Green new deal equals magical thinking

[brenthutch 444]

34 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Interesting how people believe giving billions to rich people is good for the economy

I must have missed something, just when did we GIVE billions to rich people?  (other than Elon Musk and co)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I must have missed something, just when did we GIVE billions to rich people?  (other than Elon Musk and co)

When you reduce their tax obligation.

[brenthutch 444]

22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

When you reduce their tax obligation.

So we didn't give anybody anything, we just took less.  Given the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income tax and the bottom 50% pay 3%, that seems fair to me.  If you cut taxes, the tax cut will only go to the people who pay taxes.

[kallend 2,026]

32 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

When you reduce their tax obligation.

And when we turn a blind eye to their use of tax havens, and when we subsidize the corporations they own.

[DJL 235]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

On track for what?  Economic collapse?

Do you think there will be a better outcome if we make zero effort?  Currently we're in damage control mode and the faster we move the less damage is done.  I'm banking on your fear of Bernie or anyone's plan going too far so that you'll agree to a workable middle ground?  I see it purely as a bargaining chip to get Republicans off their asses to get there.  There are many things between any version of these GND pipe dream writeups and something written as a proposed law but I think you know which direction we're going.  Either get involved in something workable or you'll be left with something you don't like.

Edit: But this is all lip service because I'm sure you'll be back next week with some kind of chart lifted from another easily dismissible quack.

Edited August 23, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 444]

What damage are you talking about?  It has been well established that as fossil fuel use has increased death tolls from natural disasters have plummeted and that the increase in the cost of natural disasters is a direct function of economic growth and population growth, NOT an increase in the number, duration or magnitude of natural disasters.

Google my wacky claims and debunk them yourself it should be easy

Edited August 23, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

So we didn't give anybody anything, we just took less.  Given the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income tax and the bottom 50% pay 3%, that seems fair to me.

Sure you gave them a reduced obligation. Unless you believe people are never obligated to pay taxes?

So you are fine with taking less from the people ate the top. But you are not ok with giving more to get the people at the bottom paying more in taxes. Generally I prefer investing to get more over just taking off the top.

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure you gave them a reduced obligation. Unless you believe people are never obligated to pay taxes?

So you are fine with taking less from the people ate the top. But you are not ok with giving more to get the people at the bottom paying more in taxes. Generally I prefer investing to get more over just taking off the top.

I am all for helping the people at the bottom becoming productive citizens and contributing to the whole, that is why I was for tax breaks and deregulation.  This has resulted in a record breaking economic expansion, low unemployment (especially for minorities) and real wage growth.  You may want to join the conversation on my Trickle Down Works thread.   

[DJL 235]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What damage are you talking about?  It has been well established that as fossil fuel use has increased death tolls from natural disasters have plummeted and that the increase in the cost of natural disasters is a direct function of economic growth and population growth, NOT an increase in the number, duration or magnitude of natural disasters.

Google my wacky claims and debunk them yourself it should be easy

I'm going to say you're 100% right that there will be fewer collisions with sea ice in the future.  CONSENSUS!!!!  

[DJL 235]

24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What damage are you talking about?  It has been well established that as fossil fuel use has increased death tolls from natural disasters have plummeted and that the increase in the cost of natural disasters is a direct function of economic growth and population growth, NOT an increase in the number, duration or magnitude of natural disasters.

Google my wacky claims and debunk them yourself it should be easy

To continue, "damage" in the context of my post refers to the elevated air and ocean temperatures that are harming our ecosystem.  Simply put, there will be more cases of crop failure and coastal flooding than there will be benefits from the Sahara desert seeing more greenery.

[billvon 2,990]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What damage are you talking about?  It has been well established that as fossil fuel use has increased death tolls from natural disasters have plummeted  . . . 

 . . . and deaths from coal particulate pollution have skyrocketed.  The only reason they are declining now is because that evil, socialist EPA doesn't let coal power plants pollute as much as they used to.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I am all for helping the people at the bottom becoming productive citizens and contributing to the whole, that is why I was for tax breaks and deregulation.  This has resulted in a record breaking economic expansion, low unemployment (especially for minorities) and real wage growth.  You may want to join the conversation on my Trickle Down Works thread.   

Not really a conversation bud. It is a monologue with you ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. 

[brenthutch 444]

5 minutes ago, DJL said:

To continue, "damage" in the context of my post refers to the elevated air and ocean temperatures that are harming our ecosystem.  

There is no evidence of that, those are just guesses.  The evidence is that the increase in CO2 has INCREASED our crop yields and has NOT resulted in crop failure.

Not just in the cooler zones, here is India's corn production during the HOTTEST YEARS EVER!!!!!!!  Obviously some needs to let the corn know about global warming.

2001	13160	(1000 MT)	9.28 %
2002	11152	(1000 MT)	-15.26 %
2003	14984	(1000 MT)	34.36 %
2004	14172	(1000 MT)	-5.42 %
2005	14710	(1000 MT)	3.80 %
2006	15097	(1000 MT)	2.63 %
2007	18955	(1000 MT)	25.55 %
2008	19731	(1000 MT)	4.09 %
2009	16719	(1000 MT)	-15.27 %
2010	21726	(1000 MT)	29.95 %
2011	21759	(1000 MT)	0.15 %
2012	22258	(1000 MT)	2.29 %
2013	24259	(1000 MT)	8.99 %
2014	24173	(1000 MT)	-0.35 %
2015	22567	(1000 MT)	-6.64 %
2016	25900	(1000 MT)	14.77 %
2017	28753	(1000 MT)	11.02 %
2018	27800	(1000 MT)	-3.31 %
2019	29000	(1000 MT)	4.32 %

[brenthutch 444]

14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Not really a conversation bud. It is a monologue with you ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. 

Yes, there are some leading indicators the there may be some softening of our economy but CURRENTLY my stats stand.  Just like the global warming thing you guys point to guesses about the future and I point to cold hard facts.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

guesses about the future and I point to cold hard facts.

I have a hard time believing you meant to outline your faults in the discussions this plainly. But indeed, you refuse to apply any relevant historical data to predictions of the future. All you say is: today, today, today, today....who cares about the future, won't impact me. 

Your basic argument is: you cannot prove a negative, therefor I am right.

[brenthutch 444]

I take a look at CO2 levels and the historical trends in food production, deaths from natural disasters, life expectancy as well as the frequency, intensity and duration of climate related natural disasters and extrapolate the trend to arrive at my position.  How do you do it? 

[DJL 235]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

There is no evidence of that, those are just guesses.  The evidence is that the increase in CO2 has INCREASED our crop yields and has NOT resulted in crop failure.

Not just in the cooler zones, here is India's corn production during the HOTTEST YEARS EVER!!!!!!!  Obviously some needs to let the corn know about global warming.

I understand why you believe what you do in today's political climate.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/23/agriculture-department-climate-change-1376413

[brenthutch 444]

From your article:   bla bla bla potentially bla bla bla could bla bla Michael Mann's baseless assertions....I stopped reading.

Again I am showing PROOF that global food production has skyrocketed during the last two decades (the hottest ever according to some)  you point to an article about a guess of what may happen in the future. 

[DJL 235]

58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

From your article:   bla bla bla potentially bla bla bla could bla bla Michael Mann's baseless assertions....I stopped reading.

Again I am showing PROOF that global food production has skyrocketed during the last two decades (the hottest ever according to some)  you point to an article about a guess of what may happen in the future. 

Great, I'm not contesting global food production and the relationship that CO2 has on yield.  Are you saying that a historical trend brings you to the conclusion that an event will occur in the future?

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Great, I'm not contesting global food production and the relationship that CO2 has on yield.  Are you saying that a historical trend brings you to the conclusion that an event will occur in the future?

No, I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, unlike the warmists.  Not only do I look at food production, I also look at the aforementioned metrics of lifespan, climate related deaths and the trend (or lack there of) in climate related disasters.  Given the preponderance of the evidence, I see nothing to support the imminent existential catastrophe narrative.  Sorry but I just don’t.

[billvon 2,990]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, unlike the warmists.  Not only do I look at food production, I also look at the aforementioned metrics of lifespan, climate related deaths and the trend (or lack there of) in climate related disasters.  Given the preponderance of the evidence, I see nothing to support the imminent existential catastrophe narrative.

Nor do I.  Nor does anyone else see an "imminent existential catastrophe narrative" other than you.   Another BHutch strawman?  Looks like it.

Hey, if you can't argue the topic, keep changing the topic until you find one you can argue!

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Nor do I.  Nor does anyone else see an "imminent existential catastrophe narrative" other than you.   Another BHutch strawman?  Looks like it.

Hey, if you can't argue the topic, keep changing the topic until you find one you can argue!

Bill, I don't care if you are a moderator, if you want answers to questions Brent ignores you need to take a number and stand in line.

[brenthutch 444]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Nor do I.  Nor does anyone else see an "imminent existential catastrophe narrative" other than you.   

And you apparently 

“Looks like reasonable definitions.  Yes, they are imminent since some have already happened and more are expected.  Yes, they are catastrophic because they cause great damage and suffering. “

BillVon

but don’t feel bad, you have lots of company, just google climate change and “imminent existential catastrophe“ and you will be entertained for hours.

Edited August 24, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,990]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

And you apparently 

“Looks like reasonable definitions.  Yes, they are imminent since some have already happened and more are expected.  Yes, they are catastrophic because they cause great damage and suffering. “

BillVon

but don’t feel bad, you have lots of company, just google climate change and “imminent existential catastrophe“ and you will be entertained for hours.

I did:

Your search - "imminent existential catastrophe narrative" - did not match any documents.

No results found for "imminent existential catastrophe".

Time for a patented BHutch Backpedal!

[normiss 798]

57 minutes ago, billvon said:

I did:

Your search - "imminent existential catastrophe narrative" - did not match any documents.

No results found for "imminent existential catastrophe".

Time for a patented BHutch Backpedal!

Spelling helps.