Jump to content
Your side? The only side that is important regarding the AGW issue is the side of truth. I have mentioned countless sources of research -- most of which references many, many more including noted scientists and their peer-reviewed work, yet your obvious bias supporting "your side" simply refuses to consider them (a trick often used by the IPCC when compiling their reports) or simply dismiss them as funded by the "fossil fuel" industry. Even if that last were true in every case (a preposterous claim) so what? If AGW is not a true and valid hypothesis, should fossil fuel power industries be criticized for funding research to prove it? Of course not. Unfortunately political biases have polluted the "science" regarding this issue -- and the above note, fatherof5 -- clearly reflects yours.
The maximum is one per week and 15 per year. Can only speak for myself but all my letters are 400 words or less ... using Word Perfect's word count tool. The U-B should be applauded for its letter to editor policy ... have never seen another newspaper that allows 400 words and tries to print all letters received. W2 is fortunate to have the U-B.
Interesting links, geneandcassie. Thanks!
For some very good and reliable info on this issue and the IPCC Google NIPCC and their latest online report Climate Change Reconsidered I I ... physical science. Serious researchers won't be dissapointed. I have the book but unfortunately it's very costly at around $140.
Sorry for delay Blue skies ... will have those for you asap. Appreciate your interest.
If anyone is interested in more information to confirm erroneous IPCC computer modeling, and use a Kindle, Amazon has a 478-page report with examples and graphs by Bob Tisdale entitled Climate Models Fail ($9.99). Worth examination by anyone curious about the accuracy of IPCC climate models upon which our government's EPA relies for implementing regulatory restrictions and fines on industry.
For some reason, I always enjoy your comments, Igor. A salute your way for your service in Vietnam. Best regards to you and yours.
Rest assured there will be a response to this schoolyard attempt to censure my opinion. Meanwhile, if Clark or Cox doesn't wish to read letters from me or Luck stead I have a suggestion -- dont. Otherwise STHU (shut the heck up).
I do not disagree with your comment, Mr. Peacock. However as we know there are opinions based upon truth and those that are not. ... that are based upon erroneous information. And of course sometimes based upon half-truths. Having an opinion based on bad information doesn't make a person a liar. Frankly I don't believe those of us who express our opinions in the U-B are liars. But the difficulty is always determining the truth. Sometimes very difficult but an admirable effort. Happy New Year to you, Namvet, Steve Luckstead and all who happen to read this. May 2014 be the year we establish the truth regarding all our opinions.
You find no fault with the insults from the person hiding behind the downhillracer alias who refers to my opinion as psychotic nonsense, Peacock? That says a lot, doesn't it? Well, never mind. I will hit the "suggest removal" button on downhill's low-road, typically immature form of schoolyard name-calling and see if it works.
Last login: Wednesday, February 19, 2014
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.