Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing”

Saikat Chakrabarti is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff.

On July 10, 2019, the Washington Post published the following: (the bolding is mine)

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.

It’s been said before by libertarians and conservatives that the environmental doomsayer movement is like a watermelon – green on the outside and red on the inside. Chakrabarti’s statement verifies this claim.

In the 1970s, environmental doomsayers referred to their alleged upcoming environmental apocalypse as “overpopulation.” In the 1990s, they called it “global warming.” And now in the 2010s, they are calling it “climate change.” In all three of these cases, the environmental doomsayers have claimed that the only way to prevent these alleged environmental disasters from happening is to have the government take control over properly, resources, energy, the economy, jobs, and the means of production.

Chakrabarti’s statement proves what many of us libertarians and conservatives have known all along: for many of its participants, the environmental doomsayer movement is just an excuse to massively increase the size and power of government control over everyone and everything.

July 14, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Communism, Environmentalism. 1 comment.

Little girl does awesome impersonation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

https://twitter.com/THeinrich22/status/1119422809183330304

April 20, 2019. Tags: , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Economically illiterate New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg, who supports the Green New Deal, said she didn’t notice when thieves charged more than $11,000 to her credit card

Michelle Goldberg is an opinion writer for the New York Times. She is in favor of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. In a recent column, Goldberg wrote:

“Warren, of course, will also be good on climate, and she has endorsed the idea of a Green New Deal put forward by Democrats like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”

In the same column, Goldberg displayed her own economic illiteracy when she explained that she never looks over her monthly credit card statement, and that it was only when her husband looked at it that she found out that a corrupt and fraudulent bank had been charging her hundreds of dollars per month, for years, for a total of more than $11,000. She wrote:

“A few years ago, when I was self-employed and had recently had my second child, my husband went combing through my credit card statements, looking for tax deductions that I’d missed. I’m financially disorganized at the best of times, and with a baby and a toddler, I was barely even trying to keep track of my business expenses. So it’s not surprising that I hadn’t noticed the hundreds of dollars of weird recurring bank charges that my husband discovered.”

“It turned out I’d been signed up for a dubious program that purported to protect users’ credit in certain emergency situations. My bank had been accused of fraudulent practices in connection with it and fined $700 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the government agency that was Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild. I tried, maddeningly, to seek redress from the bank — cycling through phone trees, screaming at automated operators. No one could tell me how I’d been enrolled in the program, or for how long.”

“Eventually, I turned to the C.F.P.B. itself, filling out a simple form on its website. A few weeks later, I was notified that the bank had been deducting money from my account for years, and I was being refunded more than $11,000. Having financed my own maternity leave, I badly needed the money.”

The fact that Goldberg never looked over her monthly credit card statements, and that she hadn’t noticed this theft and fraud, proves that she is economically illiterate.

And it’s that same economic illiteracy that causes Goldberg to support the Green New Deal.

Even the supporters of the Green New Deal admit that they don’t know where the money to pay for it is going to come from.

In September 2018, CNN published this transcript of a conversation between Ocasio-Cortez and CNN correspondent Jake Tapper, where Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly refused to answer Tapper’s questions about where the funding for the Green New Deal would come from. Here are their exact words:

TAPPER: Your platform has called for various new programs, including Medicare for all, housing as a federal right, a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public college, canceling all student loan debt.

According to nonpartisan and left-leaning studies friendly to your cause, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or the Tax Policy Center, the overall price tag is more than $40 trillion in the next decade.

You recently said in an interview that increasing taxes on the very wealthy, plus an increased corporate tax rate, would make $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

So, where is the other $38 trillion going to come from?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, one of the things that we need to realize when we look at something like Medicare for all, Medicare for all would save the American people a very large amount of money.

And what we see as well is that these systems are not just pie in the sky. They are — many of them are accomplished by every modern, civilized democracy in the Western world. The United — the United Kingdom has a form of single-payer health care, Canada, France, Germany.

What we need to realize is that these investments are better and they are good for our future. These are generational investments, so that not just — they’re not short-term Band-Aids, but they are really profound decisions about who we want to be as a nation and as — and how we want to act, as the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

TAPPER: Right. Now, I get that, but the price tag for everything that you have laid out in your campaign is $40 trillion over the next 10 years.

I understand that Medicare for all would cost more to some wealthier people and to the government and to taxpayers, while also reducing individual health care expenditures.

But I’m talking about the overall package. You say it’s not pie in the sky, but $40 trillion is quite a bit of money. And the taxes that you talked about raising to pay for this, to pay for your agenda, only count for two.

And I — we’re going by left-leaning analysts.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Right.

Well, when you look again at, again, how our health care works, currently, we pay — much of these costs go into the private sector. So what we see is, for example, a year ago, I was working downtown in a restaurant.

I went around and I asked, how many of you folks have health insurance? Not a single person did, because these — they were paying — they would have had to pay $200 a month for — for a payment for insurance that had an $8,000 deductible.

TAPPER: Yes.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: What these represent are lower costs overall for these programs.

And, additionally, what this is, is a broader agenda. We do know and we acknowledge that there are political realities. They don’t always happen with just the wave of a wand. But we can work to make these things happen.

And, in fact, when we — when you look at the economic activity that it spurs, for example, if you look at my generation, millennials, the amount of economic activity that we do not engage, the fact that we delay purchasing homes, that we don’t participate in the economy and purchasing cars, et cetera, as fully as possible, is a cost.

It is an externality, if you will, of unprecedented — unprecedented amount of student loan debt.

TAPPER: So, I’m assuming I’m not going to get an answer for the other $38 trillion.

So that’s the relevant part of the conversation between Ocasio-Cortez and CNN correspondent Jake Tapper.

You can see their conversation here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CWUgPWRhxU

Supporters of the $40 trillion Green New Deal have already said where $2 trillion of its price will come from. But when Tapper repeatedly asked Ocasio-Cortez where the other $38 trillion was gong to come from, she repeatedly refused to answer him.

Perhaps Ocasio-Cortez could charge that $38 trillion to Michelle Goldberg’s credit card.

April 7, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Economics. Leave a comment.

U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) talks about the Green New Deal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK27NZon11w

March 29, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Idiots who support bans on fracking and restrictions on new pipelines say it’s “unexpected” that New York has a shortage of natural gas

One of the most simple and basic signs of intelligence is the understanding that actions lead to consequences.

In New York, some people are showing a basic lack of understanding of this concept.

In New York state, fracking is banned, and new pipelines have been prohibited in certain locations. The natural and logical outcome of these policies is that the state has a shortage of natural gas. Developers who had been planning to build new housing will not be allowed to hook up the new housing to receive natural gas.

Despite this obvious action-reaction event, the New York Times just reported that this inability to hook up these proposed new homes for natural gas is “unexpected.”

Here are the exact words as reported by the New York Times: (the bolding is mine)

YONKERS – Across the suburbs north of New York City, clusters of luxury towers are rising around commuter rail stations, designed to lure young workers seeking easy access to Manhattan. In all, 16,000 apartments and condominiums are in the works in more than a dozen towns, along with spaces for restaurants and shops.

But the boom unfolding in Westchester County is under threat — not from any not-in-my-backyard opposition or a slumping real estate market.

Instead, it is coming from something unexpected: a lack of natural gas.

Con Edison, the region’s main utility, says its existing network of pipelines cannot satisfy an increasing demand for the fuel.

As a result, the utility has taken the extreme step of imposing a moratorium on new gas hookups in a large swath of Westchester, including for residential buildings planned in Yonkers, White Plains and New Rochelle.

But is this shortage really “unexpected”?

Not for anyone who understands that actions have consequences.

The same article states:

There is an ample supply of natural gas in the United States, but opposition to building or expanding interstate pipelines has caused delivery challenges in the Northeast, according to industry officials.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo lives in Mount Kisco, a town included in Con Edison’s moratorium, and wants the state to move away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy, like wind. He has banned fracking, a process to extract gas from shale rock, and two years ago his administration rejected a major interstate pipeline project, saying its construction would endanger wetlands.

A person would have to be a complete idiot to support these bans and restrictions, while simultaneously being surprised that there’s a shortage of natural gas.

All of this reminds me of this scene from the movie Casablanca:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to end the use of fossil fuels over the next 10 years. I’d be curious to hear whether she supports or opposes letting the developers of this proposed new housing in New York hook up the housing to receive natural gas.

March 21, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 1 comment.

TEDx Talk: Michael Shellenberger explains why nuclear power is cleaner, safer, cheaper, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly than solar power and wind power

This 18 minute TEDx Talk by Michael Shellenberger is one of the best pro-nuclear power, anti-solar power, anti-wind power arguments that I have ever heard.

He cites a huge number of statistics to show that compared to solar power and wind power, nuclear power is far better for the environment, far cleaner, far better for animals, far safer for humans, far more reliable, far cheaper, and has a far smaller environmental footprint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w

March 14, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. 2 comments.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she doesn’t recycle her plastic bags because her city’s recycling program is too “tough” for her to understand

On February 24, 2019, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted a live video on her Instagram account where she was talking about different political issues while peeling and cutting sweet potatoes.

A guy named Gob Abierto posted several different excerpts from that video in a string of tweets at this link, which has since been deleted. I watched a bunch of those excerpts before the tweet string was deleted. The internet archive has a copy of the same tweet string at this link, but it doesn’t include the videos.

One thing that I remember from watching the excerpts is that Ocasio-Cortez tosses her plastic grocery bags and her sweet potato peelings into the same garbage can, which means that she didn’t recycle the plastic bags, and she didn’t compost the sweet potato peelings.

She also complained that they give her 10 plastic bags every time she goes to the grocery store.

She also said of plastic bags:

“I wish they didn’t exist.”

But no one forced Ocasio-Cortez to accept those plastic bags at the grocery store.

Millions of other Americas use reusable grocery bags that are made of materials other than plastic.

I’d be curios to hear Ocasio-Cortez explain why – if she hates plastic bags so much that she “wishes they didn’t exist” – she brings home 10 additional plastic bags every time she goes to the grocery store, instead of using the reusable, non-plastic bags that millions of other Americans use.

Here is a different video where Ocasio-Cortez says a similar thing. She states: (skip to 0:20)

“I can be upset that I get 10 plastic bags at the grocery store, and then have to toss out my plastic bags because the recycling program in the area is tough.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1EybnxYzKk

I think it’s incredibly hilarious and extremely hypocritical that someone who wants to hugely inconvenience everyone else by having the government embark on endeavors as gargantuan as banning fossil fuels, banning nuclear power, getting rid or airplanes, stopping cows from farting, and retrofitting every building in the country, is herself too lazy to do something as small and easy as buying reusable non-plastic bags, or to recycle the plastic bags that she does use.

For the record, I myself happen to believe that government mandated recycling of post-consumer garbage actually wastes more resources than it saves. My evidence for this belief is this New York Times article, which is called “Recycling Is Garbage.” It’s a great article, and I recommend that everyone read it.

March 9, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 2 comments.

Kat Timpf recently gave a great explanation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Here’s the video and a transcript.

In this recent video, Kat Timpf gives a great explanation of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-hUGN_keWM

Here’s a transcript of what she said:

I just think AOC has completely lost her marbles.

I think she’s living in Bananaland.

Earlier this week, she called herself “the boss” for coming up with the Green New Deal.

How are you “the boss” for coming up with a plan that doesn’t work?

Are you sure that the Green New Deal is not like what you’re putting in your pipe and smoking every day?

I don’t understand.

I can come up with plenty of plans that don’t work.

How about we fly around on unicorns instead of airplanes?

How about instead of gasoline we use fairy dust we get from Tinker Bell?

How about we get Harry Potter to come over and wizard away all the emissions from the cow farts she’s so concerned about?

See, I just came up with three plans that don’t work.

Does that make me “the triple boss”?

Does she want us to just completely do away with all modern technology?

I don’t want to live like Laura Ingalls Wilder.

I don’t want to do my laundry in a basin.

I don’t want to only eat lettuce and carrots like some kind of [censored] bunny.

I don’t want to relive the Donner Party in the modern day because I had to take a horse and buggy to see my grandparents instead of a plane.

I don’t want to eat people, and I don’t want people to eat me.

AOC, do you want people to eat you?

No?

Then stop proposing [censored].

March 7, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Where did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get her sweet potatoes?

http://tennesseestar.com/2019/02/27/commentary-where-did-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-get-her-sweet-potatoes/

Where did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get her sweet potatoes?

by Jeffrey A. Tucker

February 27, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SUDG7FIFK8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-haN_2oztvw

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was trying to explain to me that the world is going to melt, we are all doing to die, and probably we shouldn’t be having any more children, but I was distracted by the dinner she was preparing on camera. She was carefully cutting sweet potatoes before putting them in the oven.

She put salt and pepper on them. Salt was once so rare that it was regarded as money. Ever try to go a day with zero salt? Nothing tastes right. That was the history of humanity for about 150,000 years. Then we figured out how to produce and distribute salt to every table in the world. Now we throw around salt like it is nothing, and even complain that everything is too salty. Nice problem.

Sweet potatoes are not easy to cut, so she was using a large steel knife, made of a substance that only became commercially viable in the late 19th century. It took generations of metallurgists to figure out how to make steel reliably and affordably. Before steel, there were bodies of water you could not cross without a boat because no one knew how to make an iron bridge that wouldn’t sink.

As for the oven in her apartment, it was either gas-powered or electric. In either case, she didn’t have to chop down trees and build a fire, like 99.99 percent of humanity had to until relatively recently. She merely pushed a button and it came on, a luxury experienced by most American households only after World War II. Now we all think it is normal.

I also presume that her house is warm in the dead of winter and that this is due to indoor thermostatically controlled heat. There are still people alive today who regard this invention as the greatest in the whole course of their lives. They no longer had to work two days to heat a house for one day. Again, one only needs to push a button and, like magic, the warmth comes to you.

The more interesting question is where she obtained those sweet potatoes. The store, I know. No one grows sweet potatoes in Washington, D.C. But where did the store get them? For many thousands of years, the sweet potato was trapped in distant places in South America; it somehow made its way on boat travels to the Polynesian islands, and finally landed in Japan by the late 15th century.

Only once boating technology and capital expenditure for exploration grew to reveal the first signs of prosperity for the masses of people did the sweet potato make it to Europe via an expedition led by Christopher Columbus. Finally, it came to the U.S.

But this took many thousands of years of development — capitalistic development — unless you want to see this root vegetable as the ultimate fruit of colonialism and thus to be eschewed by any truly enlightened social justice warrior.

Even early in the 20th century, sweet potatoes were not reliably available for anyone to chop up and bake, especially not in the dead of winter. Today Americans eat sweet potatoes grown mostly in the American South but also imported from China, which today serves 67 percent of the global sweet potato market.

How do we obtain them? They are flown on planes, shipped on gas-powered ocean liners, and brought to the store via shipping trucks that also run on fossil fuels. If you are playing with the idea of abolishing all those things by legislative fiat, as she certainly is, it is not likely that you are going to obtain a sweet potato on the fly.

I admit the following. It drives me crazy to see people so fully enjoying the benefits from private property, trade, technology, and capitalistic endeavor even as they blithely propose to truncate dramatically the very rights that bring them such material joy, without a thought as to how their ideology might dramatically affect the future of mass availability of wealth that these ideologues so casually take for granted.

To me, it’s like watching a person on IV denounce modern medicine — or a person using a smartphone to broadcast to the world an urgent message calling for an end to economic development. It doesn’t refute their point, but the performative contradiction is too acute not to note, at least in passing.

Now to this question about whether there should or should not be a new generation of human beings. After all, she points out, no one can afford them anymore because young people are starting careers tens of thousands of dollars in debt from student loans. She says there is also the moral issue that we need to take care of the kids who are already here rather than having more.

Truth is, she doesn’t really explain well why she is toying with the idea that it is a bad idea that people have kids. Let me suggest that it is possible that she is drifting toward the path of countless environmentalists before her and finally saying outright what many people believe in their hearts: humankind is the enemy. Either we live and nature dies, or nature lives and we die. There must be some dramatic upheaval in the way we structure society to find a new way. It’s the application of the Marxian conflict fable to another area of life.

Maybe.

In any case, those are big thoughts — too big, really, for a delightful cooking session after which a fancy meal beckons. We’ll get back to what AOC calls the “universal sense of urgency” following dessert.

March 4, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Economics, Environmentalism, Food. Leave a comment.

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would cause people in cities to starve to death

Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace.

He just made this tweet regarding Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal: (original, archive)

The text states:

Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.

I think Moore’s comment would have been more effective without those first three words.

I do agree with everything else that he said.

March 4, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 3 comments.

AOC Green New Deal indoctrinates kids – but these doomsday scares are nothing new

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZuBWeaQmlk

February 27, 2019. Tags: , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 1 comment.

Saikat Chakrabarti, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, blames “typos” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work”

As I explained in this previous post, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently put a document on her official Congressional website which said that she wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.” After a huge number of people criticized her for this, she took the document down. Fortunately, the internet archive has a copy of the page at this link, and NPR has a copy of it at this link.

The latest news, as reported in this new article by the Washington Post, is that Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, is blaming “typos” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.”

The Washington Post reported that Chakrabarti said:

People are trying to take the focus away from the big picture to these little typos.

Typos?

Seriously?

I’m not buying that.

A “typo” is when you type “pwn” instead of “own.”

There is no way that the following text from Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website is a “typo”

The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then.

Likewise, there’s no way that this other text from the same document is a “typo”

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
High-quality health care
Clean air and water
Healthy food
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
An economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

There’s no way that those words in either example are “typos.”

Someone deliberately typed those words into the document.

And who might that someone be?

Well, as I also explained in my previous post, the document’s metadata proves that the document was created by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff.

That’s the same Saikat Chakrabarti who blamed “typos” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.”

Chakrabarti’s lie about “typos” is just as unbelievable as the other lie that I mentioned in my previous post, where Ocasio-Cortez advisor and Cornell Law School professor Robert Hockett blamed “Republicans” for starting a rumor about the document being on Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website. Here’s the video of that again. Skip to 1:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qyx6eDkrmw

At the end of my previous post, I wrote:

Hockett is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. So I’m 100% certain that he is familiar with the laws against defamation. I hope that he will apologize to the “Republicans” that he falsely accused of lying about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s positions on the above issues.

Hockett must have read my post, because he just admitted that he had been wrong.

So first they blamed this on “Republicans.”

And now they’re blaming it on “typos.”

I wonder if they will have a third bogus explanation for it.

Perhaps they will blame it on hackers from Freedonia.

February 11, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 10 comments.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advisor and Cornell Law School professor Robert Hockett falsely blames “Republicans” for the fact that Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website said that Ocasio-Cortez wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently put a document on her official Congressional website which said she wanted to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work.”

After a huge number of people criticized her for this, she took the document down.

Fortunately, the internet archive has a copy of that same webpage from Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website at this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

The original link (which no longer works) to the page at Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website is https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

In addition, NPR (a highly reliable source, which liberals love) has a copy of the same document at this link: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

And in case NPR ever takes that page down, here is the internet archive of that NPR page: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207164217/https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ

The document in question says the following:

The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then.

The same document also says:

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
High-quality health care
Clean air and water
Healthy food
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
An economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

That second quote reminds of this cartoon, which is a parody of the nationally syndicated comic strip The Wizard of Id. Like I said, this is a parody of The Wizard of Id. It is not a real Wizard of Id cartoon. Copied form this link, and poster here under fair use:

The cartoon starts out with a political candidate and his assistant talking in private. Here’s the text of their conversation:

Assistant: What are you offering the peasants in your election speech today?

Candidate: Nothing they can afford to refuse.

The rest of the cartoon shows the same candidate giving a speech to a large crowd of people. Here’s the text for that:

Candidate: Elect me, and I promise you free health care!

The crowd cheers.

Candidate: Free housing! Free clothing! Food stamps!

The crowd cheers again.

Candidate: And jobs for everybody!

The crowd cheers again.

Candidate: Any questions? Yes?

Man in the crowd: What do we need jobs for?

Heh heh. That guy in the crowd is a heck of a lot smarter than any liberal politician that I have ever heard of.

Anyway, after a huge number of people criticized Ocasio-Cortez for wanting to get rid of airplanes, stop cows from farting, and give “economic security” to everyone who was “unwilling to work,” Ocasio-Cortez removed the page from her official Congressional website.

What’s even worse is that Ocasio-Cortez advisor and Cornell Law School professor Robert Hockett falsely blamed “Republicans” for the document being on Ocasio-Cortez’s official Congressional website.

Here’s a video of Hockett on Fox news, where he falsely blames “Republicans” for the document that Ocasio-Cortez had put on her official Congressional website. Skip to 1:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qyx6eDkrmw

Fortunately, the internet archive and NPR have both saved the document in question.

In addition, the Gateway Pundit has published this article, which says that the document’s metadata proves that the document was created by Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff. The Gateway Pundit article includes this image of the metadata:

Hockett is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. So I’m 100% certain that he is familiar with the laws against defamation. I hope that he will apologize to the “Republicans” that he falsely accused of lying about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s positions on the above issues.

February 10, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism. 9 comments.

Here’s my response to a Washington Post article called “Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.”

I know that manmade global warming is real.

I know that as we burn fossil fuels, we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this makes the atmosphere’s temperature increase.

I am not a denier of global warming.

But I am someone who rejects the ridiculous scaremongering that is going on regarding global warming.

The Washington Post recently published this article, which is called, “Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.”

Here’s video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez making her statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18

I would now like to propose my own hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

My hypothesis is based on the following four scientific observations:

1) According to this article from Live Science, back when the dinosaurs were alive, carbon dioxide levels in the air were five times as high as they are today. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

2) According to this article from the BBC, back when the dinosaurs were alive, global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the world did not end. On the contrary, life thrived, and the world had its biggest land animals of all time.

3) According to this article from the Ontario Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Rural Affairs, the owners of commercial greenhouses deliberately pump extra carbon dioxide into the air inside their greenhouses. But this has not caused the world to end. On the contrary, it makes the plants inside the greenhouses grow better.

4) According to this article from NASA, humans’ burning of fossil fuels has caused an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. But the world did not end. On the contrary, the title of the NASA article is “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

So there we have four different real world examples – all verified by scientists – that show that having higher levels of carbon dioxide causes an increase, not a decrease, in plant life.

Animals eat plants.

And other animals eat the animals that eat plants.

Carbon dioxide is plant food.

Carbon dioxide if the bottom of the food chain.

Therefore, to repeat my hypothesis: Even if we were to do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide in the next 12 years, our release of carbon dioxide will not cause the world to end in 12 years.

One of the great things that we learn from the scientific method is that if an event is based on science, then that event can be repeated. Given the four scientific observations that I have posted above, science tells us that having more carbon dioxide in the air makes things better for life, not worse.

Another great thing about the scientific method is that over time, we can find out if our hypothesis turns out to be true or false.

So all we have to do now is to wait 12 years, and we’ll find out who is right and who is wrong about the world ending in 12 years due to our emissions of carbon dioxide.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/24/ocasio-cortez-says-world-will-end-years-she-is-absolutely-right/

Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right.

January 24, 2019

Apparently all anyone has any strength or enthusiasm for is applying a literalism test on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s all-too-accurate warnings. She said recently that if we don’t start to address climate change aggressively right now, the world will end in 12 years. I know, let’s feign alarm that she has exaggerated instead of having genuine alarm about the genuine problem she is raising the red flags over.

Here’s another idea. Why don’t we apply the same exactitude of judgment on some other things that have been said about climate change? Here’s a sampler:

“Climate change is a hoax.” “The science is unclear.” “If there were warming, we’d see it.” “If we saw it, we’d do something.” “Maybe it’s cooling.” “It’s too soon to act.” “There’s nothing we can do.” “If this is climate change, I’ll take it!” “It’s arrogant to think humans could change the climate.” “It’s cold today, so climate science is wrong.” “Yes, there’s a problem but hardly a crisis.”

That last position is where the Washington consensus currently resides (President Sir Lies-a-Lot notwithstanding), and it is that position that is dangerously wrong, and what AOC is (correctly) fighting against. The last word on the subject from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not have been more dire.

We need to start NOW, to cut carbon emissions aggressively, or by 2030 we may have passed a tipping point beyond which the planet, and yes you people living on it, is in for a world of possibly permanent hurt. So let’s quibble that AOC said the world will end instead of the world as humans and current species have known it and depended on it will end, forever.

Meanwhile, your friendly corporations believe in climate change, all right. They are planning to bleed your last coins into their pockets selling you generators when the climate disasters wipe out your power grid.

Now tell me who is getting this crisis right and in your best interests.

February 2, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Environmentalism, Science. 3 comments.

Global warming hypocrites fly private jets to global warming conference in San Francisco

Global warming hypocrisy at its finest!

Every single time they have one of these international global warming conferences, there’s a always a huge number of attendees who arrive on private jets.

The most recent example of this hypocrisy just happened at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, California. The San Francisco International Airport said that corporate jet traffic was 30% higher than normal, and that much of this was due to attendees of the environmental conference.

Why not fly commercial air travel instead?

Or better yet, why not stay home and attend via Skype?

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/How-to-fly-to-a-climate-change-summit-In-a-13231466.php

How to fly to a climate change summit? In a private, carbon-spewing jet

September 16, 2018

One of the hottest spots during the just-concluded Global Climate Action Summit was the private runway at San Francisco International Airport, where SFO spokesman Doug Yakel reports corporate jet traffic was up 30 percent over normal.

Airport sources told us that the carbon-spewing corporate jets nearly filled the landing area’s parking slots and that many had flown in for the conference.

The three-day climate confab drew more than 4,000 elected officials, business executives and environmentalists from around the globe and was aimed at addressing how to lower the carbon emissions responsible for global warming.

The summit was organized by Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been known to fly private.

In 2015, Brown flew with real estate mega-millionaire and major Democratic Party donor George Marcus via private jet to a climate change conference at the Vatican. The next year, the go-green governor jetted off with Marcus for a two-week trip that included stops in Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine.

This time, the governor and his wife, Anne Gust Brown, stayed grounded and carpooled in from Sacramento with his security detail.

September 23, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Shame on the mainstream media for ignoring government tampering with global temperature data!

Real Climate Science just posted this article, which claims that the NOAA has been tampering with its global temperature data.

The article links to government data to support its claims that the government has been tampering with the data.

This is the first chart shown in the article:


The article includes these links to government websites to verify that the government really has been tampering with global temperature data:

Raw NOAA Data:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz

Adjusted NOAA Data:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

Unfortunately, the mainstream media is not reporting on this government manipulation of global temperature data. Shame on them!

March 21, 2018. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism, Media bias. 3 comments.

The Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is getting bigger, but I don’t expect most environmentalists to celebrate

On the one hand, this report from phys.org is good news for anyone who has been truly worried that the land area of the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu was getting smaller due to the rising sea level caused by global warming. Although the sea level is indeed rising due to global warming, wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms have actually caused the land area to get bigger. The study was conducted by the University of Auckland.

On the other hand, for environmentalists who have been using this island’s alleged shrinking as an excuse to promote a political agenda, this is bad news, not good news. They will not celebrate this news. Instead, they will ignore this news, and they will get mad at anyone who does bring this news to their attention.

Based on past experience, I think that most environmentalists will fall into the later group. I say this, based on the following three things:

1) Most environmentalists ignore the fact that so many of their past predictions of doom have failed to come true.

2) Most environmentalists show zero intellectual curiosity as to why their past predictions of doom failed to come true. (By comparison, real scientists are always curious to know why their past predictions failed to come true.)

3) Most environmentalists actually get mad at me whenever I bring up the fact that their past predictions of doom have failed to come true.

Anyway, here are some predictions of doom from the first Earth Day in 1970 that failed to come true. Most environmentalists absolutely hate it when I point out these predictions. Try showing this list to any environmentalists that you know, and see how they react:

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

 

February 9, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. 4 comments.

When measured in kwh per square foot, Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion was rated as an “energy hog,” and used more than four times as many kwh per square foot as homes that were rated as “energy efficient”

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html

August 2017

Many Gore defenders point to the large size of his residence as an explanation for his massive energy consumption.

The facts, however, do not bear this argument out.

According to Energy Vanguard, a company devoted to making homes more energy efficient, an “efficient” home uses between 5-10 kWh of electricity per square foot each year. A house that consumes 15 kWh per square foot or more of electricity per year is categorized as “bad” due to its inefficiency and excessive electricity consumption. Homes that expend more than 20 kWh of electricity per square foot each year are labeled “energy hogs,” which is Energy Vanguard’s worst rating.

Gore’s home consumed 22.9 kWh per square foot in the past 12 months, more than quadrupling the electricity consumption of homes that are considered energy efficient, regardless of size. Based on its kWh per square foot measure, the house would easily earn an “energy hog” rating.

Even by apples-to-apples comparison, Gore’s home is extraordinarily energy inefficient and consumes an astonishing amount of electricity.

August 4, 2017. Tags: , , , . Environmentalism. 1 comment.

My response to New York Magazine’s “The Uninhabitable Earth” is to remind you of these bogus doomsayer predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970

On July 9, 2017, New York Magazine published this article, which is called, “The Uninhabitable Earth.”

On July 14, 2017 – just five days later – New York Magazine said that the article

“… is already the most-read article in New York Magazine’s history.”

My response to this article is to remind you of the following bogus doomsayer predictions that were made during the first Earth Day in 1970:

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

Real scientists learn form their mistakes, and from the mistakes of others.

However, the environmental doomsayers who have been making these bogus predictions for many decades have expressed absolutely zero interest in learning why these predictions of the past failed to come true.

Instead, these doomsayers pretend that these failed predictions were never made, in the hopes that their current audience has either forgotten about them, or was never even aware of them in the first place.

Whatever happened to the scientific method?

Whatever happened to a willingness to admit to being wrong?

Whatever happened to the desire to learn from one’s mistakes, as well as from the mistakes of others?

For the scientifically illiterates out there who don’t know that carbon dioxide is the bottom of the food chain, here is an article form NASA called “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.”

Also, back when the dinosaurs were alive, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were five times as high as they are today, and global temperatures were so high that there were no polar ice caps. But the earth was not “uninhabitable.” It was actually the exact opposite, which is why it was home to the biggest land animals that the planet has ever had.

I wrote this blog entry, which is called “The world’s supply of resources is getting bigger, not smaller.” It includes links to verify its claims.

I also made this video, which is called “Hitler gets mad at Al Gore’s global warming hypocrisy.” The video’s description contains links to verify its claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfr37Xn9IL8

 

July 16, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism, Overpopulation, Politics, Science. 1 comment.

World Health Organization: United States among least polluting nations on the planet

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/05/who-united-states-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

WHO: United States Among Least Polluting Nations on the Planet

June 5, 2017

Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet.

In the most recent WHO report on air pollution, the United States was listed as one of the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner in fact than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.

While France and other G7 countries lamented the U.S. exit from the Paris climate accord, America’s air is already cleaner than that of any other country in the G7.

Following standard practice, the WHO measures air pollution by the mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter. These are the particles that cause diseases of all sorts and are responsible for most deaths by air pollution.

According to the WHO, exposure to particulate matter increases the risk of acute lower respiratory infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

The report, which analyzed the “annual median concentration of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5) for both urban population and rural and urban population” found that the United States was one of the most pollution-free nations in the world.

The annual mean concentrations of particulate matter in the air range from less than 10 to over 100 µg/m3, the report states. At the very low end of the spectrum, the United States has a concentration of just 8, while China has a concentration more than seven times higher at 59, India at 66, Egypt at 101 and Saudi Arabia with the worst air pollution at 127.

“The mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter is a common measure of air pollution,” the WHO states.

The WHO report is corroborated by a series of other such studies on air and water pollution.

In a recent list of the 25 cleanest cities in the world, the only country to boast three cities among the cleanest on the planet was the United States of America, with Chicago coming in second place, Honolulu coming in fourth, and Portland, OR, coming in sixteenth. Unsurprisingly, no cities from China, Russia or India made the list at all.

Similarly, another list of the 15 most polluted cities in the world featured three cities from China, three cities from Saudi Arabia, and a whopping seven cities from India. No U.S. city made the list.

A third list, ranking the ten cleanest and ten most polluted cities in the world, placed two U.S. cities on the list of cleanest cities on the planet. The list of the most polluted cities in the world was led by two cities from China followed by two more cities from India. Two Russian cities also made the list. Again, no U.S. cities were found here.

With such relatively clean air throughout America, how can even reputable news agencies like Reuters continue spreading the well-worn lie that the United States is one of the “biggest polluters” in the world?

Rather than follow the time-tested practice used by the World Health Organization, which measures levels of disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs, some have played a shell game, swapping a new measure of “pollution” based solely on emissions of carbon dioxide.

The problem with this ploy is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is dishonest to say it is. CO2 is colorless, odorless and completely non-toxic. Plants depend on it to live and grow, and human beings draw some into their lungs with every breath they take to no ill effect whatsoever.

Growers regularly pump CO2 into greenhouses, raising levels to three times that of the natural environment, to produce stronger, greener, healthier plants.

Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior eras, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm.

Some experts, such as UN climate scientist Dr. Indur Goklany, have defended rising CO2 levels as a good thing for humanity. Goklany has argued that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally.”

“The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he said.

While the United States must remain vigilant to keep the level of real, dangerous pollutants to a minimum, it may take some consolation in the fact that among G7 nations, it has the cleanest air of all.

June 5, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Nature: “Continued U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement on Climate would be symbolic and have no effect on U.S. emissions.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3309.epdf?shared_access_token=by1S4GXzN-UCvp5a0p4J5dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MMaWb67ZuNosbRzMzZvfYDoC67OPvXIleME-qWdTTGP4rMIIsfv3m60DsuCVkktBakKVcErllhnGnTZcfCSrHJ-7hYUuMRcH75sS0h9TSg2sEgq30QnQ_t1-z_2ptZOQE%3D

May 22, 2017

Continued U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement on Climate would be symbolic and have no effect on U.S. emissions.

 

June 3, 2017. Tags: , , , , . Environmentalism, Politics. Leave a comment.

Support for Paris Agreement = admission that Kyoto Protocol was a scam

Two decades ago, we were told that the world needed to pass the Kyoto Treaty in order to stop manmade global warming from reaching dangerous and destructive levels. The treaty was passed.

But now, we are being told that the world needs the Paris Agreement in order to stop manmade global warming from reaching dangerous and destructive levels.

Therefore, support for the Paris Agreement is an admission that the Kyoto Protocol was a scam.

 

June 3, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism, Politics. 1 comment.

On Earth Day, Hitler gets mad at Al Gore’s global warming hypocrisy

I wrote the dialogue for this. The video’s description contains links to verify every claim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfr37Xn9IL8

April 20, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism, Humor. 2 comments.

This person says the Vortex Bladeless cannot produce the claimed power, and is just a scam to raise money

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9VjJ1e1nIY

April 16, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Environmental hypocrites who were protesting against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, burned oil to keep themselves warm! They also left enough litter to fill more than 250 garbage trucks!

Environmental hypocrites who were protesting against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, burned oil to keep themselves warm!

They also left enough litter to fill more than 250 garbage trucks!

Fox News writes of this: (the bolding is mine)

What was once a bustling makeshift city is now a largely abandoned garbage pit. Teepees and yurts, thousands of sheets of plywood and tents, kerosene and propane stoves, diesel and gasoline generators, food, clothing, cars and mountains of human waste lie in what was once a pristine floodplain that abutted the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

Nothing but bison and horses roamed here. Unless the debris is moved, state officials say it will wash into and contaminate the Missouri River.

Already 250 loads of trash have been removed, but much more remains. And police say they need to get everyone out to finish the job.

This suggests to me that the real reason for their protest has nothing to do with protecting the environment.

I think this fake environment protest is all about the egos of the protestors, and has nothing to do with actually protecting the environment.

I think the real reason for their protest is so they can smugly pat each other on the back, and falsely claim that they “protected” the environment.

Actions speak louder than words. And their actions show that they don’t give a darn about the environment that they claim to be “protecting.”

 

February 22, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. 2 comments.

Next Page »