- 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: Trump: ‘Could the environmental insurrectionists explain what happened to global warming?’
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:15 pm to bad93ex
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:15 pm to bad93ex
99% of scientists that take government money for "green research", say that the petroleum industry is bad.
99% of scientists that receive oil money for research, say that oil is perfect and safe.
But the around 4% of scientists and their firms that are not beholden to "green alternative energy" or ONG money, unanimously agree that the industry has its negative environmental impact but they so heavily regulate themselves that they have made the negatives as negligible as possible and continue to strive to get more from their products and create less emissions.
That's the way this has always worked in every industry. It's the governmental big money on one side, the private industrial big money on one side, and then a minority in the middle that calls them both out.
So you have the people in Davos all telling us how to live, what to eat, and what to believe, while they fly all over the world in their private jets---- knowing that air traffic causes about 4% of global carbon and GHG emissions annually. When they shut their mouths and start zooming these meetings instead of killing my planet with their hypocrisy, maybe I'll pay attention to what they're defecating from their pie holes.
99% of scientists that receive oil money for research, say that oil is perfect and safe.
But the around 4% of scientists and their firms that are not beholden to "green alternative energy" or ONG money, unanimously agree that the industry has its negative environmental impact but they so heavily regulate themselves that they have made the negatives as negligible as possible and continue to strive to get more from their products and create less emissions.
That's the way this has always worked in every industry. It's the governmental big money on one side, the private industrial big money on one side, and then a minority in the middle that calls them both out.
So you have the people in Davos all telling us how to live, what to eat, and what to believe, while they fly all over the world in their private jets---- knowing that air traffic causes about 4% of global carbon and GHG emissions annually. When they shut their mouths and start zooming these meetings instead of killing my planet with their hypocrisy, maybe I'll pay attention to what they're defecating from their pie holes.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:19 pm to Powerman
quote:
This is puppy chow for useful idiots
We're not even serving red meat anymore
CRY.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:21 pm to Powerman
quote:
This is puppy chow for useful idiots
We're not even serving red meat anymore
You would have a point if every warm spell wasn’t cited as evidence by the warming hoaxers.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:26 pm to Mikes My Tiger
quote:
Temperature does not equal climate
Yes it does! But only when the temperatures are high. When they are low that’s just weather, bumpkin.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:30 pm to Penrod
quote:
You would have a point if every warm spell wasn’t cited as evidence by the warming hoaxers.
Or every tornado or tropical storm or snowflake or gust of wind.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:34 pm to hawgfaninc
I still have PTSD from the hole in the ozone layer
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:41 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Recorded temperatures for surface and ocean temperatures have steadily increased since 1970 by about 2 degrees fahrenheit.
Really? Would love to see where you saw that data. Data I see is less than 1.7 degree celsius per century since 1970
1.7 deg C is 3.06 deg F. It’s been 55 years since 1970, and 0.55 times 3.06 equals 1.683 deg F warming since 1970. He said “about 2 degrees F”, so you and he are not that far apart.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:44 pm to AGGIES
quote:
Europe doesn’t have the same oil reserves as the US. So they need to pursue what their strengths are. Rachel Reeves talked about it at the World Economic Forum. Germany will pursue their own energy plans.
Baloney! They abandoned readily accessible oil reserves and shuttered nuclear power (from a CO2 perspective, the best performing energy). Europe didn’t go to wind and solar because of a lack of options, and they didn’t go there in order to lower CO2 (or they would have kept the nuclear going).
This post was edited on 1/23/26 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:51 pm to AGGIES
quote:
Pay no attention to the polar ice caps
I remember a few years ago when the climate idiots all claimed Antarctica was losing ice because they measured lowered ice in one part of the continent.
As it turns out, other parts had so much ice that the overall amount was greater than average. But that didn't stop all the simpletons from running with the fake narrative.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 7:09 pm to kilo
We put a man on the moon in 1969, surely we knew how to read a thermometer....
Popular
Back to top


0





