cg22165 (Chris Golledge)

Follow

Comment history

Kansas Supreme Court strikes down judicial selection law, putting funding for courts in jeopardy

If the funding bill is nonseverable from the judiciary bill, and the judiciary bill is unconstitional, then the entire funding bill is null and void. It would be nice if our lawmakers paychecks were cut off as a result.

December 23, 2015 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Supreme Court strikes down judicial selection law, putting funding for courts in jeopardy

What am I missing? If the law defunding the judiciary is ruled unconstitutional, then it is no longer a law, and the judiciary is not defunded.

December 23, 2015 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Distorted truth

Marc, just for the sake of clarity, do you think we don't have a real problem, or do you think this agreement is a poor solution to a real problem?

December 15, 2015 at 10:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Scare tactics

Which stick, and what fraud?

http://www2.ljworld.com/users/photos/...

December 11, 2015 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Scare tactics

The concept of global warming was started by the Frenchman Fourier in the 1820s, the Scot Tyndall in the 1850s, and Arrhenius the Swede in 1896. To my knowledge, none of them were working for the Chinese.

December 11, 2015 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Scare tactics

David, sometimes reality is scary.

You haven't given us much reason to doubt every physicist to study the effect of air on radiant energy since Tyndall in the 1850s. Likewise, you haven't given us much reason to doubt the chemists studying the oceans, the biologists studying agriculture, economists, or the Pentagon.

What you are seeing is that the people who are realistic are getting anxious about the blindness of the people who are not. That, and this Pope is a good shepherd. Only your own fear is causing you to perceive their actions the way you are.

December 11, 2015 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Scare tactics

Scott, you are a financial advisor or similar, correct? Is that the kind of advice you would give people?

December 11, 2015 at 2:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

"The conclusion was that this decreased world sea levels."

No Vincent, you have misrepresented the conclusion. No one disputes that sea levels are rising; the conclusion was that, if correct, other sources have contributed more to sea level rise than previously thought.

December 8, 2015 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

BTW Vincent, you might not want to take everything you read in the media at face value. In the 1970s, the majority of scientists were predicting that the warming effect of CO2 would outweigh the cooling effect of our industrial aerosols.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-a...

December 8, 2015 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate politics

Vincent seems to be hanging his case on the one Antarctic study out of a score that he thinks supports his case, when in fact, it does not, plus the fact that there is a small fraction of glaciers that are not receding.

He further proposes that these are not being discussed in Paris when he does not really know if they are or not, and assumes that they are not because there is a conscious effort to hide a better understanding of the physical science. If Vincent understood the Zwally study, he would understand that it simply is not relevant to the talks going on in Paris.

A study showing increased snowfall in East Antarctica that has been going on for about 10,000 years since the last glacial period ended, as a result of warming oceans, in no way refutes the idea that human production of CO2 is warming the planet in the last 150 years.

December 8, 2015 at 1:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )