- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bad news for the climate bros?
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:15 pm to YNWA
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:15 pm to YNWA
quote:
Go ask the fisherman in the Atlantic and Pacific. They will tell you the waters are warming. The fisherman in Ireland will tell you.
A major contributor to the warming has been shown to be removal of sulfur from ship fuel. Which was done for "climate change". Be careful what you ask for.....
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:15 pm to weagle1999
They’ll slowly back away from this hysteria.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:16 pm to weagle1999
quote:
What makes them renewable?
Lack of a reliance on a commodity fuel source.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:18 pm to Hobie101
All I needed was about 5 minutes of science class during middle school to see that carbon dioxide is good for the environment.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:28 pm to junkfunky
I remember learning about wind farms replacing fossil fuels and nuclear plants when I was in a middle school and thinking “there’s no way anyone actually believes this shite”.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:28 pm to billjamin
quote:
Lack of a reliance on a commodity fuel source.
Manufacture, transportation, installation, and maintenance?
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:37 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Manufacture, transportation, installation, and maintenance?
What’s your point? Make it easy. Break it down on a $/wH/service life for us.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 10:59 pm to weagle1999
My Ex Podna from Vacherie, So_Sez_Big_Moe_From_The_WOP&WAG_will disagree. But he’s a left wing puzzy
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:43 am to SallysHuman
quote:
Except I think most recycling is BS.
It is. It is a huge money racket. One parish I know cancelled their recycling program because it was a waste of money. They put out bins for people to place sorted cardboard and plastics.
Years ago there was a market for this and haulers would buy it, yielding a small return, but now they have to pay for someone to take it for more than the cost of regular garbage. Some of the recycling also ended up getting shipped overseas expelling even more greenhouse gases. The final rub was that most of it was still ending up in the River Birch landfill due to sorting or contamination issues or just that no one wanted the collected recycling.
I also learned that the River Birch landfill has an extensive gas collection system now that they use gases that the landfill produces to make food grade CO2 and methane from the anaerobic decomposition of all the trash in the landfill. So landfills are more than just a pile of garbage.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:46 am to weagle1999
quote:
even the people committed to radically reduced carbon emissions now say we don't need to radically reduce carbon emissions to save the world or whatever.
It was never really about “saving the planet” my man
Posted on 5/6/26 at 5:33 am to billjamin
I’m not the one making the claim 
Posted on 5/6/26 at 5:52 am to weagle1999
I love how each political “side” is just dying for some scientific study to tell them how to feel about pollution. Like “yay, i get to live in shite, garbage, and poison!”
Posted on 5/6/26 at 5:52 am to weagle1999
Just keep moving the goal posts….
Posted on 5/6/26 at 5:57 am to Rick9Plus
quote:
I love how each political “side” is just dying for some scientific study to tell them how to feel about pollution. Like “yay, i get to live in shite, garbage, and poison!”
Isn't this every scientific "study?"
Posted on 5/6/26 at 5:59 am to weagle1999
PJ Media is a POLITICAL, OPINION-BASED ‘source’.
What the recent scenario work concludes is that the old highest-emissions pathway has become less plausible because of:
* lower-than-expected coal growth,
* cheaper renewables,
* more climate policy,
* slower population growth than assumed in
some old models.
Whether outfits like ‘PJ Media’, that are basically political opinion based ‘sources’ are Conservative, or Liberal, their writers usually always twist what REAL reports indicate.. slanting, twisting, and omitting facts.
As I stated above, BOTH factions are guilty.
What the recent scenario work concludes is that the old highest-emissions pathway has become less plausible because of:
* lower-than-expected coal growth,
* cheaper renewables,
* more climate policy,
* slower population growth than assumed in
some old models.
Whether outfits like ‘PJ Media’, that are basically political opinion based ‘sources’ are Conservative, or Liberal, their writers usually always twist what REAL reports indicate.. slanting, twisting, and omitting facts.
As I stated above, BOTH factions are guilty.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 6:02 am to Klark Kent
quote:
if you ever want a good chuckle, go back and read all of Al Gore’s climate change theories from the early 2000’s.
Even Al Gore’s wife Tipper, who is nuttier than a fruit cake herself, knew he was nuts and kicked him to the curb.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 6:15 am to YNWA
quote:IT'S STILL REAL TO ME DAMMIT
Go ask the fisherman in the Atlantic and Pacific. They will tell you the waters are warming. The fisherman in Ireland will tell you.
The grift is by the oil companies who are paying for articles and climate deniers. That's a fact
Posted on 5/6/26 at 6:19 am to YNWA
quote:
Go ask the fisherman in the Atlantic and Pacific. They will tell you the waters are warming. The fisherman in Ireland will tell you. The grift is by the oil companies who are paying for articles and climate deniers. That's a fact
time to take a break from Reddit bud.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 6:50 am to TheRealTigerHorn
quote:
The fisherman in Ireland will tell you.
Is one of them named Greta?
Popular
Back to top



1







