Originally Posted by bogmonster (Post 2242726)

If you look at the hard numbers that the climate people put out, transportation is a very small contributor to CO2. One of the biggest is air conditioning.

To that point, all those that truly believe in global warming, please post your addresses and I will personally stop by and pull your air conditioner cut out switch so that you are no longer a contributor.

Wait, what? It’s not your air conditioner that is the problem, just mine? How could I be so blind?

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2242743)

Is it just me? Or does this entire "discussion" resemble a group of fleas expounding on how to control the dog?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2242750)

Do you have a link for those numbers?

Our World in Data has slightly different numbers. Road transport (of which 60% is automobiles) accounts for 11% while residential use (cooking, lighting, heating, cooling) accounts for 11%. Not exactly "very small" or "biggest."

Significantly, road transport is direct consumption of fossil fuels while a large amount (majority?) of residential use is electrical generation. Clean up the electrical generation and the residential use drops.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242345)

I generally watch WFTV (ABC affiliate) in the morning for local news and weather. I have no idea about other stations, but for the last 2 weeks they have been pushing harder than ever their narrative of high temperatures. This morning they claimed that we have substantially higher temps than normal, and used the terms "unprecedented", and "dangerous". What is insidious is their use of "heat index" almost to the exclusion of actual temperatures so they can put triple number digits on their map. No comparison of these "heat indices" with past values are given.

OK, actual high temps in the Villages 7/27-8/3----94,96,95,96,96,98,96 avg 95.86
Oh, wait a minute, that was LAST year
This year, same dates---89,90,96,97,91,95,93 avg 93.00 or 2.86 deg COOLER
This is what the weatherman claimed is "substantially higher than usual". So I'm calling BS on that.
I can only assume that the news media has access to more complete temperature data than those numbers I just pulled off the accuweather website, so clearly they are LYING TO US. Why???? Is there an agenda at work here?

Meanwhile, pretty much all of Central Florida is under a heat advisory, which the weatherman stated was unusual. True, there was no heat advisory this time last year when it was 2.86 degrees WARMER. So why is that?

Well, heat advisories are issued by the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA which falls under the Department of Commerce, lead by a cabinet level secretary.
So, here is what they are doing:
"Today, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina M. Raimondo announced funding opportunities from NOAA's $2.96 billion in Infrastructure Law funds to address the climate crisis and strengthen coastal resilience and infrastructure. Over the next five years, NOAA’s targeted investments in the areas of habitat restoration, coastal resilience, and climate data and services will advance ongoing federal efforts toward building climate resilience.

Looks like they're getting plenty of media support for their "efforts"

Draw your own conclusions, but IMHO it appears that reporting temps as heat indices, issuing heat advisories when it is actually cooler than last year, and Good Morning America's lead story every day on the weather serves to push the continuing false narrative of "global warming", for which a few figure to profit immensely.

Addendum: This morning's GMA story is about a glacier they hunted for that is melting at an "unprecedented" rate. Probably true, but there are other glaciers that are growing. And in another 40,000 years those glaciers will grow 2 miles of ice over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Originally Posted by rsmurano (Post 2242731)

The earth goes thru these climate cycles every so many thousands of years and it will keep doing so, no matter if we drive gas cars, have cows that fart, or have billions of people on it. Most of the media fake news channels push a certain narrative and has been doing this for many years. You can go back a 100 years and look at these so called climate scientists that claim glaciers are thawing (we had 40,000 glaciers back then, and we have the same amount today), our coastlines will be under inches of water each year, our former president was getting blamed for some of the hurricanes we had those years, and you remember the big ozone hole that was so scary looking many years ago? Some of these dire predictions also used the term "10 years from now we are doomed if nothing gets done", sound familiar?
BTW: I did get a kick out of the weather channel last year during the hurricane evacuations we were having. They actually stated to "not" use your EV to evacuate, and they listed a few reasons. This was from a pro-climate crisis channel.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242753)

So what???? Get rid of all of that and NOTHING CHANGES.

Originally Posted by Notsocrates (Post 2242759)

It is known, but has been ignored that the earth has been in a cooling phase recently. Look it up.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2242768)

According to the research climatologists have done or did you do your own research?

And besides, I'm just enjoying a whack-a-mole morning. Automobiles contribute very little but air conditioners contribute the majority. We have accurate counts of glaciers from the 1930s.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242771)

According to the climate history of the last 4 1/2 million years.

Let's see----20 years of so-called climatologists shouting "global warming" ( the same climatologists who were touting "global freezing" 50 years ago) vs 4 1/2 million years of climate cycles, data gleaned from ice cores and geological strata.

I'll go with the historical record.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2242773)

So you've done your own research. I saw a meme about that not so long ago.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242345)

I generally watch WFTV (ABC affiliate) in the morning for local news and weather. I have no idea about other stations, but for the last 2 weeks they have been pushing harder than ever their narrative of high temperatures. This morning they claimed that we have substantially higher temps than normal, and used the terms "unprecedented", and "dangerous". What is insidious is their use of "heat index" almost to the exclusion of actual temperatures so they can put triple number digits on their map. No comparison of these "heat indices" with past values are given.

OK, actual high temps in the Villages 7/27-8/3----94,96,95,96,96,98,96 avg 95.86
Oh, wait a minute, that was LAST year
This year, same dates---89,90,96,97,91,95,93 avg 93.00 or 2.86 deg COOLER
This is what the weatherman claimed is "substantially higher than usual". So I'm calling BS on that.
I can only assume that the news media has access to more complete temperature data than those numbers I just pulled off the accuweather website, so clearly they are LYING TO US. Why???? Is there an agenda at work here?

Meanwhile, pretty much all of Central Florida is under a heat advisory, which the weatherman stated was unusual. True, there was no heat advisory this time last year when it was 2.86 degrees WARMER. So why is that?

Well, heat advisories are issued by the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA which falls under the Department of Commerce, lead by a cabinet level secretary.
So, here is what they are doing:
"Today, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina M. Raimondo announced funding opportunities from NOAA's $2.96 billion in Infrastructure Law funds to address the climate crisis and strengthen coastal resilience and infrastructure. Over the next five years, NOAA’s targeted investments in the areas of habitat restoration, coastal resilience, and climate data and services will advance ongoing federal efforts toward building climate resilience.

Looks like they're getting plenty of media support for their "efforts"

Draw your own conclusions, but IMHO it appears that reporting temps as heat indices, issuing heat advisories when it is actually cooler than last year, and Good Morning America's lead story every day on the weather serves to push the continuing false narrative of "global warming", for which a few figure to profit immensely.

Addendum: This morning's GMA story is about a glacier they hunted for that is melting at an "unprecedented" rate. Probably true, but there are other glaciers that are growing. And in another 40,000 years those glaciers will grow 2 miles of ice over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 2242778)

Speaking of NOAA's multibillion dollar efforts to strengthen coastal resilience and infrastructure, does anybody think it's odd that two of the biggest proponents of climate change and rising sea levels due to melting glaciers, etc.--Barack and Michelle Obama--spent nearly $12 million on an estate on Martha's Vineyard that is maybe 3 feet above sea level?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242345)

I generally watch WFTV (ABC affiliate) in the morning for local news and weather. I have no idea about other stations, but for the last 2 weeks they have been pushing harder than ever their narrative of high temperatures. This morning they claimed that we have substantially higher temps than normal, and used the terms "unprecedented", and "dangerous". What is insidious is their use of "heat index" almost to the exclusion of actual temperatures so they can put triple number digits on their map. No comparison of these "heat indices" with past values are given.

OK, actual high temps in the Villages 7/27-8/3----94,96,95,96,96,98,96 avg 95.86
Oh, wait a minute, that was LAST year
This year, same dates---89,90,96,97,91,95,93 avg 93.00 or 2.86 deg COOLER
This is what the weatherman claimed is "substantially higher than usual". So I'm calling BS on that.
I can only assume that the news media has access to more complete temperature data than those numbers I just pulled off the accuweather website, so clearly they are LYING TO US. Why???? Is there an agenda at work here?

Meanwhile, pretty much all of Central Florida is under a heat advisory, which the weatherman stated was unusual. True, there was no heat advisory this time last year when it was 2.86 degrees WARMER. So why is that?

Well, heat advisories are issued by the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA which falls under the Department of Commerce, lead by a cabinet level secretary.
So, here is what they are doing:
"Today, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina M. Raimondo announced funding opportunities from NOAA's $2.96 billion in Infrastructure Law funds to address the climate crisis and strengthen coastal resilience and infrastructure. Over the next five years, NOAA’s targeted investments in the areas of habitat restoration, coastal resilience, and climate data and services will advance ongoing federal efforts toward building climate resilience.

Looks like they're getting plenty of media support for their "efforts"

Draw your own conclusions, but IMHO it appears that reporting temps as heat indices, issuing heat advisories when it is actually cooler than last year, and Good Morning America's lead story every day on the weather serves to push the continuing false narrative of "global warming", for which a few figure to profit immensely.

Addendum: This morning's GMA story is about a glacier they hunted for that is melting at an "unprecedented" rate. Probably true, but there are other glaciers that are growing. And in another 40,000 years those glaciers will grow 2 miles of ice over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242368)

Who knows? It's possible. But it will probably take another 65 million years. Meanwhile, the anthropogenic climate change advocates with their agenda (which generally translates to $$$) want to convince you that our grandchildren will die from the heat. (After all, cashing in on this false narrative in 65 million years is not what they are aiming for)

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242345)

I generally watch WFTV (ABC affiliate) in the morning for local news and weather. I have no idea about other stations, but for the last 2 weeks they have been pushing harder than ever their narrative of high temperatures. This morning they claimed that we have substantially higher temps than normal, and used the terms "unprecedented", and "dangerous". What is insidious is their use of "heat index" almost to the exclusion of actual temperatures so they can put triple number digits on their map. No comparison of these "heat indices" with past values are given.

OK, actual high temps in the Villages 7/27-8/3----94,96,95,96,96,98,96 avg 95.86
Oh, wait a minute, that was LAST year
This year, same dates---89,90,96,97,91,95,93 avg 93.00 or 2.86 deg COOLER
This is what the weatherman claimed is "substantially higher than usual". So I'm calling BS on that.
I can only assume that the news media has access to more complete temperature data than those numbers I just pulled off the accuweather website, so clearly they are LYING TO US. Why???? Is there an agenda at work here?

Meanwhile, pretty much all of Central Florida is under a heat advisory, which the weatherman stated was unusual. True, there was no heat advisory this time last year when it was 2.86 degrees WARMER. So why is that?

Well, heat advisories are issued by the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA which falls under the Department of Commerce, lead by a cabinet level secretary.
So, here is what they are doing:
"Today, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina M. Raimondo announced funding opportunities from NOAA's $2.96 billion in Infrastructure Law funds to address the climate crisis and strengthen coastal resilience and infrastructure. Over the next five years, NOAA’s targeted investments in the areas of habitat restoration, coastal resilience, and climate data and services will advance ongoing federal efforts toward building climate resilience.

Looks like they're getting plenty of media support for their "efforts"

Draw your own conclusions, but IMHO it appears that reporting temps as heat indices, issuing heat advisories when it is actually cooler than last year, and Good Morning America's lead story every day on the weather serves to push the continuing false narrative of "global warming", for which a few figure to profit immensely.

Addendum: This morning's GMA story is about a glacier they hunted for that is melting at an "unprecedented" rate. Probably true, but there are other glaciers that are growing. And in another 40,000 years those glaciers will grow 2 miles of ice over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242345)

I generally watch WFTV (ABC affiliate) in the morning for local news and weather. I have no idea about other stations, but for the last 2 weeks they have been pushing harder than ever their narrative of high temperatures. This morning they claimed that we have substantially higher temps than normal, and used the terms "unprecedented", and "dangerous". What is insidious is their use of "heat index" almost to the exclusion of actual temperatures so they can put triple number digits on their map. No comparison of these "heat indices" with past values are given.




OK, actual high temps in the Villages 7/27-8/3----94,96,95,96,96,98,96 avg 95.86
Oh, wait a minute, that was LAST year
This year, same dates---89,90,96,97,91,95,93 avg 93.00 or 2.86 deg COOLER
This is what the weatherman claimed is "substantially higher than usual". So I'm calling BS on that.
I can only assume that the news media has access to more complete temperature data than those numbers I just pulled off the accuweather website, so clearly they are LYING TO US. Why???? Is there an agenda at work here?

Meanwhile, pretty much all of Central Florida is under a heat advisory, which the weatherman stated was unusual. True, there was no heat advisory this time last year when it was 2.86 degrees WARMER. So why is that?

Well, heat advisories are issued by the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA which falls under the Department of Commerce, lead by a cabinet level secretary.
So, here is what they are doing:
"Today, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina M. Raimondo announced funding opportunities from NOAA's $2.96 billion in Infrastructure Law funds to address the climate crisis and strengthen coastal resilience and infrastructure. Over the next five years, NOAA’s targeted investments in the areas of habitat restoration, coastal resilience, and climate data and services will advance ongoing federal efforts toward building climate resilience.

Looks like they're getting plenty of media support for their "efforts"

Draw your own conclusions, but IMHO it appears that reporting temps as heat indices, issuing heat advisories when it is actually cooler than last year, and Good Morning America's lead story every day on the weather serves to push the continuing false narrative of "global warming", for which a few figure to profit immensely.

Addendum: This morning's GMA story is about a glacier they hunted for that is melting at an "unprecedented" rate. Probably true, but there are other glaciers that are growing. And in another 40,000 years those glaciers will grow 2 miles of ice over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Originally Posted by kkingston57 (Post 2242793)

Can't argue that the coral in the Florida Keys is now turning white due to high(actual temp around 100 F) in the water. Personally watch WESH. They report temps.

Originally Posted by stargirl (Post 2242780)

I agree, the “heat index” is some ridiculous made up number. If it actually felt like what they say it felt like no one would go outside. Yesterday it said the heat index was 114. I played tennis and was fine, if it actually felt like 114 we would have all had a heat stroke!

Originally Posted by The Chipster (Post 2242807)

At the end of 1850 (roughly the beginning of the Industrial Revolution), the area containing the Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park as of 2022. That's really all you need to know about climate change.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242810)

Seriously???? You have to be joking, at least I hope so. If not, that post is absolutely classic "post hoc ergo propter hoc"---which translates to "after this therefore because of this"---it is the battle cry of all those with faulty cause and effect reasoning. After all, I ate bacon and eggs for breakfast this morning, and shortly afterwards there was an accident on I75. Therefore my breakfast choice caused the accident. Get real.

That's all you really need to know about irrational causation.

Originally Posted by JP (Post 2242818)

I remember the 1970's and the climate crazies were saying that if we hadn't "created" an artificial heat dome from CO2 emissions we would be in an ice age and a big hurt locker. Really, nobody knows what causes climate change. We have been lucky for about 200 years to have been in a relatively stable climate. Times change, climate changes.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2242823)

6 Claims Made by Climate Change Skeptics—and How to Respond | Rainforest Alliance

I wonder how long this thread will last?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242830)

Absolutely amazing. The climate change advocates actually put out a propaganda manual to support their untenable position. I wonder who paid for it? Again, follow the money.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2242833)

How about following the money as to who puts out various kinds of pollution? They have their paid bull ****ters as well even though the science is on point for the global warming warning academics.

Originally Posted by rickaslin (Post 2242825)

One of the better post I have read !!

Originally Posted by kansasr (Post 2242347)

Your grandchildren are just going to love the world we're leaving for them.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242345)

I generally watch WFTV (ABC affiliate) in the morning for local news and weather. I have no idea about other stations, but for the last 2 weeks they have been pushing harder than ever their narrative of high temperatures. This morning they claimed that we have substantially higher temps than normal, and used the terms "unprecedented", and "dangerous". What is insidious is their use of "heat index" almost to the exclusion of actual temperatures so they can put triple number digits on their map. No comparison of these "heat indices" with past values are given.

OK, actual high temps in the Villages 7/27-8/3----94,96,95,96,96,98,96 avg 95.86
Oh, wait a minute, that was LAST year
This year, same dates---89,90,96,97,91,95,93 avg 93.00 or 2.86 deg COOLER
This is what the weatherman claimed is "substantially higher than usual". So I'm calling BS on that.
I can only assume that the news media has access to more complete temperature data than those numbers I just pulled off the accuweather website, so clearly they are LYING TO US. Why???? Is there an agenda at work here?

Meanwhile, pretty much all of Central Florida is under a heat advisory, which the weatherman stated was unusual. True, there was no heat advisory this time last year when it was 2.86 degrees WARMER. So why is that?

Well, heat advisories are issued by the National Weather Service, a division of NOAA which falls under the Department of Commerce, lead by a cabinet level secretary.
So, here is what they are doing:
"Today, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina M. Raimondo announced funding opportunities from NOAA's $2.96 billion in Infrastructure Law funds to address the climate crisis and strengthen coastal resilience and infrastructure. Over the next five years, NOAA’s targeted investments in the areas of habitat restoration, coastal resilience, and climate data and services will advance ongoing federal efforts toward building climate resilience.

Looks like they're getting plenty of media support for their "efforts"

Draw your own conclusions, but IMHO it appears that reporting temps as heat indices, issuing heat advisories when it is actually cooler than last year, and Good Morning America's lead story every day on the weather serves to push the continuing false narrative of "global warming", for which a few figure to profit immensely.

Addendum: This morning's GMA story is about a glacier they hunted for that is melting at an "unprecedented" rate. Probably true, but there are other glaciers that are growing. And in another 40,000 years those glaciers will grow 2 miles of ice over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Originally Posted by cjrjck (Post 2242846)

Really? They are born into extreme poverty (debt) thanks to our generation with almost no hope of escape. What a legacy we have left. So self centered we happily passed all financial burdens to our grandchildren and their children.

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2242860)

Wrong.
Our kids have been running things for years now, it is them who are passing on the debt and bad habits to the grandchildren.
When us oldies generation were running the show, personal and national debt was manageable, and we didn't live on unlimited credit.
I sleep easy!

Originally Posted by cjrjck (Post 2242853)

Are these "religious" posts a violation of forum policy? The worship of science is a new age cult and one whose followers do not tolerate unbelief and unbelievers. While I am not a believer, perhaps this religion should be treated like other religions and afforded the same courtesies.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2242870)

Worship of critical thinking and facts is not a religion.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242872)

And besides, the climate change acolytes have shown neither. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: