+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 11059
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
General Discussion / Re: The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible
« Last post by AGelbert on December 09, 2018, 01:10:45 pm »
Quote
Hebrews 13:10-16 King James Version (KJV)

We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
12
Renewables / Re: Electric Vehicles
« Last post by AGelbert on December 09, 2018, 12:45:16 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnicaís work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

December 9th, 2018 by Michael Barnard

SNIPPET:

Certainly EU citizens wanted access to less expensive electric bicycles, as the EU manufacturers average over US$5,200 for their products.

Secondary markets such as the USA had tended to receive EU regulation-compliant bikes historically as well for simplicityís sake, but things are changing as markets grow.

The Portland University Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) did a late 2017 summary of electric and motorized bicycle regulation across all US states and Canadian provinces. Only 42 of the 63 jurisdictions had regulations for electric bicycles, with the rest grandfathering them under low-speed motorized bicycles, and they are all over the map after that. Most require pedals, but some donít. Speeds vary from no limits to 19 mph / 31 kph to 31 mph / 50 kph. Power output maximums vary from no requirements to 500 Watts to 1,500 Watts compared to the 250 Watts in the EU.

Only California is big enough at 40 million citizens with enough electric bicycle penetration by itself to represent an attractive market for differentiated products from major manufacturers in China and Taiwan. Its 20 mph and 750 Watt limit tend to dominate in the USA where EU regulated products arenít offered instead.

Full, VERY informative, article:



14
Climate Change / Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Last post by AGelbert on December 08, 2018, 03:02:42 pm »
CO2 emissions to hit historic highs in 2018

Date 05.12.2018

Author Elizabeth Schumacher


A study released at the COP24 climate conference blamed rampant use of coal and oil for the increase beyond the limits set by the Paris agreement.

Full article with video:

https://www.dw.com/en/co2-emissions-to-hit-historic-highs-in-2018/a-46606292
15
Wonders of Nature / Re: Wild Cats can be Small as well as Large
« Last post by AGelbert on December 08, 2018, 02:31:42 pm »

Which Wild Cat Species Is the Most Deadly Predator?

The Black-Footed Cat (Felis nigripes) looks similar to an ordinary but small housecat. But it is not an ordinary house cat.


Looking at a black-footed cat, you might think that this tiny, spotted feline, native to arid parts of Southern Africa, would make an adorable pet. But youíd be wrong. Dead wrong. Usually weighing three or four pounds (under 2 kg) and standing around 10 inches (25 cm) tall, this little dynamo is one of the deadliest felines in the world. Comparatively, this stone-cold killer captures more prey in a night than a leopard does in six months.  The black-footed cat's predation success rate has been estimated to be an astounding 60 percent. 👀  Compare that to a lion, which catches its prey only 20-25 percent of the time.

This cat's a killer:



֍ The black-footed cat (also known as the small-spotted cat) catches and kills an average of 10 to 14 rodents or small birds every night, due to a very fast metabolism that requires the predator to hunt almost constantly.



֍ Black-footed cats hunt mainly small prey, such as rodents and small birds, but they are capable of taking down larger birds, hares, and even antelope calves.



֍ These fierce cats are considered to be a ďvulnerable" species, mostly because of a loss of habitat. They can be found in South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Namibia.

https://www.wisegeek.com/which-wild-cat-species-is-the-most-deadly-predator.htm
16
Geopolitics / Re: Money
« Last post by AGelbert on December 07, 2018, 07:17:36 pm »
   


17
Fossil Fuel Folly / Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Last post by AGelbert on December 07, 2018, 06:27:32 pm »
No, it's not a lie. I still remember the thread where you went off on me for daring not to blindly believe your theories about ancient aliens and high-tech Atlantis type societies. What happened to all of those theories, AG?    Did you finally realize it was all nonsense you were following because it sounded intellectual and made you feel superior to those without the secret "knowledge"?   

Only among tarantulas could be it "trolling" or "sophistry" to simply be honest and admit you do not know something well enough to write intelligently about it. This is what you should be doing when it comes to a great many things you have written about, but wanna-be tyrants will never admit their intellectual blind spots and personal weaknesses.

If their is one thing you have NEVER done, it's "admit intellectual blind spots and weaknesses". You are always too busy inventing said "blind spots" and "weaknesses" in your perceived opponent. Disingenuous posturing does not qualify as an admission of ZIP, counselor. 

Deny all you want and keep up the false accusations, as is your wont. I understand that "works for you" so you can avoid discussing the Climate Crises issue objectively. So, go head, continue keeping your Denier head firmly ensconced in your status quo worshipping descending colon. The fact that you consistently refuse to acknowledge the validity of the dire need for a worldwide effort to get the global economy off of fossil fuels (and other biosphere degrading human activities), to the point that you disingenuously claim that "tinkering" with this complex CAPITALIST system this way will "unjustly hurt the poor" (a Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Denier talking point for the last TWO decades, at least) means that you, like the others that cheerlead the status quo, have blood ☠️ on your hands. Those of us advocating a clean energy based economy for a viable biosphere, do not, despite your Orwellian attempts to demonize us.   

Be sure and IGNORE the following post because, if you read it, it will make your head hurt.

Have a nice deluded day.

Climate Crisis Critical Issue in 2020 Elections Ė Jane Sanders

December 7, 2018

Jane Sanders tells Paul Jay that voters shouldnít support candidates who claim to be progressive, but donít prioritize the fight against fossil fuel interests


Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. Iím Paul Jay.

The Gathering, a meeting of 200 or so progressive thought leaders invited to Burlington, Vermont, was a meeting to talk about what comes next in the coming 2020 elections to help create a vision, a policy framework, for what candidates might run on, what people might fight for. It comes at a rather momentous time in human history, as I said in one of the other interviews; 2020 is maybe the most important election anyplace, ever, given whatís at stake. The Gathering was called by Jane OíMeara Sanders, whoís co-founder of the Sanders Institute; now serves as a fellow. Jane served as a political consultant, has held appointed and elected office, and Jane was the driving force behind the Gathering. And she now joins us here in our studio at the Gathering. Thanks for joining us.


JANE SANDERS: Thanks, Paul.

PAUL JAY: Your hopes going inóand I heard this a little bit in the email back and forthóis we donít want to spend all this time trashing Trump. We really want to talk policy and what a different world might look like. How do you feel that was achieved?

JANE SANDERS: I was astounded. I mean, we had 49 speakers in 48 hours. And actually, I think a few added on during the weekend. It was thought provoking, inspiring, much better than I had ever envisioned. I had pretty high thoughts for this weekend. We cameóyou mentioned thought leaders. And what I realized by the end is theyíre not just progressive thought leaders. They are bringing the heart to the, their hearts to the causes, to the issues that we talked about. Theyíre leading from values and principles, and then their intellect informs the rest. But the first layer is the values and the principles that we espouse, for democracy and for human dignity.

PAUL JAY: The times we live in are, as I said, this may beóthe coming election may be the most important ever, to a large extent because of climate change. If a climate denier is elected again, or if a corporate Democrat is elected who pays lip service to the climate crisis and doesnít take effective action, weíre kind of screwed. Weíre already close to 1.5 or 2 degrees aboveóin terms of warming, above pre-industrial averages. The tipping point is really within sight. In terms of the messaging of the extent of the crisis and what to do about it, do you think that was addressed here?

JANE SANDERS: I think it was. I think that people walked away with the concept that, and with the realization, that time is running out. And what we need to do is not just ask people what to do or inform people about the issue.

One of the things that we need to do, and the reason for the Gathering, was to amplify each otherís voices, resonate on the issues. We need leadership that actually says, Iím sorry, this is a crisis. We need to address it now. Not next year, not the year after. Itís leadership at the local, the statewide, the national, the international level. Not just people who are elected, but people who want to make a difference in the world.

At the end of the climate crisis panel, Bill McKibben said that we need to have healthcare, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and 100% renewable. Those are not the only things. But the 100% renewable and the focus on the climate crisis has to be at the outset of anybody running for office. Where do you stand? Where do you stand? Not [crosstalk]

PAUL JAY: Absolutely. But Iím not hearing it. Even with progressive candidates itís like, I have to say even to some extent Bernie, although heís certainly better than any of the others that actually have a mainstream role. But the extent of the threat is not likeóitís got to be front and center. Weíre often, itís like a shopping list, healthcare, Medicare for all, $15, climate. Well, climate is, it doesnít matter if you get $15 an hour if we ainít here. There seems to be a feeling both amongst people that work on this issue in the climate sector, people involved in political campaigns, that if you talk about the extent of the crisis youíre just going to scare people. Well, shouldnít we be scaring people?

JANE SANDERS: I think so. I think youíre absolutely right. And we have to startóI believe a lot of people have conferences, and thatís the end game. Letís have a conference. This was a jumping off point. We want to have the conference inform future action. What I heard from the questions from the attendees, the hallway conversations was that we have to hold people accountable. Itís not from a perception of you have to vote for this or vote for that. What do you understand about the climate crisis? Where do you stand on it, what are you willing to do, and what are you not willing to do? Donít talk to me about in sound bites, donít talk to me to say climate crisis is really bad, but no, Iím not going to fight the pipelines in the states. Iím not going to not take fossil fuel industry money. I think with the climate crisis, I think more than anything else we have to draw a very clear line and say these are the expectations. If you donít do this, I donít care how progressive you are, supposedly, itís notóweíre not interested.

PAUL JAY: Itís got to be a criteria people use on who they vote for. But to do that weíve got to get into those sections amongst working people who right now, climate is barely on the top 20 of their list. We did some work in southern Pennsylvania, weíve done work around Baltimore where weíre based. And without doubt, the day-to-day suffering is such that people, they want that addressed. This thing has to be framed in a way that it is today. Itís not some great future prospect. And itís your kids at stake, your grandkids at stake. The messaging is not getting through much to ordinary people.

JANE SANDERS: Well, when you look at the floods and the torrential rains and the fires, there is no analysis of that on the news. They cover it like voyeurs to say, oh, look at this terrible thing thatís happening. These people are helping, this is good news. The community is coming together, great. But they donít ever ask why. Why is this occurring? Cover the science. And that is not happening. They need to cover the science.

PAUL JAY: Every day.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, every day. But theyíre not, and we need to insist they do.

PAUL JAY: Weíre going to be, we are. and weíre going to be every day doing science. Because whatís missing from the whole discourse for ordinary people, people coming in on the issue, is the sense of urgency. People that understand whatís going on, we feel a sense of urgency, but thereís still this feeling that you canít tell people that because itís going to overwhelm them. Itís like treating people like kids.

JANE SANDERS: Partly. But I also think that people donít want to haveówant to just focus on a problem without a solution. Many of the people that are speaking about it or looking for votes donít want to deal with the solutions. I do think that we have an opportunity at this point in time to say, to lay out what this administration has been doing in terms of rolling back air and water and all this, and all these regulations, and to recognize the support theyíre giving to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars and not to renewables, which would help us. But to be able to say there is an answer.

The House just turned, and we should be making it very clear to the Democrats that are in control of the House, are you going to do something? If youíre not going to do something, thank you very much, weíre not going to be supporting you. If we say to the people, this is what you can do, and this is what we expect of you as leaders in your community or as elected leaders, we need your voice out there, then we can make a change. I think people need to not just focus only on the climate crisis, because as you say, thatís what everybody is saying. Everybody is going to be very nervous about it and very concerned. They should be, but we have to give them a path forward. We have to say how are you going to be able to make this-

PAUL JAY: Well, one of the things that came out of the conference was the discussion of a new green deal, a Green New Deal, I should say, which seems to make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense when you already understand why we need a new green dealóGreen New Deal. Most people donít even get the urgency of that.

JANE SANDERS: I think the bully pulpit really matters. The people in that room, and hopefully the people that watched on livestream, and the people that watch the things weíll be putting out in the future at the Sanders Institute, will understand more. And Real News. Youíve been talking to people this entire time to have the Real News be covering the science, covering the facts, and having people who are in a position to lead their communities to solution. That helps. Now, the problem is that so many of the solutions, or so many of the approaches, seem to be protesting only. Thatís not what weóI mean, protests are very important. Thatís not enough. What we need to do is demand accountability, demand that they donít take money from pipeline, they donít support banks that fund pipelines. We need to say to our representatives and to the media, we expect you to ask and answer serious questions that are complex and not just give us sound bites.

PAUL JAY: I got a suggestion for the Sanders Institute.

JANE SANDERS: Okay.

PAUL JAY: One of the things I learned over the weekend was how Barcelona has created a publicly owned energy company. It seems to me more of that kind of program, like hereís what, if you actually took over a city, major city in this country, hereís what a city can do, hereís what a state could do. Also in terms of Congress, I think thereís going to be a real fight over whether real hearings are going to be held over what to do about climate change or trash Trump. I have no problem with trashing Trump. But if the focus is on that itís just more of the same rhetorical battle.

JANE SANDERS: I agree. I think, unfortunately, the Democrats have a great opportunity, and unfortunately Iím concerned that they are going to blow it and focus on investigations, investigations, investigations. People want them to pay attention to the real issues facing their lives. And whatís happening now, I know, I really want Medicare for All, I really want $15 minimum wage, we want a lot of things. And a lot of new ideas and replicable policies came out of this conference. In terms of the climate crisis, what we need to do is focus on it, and if they donít deliver to the voters that put them in, I think that itís over. I think itís over for that party. I donít, I think-

PAUL JAY: Itís over for us humans.


JANE SANDERS: Well, but no. Because I think if they donít focus on real change, on effecting real change, especially in this area, I think that we will be able to lead from below.

PAUL JAY: The logicóI mean, other than the fact that a whole section of the Democratic Party is very tied up with finance and fossil fuel, but set that aside for a second. They accept the dictatorship of corporate media. What I mean by that is the corporate news media is making a fortune out of this partisan battle. Not only does it drive ratings, because itís like watching a football game, then the parties spend a billion, over a billion dollars, billions on advertising and campaigns. The partisan war, the news media loves. The logic goes if we have a hearing on climate change they wonít cover it.

JANE SANDERS: Thatís what they said, actually. They have said that to us, that the ratings on climate change donít matter. Then, at the same time, the ratings on fires and floods, they cover ad nauseum. Now, how hard would it be to cover them in a way that said these are the facts, this is climate change at work. This is why itís happening. And this is what you can expect to happen later. These parts of the world are going to be underwater, and thereís going to be mass migration, and thereís going to be food shortages. They donít have to cover it all at once. But when you look at things and you see the same footage for three days of terrible personal pain that people are experiencing, the loss of their homes and of their communities and even their cities, instead of saying, okay, we donít have to put that on again, we can keep informing the people. Thatís my, one of my concerns, is I think the fourth estate has been letting us down. A democracy requires an informed electorate. The media, the fourth estate, is supposed to inform the public. Theyíre not doing that. Theyíre selling ratings. But theyíre not even thinking deeply about it. Because if they covered the fires and explained them, theyíd get the same ratings.

PAUL JAY: I agree with you. But I have no expectation that corporate news media is going to change. This Democratic-controlled House, if theyíre serious about climate change, they can create hearings with as much drama as the Kavanaugh hearings. You know, subpoena the head of Exxon, create a real dramatic presentation.

JANE SANDERS: Like they did with tobacco years ago, under Henry Waxman.

PAUL JAY: Exactly. But they have to want to do it. And thatís going to be a fight.

JANE SANDERS: It is going to be a fight, because people donít want to take on the banks. They donít want to take on the fossil fuel industry. They donít want to take on the large donors and the big corporations. My hope is there will beóand I know there will be a group of people that will in the new Congress. And the Progressive Caucus in the Congress is pretty good.

PAUL JAY: There is a group now pushing for hearings on a Green New Deal.

JANE SANDERS: I think weíll see some, for once, moving in the right direction. And I think the fact that under the Trump administration so many things have been so difficult for not just climate crisis, but everything, that I think people are beginning to realize we canít take six more years of this. We canít possibly survive that well. I guess thatís dramatic but-

PAUL JAY: A lot of people wonít survive.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, a lot of people wonít. I think people are getting that. I have more faith in the American people. I think that theyíre going to pay attention if they can be informed. Thatís why places like The Real News and the Sanders Institute and all the people that were here from different organizations are so important, becauseóyou started it with I donít think they know. That education is extremely important.

PAUL JAY: Great, thanks very much.

JANE SANDERS: Thank you.

PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/climate-crisis-critical-issue-in-2020-elections-jane-sanders



18
Climate Change / Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Last post by AGelbert on December 07, 2018, 05:13:41 pm »
Climate Crisis Critical Issue in 2020 Elections Ė Jane Sanders

December 7, 2018

Jane Sanders tells Paul Jay that voters shouldnít support candidates who claim to be progressive, but donít prioritize the fight against fossil fuel interests


Story Transcript

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. Iím Paul Jay.

The Gathering, a meeting of 200 or so progressive thought leaders invited to Burlington, Vermont, was a meeting to talk about what comes next in the coming 2020 elections to help create a vision, a policy framework, for what candidates might run on, what people might fight for. It comes at a rather momentous time in human history, as I said in one of the other interviews; 2020 is maybe the most important election anyplace, ever, given whatís at stake. The Gathering was called by Jane OíMeara Sanders, whoís co-founder of the Sanders Institute; now serves as a fellow. Jane served as a political consultant, has held appointed and elected office, and Jane was the driving force behind the Gathering. And she now joins us here in our studio at the Gathering. Thanks for joining us.


JANE SANDERS: Thanks, Paul.

PAUL JAY: Your hopes going inóand I heard this a little bit in the email back and forthóis we donít want to spend all this time trashing Trump. We really want to talk policy and what a different world might look like. How do you feel that was achieved?

JANE SANDERS: I was astounded. I mean, we had 49 speakers in 48 hours. And actually, I think a few added on during the weekend. It was thought provoking, inspiring, much better than I had ever envisioned. I had pretty high thoughts for this weekend. We cameóyou mentioned thought leaders. And what I realized by the end is theyíre not just progressive thought leaders. They are bringing the heart to the, their hearts to the causes, to the issues that we talked about. Theyíre leading from values and principles, and then their intellect informs the rest. But the first layer is the values and the principles that we espouse, for democracy and for human dignity.

PAUL JAY: The times we live in are, as I said, this may beóthe coming election may be the most important ever, to a large extent because of climate change. If a climate denier is elected again, or if a corporate Democrat is elected who pays lip service to the climate crisis and doesnít take effective action, weíre kind of screwed. Weíre already close to 1.5 or 2 degrees aboveóin terms of warming, above pre-industrial averages. The tipping point is really within sight. In terms of the messaging of the extent of the crisis and what to do about it, do you think that was addressed here?

JANE SANDERS: I think it was. I think that people walked away with the concept that, and with the realization, that time is running out. And what we need to do is not just ask people what to do or inform people about the issue.

One of the things that we need to do, and the reason for the Gathering, was to amplify each otherís voices, resonate on the issues. We need leadership that actually says, Iím sorry, this is a crisis. We need to address it now. Not next year, not the year after. Itís leadership at the local, the statewide, the national, the international level. Not just people who are elected, but people who want to make a difference in the world.

At the end of the climate crisis panel, Bill McKibben said that we need to have healthcare, Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and 100% renewable. Those are not the only things. But the 100% renewable and the focus on the climate crisis has to be at the outset of anybody running for office. Where do you stand? Where do you stand? Not [crosstalk]

PAUL JAY: Absolutely. But Iím not hearing it. Even with progressive candidates itís like, I have to say even to some extent Bernie, although heís certainly better than any of the others that actually have a mainstream role. But the extent of the threat is not likeóitís got to be front and center. Weíre often, itís like a shopping list, healthcare, Medicare for all, $15, climate. Well, climate is, it doesnít matter if you get $15 an hour if we ainít here. There seems to be a feeling both amongst people that work on this issue in the climate sector, people involved in political campaigns, that if you talk about the extent of the crisis youíre just going to scare people. Well, shouldnít we be scaring people?

JANE SANDERS: I think so. I think youíre absolutely right. And we have to startóI believe a lot of people have conferences, and thatís the end game. Letís have a conference. This was a jumping off point. We want to have the conference inform future action. What I heard from the questions from the attendees, the hallway conversations was that we have to hold people accountable. Itís not from a perception of you have to vote for this or vote for that. What do you understand about the climate crisis? Where do you stand on it, what are you willing to do, and what are you not willing to do? Donít talk to me about in sound bites, donít talk to me to say climate crisis is really bad, but no, Iím not going to fight the pipelines in the states. Iím not going to not take fossil fuel industry money. I think with the climate crisis, I think more than anything else we have to draw a very clear line and say these are the expectations. If you donít do this, I donít care how progressive you are, supposedly, itís notóweíre not interested.

PAUL JAY: Itís got to be a criteria people use on who they vote for. But to do that weíve got to get into those sections amongst working people who right now, climate is barely on the top 20 of their list. We did some work in southern Pennsylvania, weíve done work around Baltimore where weíre based. And without doubt, the day-to-day suffering is such that people, they want that addressed. This thing has to be framed in a way that it is today. Itís not some great future prospect. And itís your kids at stake, your grandkids at stake. The messaging is not getting through much to ordinary people.

JANE SANDERS: Well, when you look at the floods and the torrential rains and the fires, there is no analysis of that on the news. They cover it like voyeurs to say, oh, look at this terrible thing thatís happening. These people are helping, this is good news. The community is coming together, great. But they donít ever ask why. Why is this occurring? Cover the science. And that is not happening. They need to cover the science.

PAUL JAY: Every day.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, every day. But theyíre not, and we need to insist they do.

PAUL JAY: Weíre going to be, we are. and weíre going to be every day doing science. Because whatís missing from the whole discourse for ordinary people, people coming in on the issue, is the sense of urgency. People that understand whatís going on, we feel a sense of urgency, but thereís still this feeling that you canít tell people that because itís going to overwhelm them. Itís like treating people like kids.

JANE SANDERS: Partly. But I also think that people donít want to haveówant to just focus on a problem without a solution. Many of the people that are speaking about it or looking for votes donít want to deal with the solutions. I do think that we have an opportunity at this point in time to say, to lay out what this administration has been doing in terms of rolling back air and water and all this, and all these regulations, and to recognize the support theyíre giving to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars and not to renewables, which would help us. But to be able to say there is an answer.

The House just turned, and we should be making it very clear to the Democrats that are in control of the House, are you going to do something? If youíre not going to do something, thank you very much, weíre not going to be supporting you. If we say to the people, this is what you can do, and this is what we expect of you as leaders in your community or as elected leaders, we need your voice out there, then we can make a change. I think people need to not just focus only on the climate crisis, because as you say, thatís what everybody is saying. Everybody is going to be very nervous about it and very concerned. They should be, but we have to give them a path forward. We have to say how are you going to be able to make this-

PAUL JAY: Well, one of the things that came out of the conference was the discussion of a new green deal, a Green New Deal, I should say, which seems to make a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense when you already understand why we need a new green dealóGreen New Deal. Most people donít even get the urgency of that.

JANE SANDERS: I think the bully pulpit really matters. The people in that room, and hopefully the people that watched on livestream, and the people that watch the things weíll be putting out in the future at the Sanders Institute, will understand more. And Real News. Youíve been talking to people this entire time to have the Real News be covering the science, covering the facts, and having people who are in a position to lead their communities to solution. That helps. Now, the problem is that so many of the solutions, or so many of the approaches, seem to be protesting only. Thatís not what weóI mean, protests are very important. Thatís not enough. What we need to do is demand accountability, demand that they donít take money from pipeline, they donít support banks that fund pipelines. We need to say to our representatives and to the media, we expect you to ask and answer serious questions that are complex and not just give us sound bites.

PAUL JAY: I got a suggestion for the Sanders Institute.

JANE SANDERS: Okay.

PAUL JAY: One of the things I learned over the weekend was how Barcelona has created a publicly owned energy company. It seems to me more of that kind of program, like hereís what, if you actually took over a city, major city in this country, hereís what a city can do, hereís what a state could do. Also in terms of Congress, I think thereís going to be a real fight over whether real hearings are going to be held over what to do about climate change or trash Trump. I have no problem with trashing Trump. But if the focus is on that itís just more of the same rhetorical battle.

JANE SANDERS: I agree. I think, unfortunately, the Democrats have a great opportunity, and unfortunately Iím concerned that they are going to blow it and focus on investigations, investigations, investigations. People want them to pay attention to the real issues facing their lives. And whatís happening now, I know, I really want Medicare for All, I really want $15 minimum wage, we want a lot of things. And a lot of new ideas and replicable policies came out of this conference. In terms of the climate crisis, what we need to do is focus on it, and if they donít deliver to the voters that put them in, I think that itís over. I think itís over for that party. I donít, I think-

PAUL JAY: Itís over for us humans.


JANE SANDERS: Well, but no. Because I think if they donít focus on real change, on effecting real change, especially in this area, I think that we will be able to lead from below.

PAUL JAY: The logicóI mean, other than the fact that a whole section of the Democratic Party is very tied up with finance and fossil fuel, but set that aside for a second. They accept the dictatorship of corporate media. What I mean by that is the corporate news media is making a fortune out of this partisan battle. Not only does it drive ratings, because itís like watching a football game, then the parties spend a billion, over a billion dollars, billions on advertising and campaigns. The partisan war, the news media loves. The logic goes if we have a hearing on climate change they wonít cover it.

JANE SANDERS: Thatís what they said, actually. They have said that to us, that the ratings on climate change donít matter. Then, at the same time, the ratings on fires and floods, they cover ad nauseum. Now, how hard would it be to cover them in a way that said these are the facts, this is climate change at work. This is why itís happening. And this is what you can expect to happen later. These parts of the world are going to be underwater, and thereís going to be mass migration, and thereís going to be food shortages. They donít have to cover it all at once. But when you look at things and you see the same footage for three days of terrible personal pain that people are experiencing, the loss of their homes and of their communities and even their cities, instead of saying, okay, we donít have to put that on again, we can keep informing the people. Thatís my, one of my concerns, is I think the fourth estate has been letting us down. A democracy requires an informed electorate. The media, the fourth estate, is supposed to inform the public. Theyíre not doing that. Theyíre selling ratings. But theyíre not even thinking deeply about it. Because if they covered the fires and explained them, theyíd get the same ratings.

PAUL JAY: I agree with you. But I have no expectation that corporate news media is going to change. This Democratic-controlled House, if theyíre serious about climate change, they can create hearings with as much drama as the Kavanaugh hearings. You know, subpoena the head of Exxon, create a real dramatic presentation.

JANE SANDERS: Like they did with tobacco years ago, under Henry Waxman.

PAUL JAY: Exactly. But they have to want to do it. And thatís going to be a fight.

JANE SANDERS: It is going to be a fight, because people donít want to take on the banks. They donít want to take on the fossil fuel industry. They donít want to take on the large donors and the big corporations. My hope is there will beóand I know there will be a group of people that will in the new Congress. And the Progressive Caucus in the Congress is pretty good.

PAUL JAY: There is a group now pushing for hearings on a Green New Deal.

JANE SANDERS: I think weíll see some, for once, moving in the right direction. And I think the fact that under the Trump administration so many things have been so difficult for not just climate crisis, but everything, that I think people are beginning to realize we canít take six more years of this. We canít possibly survive that well. I guess thatís dramatic but-

PAUL JAY: A lot of people wonít survive.

JANE SANDERS: Yeah, a lot of people wonít. I think people are getting that. I have more faith in the American people. I think that theyíre going to pay attention if they can be informed. Thatís why places like The Real News and the Sanders Institute and all the people that were here from different organizations are so important, becauseóyou started it with I donít think they know. That education is extremely important.

PAUL JAY: Great, thanks very much.

JANE SANDERS: Thank you.

PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

https://therealnews.com/stories/climate-crisis-critical-issue-in-2020-elections-jane-sanders
19
Climate Change / Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Last post by AGelbert on December 07, 2018, 02:55:01 pm »
Cold-blooded as f u c k, but different only in degree from the plan to deny access to health care to millions as part of a "Great Culling" of "useless eaters."

A Wet Dream for Mass Murderer Watson.  He'll make Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot together look like Saints.

RE




If the studies are accurate, then I would say the best thing we can do go about our lives like it isn't happening.

Very defeatist attitude.  No, it can't be reversed and there are feedback loops that will keep it accelerating even if we power down.  But a power down presents the best opportunity we have to Save As Many As You Can.


Far as Tarantulas are concerned, they feed on Cockroaches.



RE

By Jove, RE, I think you've GOT IT! ;D If Ashvin worked for the gooberment he would be one of these:

20
Climate Change / Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Last post by AGelbert on December 07, 2018, 02:48:33 pm »

If that can be scientifically proven, then I may be in favor of the power down. But it can't be, because we are talking about extremely complex systems. Who knows, a power down may not even be enough to stop the warming at this point, which means we would be adding more suffering and death for nothing.

It can't be scientifically proven there would be millions of deaths either if we power down, but you are willing to buy that one.  That is hypocritical.

RE

Probably true. Which is why I would hold to this general maxim - don't tinker with complex systems until we more fully understand them, because we're much more likely to make things worse than better. Related to that but also distinct - there is a big price to pay from ceding such power to the government (mandated power down) and we better be damn sure it is necessary to pay before forking it over.

The best scientific evidence to date shows that if we don't significantly reduce carbon emmissions inside the next 10 years, thousands of cities along the coasts will be inundated and billions of people will DIE, along with a significant portion of the animal kingdom as well.  What we are doing now is not decreasing carbon emissions, but rather increasing them.  The only way to reduce these emissions significantly is to remove the source of them, primarily things like automobiles and planes and the factories that produce them.  This is not geoengineering, it's just putting a stop to what is quite obviously killing the planet.  If you are not in favor of putting a stop to this, you are in favor of mass murdering Billions of people, far more than I ever dreamed of doing.  That is what the scientific evidence says.

RE

Can you link specific studies which predict this? And which show that power down is likely to have enough impact to stop it?

The information is endless and produced by numerous scientists and agencies, from the IPCC to NASA and many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.56983a77a98d

Research it yourself.

RE

If the studies are accurate, then I would say the best thing we can do go about our lives like it isn't happening. At least that way we have some peace and happiness before everything turns to ****. The likelihood we come close to implementing anything resembling a "power down" is zero, and therefore there is no way to reverse the warming. Of course AG would have us believe differently, but then again he predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful.

Anyway, I stated at the outset that I don't know anything about the climate science. The only reason I responded to you initially was that you asked a question and told me it was a violation of the CoC not to answer it. It's unsurprising that AG and Surly have now decided to pretend like I am making bold assertions about AGW and asking for research dissertations. That's resentment speaking. It's all very tarantula-like.

Again, Watson defends the status quo. Here is the "rationale" that Watson uses to not DO Climate Change:


You, Watson, are lying when you state that, " AG ... ... predicted apocalyptic changes in 2012 and the full disclosure of ET presence and zero point energy, both of which I criticized. I believe this is a big reason why he is so resentful."

Nice try at pounding the table, Counselor (CoC be damned, right?).  ;)

That's defamatory as well as being a deliberate attempt at distorting both the content and subject matter of my posts over the last 6 years, along with those of Surly.

Surly said it best when he addressed your language twisting, morally challenged, sophistry early in this thread, so it is appropriate for me to repost it now with regard to the bold faced lies you just posted about me, in still ANOTHER attempt to derail this thread, where RE has successfully exposed your refusal to face facts about the dire threat to humanity that Catastrophic Climate Change represents:

The problems with socialism are many. Orwell recognized very quickly that the socialists of his day were motivated by intellectual snobbery and resentment rather than compassion for the poor working class. 60 years later and nothing has changed...

Socialist ideology ignores human nature and treats everyone as "blank slates" who can be molded by the totalitarian state to achieve equality of socioeconomic outcomes. They set up re-education and re-training camps which are doomed to failure. This flies in the face of decades of psychological and sociological research.

Postmodern ideology tries to sneak in thoroughly debunked socialist ideology by pointing out the corrupt aspects of capitalist institutions, and then pretending that there is no other conclusion to reach other than ALL capitalist hierarchies are corrupted by power. And as long as we are playing this game, why not advocate for the socialist power hierarchies instead of the capitalist ones?

Among the numerous facts they ignore is that intelligence and trait conscientiousness account for some 25-40% of long-term life outcomes in capitalist society. This does not fit in with their ideological critiques, because it suggests that competence actually plays a role. But everyone knows competence plays a large role, and that makes them even more resentful and envious of the successful. To the point where they are willing to advocate for bloody revolutions and extermination campaigns as a justified means of "leveling the playing field".

What a pile of crap, false assertions, straw men and charged language. You certainly know how to wield language as a weapon, but you're not selling anything here.

And for the record, no on here is "playing a game" but you.

How well I remember the stories told by my father and uncles about the gulags and re-education camps they suffered under FDR.

Be sure to post the URL of your new blog, celebrating this, the best of all possible worlds.

Also, Ashvin, your claim to "know nothing of climate science" is, and has been, for the last 5 years or so, another lie. Yeah, you aren't a Climate Scientist. So? You aren't illiterate. You have always "known enough" to consistently doubt the validity of drastic national action to mitigate the cause of Climate Change. An objective observer who is honestly and genuinely, and innocently, ignorant of what science has clearly stated about greenhouse gasses would have to be living under a rock for the past 30 years with no radio, newspapers, television, internet or human neighbors. That does not apply to you.

You, Ashvin, a person who frequents financial web sites, could never have avoided real science based warnings in the literature among all the Fossil Fuel funded Denier CRAP you have read.

You formed an opinion based on what you have read. It is disingenuous to claim you are "without an opinion" or "don't know enough about it to form an opinion" on the causes of climate change. The fact that you vigorously defend a status quo that has been proven by science to be the overwhelming cause of climate change evidences that.

I recall how you supported the, "it's mostly meat production, not fossil fuels",  baloney and would not let go of it even when I posted well referenced charts to try to explain to you that fossil fuels are far and away the main contributor to Global Warming. I made it clear that, even though it would help (slow it a bit) somewhat, the problem of increasing global average temperature would not be stopped by everyone going vegan. At which point you retreated into your "not knowing enough about the science to form an opinion".

One thing that is consistent about your sophistry laden "debating technique" is the despicable attempt to frame the opponent as "hysterical, irrational, nonsensical, etc.".

As Surly said earlier about what you typically post, you're not selling anything here.

For those reading this, the following chart, or one with similar emperical data, is something Ashvin may claim he has "never seen". I doubt that.


Here's another one that Ashvin may claim he, "knows nothing about". I don't think so.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

+-Recent Topics

BREXIT by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:51:36 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:34:53 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 08:30:42 pm

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 07:27:35 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 05:20:56 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 10, 2018, 01:20:09 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
December 09, 2018, 02:02:10 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
December 09, 2018, 01:10:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
December 08, 2018, 08:40:27 pm

Wild Cats can be Small as well as Large by AGelbert
December 08, 2018, 02:31:42 pm