Climate Hoax

[mspart]

WA instituted the carbon tax.  Raised gas prices by 50 cents a gallon.   So they have brought in a pile of cash based on this.   It also is a tax on propane, and natural gas.   

That money was supposed to go to projects to help the environment and lower the carbon footprint.   Most, if not all, of the money has gone to activists who promise to do something maybe to lower the carbon footprint.   

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/where-does-washington-state-spend-the-co2-tax-revenue-more-government

More than 70 percent of the expenditures went to government and planning. In many cases, programs that sound good – like reducing flooding in the Nooksack River – are actually just funding more government employees, not building projects to reduce flooding.

Meanwhile, projects that are mentioned frequently, like efforts to reduce childhood asthma, represent a tiny fraction of the spending. The spending on childhood asthma accounts for just $300,000 of the $174 million – less than two-tenths of one percent of spending.

Counting more bureaucracy as a “community project” shows how climate activists and politicians now care less about producing environmental benefits than spending money on symbolic projects.

mspart

[Lipdrag]

59 minutes ago, mspart said:

WA instituted the carbon tax.  Raised gas prices by 50 cents a gallon.   So they have brought in a pile of cash based on this.   It also is a tax on propane, and natural gas.   

That money was supposed to go to projects to help the environment and lower the carbon footprint.   Most, if not all, of the money has gone to activists who promise to do something maybe to lower the carbon footprint.   

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/where-does-washington-state-spend-the-co2-tax-revenue-more-government

More than 70 percent of the expenditures went to government and planning. In many cases, programs that sound good – like reducing flooding in the Nooksack River – are actually just funding more government employees, not building projects to reduce flooding.

Meanwhile, projects that are mentioned frequently, like efforts to reduce childhood asthma, represent a tiny fraction of the spending. The spending on childhood asthma accounts for just $300,000 of the $174 million – less than two-tenths of one percent of spending.

Counting more bureaucracy as a “community project” shows how climate activists and politicians now care less about producing environmental benefits than spending money on symbolic projects.

mspart

Hence, hoax.   Fraud.  This is why governments that are not strictly limited in scope and authority always become the parasites that kill their hosts.  Large government is not sustainable. 

[Lipdrag]

[Lipdrag]

Nuttier than a fruitcake.   Both of them because Rose does not even flinch at the inane, insane, and asinine statements. 

 

[Scouts Honor]

will greenpeace finally do its part

 

[Scouts Honor]

[Caveira]

Well it’s been a good ride fellas.  7 months left till we’re toast 

 

 

[ionel]

He ain't wrong ... yet. 

 

PS:  shouldn't we all quit our jobs and party like its 2026!!! 

Edited May 16 by ionel

[Caveira]

Woooooot?   They got it wrong ?    More taxes though 

…

[Lipdrag]

"They made it up."

 

What is isn't and what isn't is.

"Border isn't open"  Wrong, it is (was).

"Earth is melting"  Wrong, it is not.

"A boy is a girl"  Wrong, he is not.

"A dead person is a legitimate name on a voter roll"  Wrong, a dead person is not a citizen. 

"There is not welfare and medicaid fraud"  Wrong, billions of dollars wrong.

"Every ballot is legitimate"  Wrong, democrats will even steal elections against other democrats in primaries if able.

This is a very short list of the opposite statements asserted by the tyrannical left.

[Scouts Honor]

 

[red viking]

18 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

"They made it up."

 

What is isn't and what isn't is.

"Border isn't open"  Wrong, it is (was).

"Earth is melting"  Wrong, it is not.

"A boy is a girl"  Wrong, he is not.

"A dead person is a legitimate name on a voter roll"  Wrong, a dead person is not a citizen. 

"There is not welfare and medicaid fraud"  Wrong, billions of dollars wrong.

"Every ballot is legitimate"  Wrong, democrats will even steal elections against other democrats in primaries if able.

This is a very short list of the opposite statements asserted by the tyrannical left.

Pretty much all strawmen or out of context. Show me the real quotes and who said them you liar. 

Edited May 18 by red viking

[Lipdrag]

No media covering the IPCC admission that everything it has uttered for years is "implausible". 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18aDeBKsNA/

 

Welcome to the party, pal.

https://share.google/10igmUcJrC4wOiJap

Edited May 22 by Lipdrag

[Lipdrag]

The term Fossil Fuel is so incredibly inane that I cannot believe it started let alone persisted in the face of fact and logic. Is it possible anyone thinks there was no carbon until Barney the Dinosuaur invented it?

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ELd8N2ziQ/

[red viking]

25 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

The term Fossil Fuel is so incredibly inane that I cannot believe it started let alone persisted in the face of fact and logic. Is it possible anyone thinks there was no carbon until Barney the Dinosuaur invented it?

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ELd8N2ziQ/

Point is that it comes from dead organic material. Matter that was previously alive.  Whether technically " fossils" or not. There's a finite supply of it, that is accessible. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Lipdrag said:

The term Fossil Fuel is so incredibly inane that I cannot believe it started let alone persisted in the face of fact and logic. Is it possible anyone thinks there was no carbon until Barney the Dinosuaur invented it?

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ELd8N2ziQ/

Yep.  As technology develops better ways of bringing it up, they keep finding new supplies.  Egypt just found a big new field.  
 

https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/egypt-hits-biggest-oil-and-gas-jackpot-in-15-years-with-massive-desert-discovery/e18m3ll?op=1

[Lipdrag]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

Point is that it comes from dead organic material. Matter that was previously alive.  Whether technically " fossils" or not. There's a finite supply of it, that is accessible. 

Nope.

[red viking]

27 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Nope.

You're 110% incorrect. The oil we are using is increasingly deeper and more difficult to access. 

Being used at a much faster rate than being replenished, which is basically not at all. 

Renewable energy isn't an option. Its 110% necessary. Without it, we'll be in the stone age, even with oil. There's no turniing back. It will only continue to grow. 

 

Edited May 24 by red viking

[Lipdrag]

4 hours ago, red viking said:

Renewable energy isn't an option.

Renewable energy is not a thing.  Simple thermodynamics.  The source of almost all energy on earth is the sun and, of course, the big bang (or whatever theory you have about how atoms and sub-atomic particles were formed).  When the sun runs out solar panels and windmills won't have anything to "renew".  And we will have at least a little bit of oil then to keep us warm and keep the lights on for a short while.

Your rebuttal did not address the Barney Origins of fuel.  It actually rebutted the Barney origins as the oil and gas being accessed now is more than double the depth of any fossil remains.  Ever.  Hydrocarbons can and have been created without any organic matter.  Just carbon, hydrogen, heat, pressure, etc.  How many Barney cousins flew to Titan and died to form the methane oceans there?  Or is it the Titan cows farting without authority to do so from the IPCC?

[red viking]

50 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Renewable energy is not a thing.  Simple thermodynamics.  The source of almost all energy on earth is the sun and, of course, the big bang (or whatever theory you have about how atoms and sub-atomic particles were formed).  When the sun runs out solar panels and windmills won't have anything to "renew".  And we will have at least a little bit of oil then to keep us warm and keep the lights on for a short while.

Your rebuttal did not address the Barney Origins of fuel.  It actually rebutted the Barney origins as the oil and gas being accessed now is more than double the depth of any fossil remains.  Ever.  Hydrocarbons can and have been created without any organic matter.  Just carbon, hydrogen, heat, pressure, etc.  How many Barney cousins flew to Titan and died to form the methane oceans there?  Or is it the Titan cows farting without authority to do so from the IPCC?

You don't have much of a science background, do you? 

Your first argument is semantics, which proves you are desperate. Wind and solar are considered "renewable" because we we will never run out of them (maybe temporarily if there is a super volcano or nuclear war). The potential supply stays pretty much constant no matter how much we use. 

Regardless of the wording you use, oil is not that way, not by a long shot. The cost to extract oil has gone up significantly as viable reserves that are remaining are deeper and more difficult to access. Even with better technology, it's generally increased faster than inflation. 

As for abiogenic oil, yes, some may exist but, if so, they are very trace amounts and generally not economically viable to extract. 

Edited May 24 by red viking

[Lipdrag]

A potential unintended consequence of the IPCC saying "Oh, um, nevermind."?

 

 

Ugly (behaviorially, of course) liberal leftist women no longer have to sterilize themselves to save the planet.   So, no one tell them.  It is still better for the planet if they keep doing it.

Edited May 25 by Lipdrag

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

A potential unintended consequence of the IPCC saying "Oh, um, nevermind."?

 

 

Ugly (behaviorially, of course) liberal leftist women no longer have to sterilize themselves to save the planet.   So, no one tell them.  It is still better for the planet if they keep doing it.

Gotta be tough for liberal women.   They actively won’t date or sleep with conservative men.    They’re only left with weak beta males.   

[Lipdrag]

Free solar panels for illegal aliens.   What could go wrong?

Ok, not actually free. Paid for by everyone else solar panels.  

 

https://www.city-journal.org/article/california-gavin-newsom-solar-panels-affordable-housing-somah

[mspart]

There is nothing wrong with wind and solar.   Except they kill wildlife and landscapes.  Solar does not pay for itself when energy is much cheaper with "fossil fuels".   Once we crack the Fusion code, all of this will be obsolete.   

The wind and solar will not power AI farms that are now going up.   They take from local residents and businesses.   AI farms should be made to build their own electricity production facilities so that the general grid for everyone is not impacted.  But you can bet they will  not build a wind or solar farm.   The economics don't allow it and the constant lull in production is just way too inconvenient.   

mspart

[Scouts Honor]

On 5/24/2026 at 5:48 PM, red viking said:

You don't have much of a science background, do you? 

Your first argument is semantics, which proves you are desperate. Wind and solar are considered "renewable" because we we will never run out of them (maybe temporarily if there is a super volcano or nuclear war). The potential supply stays pretty much constant no matter how much we use. 

Regardless of the wording you use, oil is not that way, not by a long shot. The cost to extract oil has gone up significantly as viable reserves that are remaining are deeper and more difficult to access. Even with better technology, it's generally increased faster than inflation. 

As for abiogenic oil, yes, some may exist but, if so, they are very trace amounts and generally not economically viable to extract. 

you do know.. or probably don't

thousands of gallons of petrol are used to make windturbines and put them in place

and coal and natural gas are needed to make solar panels..