Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "NBC News" channel.

woolyimage That sounds wonderful! He's not from Crystal City is he? That's a pretty far-out town. People who live near deserts or on mountains and other windy places are better off than the rest of us now. I think horses can help a great deal in other places though. Maybe even dogs. Dogs like running and we could make giant treadmills with lots of dogs and that would make some electricity. Those wind turbines seem to go round awful slow. I'm sure some dogs could do better than that.
3
woolyimage We should begin to breed large numbers of horses immediately. Fortunately there are stlll plenty around and you can buy horse sperm on the Internet. Carriages and carts can be made in defunct automobile factories. We could start immediately in Detroit and bring life back to that sad city. Crossing the Atlantic by catamaran will mean a lot of catamarans, but if we ban all other than essential travel the idea might work. A bridge would be a good idea but I guess that's kinda impossible.
2
thinkabout My parrot has just died, due to climate change. I'm getting a new one soon and I shall call it Greta, even if it's a boy parrot. When my dog dies and I get a new one I will call it Spot. My present dog is called Harold and he is quite old so Climate Change will get him soon Thankyou thinkabout.
1
Chuck Kistler Go for the prize then since you're so sure! Hint: Evolution is real Atmospheric CO2 is not a major driver of surface warming, Greta Thunberg is employed by a firm of hedge fund managers to destabalize the cap and trade carbon futures market. The article you quote is a pack of lies concocted with much the same purpose in mind.
1
Marc Lecarre I heard she is actually a 47 year old man suffering from some rare and terrible medical condition. He is only kept alive with injections from the pituitary glands of puppy-dogs. I'm sure this can't be true.
1
moret25 It's not fear, it's distaste.
1
AstrominChina I'm afraid Greta Thunberg's agenda is to serve the financial interests of her employers , We Don't Have Time. an organisation thinly veiled as an environmentalist group, but which is run by people with purely banking and investment backgrounds. The aim is to make large sums of money trading in the carbon futures market, which they are doing with considerable success. Greta's destabalising influence on the world economy is a great help in this. She is an actress who got the job after entering an essay competition organised by WDHT.
1
Thomas Boomer What you learn depends where you get your information from. Question everything. When you are sure you have the answer you are probably wrong.
1
Democrats are disgusting.You can almost see the trails of slime they leave behind them. That grotesque Nadler creature looks and talks like something out of a gangster movie. Pelosi is so stoned it's a race whether her eyes or her teeth are going to fall out first. How can anyone give any credence to these horrible people?
1
Jojo Jojojo You just went let it gogo, will you?
1
woolyimpage They actually have a youtube channel which brings in plenty, plenty dosh. Their little passenger can only add to their views - and good luck to 'em in that regard.
1
Ron Harrison What is peer review? Is it when people have to look at something very hard and sort of narrow their eyes a bit? No, it can't be that I'm sure. What is it? I'm sorry to be so incoherent but my pet parrot has just died and I'm very upset.
1
Colin C Actor and opera singer. Greta herself was chosen from a shortlist by the hedge-fund company which employs her.
1
weses2 What about the considerable body of science that says climate change is cyclic and largely solar forced?
1
Fred Dee That's largely because we missed the indoctrination.
1
Fred Dee This is very true. Science has its fashions, as do most human activities, and the case for AGW is far, far less certain than its proponents assert. It has been seized upon by hedge fund managers as a wonderful opportunity to make money trading in permissions to exceed carbon emission restrictions and their machinations have corrupted the science completely. The climate is the result of very many factors, of which atmospheric carbon levels are only one - and probably quite a minor one at that. Solar forcing plays a much larger role.
1
Fred Dee I like the analogy. The difference is of course that while it is a proven fact that tobacco can cause cancer the idea that the burning of fossil fuels will destroy humanity is somewhat less certain. Cashing in on the economic instability created by the climate crisis scare is an even greater source of profit than investing in green technology..
1
My parrot has just died. I'm sure it must have been because of Climate Change. When I get a new one I'm going to name it Greta. Even if it's a boy parrot. That doesn't matter in parrots.
1
Bob Sama No! It will be mine forever! (I could die before my new parrot though, so I will leave it to her in my will.) Thankyou for a lovely idea, Bob.
1
Doppel Ganger How can you still believe this 97% crap? It's was 97% of around 2,000 climate scientists who wrote peer-reviewed papers on climate change and who had an opinion on how it was caused - about 600 of them. The figure is now 100% by the way. The ones that disagreed have been effectively sacked. Man-made climate change is a con-trick.
1
J Milton Jeffreys I agree AGW is a falsehood based on bad science and perpetrated by criminals for financial gain and globalists to attain total political control. End of.
1
Doppel Ganger I've heard that man-made climate change was invented so that hedge-fund companies could set up a market for bonds allowing companies to exceed their carbon footprint allocations. They tell me that NASA is in on the deal and keeps altering data to make it look as though it was colder in the past than it was, and hotter now than it actually is. I have it on the grapevine that the sun is responsible for global warming and cooling, and that there is no time in recorded climate history when increased atmospheric carbon precedes surface warming. But you can't believe all you hear, can you?
1
Matthew Hackett Fifty years is a long time to be predicting disaster - and just too much of the latest "evidence" is proving to be false. Natural disasters have not increased in number or intensity, in fact in terms of loss of life and financial impact such events are at an all-time low. There have always been droughts, hurricanes and forest fires. Environments have always changed. For reasons I can only guess at we are currently being subjected to a torrent of news items about the effects of climate change in Africa. This is crap journalism of course, not crap science, but the insane allegations have not been disavowed by the very many supporters of the AGW theory. Predictions about polar bears have been proved totally wrong. Scare stories about Lake Chad, the Mala Valley and the Victoria Falls are equally absurd. If you AGW supporters want us lay people to take you seriously you must try to put a stop to this sensationalist fearmongering -and call out Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion for the opportunistic frauds that they demonstrably are.
1
Matthew Hackett I was much taken with your idea that I should visit the Marshall Islands so I looked up the tourist board site. It looks to be quite a wonderful place for those who like that sort of thing, with no signs of any loss of land due to increased sea levels. The pictures show some hotels very close to the beaches. I think I'd prefer the Mississippi Delta for my visit. Here there has been considerable land loss, but apparently it is due to the unintelligent construction of levees, resulting in the prevention of the historical build up of sediment flowing down ole man river. mississippiriverdelta.org-coastal-crisis/land-loss Information on Category 5 hurricanes seems to show that, like the rest of us, they have their ups and downs, good years and bad years. The only major blip, as far as I can tell, was that a considerable number occurred some 15 years ago. There were none at all between 2008 and 2015. One presumes hurricanes existed for many, many thousands of years before we arrived on the scene to catagorise them so their behaviour over the past 100 years can have no statistical relevance. Once again, no proof of AGW in the real world of experience. What can be going wrong? (What on earth were you doing studying this stuff in 1978, by the way? You must be nearly as old as I am - in which case you should know better.)
1
Matthew Hackett There is no correlation between levels of atmospheric carbon and increased surface temperatures that can be shown in any records- other than an apparent increase in natural C02 emissions some several hundred years AFTER solar-forced increased heating. The only place where C02 causes increased temperatures when subjected to infra-red radiation is in laboratory experiments and in computer models based on those experiments. Studies of the ACTUAL atmosphere indicate that the so-called greenhouse gasses have a regulatory function and C02 levels play a very minor part in the immensely complex and poorly-understood mechanisms which govern changes in climate. The sunbathers on the beaches of the Marshall Islands are entirely safe. The Mississippi Delta will disappear unless a replacement drainage system is implemented. Venice, built as it is on wooden piles sunk into the mud some 700 years ago will continue to sink into the sea. Find something else to worry about.
1
Matthew Hackett I don't think the "pollution" of the atmosphere by humanly-produced greenhouse gasses has any great effect on climate change, What worries me more is the very real pollution of the surface environment by poor industrial practices - and it worries me too that so much energy and resources are being diverted to what is potentially a mythical problem which, even if it did happen to exist, seems incapable of resolution anyway. Climate goes through cycles. We are emerging now from a cool period (the Little Ice Age) which itself followed a period which, towards its conclusion, was probably hotter than today (The Medieval Warm Period).The very fact that climate alarmists seek to eliminate these well established events - confirmed by proxy data and anecdotal evidence - adds to my suspicions that an immense fraud is being perpetrated.
1
Matthew Hackett I simply don't agree with these figures. They are just the result of computers being programmed on the assumption that AGW exists, rather than with empirical data to see if it does. Think about it. The only way you can tell if the sea has risen is to look. There are plenty of old photographs of local scenes to compare with present day circumstances. What about sedimentation?What about tectonic plate movement? Mount Everest rises by 3.5" a year due to tectonic movement. You can measure that and you don't need a computer to do it. This is just part of the fire and flood scare stories created by the misapplication of computer technology. Sea levels probably are rising, but at a much slower and more consistent rate than this. If, as you say, the Marshall Islands are at zero, then where were they in 1900? Eight inches below sea level?
1
Matthew Hackett I've just done a quick bit of checking and the UK Government's risk assessment panel quotes the IPCC as estimating a 20cm rise from 1901 to 2010. So they believe it and faced with this I think I believe it possible too. It's only 1.77mm a year.after all. They also say that the IPCC estimates of the rise this century range from 25cm to a metre! Since the IPCC is a somewhat suspect body in my view and its bottom range projections generally come the closest to reality I'll take the 25cm as favourite. Given the scenarios outlined in my previous posts why do you think it is that the fearmongering always goes to the extreme edge of the scale? I'm quite into the Marshall Islands thing, although I don't like hot weather much. I'll see if can find those satellite images. Not too sure about the Florida waterfront. Isn't Florida a sort of sandspit more or less? Just as likely to be like Venice and sinking rather than being flooded.
1
Matthew Hackett Not a distraction but a possible explanation for the real causes of the climate crisis phenomenon. If I am right we need do little. The biggest problem I foresee is that while much of the rest of the world will enjoy a Mediterranean-style climate for a while the tropics could become very uncomfortable indeed - unless of course a new Maunder Minimum intervenes as Professor Zharkova seems to think it might. If I was younger I would emigrate to Greenland and start farming. What will happen to the world's economy, based not on gold but on the falsehood of carbon restrictions, I cannot possibly imagine. If the science is correct after all and atmospheric carbon does indeed cause an exponential and chronic rise in temperatures then there is nothing else for it but to give up and accept our fate with as much fortitude as possible.
1