cg22165 (Chris Golledge)


Comment history

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.

You are failing the "Are we having a rational discussion test".

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.

(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"

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 )

Letter: Climate strategy

Do you know what peer-reviewed means? There is no claim it means "truth"; it means closer to "probably not complete BS". None of the references you have provided has passed that test. What do you think that means?

You are basically supporting your unsubstantiated opinion with other unsubstantiated opinions.

BTW, have you given up trying to support any of your earlier claims?

June 17, 2015 at 1:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

David, let's recap.

Your first comment was about the 97% consensus being closer to 1.6%. I explained why your claim was wrong, and you declined to substantiate your claim in any way.

You then claimed that the earth does not need energy to get warmer, it magically rebounds from cooler periods. You were challenged and declined to defend this claim.

You then tried to make hay with the claim that the science is not incontrovertible. It's not, you can always improve or replace the best understanding currently available, but you have to bring something substantial to the argument to change 100 years of improvement on a theory, and you did not.

You then proposed a some sort of idea where scientists and governments have been in league with each other for the last 100 years to promote this agenda, and somehow promoting AGW is the only way a person highly skilled in the physical sciences can make money. Umm, right.

You then plagiarized at length about how CO2 is a trace gas, which we kind of already knew, but refused to acknowledge the actual measurements of how CO2 reduces the flow of outbound energy, or pretended it did not matter, I can't tell which.

When you have a chance, you might want to look up the difference between C3 and C4 photosynthesis. C3 plants, like wheat, benefit from more CO2; C4 plants, like corn, do not. However, "C3 plants have the disadvantage that in hot dry conditions their photosynthetic efficiency suffers because of a process called photorespiration. "

BTW, hot and dry events are 10 times more prevalent than they were 30 years ago.

Now you are going on about models. Here is a simple model for you. When more energy is coming in than leaving, exactly the difference between inbound and outbound accumulates in the system. How about you give a simple yes or no as to whether you can accept that?

June 16, 2015 at 12:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )