Printed letters, October 8, 2013
Here we go again — climate change, according to some from Colorado Outreach, is the culprit for the latest flooding on the Front Range.
Somehow, if we follow a green agenda by killing more birds while operating more wind turbines and fund more solar companies until they’re bankrupt, it would not have rained so hard and caused the floods?
I understand you need a PhD to understand this complicated process and the science behind climate change, but I tend to believe the simple answer is generally the correct answer. It just flat rained a lot. In another time after raining 40 days and 40 nights, I believe most would call it the will of God, or would some still lay the blame on climate change?
First the PhDs called it global warming, until the data would no longer support this. Then they moved on to the catch-all term “climate change.” Today the data, measurements and science are pointing to the reality that climate change is not the doomsday trigger some would like us to believe and man is not the primary influence. In fact, for every statistic supporting climate change there are statistics debunking the argument. Again, the simple answer supports the facts that the climate change theory is perpetuated to serve an agenda, money and power.
I do agree that “climate change” is a contributing factor in one major issue we face today. The push to subsidize green energy is definitely contributing to the out-of-control national debt and never-ending deficit.
Climate-change skepticism connected to energy industry
The reason I have found that so many people in Grand Junction are opposed to the thought that climate change is real is not due to the lack of facts.
It is more due to the fact that a large number of the jobs in Mesa County are in some way, shape or form connected to the oil and gas industry. When you have a job, you don’t want to hear that what you’re doing is hurting the planet because you don’t want to have to take responsibility for it.
But unless we do start taking responsibility for it, our children will curse our names.
Many articles explain why oceans are heating up
The level of ignorance displayed by climate change deniers is stunning. Scientific fact is disregarded and replaced with “common sense.” No way can the oceans be heating up from a warmer atmosphere because we all know that heat rises and the oceans are below the atmosphere.
It took me about one minute to find a dozen scientific articles explaining how the oceans are being heated from increasing greenhouse gases and a warming atmosphere. But, hey, why listen to a bunch of silly old PhD scientists who obviously promote a liberal agenda and who actually study global warming when you can listen to your gut and common sense and the right-wing echo chamber?
One article is from the April 11 edition of USA Today. It is called “Where’s the heat? In the Oceans!” The article refers to a “recent study that found that heat absorbed by the world’s oceans has increased significantly over the same period (the past 10 years), prompting the study co-authors to say that the warming has been diverted and is heating the oceans instead of the atmosphere.
The study was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
It further states, “‘Over 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases winds up warming the oceans,’ said Josh Willis, a scientist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the press conference. ‘Oceans cover two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, so it’s expected that they’ll play a large role in how climate change and global warming play out.’ A large chunk of the warmth appears to be settling far down in the ocean about a half-mile beneath the surface, Trenbreth (a co-author of the article) says. New technology over the past decade or so have allowed scientists to better measure the temperature of the deep oceans, Willis says.”
House Republicans must keep fighting against Obamacare
The Daily Sentinel’s Oct. 3 editorial and Michael Pramenko’s accompanying commentary assert the president’s re-election was a tacit, if not explicit, endorsement of Obamacare, which they note is now the law of the land.
Absent from these observations are several foundational considerations which just happen to also be laws of the land:
✓ Members of the House of Representatives were installed through the same electoral process.
✓ The Constitution provides for revenue and spending measures to originate in the House, without prior clearance from Barack Obama and/or Harry Reid.
House Republicans are characterized as childish for holding their position, while Obama’s inflexibility is somehow noble. The writers conclude further that since there is no evidence the president or Senate Democrats will cave on Obamacare’s defunding, the House should simply pass a clean continuing resolution.
This stunning non sequitur raises the question, “Why then have a House at all?” Send ‘em all home, Barry and Harry will handle it.
Republicans are urged to “acknowledge they lost this fight” and “fight Obamacare another day.” What other day would that be? When it becomes more of a monster than it already is, even in its 10,000-plus page regulatory infancy?
After more waivers, exceptions and special allowances are added to the 1,400-plus already granted, making a further mockery of “a government of laws, not men?”
Funding a law is distinct from and independent of its original passage, and is an inseparable element of the separation of powers.
Instead of suggested capitulation, House Republicans should fight with increased vigor. It is specifically within their constitutional authority to do so, it is the fight to have, and now is the time to have it.
Tipton should explain trip cancellation to fifth-graders
Just thought Rep. Scott Tipton would like to know that after months of planning, my son’s fifth-grade class was not able to go to Arches National Park because it was closed.
I would like to extend a personal invitation to Tipton to come to my son’s fifth-grade class and explain how it was that he was not able to fulfill his constitutional duties to pass an annual budget (which should be a valuable civics lesson).
I would also like to point out that he would help cause a constitutional crisis by not raising the debt limit as a default would clearly conflict with the 14th Amendment (not to mention wreck our already fragile economy).
I do not want to hear how the other guy is to blame, but rather, I respectfully ask that Tipton look in the mirror and take responsibility for the role he personally has played in this embarrassment. After all, he cannot control what the other guy does, only what he does.
Consider San Francisco case before busing panhandlers
To all those people who think the city/county should purchase one-way, out-of-town bus tickets for the homeless and panhandlers, San Francisco recently sued Nevada for its practice of doing just that. Does the city want to defend a lawsuit brought on by more stupidity?