Comment history

Greenspan calls for cash infusion to help ease housing slump

This is the issue Ron Paul talks about. He says they shouldn't inflate our currency to protect bad investments.

(BTW the LJW won't even cover the Ron Paul events in Lawrence, but he is the ONLY Republican candidate that can win the general election. Remember, the republican party has lost 20% of its base - the public does not want a continuation of the 'Islamic-fascist' fear-mongering military activities supported by the others in both parties.)

December 17, 2007 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate view

I think you quite misunderstand. There are a multitude of separate ways that evolution is supported from diverse fields of science.

In the AGW theory there isn't a SINGLE paper that makes a good case of a 2 deg c/century increase via a 100ppm increase in CO2 from first principals with an error band smaller than the trend.

October 30, 2007 at 10:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate view

Read both

To read just one will not give a complete picture - it is clear that there are irregularities to the 'science' - in real science the data is not kept from reviewers and auditors - yet there is a pattern of that very thing here.

The case for AGW isn't close to be proven either way - it is even possible that man's use of irrigation could play a bigger role than CO2.

Look at NASA's satellite data - do you see a hockey stick?

October 28, 2007 at 11:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate view

Amazing - you both know you are correct when the issue is unknowable? And you both have to lower yourselves to ad hominem attacks?

Point out the peer reviewed paper that shows a 2 deg c/century increase via a 100ppm increase in CO2 with an error band smaller than the trend.

BTW - Science is not a democratic phenomena. Ask Copernicus.

The hockey stick was shown to be a math artifact a few years back - and a look at the current satellite data confirms it. That being said, the slight warming trend we have could be due to mans actions OR a natural change, there is no computer model that accounts for the water vapor transport of heat that matches observation. Cristy and Spensor have recently observed an unexpected effect on IR reflection due to ice crystals in upper clouds that could be a start of an explanation of why the earth isn't acting the way the current models predict.

A number of papers have linked rainfall data with sunspots that can not be explained with the current models.

There was an article in 'Science' that clearly showed that glacial shortening has been continuous for at least 300 years. Milwaukee was under 40' of ice 1,000 years ago - we know climate changes on its own. The case has to be made that AGW (man caused global warming) is beyond natural caused trends. It could be, but the case is not at all closed at this time.

Both sides of the political debate have vested interests in the science - that hardly disproves either sides arguments.

In short - it is much to early to say we 'know' what may remain unknowable. There is nothing in science that says that everything has to be 'knowable' - no matter how much research money is thrown at it.

October 28, 2007 at 11:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Climate view

While it seem true that we have seen some warming in the last 100 years there is no peer reviewed paper that shows how an increase in 100ppm causes a 2degC increase per century with any meaningful error analysis.

It is also true that in the last 100 years the entire flow of the Colorado river that used to go into the Pacific ocean now goes to irrigation and by prevailing wind over the USA. It is a confounding variable that no model is yet able to adjust for.

There are other confounding variables - comic rays, solar storms, cosmic dust, evolutionary changes in the biosphere etc. that can not be accounted for. The fact is we know that there is warming, there isn't a way to know if man's contribution is significant or not. Anyone on either side of the argument is just guessing. The issue - that man is making substantial contributions to AGW is unknowable for now and into the near future.

October 28, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Physicist takes shots at intelligent design

I don't think the author even attended. I looked at the paper the next day and thought there would be prominent coverage.

Things totally missed in the artical:

There was an extremely large turn-out.

Thunderous applause to condemnation of religion in the bible belt.

The stork theory.

This was a huge news story no matter what side of the issue you might be on.

November 1, 2006 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Questions arise on sales tax proposal

The tax increases are needed to pay to expand the sewer system the real-estate developers didn't want to pay for with impact fees. This is a transfer of money from the tax payer's pocket to real-estate developers.

How about a new special tax assessments on all the new neighborhoods instead? Why should the infrastructure be gifted to them?

August 1, 2006 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Officials moving ahead on online sales tax

The proposed "sales tax pact" is short sided and a bad idea. We already have a sales tax (dishonestly named a "use" tax) that honest people pay on Internet purchases. As a small Kansas Internet merchant, tax collected on our in-state sales are less than the cost of doing the paper work. This scheme will greatly increase the burden of paper work and reduce our ability to compete which will have us seriously considering moving out of state. How much money will Kansas lose by driving out Internet firms to states that either have no sales tax or are not part of this ill conceived pact? This tax will be a disproportionate burden on small businesses - the very businesses that grow to employ the workers of tomorrow.

Now the latest twist of this sales tax scheme is they now want to offer the seller a cut of the tax. How stupid can this get? If a merchant wants to increase the revenue on a sale, all we need to do is raise our price.

This tax scheme makes out-of-state prices more expensive which drives customers to merchants in non pact states. Not only will Kansas not collect the dreamed of revenue, the money coming into the state will be shifted to non pact states and companies will move out. Kansas has a lot to lose.

Do we really need yet another tax burden? Government can not forever continue to grow at two to three times the rate of inflation. At some point, everyone would work for the government and no one will be left creating the wealth to be taxed. The present course, now embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, will end up ruining our economy which history has shown will end with our children sent off to wars of distraction. I want a better future for my children.

December 4, 2005 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )