Here’s why AOC is a political powerhouse

[JohnLarue]

I am not professing my love for socialism. You guys only deflected there because when republicans are not comfortable with their issues they start deflecting on what could be worst so we accept living in mediocrity. Basic manipulation. You guy are getting old in terms of strategy. Thats why kids are not interested in politics and thats how AOC are bringing them back.

Basic manipulation.

You might consider giving that a real hard, sober, second look
Ask your self who is promising everything you want while ignoring the reality of physics, economics, resource limitations and basic human nature ?
There is a cost (and not just monetary cost) for everything in life

Thats why kids are not interested in politics and thats how AOC are bringing them back.

Have you considered the implications of a whole generation of kids being influenced by a moron and an ideologue?

 

[Josephine Grey]

It is easy to believe there is an emergency and to care about
our children and grand children. To live in an emergency is another
matter. Bill Gates believes in climate change and wrote a book on
how to avoid a climate disaster. And yet just last month the guy
invested a huge amount of money in a private jet company in
a multi-billion dollar deal. Not a surprising move for someone
to take pleasure in flying a private jet like Gates though. People can
see the climate consequences of their action and still carry on with
that action.

Let me make it clear that I never said there is no emergency
and that what you said is wrong. I just have doubts people,
climate change believers and deniers included, are eager to
adapt their lifestyle to a real emergency.

I agree. For someone who has been raised without limitation like, I am sorry, the babyboomer, it is hard to change an habit. However my little sister is 10 and if I put my trash at the wrong place she will let me know. Let's not underestimate what the new generation can accomplish and focus on that. Bill Clinton is not eternal.

This thread is derailing because of me. Sorry I am out.

 

[JohnLarue]

Should I point everything self-cancelling and contradictory about Mr. Donald Trump sir? I mean! We are bugging on a few details if you want to starts doing this we wont be done tomorrow.

She is a force to be reckoned with, lets just admit it and move on.

Donald Trump is a nasty mean spirited man who was never suited for the office

There is a cost for everything in life and the price we are going to pay for four years of Donald Trump will be high
It does not however, have to be socialism as that is a slippery slope to disaster


It is astounding how many people do not even bother trying to defend her intelligence , but instead throw out another politicians name as an unfavorable comparison

Donald Trumps disagreeable personality does not make the moron AOC any smarter

She is a force to be reckoned with,

Do you not see the problem when a moron and an ideologue is a forced to be reckoned with?

 

[Josephine Grey]

You might consider giving that a real hard, sober, second look
Ask your self who is promising everything you want while ignoring the reality of physics, economics, resource limitations and basic human nature ?
There is a cost (and not just monetary cost) for everything in life



Have you considered the implications of a whole generation of kids being influenced by a moron and an ideologue?

Have you considered the implications of a whole generation of kids being influenced by a moron and an ideologue?

yes lol they break in the Capitol to save the democracy.

 

[JohnLarue]

It is easy to believe there is an emergency and to care about
our children and grand children. To live in an emergency is another
matter. Bill Gates believes in climate change and wrote a book on
how to avoid a climate disaster. And yet just last month the guy
invested a huge amount of money in a private jet company in
a multi-billion dollar deal. Not a surprising move for someone
to take pleasure in flying a private jet like Gates though. People can
see the climate consequences of their action and still carry on with
that action.

Let me make it clear that I never said there is no emergency
and that what you said is wrong. I just have doubts people,
climate change believers and deniers included, are eager to
adapt their lifestyle to a real emergency.

A reasonably balanced view
That is constructive

One suggestion though
deniers ????
Denier implies someone who does not acknowledge the horrifying reality of the atrocities the Nazis committed

A more appropriate term for a totally unrelated discussion (climate Change) might be "skeptic"
Real scientific discovery has historically been driven by people who have a skeptical nature

On the flip side
climate change "believers" maybe less offensive than alarmist & is likely more contusive to civil discussion
So credit to you for that choice

I use alarmist a lot, so yeah a bit hypocritical of me

 

[oil&gas]

Point taken. Alarmist is a better term to distinguish me
from what people refer to as climate change believers.
Actually I am more like a believer than denier as I do
believe the climate has always been changing.

The label alarmist might require some qualification.
Climate change alarmists often seek to alarm other
people primarily for political purpose only. So long
as you don't support the conservatives and the
Green Party and would vote only for Trudeau you
are on the same side with them.

 

[Archer2012]

In the context of my post, anyone who makes lots of money by profiting off other peoples work. In Marx' term, capitalists.

Unearned pay, i.e. investment income and company profits should be taxed higher than salary.

I surely hope you don’t shop at Wallmart.

 

[Archer2012]

The point at which the average person goes from paying the bills to getting ahead is about $70,000 in income. Thats per adult in a household.

Personally I think at 5 times that they hit rich. And at 10 million assets they hit wealthy. There is a difference imo.

I like your math and your reasoning.

 

[danmand]

Your post did not give any context other than the wealthy should pay for everything. They actually do pay for the most part more than their fair share. How discriminatory is it that just because someone had the wherewithal to work harder to get ahead theshould pay more taxes % wise than someone who is just happy with an existence - we all use the same electricity grids , same roads, same Hospital care etc.

Regarding Profit: The whole World is basically based off of profit. There would be no medicine, no creature comforts , you would not have a computer or phone or tablet to be on this forum without it.
There are those who invent or invest or “think bigger picture” - then there are those who for the most part are happy to “punch the clock” and carry out the “duties”.
I’m talking here in Civilized Countries , other parts of the world - child labour etc. is and should be a crime. Wallmart their biggest customer.

This could go on and on as it’s GLOBAL in scope and profit (in some form or another) has gone on since the beginning of mankind.

Please understand just how much more in taxes the wealthy pay percentage wise than the average person. Years ago when I started my first business - my line of credit became a dot - one more month and I would have lost everything. For over twenty five years I have employed many people through my drive, my vision, my willingness to invest and take chances. And absolutely Yes my Staff (whom I treat very well). However when they are done their workday they are done. Some people, that works for them. Myself throughout my career - I know no hours - early mornings / evenings / weekends etc.

While I do “ok” and why shouldn’t I - of every dollar I make and what I realize for after tax $$$ (between making and spending) I might keep 30 cents on the dollar OF MY SALARY.


Regarding wealthy and profit : I truly hope you don’t shop at (support) Wallmart ect.

Don’t get me started on Wallmart (ahhh shit I started) the worst predatory marketing machine out there. Killing “small town America” - getting rich off of the masses that are at / below poverty line. However all the “lemmings” flock to Wallmart and help boost their profits. “The lowest price is law” should be criminal - however most can’t see past the end of their noses as to what the ramifications are of “lowest price” - effects all the workers / workings from the raw goods to the product “the lemmings” grab off of Wallmart shelves.

Listen, I believe you have worked hard and employed many people. So have I.

I just believe in a progressive tax system and higher taxes on un-earned income than on salary income.

You must also be aware that most rich people have not become rich by working hard, but by inheritance, which is something I believe should be taxed here in Canada.

People in countries with Social Democratic systems work just as hard or harder to create companies, as here, even with a progressive tax and inheritance tax. I bet you that both of us wanted to create something, not just become well off.

 

[Archer2012]

Listen, I believe you have worked hard and employed many people. So have I.

I just believe in a progressive tax system and higher taxes on un-earned income than on salary income.

You must also be aware that most rich people have not become rich by working hard, but by inheritance, which is something I believe should be taxed here in Canada.

People in countries with Social Democratic systems work just as hard or harder to create companies, as here, even with a progressive tax and inheritance tax. I bet you that both of us wanted to create something, not just become well off.

I hear ya, however I don’t know that I agree with inheritance tax though - tax by the laws of the land was already paid on that money. I never inherited a penny - made it on my own.
Much larger convo, If we could get our Gov to stop wasting $$ , giving away $$ (when we don’t have any as a Country). Career politicians etc. that collect for life when they hardly work etc. So many flaws and waste one would have to “start anew” to fix.

 

[JohnLarue]

yes lol they break in the Capitol to save the democracy.

Good one
Perhaps I should have been more specific and identified AOC as the moron and ideologue in question

You dismissed this pretty quickly
"Donald Trumps disagreeable personality does not make the moron AOC any smarter"

So to clarify
The implications of AOCs influence on young kids will be be far more devastating and long lasting than the protest on capital hill

Do not take democratic rights for granted

 

[JohnLarue]

Point taken. Alarmist is a better term to distinguish me
from what people refer to as climate change believers.
Actually I am more like a believer than denier as I do
believe the climate has always been changing.

The label alarmist might require some qualification.
Climate change alarmists often seek to alarm other
people primarily for political purpose only. So long
as you don't support the conservatives and the
Green Party and would vote only for Trudeau you
are on the same side with them.

Believe me the term denier is far more offensive than alarmist

Nobody is denying climate changes , always has, always will
Has man had an influence.? That is possible
How much influence can a 0.01% physical change (Natural or otherwise) in atmospheric composition have ?


Perhaps far more illuminating is asking why an alarmist / believer had taken their position ?
90% of the time the answer is blind faith in what the IPCC / media has presented

The flip side question why a denier / skeptic has taken their position ?
90% of the time the answer is because they were skeptical and investigated further and found a lot of "pseudo science" has been misrepresented as science-
50 years of failed climate predictions is most certainly another reason for skepticism

It is a scientific question, which has become politized and unfortunately true scientific debate has been intentionally shut down.
If one is truly confident in their position, why the need to shut down debate?

 

[Valcazar]

LOL! Horses still have their uses.

Riding either would be fun.

 

[Valcazar]

The harsh reality is we are in an environmental political emergency.

True. Any kind of collective action problem is by definition a political isuse.

You can tell Johnny LarRue is serious because he uses memes.
(https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098 <-- that's the actual paper he is citing there since for some reason he didn't want to link it directly.)

It is called the Beer Lambert law
the relationship between the absorption of electromagnetic radiation and concentration is a logarithmic one
ie diminishing returns with incremental increases in Co2

Yes. This is true. Your Wijngaarden & Happer paper argues that CO2 and H2O are both already basically at saturation levels.

That is why they say the following about doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere:

The surface warming increases significantly for the case of water feedback assuming fixed relative humidity. Our result of 2.3 K is within
0.1 K of values obtained by two other groups as well as a separate calculation where we used the Manabe water vapor profile given by (87).
For the case of fixed relative humidity and a pseudoadiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere, we obtain a climate sensitivity of 2.2 K.
The corresponding climate sensitivities determined by other groups differ by about 10% which can be expected using slightly differing temperature and water vapor profiles.

So in the end they seem to come down on the low end of AGW models, which tend to put the climate sensitivity between 2-4.5.
In other words this paper appears to argue that yes, increasing CO2 is going to increase the earth's temperature.

The Stefan - Boltzmann law also does not support AGW

Why do you think that since it is fundamental to how most AGW models are presented?

 

[squeezer]

True. Any kind of collective action problem is by definition a political isuse.



You can tell Johnny LarRue is serious because he uses memes.
(https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098 <-- that's the actual paper he is citing there since for some reason he didn't want to link it directly.)



Yes. This is true. Your Wijngaarden & Happer paper basically argue that CO2 and H2O are both already basically at saturation levels.

That is why they say the following about doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere:



So in the end they seem to come down on the low end of AGW models, which tend to put the climate sensitivity between 2-4.5.
In other words this paper appears to argue that yes, increasing CO2 is going to increase the earth's temperature.



Why do you think that since it is fundamental to how most AGW models are presented?

Oh my, has Johnny been busted? LOL

 

[wigglee]

She's one of the dumbest people in politics.

Her left tit has more brains than Trump.

 

[JohnLarue]

Oh my, has Johnny been busted? LOL

Nope
I have Valcarez on ignore, I had to figure what you were referring to
well done for him, Valcarez can read through and understand a very technical paper
credit is due, where credit is due

It is kind of ironic to find an alarmist using William Happer's paper to try and discredit me
William Happer has been repeatedly attacked and all efforts made to smear him by alarmists
William Happer's position on CO2 is that we are currently in a Co2 drought and CO2 is plant food and will help feed a growing population,
William Happer's position is Co2 is not a problem and there are lots of other environmental issues which are more pressing

Alarmists quoting William Happer's paper ?????.....Too funny

That paper confirms the logarithmic relation between concentration and absorbance ie diminishing returns with each incremental increase in Co2,, i.e. saturation as I have stated many time's

Co2 does absorb infrared radiation, I have been quite clear about that

The Stefan - Boltzmann law, is important because it
1. shows CO absorbs at only 16% of the wavelengths in he infrared spectrum
2. shows almost all the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs are also absorbed by water vapor,
Water vapor is 10 to 100 times more abundant than CO2,

Wijngaarden & Happer paper's climate sensitivity estimate is half of the RCP 8.5 scenario , which makes all the difference in the world
This confirms why the IPCC models have constantly overshot reality as I have stated many time's


The RCP 8.5 scenario estimate is the one used for all the doom and gloom propaganda projections which have been force feed to the world
The RCP 8.5 scenario estimate also predicts the

1. acceleration of third world economic activity
2. while also predicting the same countries become uninhabitable wastelands at the same time. A physically impossibility

Here is a little tidbit Valcarez left out about the models' including lWijngaarden & Happer,. As they state:

These calculations considered the case of a clear sky one dimensional atmosphere in radiative-convective equilibrium.

No clouds !
Clouds can not be modeled properly
Have you ever felt suddenly cooler when clouds float by?

The jet stream, ocean currents, and wind turbulence are just few of the other parameters which can not be modelled properly

CO2 is not the control knob for climate

 

[Valcazar]

It is kind of ironic to find an alarmist using William Happer's paper to try and discredit me

Irony can be pretty damn ironic sometimes.

William Happer's position on CO2 is that we are currently in a Co2 drought and CO2 is plant food and will help feed a growing population,
William Happer's position is Co2 is not a problem and there are lots of other environmental issues which are more pressing

This is, in fact, William Happer's public position.

Alarmists quoting William Happer's paper ?????.....Too funny

You quoted it. I engaged with it. I'm sorry that taking you seriously and actually engaging with the paper you chose to cite upsets you.

That paper confirms the logarithmic relation between concentration and absorbance ie diminishing returns with each incremental increase in Co2,, saturation as I have stated many time's

Which no one disagrees with. I certainly don't and neither do climate scientists.
The question is entirely about where we are on that curve and what that means.

The Stefan - Boltzmann law, is important because it
1. shows CO absorbs at only 16% of the wavelengths in he infrared spectrum
2. shows almost all the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs are also absorbed by water vapor,
Water vapor is 10 to 100 times more abundant than CO2, as I have stated many time's

Also something every climate change scientist agrees with.

Wijngaarden & Happer paper's climate sensitivity estimate is half of the RCP 8.5 scenario , which makes all the difference in the world
Confirming why the IPCC models have constantly overshot reality as I have stated many time's

Is your entire argument just that RCP 8.5 is not the likeliest scenario?
Because yes, I agree, even if I think Happer hasn't proven his case with his paper.

Here is a little tidbit Valcarez left out about the models' including lWijngaarden & Happer, as they state:
These calculations considered the case of a clear sky one dimensional atmosphere in radiative-convective equilibrium.

What do you think that implies in the paper given what they themselves write in their discussion and conclusion?

CO2 is not the control knob on climate

This one paper doesn't actually make a compelling argument against that.

 

[nottyboi]

She is awesome, her passion, energy and intelligence make her hotter!!!

 

[nottyboi]

I hear ya, however I don’t know that I agree with inheritance tax though - tax by the laws of the land was already paid on that money. I never inherited a penny - made it on my own.
Much larger convo, If we could get our Gov to stop wasting $$ , giving away $$ (when we don’t have any as a Country). Career politicians etc. that collect for life when they hardly work etc. So many flaws and waste one would have to “start anew” to fix.

So what if it has been taxed already? Income is taxed how many times? Its taxed when you earning, taxed when you spend it etc etc. A cap should be put on anyones tax free inheritence. You can maybe inherit up to 3-500K tax free, everything beyond that is taxed at 50% You can also gift money to someone, but that is added to the inheritance total. Of course the tax lawyers will come up with all sorts of tricks to avoid this, but the law should state, any changes in ownership structure or transactions executed to avoid taxes will result in a 3x punitive penalty and possible confiscation of the entire estate as well as criminal prosecution of the lawyers.