Talk of The Villages Florida - Getting even more disgusted....

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- Weather Talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/weather-talk-515/)

- - Getting even more disgusted.... (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/weather-talk-515/getting-even-more-disgusted-343229/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maker (Post 2242366)

There's big money in global warming.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabella (Post 2242732)

Thank you hopefully people are smart enough to get what you’re saying and to stop listening to fake alarmist news.

Hopefully, but I'm not optimistic. There's a lot of power and money behind pushing this agenda.

All we can do is put the facts out there, but it's an uphill fight. Clearly, those powers that be already own working climatologists, have the support of the administration, have a knowingly or unwittingly complicit media, and the support millions of lemmings who think everything on the internet is true and can't add 1+1 for themselves. Not to mention America's enemies who would love to see us waste our resources tilting at the climate change windmill while they insidiously work to make us a third world nation.

Someone posted above the future is bleak. He may be right, but not for the reason he thinks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rherb55 (Post 2242733)

You need another hobby……

But yet, here you are :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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?

Exactly. But realize there is a small cabal of fleas with power and money that have very adeptly brainwashed many more lemming fleas into thinking they CAN control the dog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2242750)

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

Everything runs in cycles...next year may be completely different.

Quote:

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.

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

Yes, a great deal of our "news," is just propaganda. It's up to us to be wise consumers (research and verify).

Quote:

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.

I thought the numbers were 130,000 then and a130,000 now.
No, that's not right, it was 130,000 then and 198,000 now.
Though you have to wonder how it was possible to accurately count glaciers 100 years ago when some of the first satellites were not launched until just 50 years ago.

Models get created, predictions are made, actual events don't match predicted events, and models are updated. That's the way science is supposed to work. It fails when people do their own research and decide that since they can "prove" one prediction failed then all of science is wrong and should be discarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2242753)

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

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. But I'm bored with the "earth is in a cooling cycle" bunk so I'm not going to bother with that one.

Quote:

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.

True, but that is just a short term phenomenon. We are currently in a 50,000 year warming trend. Not every year will be warmer than the last, not every century or millennium will see temperature increases. We can't use 8 years of a small cooling trend to prove our point any more than the anthropomorphic global warming acolytes can use 3 weeks of high temps in Arizona to prove theirs. But nevertheless, they are trying, and the sad part is there are some weak minded fools that will believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2242768)

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.