citizen1 (David Reynolds)


Comment history

Letter: Degree questions

Gary I am struggling with the purpose of your letter.

Just what are you saying?
Why are you saying it?
Based on what & why you are saying, What do you want done about it?

July 28, 2015 at 10:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb you make life harder than it is.

You are so blinded by your biases, you can not think beyond superficially. You are all emotion & no logic.

If you ever loosen up, & drop your acidic tongue and sarcasm, you could be interesting to talk to.

Until then, all the best.

July 9, 2015 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb you missed the whole post. You didn't even respond to what I ways talking about. You are so anxious to discredit anyone who might have a contrarian point of view, you miss the entire conversation.

Let's try it again. In the post above you said: You see, being a physicist, even a brilliant physicist who won a Nobel prize in 1977 does not make you a climatologist. They're not the same field. He's not an expert in climate science."

All I did was point out that of the 3146 Doran respondents "...Approximately 5% of
the respondents were climate scientists."

Thus according to your logic, Barb, that disqualifies anyone else in the survey from having an opinion. I said if that is the case then, the consensus % was in question, as only Climate Scientists can have an opinion.

So, back to my previous post, you count non Climate Scientists to get to 97% while criticizing Giaever. If you can not see the problem then...

As far as others criticizing him does not justify your attempt to discredit him.

July 9, 2015 at 7:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb I am very glad you said that.

I would like to respond in two parts.

First, you have no scientific credentials, yet you challenge the opinion of a physicist whom you acknowledge as "brilliant & winner of a Nobel Prize". Granted this isn't his specialty. But that doesn't mean his point of view is any less valuable than yours. You have no idea the quality of what info he researched. You have no technical background & only read items on the internet & some talking points yourself. Yet you judge his opinion? You use a sharp tongue & sarcasm to try to demean him. You can't get away with that here. You challenge his technical points, not the person or no challenge at all! Your personal attacks on him tell me you are afraid of what he has to say...his point of view threatens your beliefs, or you would be more civil & less demeaning.

Second, Barb, in your criticism of Giaever, if what you say were true about "only climatologists" are the experts and thus are the only scientists able to comment & make judgments regarding the state of the climate, then John Cook's contention that there is 97% Consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming falls apart.

You see in John Cook's own web site "Skepticalscience", John Cook has an article about his 97% Consensus. In his article he quotes "Doran 2009" as support for his 97% consensus. There is a critical problem that renders your criticism of Dr. Giaever misguided. Of the 3146 individuals in the Doran 2009 study only about 5% carried the title "Climate Scientist", that’s about 157 people. Please see the following sites:
The Doran 2009 site is

So Barb if your criticism of Giaever is true then there is only about a 5% consensus regarding global warming. Which is it?

July 9, 2015 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb a quick question. What is your background, education, credentials & research area in science?

July 8, 2015 at 11:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb you could be right, given your objectivity & thoroughness with which you evaluate what others have to say. Your responses are so cogent & informative.

You are to be congratulated.

July 7, 2015 at 7:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Thank you Barb for making my point. Too bad you had to reference a web site to learn about it.

You see I do not discuss things with angry screamers. The discussion is not productive regardless of what wiki says.

To my point about costs. Again you miss the point...the rising costs are just starting.

By the way, just for a February the CO2 levels in the atmosphere crossed 400PPM
for the first time in 200,000 years. The climate for the past 100 years has been very pleasant at times. Human population has increased, vegetation has grown due to photosynthesis & except for politics & war all has gone pretty well.

By the way this is way below the 7000ppm of 500mm years ago & the 3000ppm of 50mm years ago. Wow and man evolved, birds are in the air and there are pretty flowers today.

You see, all of this hysteria is not being bought by the public, especially with the revelations of Climate Gate, and this is the problem the climate community has and it frustrates them.

Barb there are genuine disagreements regarding some of the most consequential issues:
Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes; How much the planet will warm in the 21st century; Whether warming is ‘dangerous’; Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions, and whether reduction will improve the climate.

Barb you see until the climate community is willing to admit there are legitimate areas to be resolved there can be no agreement and cooperation to solve real problems.

Barb that is my point.

All the best.

July 7, 2015 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb you miss the point of my post above. Yes people tried to change behavior but as the costs to do so increase the less likely they are to continue that behavior. You see as costs of compliance rise there are diminishing returns/compliance.

If you think my comments are unsupported please look at the history of rising utility rates in the USA & Kansas. I thought reality and personal experience would be enough.

Barb your comments are very angry in tone. This emotion suggests a blindness to reality & other points of view. Your attitude seems to be "I don't care what the financial cost to individuals, the more pain the more they will comply to Barb's beliefs". Such an attitude garners no support.

This attitude is consistent with the climate science establishment where they have become intolerant to disagreement and debate, and thus attempts to marginalize and de-legitimized dissent as corrupt or ignorant.

I will not participate in such a discussion.

July 7, 2015 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb you, nor anyone else, can know for sure, today, who or what company will ultimately benefit or lose if these schemes are fully implemented.

As shown in my post above, the unintended consequences of actions with these various schemes and actions promoted by the climate community, do negatively impact the finances of ordinary people.

In your post above you challenge George to " me how you're coming up with that assertion".

Barb you make some very emphatic assertions yourself in that same post. I believe your request of George applies equally of you.

July 6, 2015 at 6:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

These gimmick programs and rebates are pure fantasy. The proponents really need to think about reality.

There will never be a net refund to anyone. It will just be offset by fee increases from companies paying these carbon taxes which will then be passed on to their customers. This is just another tax increase. To manipulate the public into going along, the tax increase it is sold as an "Income Redistribution Scheme". Thus you & I will pay more and nothing will really change except our taxes increased.

All the man made climate alarmists & fee program proponents need to think about what you are proposing and what is really happening.

The following cost examples are occurring because of unintended consequences because we are already doing what you request...

1) The electrical utility companies have very large fixed operating costs.
What happened when solar & wind energy implementation & increased home energy efficiency increased enough to reduce revenues to electrical utility companies? Utilities raised there rates. Thus all that is gained from a cost point of view is customers paid high costs to implement solar & thermal home efficiency, their solar/wind & energy efficiency credits were then diminished by increasing rates making solar & wind energy less attractive.

2) The Global Warming folks demanded reduced gasoline consumption. So car fuel efficiency increased, electric cars & hybrid cars are driven, we drove less miles, and gasoline consumption decreased & revenues from gasoline taxes decreased to the states & feds so much so we do not have the money to repair our roads.
What are we doing? Restructuring the tax system to "Pay By The Mile". The objective is to be revenue neutral, but that is not possible.
The critical Point in this article is the cost of the program is estimated to be 40% of every dollar collected. This is a 40% increases in fuel taxes.

3) Georgia has just raised their fuel taxes to cover gas tax revenue short fall.

4) Seven states are adding annual registration fees to hybrid & electric cars.
This makes these cars less attractive.

This promise of rebates to citizens are manipulations & falsehoods perpetrated on the general public just like "Climate Gate" & the silly "97% agree" statement.

July 5, 2015 at 11:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )