The very fact that they must be forced proves that there are many reasons to believe such investments are unwise. Thus, all forcing people to invest in something does is subsidize failure. It prevents people from choosing which types of risk they want to bear personally, and inherently steals resources from new unproven ideas that have the ability to succeed.

People like Quantum Nerd are unabashed in their desire to force people to use inferior technologies in place of superior technologies. He as much as came right out and said it.

Society does not benefit by replacing superior fuel sources with inferior ones. Just look at the way people that espouse these ideas behave in practice. Al Gore doesn't bike to the climate summit. He takes the superior mode of travel. AOC doesn't take public transit. She has a chauffeured SUV. They all wear clothes made from plastics, own products made with modern machinery, and purchase goods that were shipped across the planet using the fuels they believe to be dangerous. The people who make these arguments don't act out in the world the way they demand others to act because their demands are not reasonable.

Beyond that, small groups are incapable of determining for society as a whole which fuels are superior and which are inferior. Small groups suffer from the local knowledge problem. They simply cannot make effective decisions for everyone as a whole, because they cannot know what each local group knows about how and why they use fuel the way they do. The only way a superior fuel can be determined is through the many decisions made by the people that actually use that fuel. AOC has no clue how farms use fuel. AOC has no clue how factories use fuel. AOC has no clue how the transmission of information requires the use of fuel. AOC has no clue how energy is transported from one location to another. She has no clue how it's produced. She has no clue how it's stored.

And yet she concludes that she needs to lead a revolution to destroy and rebuild this entire system in order to solve a problem that she has no clue about. If that's not a recipe for disaster I don't know what is.