Quote of the day—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, ‘Is it okay to still have children?’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
U.S. Representative (D-NY)
February 24, 2019
Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change
[Via email from Lyle.

With such crap for brains one could make the case our country would be better off if her parents had not had children. But there is also the case to be made that we would not have such wonderful political entertainment and in-fighting in the Democrat Party if it weren’t for her.—Joe]

21 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

  1. Of course, she’s referring to the rest of us who shouldn’t be having children.

    For herself, well, she’s special and it would be okay for her to have kids. Because she’s, you know, her.

  2. I don’t completely disagree with her. While global warming probably won’t happen that fast (by next generation), we do need to think and make sure we’re bringing children into this world for the right reasons. Not that you just want a baby around, or company for you, but for their sake. All of the world’s resources are stretched and we really could use less people in it.

    • The evidence doesn’t seem to match that assertion. The population has been increasing but fewer people are living in poverty.

    • It’s very well established that any halfway prosperous society’s birth rate drops dramatically, typically to a bit below the replacement rate.
      “All the world’s resources are stretched” — really? “Citation needed”. This canard has been around at least since the Club of Rome’s famous novel, if not Malthus, and it has been utterly debunked by history ever since.
      The evidence for “global warming” is sufficiently thin that its shamans have switched to the term “climate change” which has the advantage of having been true ever since the Earth had a climate. (Ask any dinosaur.) And the evidence for man-made climate change is much thinner still; look at Greenland ice core temperature charts to see some large changes, much larger than anything the UN’s bureaucrats talk about.
      Lastly, if you do the numbers it’s obvious that the Green Leap Forward will almost triple the size of the Federal government, resulting in perhaps 4x the tax burden. And that will fall more on lower incomes than higher, because to do otherwise would raise the higher tax brackets above 100% which isn’t possible.
      Oh yes, some politicians have started to say “but it’s only aspirational“. So they only aspire to quadrupling our taxes? I suppose, at least for the short term, they will settle for less. Maybe settle for just one third? That would still double taxes.

  3. Oh, no. Let her rant on. She’s the gift that keep on giving to the Republicans.
    If the current crop of dim presidential candidates keep trying to ‘out left’ each other I see many dims either not voting for a presidential candidate or maybe not voting at all cf. the #walkaway movement.

    I think the dim leadership will primary her in ’20, or during redistricting after the ’20 census, throw her under the bus in ’22 by – purposely – splitting NY-14 between the surrounding districts. If so she’ll have to try her primarying tactic again but I think it won’t work as it did ever again.
    She’s actually done her demoncrap opposition a service. Every other Rep in a ‘safe’ district will never repeat Crowley’s mistake of phoning in their campaign.

  4. The US population needs to continue to increase, at least with children who will actually pay taxes at some point. I figure I have about 25 years left in my natural lifespan, and somebody has to fund my entitlements.

  5. Does she “have crap for brains” because of her verbal style or because you disagree with the assertion that climate change will be catastrophic? If the former, why bother with a critique? (There are plenty of folks on the right who are equally craptastic when it comes to word salad)

    If the latter, well, that would be an odd claim to make, what with the clear scientific consensus and all.

    • I say her crap-for-brains is displayed by both.
      She’s the product of mental conditioning performed on the last couple of generations. Indoctrinated in socialistic and econutz crap by a host of leftist/Marxist revolutionaries who remembered Ignatius of Loyola’s axiom about children and decided that it was less personally dangerous to corrupt the education system than to provoke revolution by military means.

      You’re an example of the end product.

      The Earth has been coming out of the last Ice Age for the past 10,000 years or so. We may have reached the end of that.

      Claiming some ‘scientific consensus’ that CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (climate change)) is ‘science’ belies what the scientific method is. Consensus ain’t it

      However, continual new evidence of corruption by your purported ‘climate scientists’ keep being exposed.

      https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-2-24-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxi

      BLUF: Climate “scientists” in Australia are lowering past temperature recordings to make the current situation look far worse.

      That means they’re lying.
      You’ve been lied to.
      How does that make you feel?
      Are you still going to believe those scientist’s ‘consensus’?

      • >>Are you still going to believe those scientist’s ‘consensus’?

        Well, I have a choice. I can believe the large percentage of scientists who agree that climate change is real, or I can believe folks like yourself, who are willing to make broad generalizations about people they know virtually nothing about based on a handful of data points. And your willingness to ascribe intent to a large group of people (who are “they” exactly?) that is heterogeneous is discrediting. Your comment about the folks in Australia, for example, is an assertion of intent for which you have no data. You want to believe they’re evil, so you claim they’re frauds. You have no evidence for that (at least none provided).

        So yeah, given the choice between the vast majority of scientists, and folks on the Internet who scream “conspiracy!”, I’m going to go with the former. And it make me feel fine, thanks for asking.

        >>You’re an example of the end product.

        Have we met? AFAIK we haven’t, nor have I published widely (or at all, really), so the probability that you know my thoughts in detail is rather small. So: broad assertions without evidence. Discrediting.

        (I know, I know…”Welcome to the Internet.”)

        • Also:

          >>The Earth has been coming out of the last Ice Age for the past 10,000 years or so. We may have reached the end of that.

          The whole “it’s just a cycle” argument ignores the obvious: population and industrialization/carbon production are not cyclical. Never in geological history have their been 7 billion humans on the planet, fully industrialized, pumping out carbon by the megaton.

          • Perhaps you can answer a question that has been bugging me for a long time. CO2 blocks some radiation in the IR region which why it is a concern to climate scientists. Given the current concentration of CO2 what is the distance these frequencies of IR travel in the atmosphere before they are essentially completely absorbed? This is critical for claims of CO2 concentration contributing to changes in the climate. The best number I have been able to get is “about 100 meters”. Also related is the fraction of CO2 generated by human activity versus natural sources. The best estimates I could find were “about 3%”.

            Assuming those estimates are correct then if all human CO2 production were eliminated then all the CO2 IR absorption would take place in about 103 meters instead of 100 meters. So, if all that “trapped heat” were confined to 100 meters instead of the more natural 103 meters how could that make a difference in our climate? Or if you want to look at it another way what if the human contribution doubled then the IR would all be absorbed within approximately 97 meters instead of 100. Wouldn’t the natural mixing of the air make any heat differential irrelevant? The total heat contained in our atmosphere remains the same, right?

            What am I missing? If the conclusions drawn are incorrect then it has to be the numbers (100 meters and/or 3%) are WAY off. But I haven’t able to find numbers that are significantly different. Hence, I’m left with the conclusion that claims of human production of CO2 is essentially irrelevant to climate change.

          • wrt Joe’s question about IR distances in the atmosphere, no, I don’t know the answer to that. But climatology is one of the most complicated sciences there is…we still don’t have computers even able to model it accurately. Seems rather unlikely that it’s as simple as you describe.

            wrt Miles’ point about “fraud and lies,” again, you’re ascribing intent without data. To know if something is “fraud” or a “lie” you have to know what the originator was thinking. Did they know something to be true and said the opposite? That’s fraud/lying. If they think they’re correct, but turns out they’re not, that’s not fraud/lying, that’s just being wrong. Wrt corruption, again, you have to know more than you do to make that assertion. Did they take money to create data they knew to be false? That would be corrupt. If they took money to create data they thought was true (that includes correcting data from the past that they have reason to believe was mistaken), that’s not corrupt. I have no reason to believe any of the fraud or corruption you assert is actually there. And these days I’m even less likely to make an assumption of fraud because the entire Internet is infested with people screaming “consipiracy!” and hand-waving generalizations about people they can’t even identify.

            I don’t think Joe’s right in his 3% assertion, but at least he’s being specific….

          • The 3% number is the one I’m most confident about. I’ve never seen numbers above 4%.

            A quick search just before I posted my previous comment came up with a number of 10 meters instead of 100 meters for the distance. That’s the number that I’m really having trouble pinning down with any certainty.

          • Yes John, I describe corrupt intent to fraud and lies. Especially fraud that has such a great amount of taxpayer’s money being tossed at it and lies that require central government control of almost every aspect of people’s lives.

            I’ll quote a well known Professor:
            If our rulers think global warming is a crisis, let them be a good example for the rest of us.
            When the climate alarmists start acting like it’s the crisis they say it is. I may start paying attention to them.

            However, if you feel the need to stifle your lifestyle, you go right ahead.
            Seriously, I really don’t care what you or others may do with their own lives. As long as they keep their fingers and noses out of my business and concentrate on their own affairs, I’m as laid back as easygoing as you might imagine.

            Conversely, I can be rougher than a flat bastard file with chicken little’s who want to run everyone else’s lives ‘for their own good’.

    • The notion that “scientific consensus” has any merit is absurd, and unscientific. Neither Galileo’s work nor that of Einstein conformed to the “consensus” of the time. The test of validity in actual science is agreement with experiment (or observation, for sciences like astronomy). Consensus doesn’t enter into the picture.

      When warmists toss around the “consensus” claim, what’s actually going on is a religious cult’s attempt to silence heretics.

  6. and yes, she should follow her own lead as well as all her voters and not have children, and with the new law…they could take care of any that they have thoughtlessly had to date for surely post partum abortion would be ok with them no matter what their age….yes?

    • When it’s verified she has voluntarily sought out and been permanently and irreversibly sterilized, (preferably by total hysterectomy) I’ll take her a little more seriously about childbearing.

  7. AOC is yet another rodeo clown amidst a pack* of rodeo clowns (in both parties). She’s probably one of the more effective rodeo clowns however, so we must give credit for that.

    Also, just sayin’; if we must invoke “consensus” then we’re not being scientific. It bears repeating. The scientific method is of course valid and extremely useful. Scientists themselves however are as human as anyone, and subject to all the failings that implies. Hired scientists are more subject to such failings, being as they are paid for a purpose.

    If we are foolhardy enough to think of scientists as “infallible” then we’ve leaped right into the pit of irrationality which declared the pope to be “infallible”. Have we then not, in effect, merely traded one “Holy Roman Emperor” for another, or do we now genuflect to both of them together as our co-overlords?

    *If a group of sheep is a flock, and of crows an unkindness or a murder, of wolves a pack, then what is the correct term for a group of rodeo clowns? It is said that a “parliament” describes a group of owls. Is “Congress” taken? Is it a “Congress” of rodeo clowns then?

    I will submit that when confronted by a congress of rodeo clowns, you ignore them. It is wise to look a lion dead in the eye, but a leopard you must not acknowledge so directly. A rattle snake must be given distance, and when necessary it can be readily dispatched using a mere stick. When it comes to a congress of rodeo clowns I think it best to ignore them for the most part, lest they be encouraged and excited. A clown without an engaged audience will however seek to acquire one, so it’s a conundrum.

    Still it is wise to understand the motivations and behaviors of clowns. They plan and plot together, they feel they MUST be the center of attention, no matter what, and will MAKE themselves the center of attention whenever necessary. They can be extremely dangerous, both when ignored and when encouraged.

    • I believe congress inthe sense you were looking for refers to a group of baboons … which seems a better fit than rodeo clowns IMHO.

Comments are closed.