overcastOvercast, 26.0°

David Reynolds

Comment history

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Deborah, I too am a grandparent. But please take heart, Man made global warming is not a problem. Our grandchildren will be just fine. The key is to educate ones self on the issue by looking at both sides. If you noticed during the Democratic rebuttal to the January State of the Union address, even the democrats did not bring it up. The reason? It's a non-issue! The populous put global warming way down on their priority list.

Please consider what you see out your own window, and then reflect on the news not published by the so called MSM & Liberal blogosphere. There are voices of reason on the other side of the climate issue.

In particular is the recent finding that, yet again, the data has been erroneously "adjusted" by NOAA. Now I know there are some that say there is consensus and that "main stream science" supports man made global warming. If you look deeply enough you find some of those supporting this hypothesis are also the same ones "adjusting" the data.

But please read the following article. I have lost count of the number of times NOAA has been found guilty of manipulating data "upward" to show there is some global warming, when in fact the data has shown cooling. There justification for these "adjustments", is beyond ludicrous.

Please read the following article. You can click on the "blue" words to get further background.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...

In the summary this article it says:
"..One excuse NOAA’s apologists make is that weather stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. For example, when the station sited at Syracuse in 1929 was located at what was originally just a sparse aerodrome. Since then, however, as Homewood notes, it has grown into a large international airport with two runways servicing two million passengers a year. Its weather station readings therefore will certainly have been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect: that is, its temperature readings will have been artificially elevated by the warmth from the surrounding development and aircraft engines.

So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that to compensate for this NOAA would adjust the recent temperatures downwards. Instead, for no obvious reasons, it has adjusted them upwards.

This is a scandal. NOAA’s climate gatekeepers are political activists not honest scientists and the U.S. taxpayer has no business funding their propaganda."

it's a shame Deborah, that the so-called MSM & Blogosphere would report these issues. That is why you read about them in other places. There are those that will try to denigrate the site referenced above...why I can only guess. one of my guesses is their intolerance for anything that presents facts contrary to their agenda.

On Letter to the editor: Environmental harm

Posted 20 February 2018, 1:07 p.m. Suggest removal

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Also Steve, once here illegally, their is no justification to extend them benefits only granted to citizens.

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Steve there is no excuse for them being here illegally! If their problem is so dire,they can appear at our points of entry & plead their case. Then the authorities can properly address the problem.

I am a compassionate person, but I believe in doing things the correct way.

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

The hypocrisy of this situation is breath taking. Allowing undocumented residents (think illegal aliens) access to our colleges at "in state rates"!

Our higher education system is always complaining they do not have enough money...they always need more. Yet, we allow undocumented residents (illegal aliens) to have Kansas resident tuition rates. This certainly doesn't help reduce the illegal alien population, it exacerbates the problem.

Why aren't our colleges & universities raising holy ....! The institutions don't complain because they get additional students, and thus can complain their costs are increasing more & more to handle increased populations. Of course they are also places of "social justice".

With all the clammer in recent years about education costs, K-12 & higher ed, & tax rates, one would believe that denying an "undeserved benefit" would be a no brainer!. No, our illustrious elected officials & administrators of our higher ed institutions, only "support the problem by doing nothing to correct it".

Thus, we the tax payers continue to pay this "Hidden Tax", & our In-State Student continue to pay higher tuition rates!

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

The simplest way to help the poor is to increase employment opportunities in Lawrence & Douglas County. The old adage: "Feed a person a fish today & they eat today. Teach the person to fish and they eat for a lifetime", holds true today & in this situation.

For too long the city of Lawrence has, thru it's actions, discouraged employment opportunities. Most recently telling companies we want them to locate in Rock Chalk Park, when that ran contrary their demographic requirements. Of course there is also the howling about corporate welfare. it's amazing how the city administration believes it is smarter than the companies making the investment. The city administration seems to forget, or ignore, the fact that through their decision employment opportunities are lost, which exacerbates the problems the city is trying to solve today.

If this "redistribution of grocery tax dollars" goes forward, how do we make up the lost revenue?

Why does Lawrence always take the most costly route for a solution to any problem?

As mentioned above, for years we have been losing employment opportunities, because of policies that disincentivized companies from coming to Lawrence & Douglas County.

The continued increase in property & sales taxes are the result of those policies.

To make up the lose in revenue, will the city reduce spending or continue to spend and raise taxes, making Lawrence more & more unaffordable, for the very poor they are trying to help?

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Ah Ken, your arguments are laced with condescension. Thus trying to portray a superior attitude and knowledge. But alas, your condescending remarks says you have no facts to present so you resort to trying to demean. Ah, the typical alarmist behavior. You are fearlessly trying to defend damaged goods.

Interesting, your thoughts...but to paraphrase Shakespeare: " I think the gentleman doth protest to much".

I wish you well Ken.

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Well Ken, if I don't have anything of substance to say what does that say ab out you? All I am doing is just responding to your comments. What is so enlightening about your comments?

Ken there are many advances occurring in many technical fields. So what does that have to say about those manipulating the data?

Ken, as usual you read what you want. I have never rejected global warming per se. What I reject is the "Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis" presented by the alarmists. You ignore what I have said before about the end of the last ice age, and it's effects on today's climate.

That's part of the weakness of the anthropogenic argument, is separating out the difference between what is happening due to earth's natural cycles, the sun cycles, etc. All the alarmists can say is something happened based on their assumptions. They can't differentiate what is happening into it's constituent parts of natural earth cycles (air quality, clouds, natural warming & cooling, sun, foliage growth, etc) & artificial influences.

You can ignore me all you want, just as you ignore the problems with info supporting the man made global warming hypothesis.

By the way talk about deniers. Where what happened to the prediction of excessive warming while the earth's temperature stayed low due to low sun spot activity, for what a decade?

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

What is left unsaid in the article regarding any remaining responsibility for unpaid taxes, lies solely with the city itself.

The city did not place any tax liens on some of those properties. Thus they were sold without any tax liability that would accrue to any potential buyer.

It's very easy to rail against those "evil, greedy developers"! But how about railing against the city for mismanaging their accounts and our money.

The number of financial faux pas being made by the city are mounting up to a significant extent.

We have receivables that aren't invoiced for years, or ever, that have been the subject of articles in the paper. Now we have cases where the city hasn't been judicious about placing tax liens on properties so the city could collect back taxes.

Any time a governmental organization/agency starts writing ordinances to rectify these kinds off problems you can rest assured, either the government doesn't understand the problem, or it is trying to cover it's own failings.

We don't need elaborate and complicated ordinances to collect back taxes. And we don't have to denigrate the development community in the process.

all we need is for the city to do it's job, & exorcise it's fiduciary responsibility...file the darn tax liens. and oh by the way, please bill for receivables in a timely manner!

than you!!!!

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Continued from above.
Your statement regarding the "energy industry is trying to extend the fossil fuel age doesn't equally apply to the auto industry. The automobile industry is trying to meet a market demand, and is moving as fast as it can to make renewables happen. The problems are (1) reliability, &* (2) cost to the consumer. The average car buyer can not afford high automobile costs. I know this about the auto industry as my brother has worked in the industry for 37 years as an industrial engineer. He has been part of the complete computerization of the automobile and is seeing the auto industry R&D budgets shift to renewables. So please give credit where credit is due.

I believe the "Man Made Global Warming Industry" & it's alarmists would have made more progress if, instead of concocting the alarmist agenda to sell their idea, they should instead have marketed their agenda based on practical issues the average person would easily understand & accept in large numbers.

The one event that continually causes folks to laugh at the global warming agenda is good ole Al Gore, giving his annual global warming message on the coldest, snowiest day of each year. His message gets lost in the visual message surrounding his talk!

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Ken, accepted really? By by whom, others that generate the data? That's part of the climate data's problem, acceptance has proved to be mostly circular, & thus self-reinforcing. All to keep those grants coming in. I believe that is the crux of the problem with the climate alarmist industry. They have to perpetuate their position to keep the fat grants coming. There is an old saying...."Never mess with a gravy train"!

Cherry picked data by denialist...really?...that's the p[ot calling the kettle black! You have outdone yourself. The climate alarmists are notorious for cherry picking their data they want to use. That is the problem with most of it. The man made climate alarmists cherry pick the data to match their hypothesis. And you say denialists cherry pick data? We identify the outright distortions, used by alarmists in the face of easily identified accurate data. You see, denialists marvel at that those alarmists substituting false data, modifying real data, or leaving out real data they believe will not support their preconceived hypothesis, not thinking that real info is easily available to expose their shenanigans. That takes real chutzpah on the part of the alarmists.

Ken I have not denied the desirability of renewable energy sources. I am saying it is time it stood on it's own without subsidies. You also missed my comment that carbon based fuels should have their subsidies removed as well. Let the market place decide which source off energy to use. Not all renewable energy sources are economical in all areas. Example the sunbelt is better for solar. The coasts and some areas of the plains are better for wind, & hydro is better where ocean currents & rivers can justify it. The key is consistently reliable,. 24/7/365, sources, or combinations of sources for different areas of each country & places in the world.

Reliability, 24/7/365, is critical for hospitals, manufacturing, offices & homes.

Your argument about the automobile industry equally applies to the renewable energy sector. Every day citizens can't afford to invest in solar to any scale due to it's cost. Unreliability makes it unattractive to some especially when you consider ROI. By making your argument against Detroit, you don't give credit to the industry working overtime to try to incorporate technology that makes the automobile drive further without having to rely on carbon fuels, or having to stop to recharge at an electrical charging station, which uses carbon fuels. Single source renewable fuels for automobiles face the same problem renewables face for homes & businesses...cost & reliability.

Continued below.

Full LJWorld.com site