Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2242875)

I suppose some flat earthers thought they were using critical thinking.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2242875)

Creativity, critical thinking & climate education for the green transition - OECD Education and Skills Today.

I suppose some flat earthers thought they were using critical thinking.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242880)

Exactly! Just like climate change advocates

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2242883)

If the climate change deniers are right we will probably all be dead anyway. It will get too hot for humans and then it will eventually cool down around 2300 or whenever.

And we will have probably started created trash heaps on the moon. After someone like Elon Musk builds a colony of very rich people.

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 2242353)

Socially and politically I have no idea. But in terms of climate it will be no different in the next 5-10,000 years than it has been in the last 5-10,000, barring a substantial asteroid impact

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242345)

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 Vermilion Villager (Post 2242963)

Please name one glacier that is growing.........

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242749)

Care to back that up with the facts???

Don't bother, here they are, check it if you like:

Entire oil industry profit in 2022-----200 billion, which would be 10 trillion over 50 years

Proposed spending to "combat" climate change---$100 TRILLION over next 50 years. Or 10x oil industry profit. Care to revise your post??????

What I'd like to know is just WHAT "they" plan to do with $100 trillion? Sell more EVs to those that think electricity just appears out of the ether? But you don't need money to sell something. Build more nuclear power plants??? Seems contrary to "their" agenda. Send a planetary distress signal to the starship Enterprise so we can borrow some matter-antimatter reactors???? Or better yet, just like the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still", abandon all technology and live like cavemen. But wait, we've been experiencing global warming for 20,000 years during which time we WERE cavemen.

Bottom line, there is no current solution, just a scam to put mega dollars into the hands of the few.

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager (Post 2242963)

Please name one glacier that is growing.........

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager (Post 2242978)

Apples and oranges. The profit the oil companies are making is just a small fraction of the over all cost of fossil fuel. Also, I do not know where you're getting $100 trillion figure from. Even if it were correct (its "proposed" so even you don't know), the only thing that shows is that it cost a lot more to clean up the mess than it does to create it.

Originally Posted by Windguy (Post 2242738)

The money being spent to prevent serious climate change is peanuts compared to the money being made by the fossil-fuel industry.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242749)

Care to back that up with the facts???

Don't bother, here they are, check it if you like:

Entire oil industry profit in 2022-----200 billion, which would be 10 trillion over 50 years

Proposed spending to "combat" climate change---$100 TRILLION over next 50 years. Or 10x oil industry profit. Care to revise your post??????

What I'd like to know is just WHAT "they" plan to do with $100 trillion? Sell more EVs to those that think electricity just appears out of the ether? But you don't need money to sell something. Build more nuclear power plants??? Seems contrary to "their" agenda. Send a planetary distress signal to the starship Enterprise so we can borrow some matter-antimatter reactors???? Or better yet, just like the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still", abandon all technology and live like cavemen. But wait, we've been experiencing global warming for 20,000 years during which time we WERE cavemen.

Bottom line, there is no current solution, just a scam to put mega dollars into the hands of the few.

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager (Post 2242978)

Apples and oranges. The profit the oil companies are making is just a small fraction of the over all cost of fossil fuel. Also, I do not know where you're getting $100 trillion figure from. Even if it were correct (its "proposed" so even you don't know), the only thing that shows is that it cost a lot more to clean up the mess than it does to create it.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242991)

Seriously?? There are thousands, most of which aren't named.. But I'll give you a couple that have names:

Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland
Hubbard Glacier in Alaska

Or did you think that all 130,000 glaciers on the planet were shrinking, possibly disappearing like the polar ice caps were supposed to by 2010?

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager (Post 2243020)

Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland
Why a Growing Greenland Glacier Doesn't Mean Good News for Global Warming – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.
Hubbard Glacier in Alaska
Geologic Hazards - Climate and Cryosphere | Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys).

ANY QUESTIONS?

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2242883)

If the climate change deniers are right we will probably all be dead anyway. It will get too hot for humans and then it will eventually cool down around 2300 or whenever.

And we will have probably started created trash heaps on the moon. After someone like Elon Musk builds a colony of very rich people.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2242396)

Not exactly. Warming (and cooling) has been occurring for millions of years (as some on here constantly point out). However, the *rate* of warming has increased as the world has increased its use of fossil fuels. It is that increase in rate that the climatologists are worried about.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2242357)

if you say it long enough it becomes fact

how fables and fairy tales are created

Originally Posted by rustyp (Post 2243176)

Today 98 degrees
Thurs 97 degrees
Fri 98 degrees
Sat 98 degrees
Sun 97 degrees

Coupled with a low of 76 - 77 degrees each day. That's actual temp not heat index. The heat index is forecast to be 111 - 113 degrees. - enjoy.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2243075)

But the deniers are wrong on all counts, relying on false or inaccurate and partial anecdotes to bolster their faulty conclusions. Suffice it to say, you are right, they are wrong. It's a cult that blindly follows the leader.

P.S. And, by the way, if anybody should ask, Fred Flintstone drove a Canopysaurus, aka "Cavemobile" . It didn't rely on fossil fuels or electricity. No carbon footprint, only cartoon footprints.

Originally Posted by Tblue (Post 2243213)

I too watch the weather forecast and the hype of higher temperatures and most always the mention of the "heat index" which seems to make it more severe. In a few months we will be hearing about the "wind chill". What is the wind chill today?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2243192)

First of all, what you and others term as "deniers" are those that understand the science and paleoclimatology. The true "deniers" are the global warming alarmists and those that stand to make huge profits.

And thanks for reinforcing one of my points---Fred Flintstone didn't use fossil fuels---so explain the last 20,000 years of global warming.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2243222)

My apologies for the use of the term "denier ". I didn't realize how it upset you. What term do you think more appropriate for one who denies the fact of global warming. I've got a few suggestions, but "denier" is by far the least objectionable, imho.

First off, Mr. Flintstone is not real, nor does he represent prehistoric humans in any real way. He is a cartoon version of Ralph Cramden of The Honeymooners.
Second, the natural cycle was disrupted, no real surprise, beginning with the massive increase in population, the start of the industrial revolution, the use of fossil fuel, and the massive destruction of ecosystems world wide.
Want to cry "Follow the money"? Then follow the BIG money and it will lead you right to big oil.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2243218)

True. But even if we have record cold this winter, the indoctrinated will claim that global warming can cause cold and snow

No different, than a page or 2 ago, I was challenged to "name" just one glacier that was growing. While there are thousands, mostly unnamed, I gave the names of 2. The rebuttal was some contrived article that used contorted data and logic to claim that the growing glacier is "bad" and is proof of global warming. So, I guess in their little fantasy world, climate change advocates actually believe that shrinking glaciers are caused by global warming AND growing glaciers are caused by global warming!

Go figure. And they call US the "deniers"! :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Originally Posted by Eclas (Post 2243164)

You'll have to prove that Bill. The fossil fuel argument is BS unless it can be proved. The scientists that keep pushing this bs are loving their grants and all the money they get. Talk to a scientists that is not being funded by the global warming alarmists.

Originally Posted by Eclas (Post 2243164)

You'll have to prove that Bill. The fossil fuel argument is BS unless it can be proved. The scientists that keep pushing this bs are loving their grants and all the money they get. Talk to a scientists that is not being funded by the global warming alarmists.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2243222)

Second, the natural cycle was disrupted, no real surprise, beginning with the massive increase in population, the start of the industrial revolution, the use of fossil fuel, and the massive destruction of ecosystems world wide.
Want to cry "Follow the money"? Then follow the BIG money and it will lead you right to big oil.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2243230)

Record cold this winter in Florida would be weather. Global (world wide) temperature, look at that instead of picking some local weather phenomenon.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2243230)

Record cold this winter in Florida would be weather. Global (world wide) temperature, look at that instead of picking some local weather phenomenon.

Originally Posted by rustyp (Post 2243176)

Today 98 degrees
Thurs 97 degrees
Fri 98 degrees
Sat 98 degrees
Sun 97 degrees

Coupled with a low of 76 - 77 degrees each day. That's actual temp not heat index. The heat index is forecast to be 111 - 113 degrees. - enjoy.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2243191)

It's called central Florida in August, no different than 200 years ago

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2243237)

That the rate of warming has increased over the last 150 years is no longer being disputed, even by the deniers. I won't be proving it, I'm not a climatologist and the data is available to anyone interested in googling it.

Originally Posted by rustyp (Post 2243244)

Same dates last year
Aug 9 - 90 degrees
Aug 10 - 95 degrees
Aug 11 - 93 degrees
Aug 12 - 93 degrees
Aug 13 - 93 degrees

Proof positive climate is warming:
Same 5 days this year Vs last year are projected to be +8.6 degrees higher.
I could not find the same 5 days data from 200 years ago.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2243245)

And you have proof that this is the ONLY 150 year period over the last 4 1/2 million years when the rate of warming has increased??? How about the periods where the rate of warming in the current 20,000 year cycle has slowed? How about the periods where the planet has cooled, even during the current warming cycle.

Again, we lack the data to conclude anything. The chicken little crowd thinks that extrapolating cherry picked data is "science" . Color me dubious.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2243032)

2 articles that try to spin a growing glacier as bad

Any questions?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2243248)

Proof positive????? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: Joking, right????

5 days this year compared to 5 days last year is "proof positive":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Maybe you should submit that premise to the department of climatology at Harvard university as your doctoral thesis :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

(Some days I wonder why I even bother to educate some people)

PS: If you actually read a few pages back you'll find that the days 7/27-8/3 are 2.6 degrees cooler this year than last, as I had previously posted. But that also proves NOTHING

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2243251)

For some reason you seem to be stuck in the past. I really don't care about 4 1/2 million years ago and I don't care about 4 1/2 million years from now. I care about what is happening today, what may be affecting it, and what might be done before my nieces, nephews, and their children have to deal with it.

One graph of data that shows the increased rate of warming over the last 150 years begins 2,000 years ago. Not the 4 1/2 million years that has your attention but hardly cherry picking.

Originally Posted by rustyp (Post 2243267)

[/COLOR]

Yet you posted it as the lead into this thread to illustrate what - the climate is not warming ?

Originally Posted by rustyp (Post 2243267)

[/COLOR]

Yet you posted it as the lead into this thread to illustrate what - the climate is not warming ?