Subscribe Register Login
Tuesday, December 12, 2017, 3:57 p.m.

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Arkansas Daily Deal

Letters

This article was published September 22, 2017 at 2:08 a.m.

Future of the Buffalo

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Print Headline: Letters

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments on: Letters

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 total comments

Mike1970 says... September 22, 2017 at 1:33 p.m.

Mr. Gutierrez shows his leftist allegiance in his slanted comments. Mr. Trump was elected to undo the illegal actions taken by Mr. Obama and to rid us of the failing ACA.
If young aliens came here trusting the government to ignore their illegal status forever someone sold them a lie. DACA is a presidential order, not law. Both parties have failed to address the problem of illegal aliens. Most likely because their candidates are beholden to corporate contributors. Mr. Obama did not force the issue for good intentions, he did it for political reasons out of frustration with congress.
Anyone coming to America must follow the law for citizenship and assimilate into American society. They are encouraged to avoid these common sense and necessary steps purely for political reasons. Those who promote this risk our national identity selfishly for power not for any other reason.

( | suggest removal )

Mike1970 says... September 22, 2017 at 1:47 p.m.

Mr. Abraham your reference to the 97% statistic is in error. Truth is 97% of published scientific papers were written by "believers". Not 97% of all "climate" scientists.
These scientists make their conclusions based on computer modeling. They dump a bunch of data in a computer and massage it to reach a conclusion. Does this sound like the traditional scientific method? As always with computers, garbage in is garbage out. Since data is not available for long periods of time historically how do they run their model reliably? And data points are changed simply because the observer believes the instrument providing the data point is wrong and if wrong it must be in error to the warmer side. Scientific? Sounds more like fraud to me.
As for ignorant people making statements regarding issues they know nothing about, I refer you to Al Gore. Who has made himself very, very, rich while violating his own recommendations for being responsible in carbon emission.
You really don't wonder about the validity of all this? I guess you really can fool some of the people all the time.

( | suggest removal )

gohogs17 says... September 22, 2017 at 8:38 p.m.

Very well said, Mike.

( | suggest removal )

JakeTidmore says... September 22, 2017 at 9:19 p.m.

Only one comment about M70: GIGO. You can see his propaganda slant coming from miles away. Keep lying to yourself Mike. But, don't try to BS others into believing your pathetic hooey. You're nothing but a joke.
**
For an honest look at climate information go to realclimate(dot)org. Don't let the wingnut bozos like M70 spread their manure over you and tell you that it's caviar.

( | suggest removal )

JakeTidmore says... September 22, 2017 at 9:50 p.m.

Interesting that M70 unwittingly has shown that climate change is a fact, both in statements (one which requires climate change to be true in order to make his point) and in method of argument (lack of, really, for one and other flaws).
***
Skepticism does not hide behind convenient lies when facing unpleasant truths. It is why I recommend realclimate and the thorough manner in which issues and research are handled.

( | suggest removal )

ARMNAR says... September 22, 2017 at 10:43 p.m.

Thank you, Jake.

Pearls before swine, but thank you nevertheless.

( | suggest removal )

Larry_Anderson says... September 23, 2017 at 3:55 p.m.

Mr. Abraham, once more I must state that science is not done by consensus. Several sources explain just how this "survey" was conducted, and the questionable methods which were used. My sources, (which of course, you may question), include Forbes, National Review, Skeptical Science, Wall Street Journal, Salon, etc.

I certainly believe in climate change. It's natural, has always been with us, and always will be. Otherwise, how to explain age of dinosaurs, ice ages, hot and cold in cycles without any man-made interference. The Triassic Period was over 200 million years ago, lasting over 50 million years, mostly hot and dry. What I disagree with is the doomsday scenarios that if we don't drastically reduce our emission of CO2 within 2-3 years it will be too late to save the planet; many are generated by computer models that are off by quite a bit, and vary widely in their predictions...

( | suggest removal )

TimberTopper says... September 23, 2017 at 6:51 p.m.

Larry, Mike and hoggy, since the practice of medicine deals with science, may I suggest the next time you or a family member gets sick, stay away from a doctor, as they use that science stuff to try to cure people with. And should you decide to use a doctor, then you've just blown your comments on here all to hell. Are your real names Larry, Curly, and Mo?

( | suggest removal )

Larry_Anderson says... September 23, 2017 at 7:54 p.m.

Timber Topper, did you actually read my comments? I made no claims about medicine. In fact, science by consensus is not science at all! What I don't believe are the so-called surveys that resulted in the misleading 97% figure. These papers that were reviewed are analyzed in the sources that I listed. If indeed you read my statement in full, I certainly believe in climate change. But scientifically, climate has been changing in response to the earth's orbit and axial tilt, the sun's variable output, the influx of cosmic rays affecting cloud cover, and other things. I could almost find it humorous that people get so uptight about the many computer models which have pretty well managed to be way off. After all, we still have polar ice and polar bears...bears which were all supposed to be dead by now because all the Polar ice was going to be melted by 2014, according to AlGore in 2007. So do I recommend returning to smoke belching wood-fired or coal-fired locomotives or yanking the emission controls off our cars and trucks? Of course not, that's something that medical science has effectively studied and has demonstrable results. Not computer models that disagree.

( | suggest removal )

  • page
  • 1
Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

SHOPPING

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Arkansas Daily Deal
Arkansas Online