Bob_Roberts

Comments by Bob_Roberts

Will SD power structure accept climate change?

This just in from Chicago: http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/chica... Woman attacked by passenger wielding feces-filled sock on Chicago public transport. At least his stocking wasn't full of coal...
— December 20, 2012 midnight

Will SD power structure accept climate change?

http://rt.com/news/russia-freeze-cold-temperatu... I know, it's just weather, but so are the storms alarmists keep claiming are "proof" of anthropogenic warming. So are the heat waves. Funny cold events don't get the same play in the media. When the Arctic ice sheet hits a new low we can't stop hearing about it but when the Antarctic ice sheet hits a new high all you hear is crickets. Why is that? Though as I mentioned in another forum you knew the fix was in when they stopped emphasizing "global warming" and instead started using the term "climate change". Will you try to tell me, a couple decades from now, that I'm silly to suggest that anyone was worried about "global warming"? That no serious scientists ever were behind that nonsense? You know, when the alarmists are talking about how our fossil fuel use is creating atmospheric aerosols and particles which are the cause of global cooling? That day is coming, you know, coming soon. Actually this goes a bit beyond being "just a controversy", seeing as it's fairly obvious one side has been engaging in deliberate and systematic fraud from the start. I'm curious - what will it take for those who fell for this fraud to realize they've been had? How many years of complete FAILURE of the IPCC and alarmists' predictions to come true will it take? I know it's fashionable to compare this to the whole smoking thing but the only comparison was that, like the tobacco companies, the IPCC, Al Gore and so-called "climate scientists", aka "the hockey team" were clearly dishonest in every possible way. If Al Gore really believed we're looking at catastrophic sea level increases as you must admit he's been claiming, why did he just by a multi-million dollar home just feet above the current mean high tide line? Does the fact he's secured his place among "the 1%" have any effect on your feelings about him?
— December 19, 2012 11:58 p.m.

Will SD power structure accept climate change?

And yet the number of "Obama" election stickers on SUVs and other high-dollar, high carbon vehicles never ceases to astound me. I thought they were all about taking public transport, yet they all seem to drive the biggest, most ostentatious, gas-guzzling vehicles available. Meanwhile: NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hol... And Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook's warning came in the form of a new scientific paper he presented to the 4th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago on May 16, 2010. Dr. Easterbrook is an Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications. Easterbrook's full resume is here. Dr. Easterbrook joins many other scientists, peer-reviewed research and scientific societies warning of a coming global cooling. Easterbrook is presenting his findings alongside other man-made global warming skeptics at the three day conference in Chicago. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6574/search.asp?c... You may or may not remember the "climate change" everyone was concerned about in the 1970s was global cooling and a possible "snowball Earth". Of course, despite scientists (including James Hansen, no less) who were involved in that controversy, today it is claimed "no real scientist actually believed or advocated that" despite significant evidence to the contrary. Now, however, there's no denying that some REAL SCIENTISTS are pointing out the fact that global warming is actually good - it's cooling we should be worried about and it is very possible cooling is what's coming next. And if you are watching the scientific literate as I am, you will notice the alarmists are carefully positioning themselves to blame the coming cooling on anthropogenic fossil fuel use - watch, and when they do I'll remind you I told you so.
— December 19, 2012 9:34 a.m.

Will SD power structure accept climate change?

Actually no, that's not true. You've been taken in by people who used deliberately deceptive choices of scale in their graphs to make it appear that way, but in fact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from almost nothing to nearly nothing. Do the math yourself, stop just believing what you are spoon fed. Do you know what fraction 280 ppm represents? What fraction 390 ppm represents? If you bother to check, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been rather linear despite wild fluctuations in the production of human CO2 byproducts. We had a major increase in human CO2 production around WWII yet the atmospheric levels increased at roughly the same rate as always. Similar human changes in production are NOT reflected in atmospheric rates. Plus humans are a bit player in the carbon cycle - the data is there, look for it, stop being spoon fed your faulty "facts". Finally, there is a perfectly understandable mechanism for what we're seeing - carbon is stored in the sea, among other things, and it is likely we're seeing a natural, normal result of a natural, normal warming cycle. As cold, deep, carbon rich waters well up to the surface, known chemical reactions cause some of that carbon to come out of solution and go to the atmosphere. The rest causes a slight change in the pH of surface waters. There is no "strong spike" as you suggest. And you're forgetting one thing. Earth's natural tendency is to lose heat and in fact the warmer something becomes in relation to it's surroundings (in this case Earth related to space), the more efficient a radiator that warm thing becomes. The thing we have to fear is not a warmer Earth - geology and other sciences show that the Earth, the biosphere, and human civilization THRIVE during the warm times. It's when the Earth cools, when the ice ages come, that we suffer and die. Go read the leaked IPCC AR5 draft and see if maybe it tends to destroy your carefully contrived convictions.
— December 19, 2012 9:06 a.m.

Will SD power structure accept climate change?

Apparently the scientists who produced the initial draft of the IPCC's AR5 agree with me too. The leaked draft suggests, among other things, that cosmic rays are a more significant factor in climate than anthropogenic CO2, that even the best case scenarios predicted by the IPCC and their climate models were wildly pessimistic, that CO2 does not have anything like the influence those who practice Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have claimed, that there is no indication that human activities have any measurable effect on natural disasters, the list goes on and on. No doubt the reason the IPCC is hopping mad over this early release is their admission it will "interfere" with the review process - which is the politicians taking what the REAL scientists tell them and turning it into the exact opposite, the same nonsense they've released in the past. The bottom line is this: Climate change happens. It's inevitable, unstoppable. Those who think we can go back to the stone age (funny, none of them actually will do that, they just want everyone else to do it) and save the planet are hypocrites and they're dangerously wrong. The most liberal people I know right now like to take carbon-intensive trips all over the world to go look at flowers and plants so they can come back and brag about what they've done that you haven't. They don't contribute anything to society or the world, they just satisfy their own self-absorbed desires to one-up everyone else. And let's not even start to talk about all the carbon-intensive meetings the IPCC keeps hosting all over the world, all at OUR EXPENSE, mind you. If they were serious about carbon footprints, would they behave this way?
— December 19, 2012 8:56 a.m.