cg22165 (Chris Golledge)

Follow

Comment history

Letter: Climate strategy

You have never really explained why you prefer to let the government pick the winners and losers in the energy production sector rather than letting the market sort it out.

July 7, 2015 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Maybe you will like this Marc.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/06/...

July 7, 2015 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Supreme Court declares nationwide right to same-sex marriage

I think if you actually review the forms of marriage condoned in the bible, you will find much that you'd personally rather not condone there, yourself. You don't get to cite an authority and then pick and choose which parts of that authority you cite.

Regardless, you are advocating that religious doctrine be enshrined in law. I'd rather not go there.

June 26, 2015 at 10:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Activists ask Wichita to remove Confederate flag from park

Having said that, in this case, the flag at Wichita is one of many in the context of historical display, which is distinctly different from placing it prominently on its own. I'd let it be.

June 25, 2015 at 11:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Activists ask Wichita to remove Confederate flag from park

OK, I'll go there; let's play the Godwin card. Should government organizations in Germany display the Nazi flag?

What arguments for the display above would not be just as applicable for the Nazi flag?

June 25, 2015 at 11:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Pope makes compelling case on climate

Why do you believe that ruining the environment in which we grow food will not have an impact economy, but shifting to sources of energy marginally more expensive than fossil fuels will?

June 24, 2015 at 10:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

David, look above your comment; you will find the direct observation of global warming caused by man.

Quit with the irrational arguments. Causation was predicted over 100 years ago. You don't get to say correlation is not causation when the understanding of the causation came before the observed correlation. Let me Google Tyndall for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tyndall+carbon+d...

You are failing the "Are we having a rational discussion test".
http://twentytwowords.com/a-flowchart...

June 20, 2015 at 1:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

I don't know what to tell you David. The fact that CO2 interferes with the transmission of infrared has been known since Tyndall's work in the 1850s. The idea that our extraction of carbon from the ground and burning it to produce CO2 would warm the planet has been nothing but supported by research since Arrhenius 1896. Up until recently, the effect has mostly been modeled and confirmed by observed heat increases.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308...

(By the same kind of spectroscopic models that make heat-seeking missiles possible, incidentally. Do you believe that heat-seeking missiles work?).

It was directly measured earlier this year.

"First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer, T. R. Shippert. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14240

So again, can you or can you not accept that more energy coming in than going out means energy is building up in the system?

June 19, 2015 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )