Comment history

Letter: Issue not settled

As I have written over and over again - I believe we need to do responsible things to address the carbon we are spewing into our atmosphere. I posted a program to do that.

But - big but - we need to pursue the science to get a better handle on what we are doing to the planet. Whatever we do here in the US to cut emissions - and we have done a lot - will really have little impact on the rest of the planet. WE are going to go places we do not really want to go and we need to be better prepared to deal with that!!!!

There fore I am willing to spend more money on understanding the problem and consequences while muddling through ( as faulty human beings do) with making changes to try to deal with the inevitable.

Zealots do not help me

July 13, 2014 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

Chris I have a BSEE and an MSAero (Guidance and Control). I also have years of experience in government research and development. A lot of our money has passed through my claws. I have been had by experts. I am therefore cautious - very cautious with OPM (other peoples' money)

July 13, 2014 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

I did not read it that way!!! He was IMHO taking issue with a political statement about scientific matters - a political statement that might be read by the uninitiated as essentially a "trust me" card?

In a sense he was arguing for more research where if I accepted your argument we don't need any as we have settled the science!!

Could we all be a bit spring loaded on this topic?

July 13, 2014 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Let’s be clear

Now these type activities are called tax expenditures. Somebody for some reason does not have to pay taxes that others do. The rest of us pick up the short fall. The logic being that in the long haul we will get back more (future taxes/employee taxes/other considerations) than we forgave.

Sometimes these expenditures actually return something to all of us. Sometimes they do not. Perhaps someone out there knows how we are doing across all of the many such tax expenditures we have made here in Lawrence?

In the absence of an accounting I can only speculate as to whether this and the many others we have granted are just more examples of public funds being given away to favored groups? I know we calculate going in but do we ever check to see what really happened?

I have always felt that subsidies such as this entitle the tax payers to a return on investment from business profits as we are essentially providing venture capital to support development?

July 13, 2014 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

Chris, Look I grow weary.

As I said I read the professors article to focus on climate change not being settled science. After once again being subject to innumerable data dumps on the reality (observable) that there is change – a reality I acknowledged in the first get go I got grumpy.

I do not know who Scott is and care less – he is not me and I resent being lumped in with others to be damned by a non-existent relationship – not science and poor discussion tactics - more a cheap shot at winning then an effort to communicate.

You have as far as I am concerned acknowledged my point – my one point. Climate change is not settled science. We need to better understand the consequences of where we are going. To that end more research is needed and until we become comfortable with our ability to predict the science remains unsettled.

That does not mean we do nothing. I have put forward a balanced and FAIR program to address the consequences in a prioritized manner.

The term “Settled Science” is a political term to rally somebodies base. It is not a technical term and should not be used by scientists – at least not yet.

So are you a scientist or a politician?

July 13, 2014 at 1:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

I can easily do that Chris. It is a statement of one year and not a trend. We are,after all, talking trends.

July 13, 2014 at 1:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

No but you linked it to CO2 or at least I though you did.

July 13, 2014 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

You may be right but then we have not previously created the problem facing us - have we?

July 13, 2014 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

*** Fact: He claims we would only have certain knowledge if we had perfect models, …
This is not a fact it is a comment. Models are not perfect but we use models to create a presumption of the future that may be flawed.

*** Fact: He claims that the climate is self-regulating and gives clouds as an example of how this …
I will not contest that a system with increasing energy is stable. I do not think he did. But, how do you know for a fact that some unknown unknown will not arise to regulate the increases in CO2?? Once again you are claiming fact when you really do not know?

*** Fact: He claims there has been no decline in snow cover, and I already showed that there is.

Really. I did not read that he wrote there is no decline in snow cover. In fact he observed there has been but that snow cover is growing in other areas.

*** Do you believe in conservation of energy … ?

Absolutely but all that really does is suggest that we are generating more CO2 – Duh??

*** George, Dr. Eagleman provided a fact that Antarctic sea ice was increasing …

His point was a give and take - he did not summarize.

Gentlemen: I am not steeped in the climate change dip. I acknowledge climate change. To me all the arguments you are making are about climate change happening. Guys, we are past that. The issue is what to do about it. To that end we need to be able to reasonably accurately project where we are headed. We have faulty models – prediction is compromised – the science is not settled.
To demand that I give up my air conditioning based on faulty models is just not going to happen. Worse, making outrageous predictions and attacking anybody that does not roll over and accept your version of the medicine we must take just aggravates people and makes it harder to actually do something.
The professor did not say climate change was or is not happening. He did not say that we are not in part responsible. He did say that the science is not settled. We all know it isn’t. If it were all funding for studies would/should be cut and the money moved to amelioration.

Oh, by the by: By chance are you all commenting on something the good professor wrote somewhere else?? Otherwise I would suggest you do some self-examination as to just how adept you have become in reading into something that is not (at least in this article) there??

July 12, 2014 at 7:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled


What facts has the professor missed. What you posted is not fact- it is theory. Yes, to date the theory is holding to some degree on all of what you posted. But moving from where we are to a future where we live in much reduced circumstances based on theory where in some case small difference in assumptions can lead to big difference in projections is a step certainly open to question.

Kind of like our national debt. If we assume that medical costs will continue to rise at the same rate they have been rising (up until the last two years) we can not afford to provide medical care (we will go bankrupt). If we assume slightly different growth rates we can easily manage the situation.

Again Theory is not fact.

Once again how exactly have we validated the much tweaked models??

Some of us are arguing degree while some of the apostles seem to be stuck on absolutes.

July 12, 2014 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )