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: