Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The New York Times does Twitter penance for not fully embracing #GreenNewDeal

The New York Times does Twitter penance for not fully embracing #GreenNewDeal

NYT Climate team responds to green justice warriors in manner “simultaneously defensive and passive aggressive.”

This weekend, I am sitting at home watching showers add to the 18 trillion gallons of water that have been dumped in California this month, substantially easing drought conditions.

Despite the obvious reversal of dire predictions made by our politicos, which led Sacramento to impose water restrictions and higher fees, climate change believers continue to press forward with more controls and penalties to impose on citizens.

For example. the New York Times earnestly promoted the feasibility of the ridiculous Green New Deal recently unveiled by progressive members of the new, Democrat-led Congress.

However, the analysis was peppered with what, I am sure, was supposed to be “balanced” coverage.

…[T]he goals of the far-reaching plan to tackle climate change and economic inequality are within the realm of technological possibility, several energy experts and economists said in recent interviews.

Getting there will cost trillions of dollars, most agreed, and require expansive new taxes and federal programs. It certainly could not be accomplished within the 10-year time frame that supporters say is necessary, according to these experts.

The Green New Deal, in other words, is an exciting idea for many liberals and an enticing political target for conservatives. But, most of all, it is an extraordinarily complicated series of trade-offs that could be realized, experts say, with extensive sacrifices that people are only starting to understand.

So much balance was harshing the green dreams of environmental justice warriors. The newspaper’s climate team created a Twitter thread in penance, to clarify they were good with the overall plans.

And it appears that the “paper of record” agrees with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that we are 12 years away from global disaster.

Unfortunately for the NYT Climate team, several climate realists added a salient and scientifically accurate comments.

And my personal favorite.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I thought the CNN “opinion” piece about how the New Green Deal is very much affordable was an outlier, but today Sen. Kamala Harris voiced full support for it being affordable too.

I will repeat my amazement that Sen. Harris can talk about things costing multiple trillions of dollars (by restrained and moderate estimates) and yet the entire body politic blew a collective gasket over Trump wanting to use 5.7 billion collected from Congress’ spare change left in the cushions here and there.

    CorkyAgain in reply to JBourque. | February 24, 2019 at 3:47 pm

    But walls are immoral!

    /s

    Oh come on – you think they care about being intellectually honest? If Harris thought calling for the intermnent of people, she’d be out there claiming credit for the idea.

    To the left, this is war: all things are fair. All lies are ok.

    Look at what hillary clinton started, and how low Odumbo put the bar.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to JBourque. | February 25, 2019 at 11:12 am

    Just tell Kamala (Ho ho ho ho ho – she so funny) that
    GREEN IS OBSCENE!

This is a demonstration of something that is happening in several areas of liberal bullshit – climate change, ‘trans’ rights, and abortion.

The few liberals with functioning brains have realized that the common people not only do not support their crap, but are OVERWHELMINGLY against it, and are trying to reign in the far left lunatics.

Without success. The party is full speed on the Woke Train, and anybody even CONSIDERING that maybe they need to come up with an actual plan is publicly shamed.

    artichoke in reply to Olinser. | February 25, 2019 at 10:55 am

    Thank goodness some shaming, some opportunity for examining the fundamental idiocy of the whole idea, exists now. Just a couple years ago that was forbidden discussion because “97% of climate scientists” were said to be pushing the climate alarmist mantra.

    If we get to the point of assuming GND is a good idea and it’s just down to how to get it done, we’ve lost. Then we’ll have a 30 year plan to get it done, which will stretch to 50 or 100, but there will be no exit off the highway. The pale (green) horse will be in charge, bringing starvation, freezing and death to 1/3 (iirc) of mankind.

      Olinser in reply to artichoke. | February 26, 2019 at 5:20 am

      Literally THE ONLY way I will even enter a discussion about a so-called ‘green new deal’ is if Nuclear power is the replacement for fossil fuels.

      It is the only current technology capable of actually replacing a significant portion of our energy generation.

      If they don’t include nuclear, they can FOAD, I’m not interested in whatever lies they’re peddling. They want power and control, nothing more.

      Wind and solar are unreliable pieces of shit that will never, EVER on their own supply the power necessary to function as a society. You may as well say you have a plan to power the US with cow farts.

Getting there will cost trillions of dollars, most agreed, and require expansive new taxes and federal programs.

That’s not a cost, from their point of view, it’s a benefit; in fact it’s the entire reason they’re interested in the problem in the first place.

The obvious “thumb on teh scale” will eventually invalidate their bullshit graft and power grab

More government control over people’s lives and spending a much larger percentage of GPD is what the “New Green Ripoff” is really about. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, and get ready to be poorer as individuals and a nation.

First they brainwash their readers, then they get checked when they stray off the narrative.

It’s all about suppressing economic freedom. Socialist/communist ideas cannot afford economically independent individuals. They can’t even afford to have a midddle class. It’s a critical need for their success to make all citizens dependent on government.
They did it in all members of now defunct Soviet Union, they did it in China, in Cuba, and lately in Venezuela. They say “tippy top” now but they do not plan to stop there.
You have to be a fool to fall for it.

I died from overpopulation and food shortages in the 80’s.

NYT is green, but not nearly so naive, that they are not skeptical of the gray new deal.

“The goals of the far-reaching plan to tackle climate change and economic inequality are within the realm of technological possibility”

“according to these experts”

“it is an extraordinarily complicated series of trade-offs that could be realized”

Could we get the names of these experts they speak of, or are they not willing to put their reputations and their grants on the line? I wonder why…

Just tell them the NGD is too expensive and won’t do anything. That seems to be the preferred attempt by leftists at debate-stopping these days. The NGD is immoral.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend