Climate activists are like Nazis.

Wind and solar power pollute the Earth and make life miserable.

Recent global and local heat records reflect natural temperature cycles.

These are some of the themes of children's videos produced by an influential conservative advocacy group.

Now, the videos could soon be used in Florida's classrooms.

Florida's Department of Education has approved the classroom use of material from the Prager University Foundation, a conservative group that produces videos that distort science, history, gender and other topics.

Education experts call the videos dangerous propaganda.

DeSantis will never be president. The majority of Americans dont like this kind of thing. 

Some wouldn’t vote for this clown over his wardrobe choices alone.  Go go boots, that strange long sleeveless zipped up jacket that looks like it belongs on a Star Trek character, monogrammed vented shirts.  His wardrobe is as awkward as he is.

Progressives have been promoting climate hysteria in schools for decades.  Saw an article from the 80s the other day, claiming we had "10 years to act" or the world would be inhabitable  by now.  That mindset has been drilled into kids since then, even though it's totally preposterous. 

Rationality has to be restored.  

No public school in America should be teaching material created by Prager U.  It is blatant right wing propaganda in almost every case. 

It is blatant right wing propaganda in almost every case. 

But left wing propaganda scaring kids is fine.  That's all this is. Rage that the left's propaganda monopoly is being challenged.  

Don't forget the Liberal's/Dem darling AOC has stated that we only have 12 years before we're annihilated.

No matter what anybody does in a classroom, there will always be someone somewhere to complain one way or the other.

If Desantis leans any farther to the right he'll fall off the edge of the flat earth.

This global warming denial is beyond ridiculous. Everything that was predicted in the 1970s is literally coming true. It is the nature of mankind to put off to tomorrow what greed will dictate today. 

I have kids (and hopefully grandchildren) and I really want to leave them a place that is viable. 

Also, science should not be taught by Prager U. 

Everything that was predicted in the 1970s is literally coming tru

it has?  New York is underwater? The southwest is uninhabited?   

How can we still have 5 years to save the world, or ten, when we’ve been told that for 40 years?  Notice how that somehow never changes?.

ave kids (and hopefully grandchildren) and I really want to leave them a place that is viable.

If you believe the UN Reports, there's no danger of earth not being viable.  Even the worst case  amount of warming will not cause catastrophic change that threatens humanity.  If you believe the science. 

Sean,

They said global warming was coming. The timeline might be off a bit, but I just watched homes being swept away in Alaska.

And please show the UN reports, although the UN is a political body and not a scientific one.

btw, here is a little bit of fact. In 1970, the world population was 3,695,390,336. In 2023 the world population is 8,045,311,447. Do you think that has no effect on the Earth? Think about how much more emission, food, water needs that almost 5 billion people need.

Everything that was predicted in the 1970s is literally coming true.

I'll agree that science should not be taught by any extremist group.  But I disagree with your statement, back in the 70's they were predicting both the coming ice age as well as global warming.

Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten per cent of papers predicted a cooling  trend . On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way. The take-home from this one? It's the old media adage, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s? (skepticalscience.com)

The US has made great strides in combating pollution and climate change issues, but the extremists seem to turn a blind eye to what the rest of the world is doing and demand that all change must come here at the expense of the US citizens.  I would rather they come up with a reasonable solution that doesn't bankrupt the everday person.  A reasonable solution would include a timeline to transition rather than deadlines which are unobtainable.  For example, the expected new ruling out of the EPA that will greatly restrict the sale of gas powered cars by 2032.  What are the poor supposed to do then?  Or the push to green energy when the science and infrastructure is not yet there for the move?  

While the denial from some is ridiculous, so are some of the solutions from some.  

The United States went from no manned space program at all to multiple landings on the moon in less than 10 years. 

We could achieve a reasonable plan to phase out fossil fuels very quickly if everyone got on board. Of course the oil producers, the refining and distribution companies , and their obedient politicians who obey the lobbyists will never get on board. Green energy is an existential threat to big oil. They will fight to the "death" to prevent it. 

The late Carl Sagan was one of the most brilliant human minds of the 20th century, and the greatest science popularizer of all time

gizmodo

On Venus, on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system, there is evidence for catastrophic destruction, tempered or overwhelmed by slower, more uniform processes: on the Earth, for example, rainfall, coursing into rivulets, streams and rivers of running water, creating huge alluvial basins; on Mars, the remnants of ancient rivers, perhaps arising from beneath the ground; on Io, a moon of Jupiter, what seem to be broad channels made by flowing liquid sulfur. There are mighty weather systems on the Earth—and in the high atmosphere of Venus and on Jupiter. There are sandstorms on the Earth and on Mars; lightning on Jupiter and Venus and Earth. Volcanoes inject debris into the atmospheres of the Earth and Io. Internal geological processes slowly deform the surfaces of Venus, Mars, Ganymede and Europa, as well as Earth. Glaciers, proverbial for their slowness, produce major reworkings of landscapes on the Earth and probably also on Mars. These processes need not be constant in time. Most of Europe was once covered with ice. A few million years ago, the present site of the city of Chicago was buried under three kilometers of frost. On Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system, we see features that could not be produced today, landscapes carved hundreds of millions or billions of years ago when the planetary climate was probably very different.

There is an additional factor that can alter the landscape and the climate of Earth: intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes. Like Venus, the Earth also has a greenhouse effect due to its carbon dioxide and water vapor. The global temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water if not for the greenhouse effect. It keeps the oceans liquid and life possible. A little greenhouse is a good thing. Like Venus, the Earth also has about 90 atmospheres of carbon dioxide; but it resides in the crust as limestone and other carbonates, not in the atmosphere. If the Earth were moved only a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would increase slightly. This would drive some of the CO2 out of the surface rocks, generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which would in turn incrementally heat the surface further. A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates into CO2, and there would be the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect to very high temperatures. This is just what we think happened in the early history of Venus, because of Venus' proximity to the Sun. The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own.

The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2, into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful: Even a one- or two- degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences. In the burning of coal and oil and gasoline, we are also putting sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Like Venus, our stratosphere even now has a substantial mist of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. Our major cities are polluted with noxious molecules. We do not understand the long- term effects of our course of action.

But we have also been perturbing the climate in the opposite sense. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been burning and cutting down forests and encouraging domestic animals to graze on and destroy grasslands. Slash-and-burn agriculture, industrial tropical deforestation and overgrazing are rampant today. But forests are darker than grasslands, and grasslands are darker than deserts. As a consequence, the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by the ground has been declining, and by changes in the land use we are lowering the surface temperature of our planet. Might this cooling increase the size of the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect still more sunlight from the Earth, further cooling the planet, driving a runaway albedo2 effect?

Our lovely blue planet, the Earth, is the only home we know. Venus is too hot. Mars is too cold. But the Earth is just right, a heaven for humans. After all, we evolved here. But our congenial climate may be unstable. We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and contradictory ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows. The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown. A few million years ago, when human beings first evolved on Earth, it was already a middle-aged world, 4.6 billion years along from the catastrophes and impetuosities of its youth. But we humans now represent a new and perhaps decisive factor. Our intelligence and our technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family? Do we value short-term advantages above the welfare of the Earth? Or will we think on longer time scales, with concern for our children and our grandchildren, to understand and protect the complex life-support systems of our planet? The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be cherished.

I'll agree that science should not be taught by any extremist group.  But I disagree with your statement, back in the 70's they were predicting both the coming ice age as well as global warming.

The supposed coming of the ice age has been perpetuated by a fake cover from Time magazine. The real cover said the earth was warming.  time

The US has made great strides in combating pollution and climate change issues, but the extremists seem to turn a blind eye to what the rest of the world is doing and demand that all change must come here at the expense of the US citizens. 

Yes we have and you are right, that the rest of the world should be doing more. India has stepped up their part, I have no idea what is going on in China.

A reasonable solution would include a timeline to transition rather than deadlines which are unobtainable.  For example, the expected new ruling out of the EPA that will greatly restrict the sale of gas powered cars by 2032. 

The price of electric cars is coming down, and just like the space race, if you don't set a goal, people take their merry old time. 

I'm glad to see that you have a more reasonable approach though. 

The United States went from no manned space program at all to multiple landings on the moon in less than 10 years. 

Yes that is true but that was only the US Government and NASA spending the money.  The common man did not have to spend additional money out of his pocket for this outside of normal taxes.  The change to green energy will impact the pockets of everybody in the country.  And of course, big oil will fight this as this is cutting into their profits.  I have no issues with the move to green energy, I just ask that it be done in a reasonable manner that doesn't cause the costs of everyday life to greatly increase overnight.  Even a reasonable plan would take some time as there are several infrastructure improvements that are needed before this can really get off the ground.  

Very interesting and once again shows DeSantis to be a hypocrite. Remember he is saving the children (not sure who's) from left-wing indoctrination with his war on woke, and yet Florida allows Prager University (which isn't a university nor is it accredited anywhere in the nation) to be used as material in Florida public schools. 

Gotta love the hypocritical RWer DeSantis. 

These are the first quarter profits of some of the major oil companies. If you think that they will do anything to help the US or anywhere in the world move to renewable energy you really don't get it. 

Their profits look very different when you take a five year view.

Here are EXXON gross profits for the last seven years. macroaxis

Exxon Gross Profit History

Isn’t net profit the proper measurement.  I thought their were losses in 2020 and 2021.

Thanks, I didn’t think that it turned around until 2022.  I’ll use chemo brain as my excuse.

Follow the link and it covers everything including their audited yearly financials.

Thank’s Kavika.  Gas and oil experience market volatility and cyclically.   There is also uncertainty as to what the Arabs or Russians will do.  Not for the weak hearted but can round out a diversified portfolio.

"Young kids are being taught climate hysteria." 

By irresponsible zealots who know better.

No area of science is settled, and that includes the science of weather and climate. Children should be open to alternate explanations as to what is actually going on.

And contrary to popular belief, wind and solar are unreliable and need fossil fuel back up during Northern Hemisphere winters 

EV automobiles will never be affordable for the average consumer.

The climate change crowd has done a terrible job of selling the theory of climate change...hysteria and fear mongering simply don't work on mentally healthy people, and destroying art and disrupting people's lives like the fools below are doing below doesn't either. 

We Stopped Just Stop Oil - YouTube