Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - July 24
RTD
More Letters to the Editor 
Share and Enjoy Misguided decision
to drop route 201
John Tayer's guest opinion "Rising above the transit paradox" (June 28) notes the bind that RTD is in, but he fails to address the real paradox. RTD is in a bind with rising ridership and fuel prices at the same time as sales tax receipts are down. The paradox is that, when faced with the opportunity to meet skyrocketing demand for its services, RTD is walking away from the table and discontinuing routes.
The root of the problem is that RTD is acting as if it's a profit-making business when in fact it is a public-funded entity chartered to serve the community.
The difference is critical. RTD views riders as the source of its income, and it is making route-by-route decisions based on riders and ridership. But RTD's existence (and the majority of its funding) is in the hands of its constituents -- taxpayers who ultimately decide RTD's fate through their votes, and eco-pass neighborhoods and organizations that often pay more than their use justifies.
The way out of RTD's bind is ultimately to ask for more money. But when RTD alienates its constituents by cutting service, where will that funding come from? Boulder has been very generous to RTD historically, yet how generous will the hospitals and employees served by RTD's route 201 feel when asked to pay more for service when RTD no longer takes them to work? How will families feel when asked to pay more RTD taxes and more for eco-passes when their children can no longer take the bus to school?
If RTD continues to abandon routes based on flimsy metrics such as these, Boulder will ultimately end up with a route system more like what we had in the 1980s rather than one geared for the 21st century.
STEVE GAEDE
Boulder
Curbside garden
A great idea
for community
Admittedly, I'm unfamiliar with Boulder's codes regarding prohibited plants or property within the right-of-way. However, I thought that property owners were responsible for maintaining the right-of-way. It appears that Mr. Hoffenberg is merely maintaining the right-of-way. Why does our city government find this to be harmful? As long as he's not blocking access to manholes or fire hydrants, what's the problem?
It would be a thing of beauty and compassion if our city could set up guidelines for right-of-way gardens. I would love to see every unkempt, weed-ridden right-of-way in Boulder either attractively xeriscaped or filled with all manner of flowering plants, including vegetables. Everyone in Boulder needs access to fresh produce. Property owners could post city-approved signs for people to help themselves when an over-abundance of fresh produce appears (I doubt the wildlife can read, though). There are people who do without fresh, green food every day; because they cannot afford to buy it. Our city should go ahead and encourage right-of-way gardens.
The Boulder city government needs to show the citizens that compassion to the most vulnerable people is a valued thing. Otherwise, the citizens will not trust our city government. Compassion costs very little. But the rewards are tremendous. The crime rate goes down when people are both happy and properly fed.
Instead of a ticket, Mr. Hoffenberg should be given a medal for having common sense: Seed plus dirt plus water equals both beauty and food. Duh. I encourage the citizens of Boulder to plant as many varieties of flowering plants as they can. And I encourage the city of Boulder to both embrace good ideas as well as punish the bad guys instead of the good guys.
JULIE CHAKNOVA
Boulder
Poverty in America
Definition of poverty
must be redefined
'In New York City 32 percent of the elderly are poor." The New York Times editorial, "Poverty's Real Measure," demands attention from local government to protect the most vulnerable citizens. In Denver the percentage of poor people is similar.
One chief reason for the rise in poverty is people who are over 65 years of age. The costs of basic daily living expenses such as medical costs, utilities, transportation, rent and loss of financial stability have exacerbated a growing crisis. The federal formula, since the 1960s, relies on the cost of food. More than 5 percent of those under the poverty level have increased in New York and a comparable percentage increase can be seen in Denver. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, can help people who have families avoid being a victim of extreme poverty.
Common sense dictates that anyone young or old being in poverty is untenable. The poverty threshold in New York City, one of the most expensive, has been the same as the least expensive: $20,444 for a family of four. $26,138 is a slightly more accurate standard, which is based on considering these other factors.
Washington's obsolete measure looks only at the cost of food relative to income. Housing, transportation and energy costs demand that new strategies be implemented to provide adequate places for people to live from birth to death.
Barack Obama endorses the plan to revise how poverty is defined. In Washington, D.C., Congress must make every effort to provide a national housing trust fund for all of the population who are impacted by poverty. Moreover, there have to be standards of care that provide case management and assertive community treatment between agencies to help maintain a threshold of care and dignity for all troubled people. The rise of dementia and other chronic illnesses make this an imperative in an ethical society.
RANDLE LOEB
Denver
Vietnam Wall
Thanks for bringing
Wall to Boulder
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Crist Mortuary, Mountain View Memorial Park and all those who sponsored and volunteered to bring the Dignity Memorial Vietnam Wall to Boulder this past weekend. It was a memorable opportunity for local residents to view this unique tribute to those who died and were lost in action during the Vietnam War. I felt deeply saddened and overwhelmed by the 58,256 names I viewed on the memorial. I am grateful for their sacrifice so that we can continue to live our daily lives in peace.
Perhaps one day in the future humanity will truly live in peace with one another. Until that day, we must live with the sorrow and devastation of the reality of war on our beautiful planet. We must never forget those who gave their lives for us.
ANN FAIR
Boulder
Posted by RalphShnelvar on July 24, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
STEVE GAEDE: "The root of the problem is that RTD is acting as if it's a profit-making business when in fact it is a public-funded entity chartered to serve the community."
Typically, a for-profit business will make somewhat less than 10% as a percentage of sales. Bulk businesses like gas stations will make in the neighborhood of 2%.
Focus on that 10%. Once that 10% evaporates, the business is, in effect, a non-profit.
[Or as the sign says at some stores: "This is a non-profit business. We didn't mean it to be that way but it is."]
Yet non-profits must still abide by the same market forces that for-profits do. They have input costs (labor, gasoline, capital expenses, repair expenses) and revenue streams (government subsidies, fees, gifts). In the end, they cannot continue to spend more than they receive of the banks will not cash their check.
Simply put, RTD cannot ignore economic impossibilities any more than a for-profit company can.
RTD is acutely aware of where it's bread is buttered. It is making excruciating decisions about where to cut services.
Certainly, it will come to the voters (Thank god that the voters have a voice in this!) to ask for more money. It will no doubt raise fares.
RTD will adjust pricing and people will again make decisions to take a bus, car pool, walk, bike, or use their Hummer.
STEVE GAEDE is simply asking RTD to do the impossible: expand and/or maintain service in the face of less money. Apparently, STEVE GAEDE wants RTD to redirect resources from routes that are "profitable" for RTD (and thus is serving LOTS of people) to a route that is not.
Ralph Shnelvar
Proudly running as a Libertarian for Boulder County Commissioner from District 1.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We've been fighting the "war on poverty" for over 40 years. Hate to tell ya, but it's not a war our goverment is or ever will be equipped to win. The difficulty comes from the near impossibility and high cost of differentiating those who truly cannot take care of themselves from those who simply choose not to.
I have an uneducated brother-in-law who is so obese that he can't work. The obesity is completely self-imposed, i.e. not a medical condition. Because of the obesity, he is on disability, getting about $1000 month completely tax-free. That's about the same as $7.50 - $8.00/hr of taxable income. Given the largesse afforded him by our government, what incentive is there for him to lose weight and get training to get a job that pays more than minimum wage?
We can not afford to dole out limitless "free" housing to people who simply don't want to work. I don't know what "a national housing trust fund for all of the population who are impacted by poverty" would cost, but if such a fund is implemented, it must be limited and must not provide perpetual free housing to able-bodied, mentally competent citizens.
And one question to Randle: How does this trust fund differ from welfare programs / public housing already available?
We don't need a continuation of the enabling, enslaving war on poverty with its associated limitless, perpetual handouts.
Posted by blacksho89 on July 24, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CSminer:
"How does this trust fund differ from welfare programs / public housing already available?"
Because it is Obama!'s plan, duh! When Obama! is elected, corporations will gladly give up their profits to public welfare programs. These programs will be funded entirely by corporations and the rich, and these added costs of doing business will not be passed down to you and I. It will no longer be your responsibility to care for your aged grandmother. Because Obama! is for change.
And now we will sing verses one, two, and four on page 202 of your hymnal. Obama! be with you!
Posted by grossman on July 24, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ann Fair, I'm very saddened to correct this statement by you: "I am grateful for their sacrifice so that we can continue to live our daily lives in peace."
Nothing those brave men and women did in Vietnam had anything to do with your "peace" and a lot to do with global politics that has resulted in what we now know as "globalization".
It is, however, necessary to respect and honor their sacrifice so that we don't make such mistakes again....so far that doesn't seem to work (another 'Vietnam' in Iraq) but if we keep trying.....
Posted by gsegiet on July 24, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to agree with CSminer. In 2006, total Federal expenditures were $2.655 trillion. Of that amount, 36% went to the elderly/disabled (Social Security/Medicare), 19% went to the poor via social programs (Medicaid, needy families, food stamps), and 12% went to community development. That's 67% of our Federal budget, or about $1.8 trillion in just one year. And now someone is proposing a free housing program?
Posted by qmmckenna on July 24, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hatmonger on July 24, 2008 at 8:17 a.m."Yup. High gas prices are Obama's fault, too. If we had only continued our program of limitless, perpetual handouts to oil companies, we would not be in this mess."
Washington must be very confused.
If Congress wants to give limitless, perpetual handouts to oil why is oil still one of the most heavily taxed commodity on the market?
We should all call our Congressmen right away to straighten out this mess.
Posted by qmmckenna on July 24, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hatmonger- your current defensive statement has nothing to do with your previous assertion about "perpetual government handouts".
And it's not up to Congress to determine how much profit an industry should make, just because you don't like it.
Moreover if you compare the stock performance of oil companies you will find that their profit margins are quite low, compared to many (or most) other industries ... so your assertion is quite baseless anyway.
Don't take my word for it check Google.
Posted by jrmanville on July 24, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Boulder_Badger,
Can you point to the source that says that Obama wants to draft 8,000 more soldiers and send them to Afghanistan and Pakistan? I've read the articles where he talks about pulling troops from Iraq to send to Afghanistan but nothing about a draft and nothing about invading Pakistan.
Posted by arschloch on July 24, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"$5.4bil in profits, but it pumped less oil. By Kristen Hays."
Kristen, unfortunately, is a raging alcoholic, who lost a foot while trekking in Tibet. These events, as well as the fact oil companies do not drill at all, but simply buy, refine, and sell, mean the information is probably a bit skewed.
The only drillers out there are independent contractors, scrambling to make a buck.
Never fear, never fear, the "Obamassiah" will soon be here, to kiss it and make everything all better.
Posted by gaede on July 24, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RalphShnelvar: Of course RTD has to face the economic realities, and
as my letter suggests, RTD is already asking for more money in terms
of higher fares and charges at park-n-rides. Taxes will be next.
Another way to frame my argument is this: RTD's cutting its expenses
on routes may result in a greater decrease in income than the cost
of the route. From what I gathered from the 201 discontinuance
meeting, the Newlands eco-pass program roughly pays for the 201.
Suppose Newlands doesn't qualify for the eco-pass program because
of less interest this year. Now the savings of the 201 discontinuance
is zero.
Then consider people who will be more skeptical about raising
taxes to further fund RTD in the future, lowering income further.
Add in the cost of more park-n-ride spaces for Denver commuters
who now drive to get to the bus rather than take the 201, and the
decision starts to look really bad from a financial perspective.
A sentence that was edited out from my letter stated how blind
RTD is to how much ridership has increased due to gas
prices-- its decision on the 201 was based on *one* day's
ridership last winter, before everything started skyrocketing.
It's amazing to me that, when you have fare box counts for
every single day, you make such an important decision based
on flimsy metrics.
Posted by ogghead on July 24, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"It appears that Mr. Hoffenberg is merely maintaining the right-of-way."
Julie, a disingenous argument doesn't help your cause. You can argue that the city should be compassionate--the rest of your letter does so fairly well--but this sentence is just bull.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hatmonger: "We don't really need to drill for oil, just threatening to seems to work fine."
You're correct... to a point. If it 'appears' the US has changed its mindset about drilling, then that perception will make prices retreat, but probably only temporarily. If Congress actually repeals the OCS/ANWR drilling ban, prices will likely drop some more, because something positive has been done that will work to ease supply concerns.
The price of oil is set both by perceptions and by real measurement, just like stocks in the DOW.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ars, what you said is not exactly correct, if you are implying that the drillers decide when and where to drill.
Most “oil companies” hire drilling contractors and tell them where to drill. Oil companies pay the contractors whether oil is found or not. Also, oil companies are not all integrated to the same degree. (For those few of you born in Boulder, this is not meant in the racial sense). Some oil companies are still fully integrated – that is, they explore, produce, transport, and refine crude oil (and natural gas), and then transport and market their liquid or gaseous products. Shell Oil is one of these. Most “oil companies” provide only a few of those services, e.g., exploration and production; transportation and refining; refining and marketing, etc. Oil companies do own the oil that they find. (Drillers do not “find” oil, they just drill where they are told.) Therefore, the headline stating that CononoPhilips “pumped” (not drilled for) more oil is correct.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops - I meant:
Therefore, the headline stating that CononoPhilips “pumped” (not drilled for) LESS oil is correct.
Posted by grossman on July 24, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As an ex-draftee (well, I 'dodged' the draft by enlisting for 3.75 years), we need a draft real bad. It would sharpen our senses and make us come to them as well.
I guarantee you, if there had been a draft, there would have been no Iraq 'conflict'. It is not a war!
We have not yet declared war against either Afghanistan nor Iraq (or Korea, or Vietnam, or Grenada, or Nicaragua, or Bosnia, or....have I missed one?). Let's get our words straight here.
The so-called War Powers Act, the one that kills so many people, including our own sons and daughters, is a limp noodle of a law that needs a Supreme Court challenge, since it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 24, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oil industry fans like to quote profit margin as proof that oil companies aren't making any more money than other industries. However, profit margin (return on sales) can be misleading when comparing different industries. To do a real comparison you need to include other measures, such as return on equity.
As a whole, the oil industry had an 8% return on sales in 2007, and a 22.7% return on equity. Seems like a pretty healthy business to me.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis:
What's the oil industry's average return on equity over the past 10 years? How does that compare with Dell? With NBC? And what's wrong with being healthy (for a change)? We need a healthy oil industry if the oil we need is to be found.
If an industry is "making too much" (my quotes, not yours), and we are going to allow the confiscation of profits by the government, then we must be prepared to guarantee a certain ROR (like is done for many utilities), when times are tough.
We aren't going to get more energy by giving more money to the government.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MikeEllis:
On a completely different note, I have the Ellis surname in my family tree. Do you have relatives from north Texas (Montague County)?
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 24, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is it too early to declare foreign_correspondent the winner?
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 24, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"We aren't going to get more energy by giving more money to the government."
We're actually getting less oil by giving more money to the oil companies.
Since "the government" is us, any windfall profits tax would be used to offset costs to the consumer. Socialism, I know. Just look what's going on in the wacky wiberal state of Alaska:
"(Alaska) Gov.Sarah Palin announced this afternoon that she will ask the Legislature to send $1,200 checks to all Alaskans and suspend the state's 8 cent-a-gallon fuel tax on gasoline and highway fuels. The move is aimed at alleviating the soaring cost of gasoline and heating oil."
- Voice of the Times, 6/20/08
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Billy:
Who generates the $1200 revenue for Alaskans?
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 24, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You'll have to ask Sarah.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It comes from the North Slope oil royalties paid to the State of AK - paid by the nasty oil companies.
Certainly you knew that.
Posted by Robert_Paul_Smoke on July 24, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wise up...rtd doesn't give a fried banana from cucamonga about the direction it's headed -- cuts in service -- or even revenue shortfalls -- none of that means anything ---
watch...the next proposal for 'balancing the books and maintaining service' will be directly tied to more funding for the nw rail boondoggle --
that's really all anyone cares about -- an absurd project with unjustifiable per passenger costs --
if it's so ecologically sound, why are those per passenger costs so high, i hear you asking --
good question -- those costs aren't about the added expense of 'being green' -- they're about the added expense of all the resources poured into this type of project -- for instance, the stupendous amount of metal that comes from strip mines...do we offer to strip mine the flatirons? no, we're going to be green about it and have it done on our behalf in brazil or africa --
the nw rail project is for the sake of developers along the route and for the sake of a bunch of schemers at rtd -- when the manager, marsela, writes the op-ed pieces pushing the project, you know something is majorly screwy --
boulder deserves decent transit --
rtd is going to hold you hostage on that account until you pony for something you never needed that is outrageously expensive and poorly designed
Posted by MikeEllis on July 24, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CS, I didn't advocate for any specific action. I just want to make sure that people are looking at honest and fair numbers before coming to an opinion. I don't happen to know the historical profit numbers for the oil industry. I found the ones I quoted here:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organi...
This is a very complex topic and I don't think it warrants simplistic solutions. An "excess profit" tax sounds like a creepy solution. If someone can really prove collusion or price fixing, there should be prosecution, but I guess that goes without saying.
I think the real long-term solution is wrapped up in a response to global warming and a carbon tax. But that is even more complex, because you have to figure out how to make it not regressive, and how to make sure that the revenue actually went to reducing global warming.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 24, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, CS, Ellis is an extremely common name. I'm not aware of any relatives in Texas. Eastern Colorado and Nebraska, yes.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike:
I have never made excess profits in my life!!
You mention a long term "solution", but I don't know what problem you are discussing.
I must say there are many (including myself) that firmly believe that there is no such thing as "catastrophic" anthropogenic GW, and that even if there were, the most efficient solution would be to adapt.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 24, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"It comes from the North Slope oil royalties paid to the State of AK - paid by the nasty oil companies."
There you go. Not only is Sarah a dish, she's smart, too.
She's even a Republican.
Posted by phoenix_rises on July 24, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"You're correct... to a point. If it 'appears' the US has changed its mindset about drilling, then that perception will make prices retreat, but probably only temporarily. If Congress actually repeals the OCS/ANWR drilling ban, prices will likely drop some more, because something positive has been done that will work to ease supply concerns."
Not according to our current Energy Secretary. Oil from domestic drilling will not hit the market until 2020-2025 and will probably affect the price of gas by just $.01-$.02.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Billy, I fail to see your point. She is not returning "windfall profits." Every state where oil is produced receives royalties from the funds generated from the sale of oil & gas found within the states' borders. However, because Alaska has a small population and huge oil revenue, they can afford to give some of the royalties back to the citizens.
Posted by CSminer on July 24, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
phoenix_rises: The energy secretary is speaking of the acutal supply part of the equation. The perception side is worth more and comes sooner.
He is also underestimating the supply impact.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 24, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CS, I agree that "excess profits" is an oxymoron.
As I said, the issues are quite complex, including many emotional ones. People see the cost of gasoline skyrocket, and they see the oil companies making more and more money. The commodities market is completely Greek to most people. With anything else that people buy, you can shop around for a better deal, and have some impact on the market. But with gas you can't. The price of a gallon is set by some mysterious market forces (or by the oil companies fixing prices if you're paranoid). With other types of products, you can look around and see the people selling them feeling the same pain you are. Manufacturers, retailers, etc., all suffer when the economy is down and prices go up. But oil companies do better when we all do worse. It "feels like" a monopoly, and one that profits off everyone's misery.
If oil companies want to get people off their back, they are going to have to answer this emotional argument.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 24, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If foreign_correspondent were here, he'd crush you guys. I'm declaring him the winner and undefeated champion.
Good bye.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 24, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CS says, "I must say there are many (including myself) that firmly believe that there is no such thing as "catastrophic" anthropogenic GW, and that even if there were, the most efficient solution would be to adapt."
It is a measurable scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the earth, that humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 35%, and that temperatures have risen completely in line with what would be predicted based on that increase. The only doubt is whether there are other factors contributing to a small part of the temperature increase. AGW is as close to a scientific fact as you can get.
Catastrophic, of course, is a matter of definition. Someone here a few days ago claimed that NYC would be under water in a year. That's kooky. But there are scientific predictions, continually being refined, that show amounts of sea level rise, increases in droughts, predicted crop failures, species extinctions, etc.
Of course we will adapt. We have no choice. I just point out that, first, adaptation is extremely messy. Neanderthal Man, for example, was never a big fan of the concept. Second, it would be silly to rely on only adaptation if, by taking action now, we can reduce the requirement to adapt.
I continue to look at AGW optimistically. If humans have to power to mess things up that bad, surely we have the power to fix them. But if global warming isn't our fault, then there's surely nothing we could possible do to slow it down, and we could very well be screwed.
Posted by billy_goat_gruff on July 24, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People who do not think AGW is catastrophic are not desperately poor people living in low coastal areas. The rather Marie Antoinette-like injunction to "move somewhere else" isn't much help, because any possible somewhere else for them is already full of other desperately poor people.
Let 'em drown. Serves 'em right for living in a low coastal area instead of Boulder.
Posted by rasinden57 on July 24, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with goat head. Let'em drown. If you make this a situation that is unalterable, then of course it is a catastrophe. Then, in the good leftist sense, we can legislate how much of everything that everyone gets, how we live, how long we live, what we think, our opinions, and life will be really swell.
Posted by grossman on July 24, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Governor Patterson needs to start moving New York City 20 miles west pretty soon, AGW or not. Venice is over so get a good look while you can.
anthro this, anthro that, anthro out the baby with the bath water.
action now, no more words. there is money to be made!!!
but here's the problem, the money will not be made by the current entrenched industries. It will be made by lean, mean companies with new ideas (not like the fat dudes who marketed the Ford F-150 and it's SUV progeny). That's why we see this Limbaughian freak out about
AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGWWWWWWW!!!
However, to some it is opportunity knocking.
Posted by rasinden57 on July 24, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"However, to some it is opportunity knocking."
I couldn't agree more with you, el grosso. Michael Moore and Al Gore come to mind immediately. Opportunists of the highest order. Or the lowest, depending on the scale you are using.
Posted by rasinden57 on July 24, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding the rise of sea level and the cruel drowning of the poor folks living in slums created by the evil white man, it is highly likely that sea level will rise rather slowly, if this grim prognostication become reality. The great docudrama "The Day After Tomorrow" portrayed unusual hap's that of course appeal to the morons among us, but if your IQ is higher tham room temp, you know it was kind of like Godzilla, just a spoof. So, the attempt at shaming those of us that fail to feel the uuuurrrgennncyyy!!!! of the AGW crowd is likely to fall flat. Try another angle, goat head. I am trying to feel shame, but you are failing miserably.
Posted by rcljr1220 on July 24, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While the oil companies continue to downplay their profit margins...Why does the US Government continue to supply subsidies and tax breaks?
Posted by rasinden57 on July 24, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
thanks for the advice hat. The prognostication by Natl. Geo two years ago that hurricanes will continue to get worse, so we shold brace oursleves for more of the Katrina variety storms has turned out to be right on the spot. Just as you are, hotmonger ( with reverence to AGW )
Posted by MikeEllis on July 24, 2008 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Uh, rasinden, you do understand, don't you, that climate change doesn't mean that every year will get hotter and every year will see big weather events? Climate is a long term, widespread thing.
Posted by CSminer on July 25, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rcljr122: You are simply repeating lib talking points without having any idea what you're talking about. Please give us an overview of the "subsidies and tax breaks."
Posted by CSminer on July 25, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike: As I see it, alarmists have adopted AGW as their religion. No matter how much proof is offered, a religious fanatic will not be disuaded from believing in God.
Similarly, no matter what happens, nothing disproves AGW. If it gets cool, alarmists will simply state that, had AGW not existed, it would have gotten colder. Have you ever asked yourself, "What series of events would have to occur to change my mind?"
Posted by user4356 on July 25, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh please, 201 supporters. Get a grip on reality. It is highly unlikely that the Newlands Ecopass program subsidizes the entire cost of spinning this mostly empty bus around the neighborhood, and I'm sure that this "fact" was not provided by RTD. The cost of the Newlands Ecopass must also pay for other routes, such as the SKIP, the 208 and the AB bus that are also used by this neighborhood.
Posted by CSminer on July 25, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hatmonger, it's starting.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/t...
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/...
Besides, consensus is not science. Your question about QE has nothing to do with it.
Posted by IXLR82 on July 25, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"As a whole, the oil industry had an 8% return on sales in 2007, and a 22.7% return on equity. Seems like a pretty healthy business to me."
Looks like a good place to invest some of your money...if you had any...
Posted by CSminer on July 25, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for reading the links. Chores await.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Looks like a good place to invest some of your money...if you had any..."
Actually, I do have money invested in this industry. I'm not stupid, contrary to what many of you may think.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm slower than hat. First link conclusion:
"The generally emerging view, she said, seems to be that global warming may cause some increase in intensity, that this increase will develop slowly over time, and that it likely will lead to a few more Category 4 and Category 5 storms. How many? When? No one yet knows."
I'm the first to admit that the understanding of the link between hurricanes and global warming is still evolving. Obviously, much more work needs to be done in this area.
Important point for both sides of the argument -- the weather events of a single year don't prove anything, and you can never say that a particular event was or was not caused by a climate trend.
Posted by albanal on July 25, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'm not stupid, contrary to what many of you may think."
That will depend on when you decide to sell.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding discrepancies in satellite temperature measurements, from U.S. Climate Change Science Program: "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding the point that in past global warming events rises in CO2 levels lagged temperature increases:
It is probably true that these previous events were not initially triggered by CO2 increases. However, the fact that the two continued to rise in parallel for 5,000 to 10,000 years points very strongly to a positive feedback mechanism between temperature and CO2 increases.
The current understanding of previous global warming events is that small orbital anomalies triggered a small increase. This prompted the release of CO2 from the biosphere, which prompted more warming, which caused the release of more CO2.
Today, we are seeing a small temperature increase triggered by increased CO2 and other primarily human causes. There is a strong fear of a similar positive feedback situation, which would amplify the human input significantly.
More here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?...
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't argue with Judi McLeod, as she just repeats skeptics' talking points in her blog, rather than making concrete scientific arguments. It's not worth my time.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
al: "That will depend on when you decide to sell."
I don't believe in selling. It something was good enough to buy, it is good enough to keep.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hat, exactly. Except I'm still trying to work through your multitude of mixed metaphors, picturing myself driving through a roof with no shirt on and with bubbles bursting all around me. At least I'm holding onto the instruments while I'm driving, so I should be safe.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I was kind of looking forward to the sensation of bubbles bursting against my bare chest, but maybe it was just the airbag.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hat, you let me down. I was setting you up to make a comment about the airbags on this forum
Posted by flaven on July 25, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll run with it (I have no pride): any airbags want to run their crusty, jagged fingernails up and down Mike's chest?
OK, you first, IXL.
Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now I'm REALLY sorry I started that.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.