Banning natural gas heating in Dublin? | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | DanvilleSanRamon.com |

Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

Banning natural gas heating in Dublin?

Uploaded: Feb 20, 2020
California’s extreme climate goals are continuing to take a toll.

Last year, the state energy commission approved plans from several cities and Marin County to ban natural gas pipes in new construction. For cities such as Berkeley and Menlo Park, those over-the-top measures weren’t surprising. The Berkeley action is being challenged in court.

What was surprising is to learn that on Dec. 17, 2019 the Dublin City Council considered a similar action.

The city staff is updating the community’s Climate Action Plan that was originally enacted in 2010. It was required by AB 32 passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Swarzenegger in 2006. That set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (think the carbon dioxide that we expel every time we exhale and that trees and other plants need) to 1990 levels by 2020. The report to the council indicated the city was on target to meet those goals.

What requires more draconian steps were SB 32 that requires emissions be reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030 and SB 100 that requires all electric generation be 100 carbon-free by 2045. The Legislature and former Gov. Jerry Brown doubled down on their opinions and established even more challenging goals. Brown, throughout his second two-term governorship, cast himself as an international leader pushing for nations to deal with climate change.

If Dublin’s understanding of the law is correct and there’s no reason to think anything else, then it’s policy will be the forerunner to similar policies across the state. Dublin staff will return a revised version to the council this winter. Given that transportation is the biggest source of greenhouse gases because of petroleum-based fuels, the sale of electric cars and trucks is going to have to soar.

Does anyone else see the contradiction between jousting with the theory of man-caused climate change and relying on an electrical grid run by a bankrupt utility (PG&E) that has neglected maintenance and upgrading equipment for decades. PG&E embraced the climate change strategy, as did the Public Utilities Commission that regulates the company. That’s why we pay the highest electrical rates in the country as well as about $1 more for gallon for gasoline than the national average.

PG&E’s CEO has said publicly it could take up to 10 years to update and upgrade its grid so we don’t see more planned electric shutoffs during dry fall weather.

PG&E leaders have embraced the renewable alternatives and the dropping price of solar panels has some real upside for residential use. The irony of the natural gas bans is that most of the power plants developed for peak demand times such as hot summer days are powered by natural gas. It’s clean burning and efficient, whether used for heating homes or offices or cooking. To its credit, Dublin’s proposal exempts restaurants and hospitals.

And then there’s the conflict between technology such as the giant second-generation windmills in the Altamont Pass and elsewhere and the death toll they take on raptors forging for prey in those grass-covered hills. It’s the same in one commercial solar array in the desert where habitat for native animals such as tortoises has been destroyed. We see conflicts between environmentalists backing renewable energy and others battling for raptors and other wildlife.

Personally, I have my doubts about man-caused climate change. It’s clear the climate has changed over the centuries—the geologic record shows two Ice Ages that came and went. Many climate scientists argue that man’s impact is causing the climate to change, while others take the opposite view. The modeling that predicts temperature increases and rising oceans comes down to what assumptions that are plugged in. Change the assumptions and you change the results.

That’s certainly not the approach that this blue state with one party has taken (although Gov. Arnold claimed he was a Republican). For the wealthier folks living in the 16 coastal counties that dominate California politics, the majority seem happy to pay the price. For the rest of the state, particularly the great Central Valley, the costs sting families, particularly those living in poverty. The San Joaquin Valley has the highest poverty rate in the country, while Fresno is the second most impoverished city in the state.

Gov. Gavin Newsom had made addressing the two California’s a priority of his administration, but when will it show any fruit?


We need your support now more than ever. Can we count on you?

Comments

 +   18 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of San Ramon,
on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:08 pm

Resident is a registered user.

Existing buildings contribute the fourth largest percentage of greenhouse gases in the Bay Area . Given the urgent need to decrease GHG emissions wherever we can, addressing emissions from new construction makes sense. Eliminating gas from homes also means a cleaner breathing environment for families and safer neighborhoods after earthquakes. I hope Dublin succeeds and other local cities follow their lead.


 +   10 people like this
Posted by John, a resident of San Ramon,
on Feb 21, 2020 at 8:24 am

With regard to your doubts about man-caused climate change, follow the money. The largest investors on Wall Street are shifting investments out of fossil fuels and into profitable renewable energy technology. These are smart people with a lot at stake, like the rest of us. If you are not doing the same, you are missing a great investment opportunity. Our standard of living is based on sound science. Why should we start doubting it now.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by LongTimeP-Towner, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Feb 21, 2020 at 4:52 pm

I agree with Tim. The "science" is model based and it depends on what goes in the model. If you are game to read some other views of climate change, go to Web Link and do some reading.

Climate change is probably real, whether we can do anything about it is debatable.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 22, 2020 at 7:59 pm

"Personally, I have my doubts about man-caused climate change. It's clear the climate has changed over the centuries"the geologic record shows two Ice Ages that came and went."

There it is, the generic vague objection and "some scientists disagree" nonsense underlying the rest of this.

We're all aware of the myriad of tensions between different environmentalist groups. We understand that PG&E is a mess. We understand that we have to deal with how these changes affect the poorest among us, including people who live in other parts of the state and the world. We understand our lifestyles are going to have to change, Mr. Hunt.

Driving less, sharing rides, having electric heat and electric stoves, flying less? They seem severe because we've been subject to lifestyle creep, where we think we are now entitled to all these conveniences.

We are trying to grapple with these issues while you just snipe away as if that's a reason to do nothing, and that speaks more of you than it does of us.


Really, we've been living on borrowed time. But losing those things isn't draconian.

What's draconian is leaving our kids with the consequences.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Dad, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Feb 22, 2020 at 8:09 pm

Theory of global warming? It's a fact, not a theory. One that is backed up by NASA and the National Academy of Sciences.. but I guess your smarter then them?

Your columns have been going down hill fast for a while. But this is just another example of you fast loosing credibility. Unfortunately your dragging the Weekly along with you.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Feb 22, 2020 at 11:00 pm

Jake Waters is a registered user.

Global Warming (which isn't the ‘in' phrase anymore because we are not warming) doesn't even rise to a theory. NASA's predictions have never come true, besides, those ‘studies' they have placed on their website have all been debunked.

Why don't people pick up a book and read the opposition to ‘Climate Crisis'? The science isn't in and the debate isn't over. Climate Crisis is about power, control, and making lots of money. I chose not to be among the nodding bovine.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Wombat, a resident of Downtown,
on Feb 23, 2020 at 12:54 am

Tim Hunt wrote “ Personally, I have my doubts about man-caused climate change. It's clear the climate has changed over the centuries"the geologic record shows two Ice Ages that came and went. Many climate scientists argue that man's impact is causing the climate to change, while others take the opposite view."

YOU have doubts on climate change? Who the heck are you? Your educational and career background is in journalism and daily newspapers. You have no scientific credentials. You're a guy who believes in faith-healing nonsense that goes against all scientific and medical logic such as thinking that your prayers can instantly cure a person of terminal cancer. So you think that you know more about how to cure cancer than professional medical researchers and doctors, and now you think you know more about climate science than Ph.D. scientists who have spent their careers studying climate science and who overwhelmingly believe in manmade global warming? Any other super-powers of yours that we should know about, Tim?


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Wombat, a resident of Downtown,
on Feb 23, 2020 at 12:54 am

Tim Hunt wrote “ Personally, I have my doubts about man-caused climate change. It's clear the climate has changed over the centuries"the geologic record shows two Ice Ages that came and went. Many climate scientists argue that man's impact is causing the climate to change, while others take the opposite view."

YOU have doubts on climate change? Who the heck are you? Your educational and career background is in journalism and daily newspapers. You have no scientific credentials. You're a guy who believes in faith-healing nonsense that goes against all scientific and medical logic such as thinking that your prayers can instantly cure a person of terminal cancer. So you think that you know more about how to cure cancer than professional medical researchers and doctors, and now you think you know more about climate science than Ph.D. scientists who have spent their careers studying climate science and who overwhelmingly believe in manmade global warming? Any other super-powers of yours that we should know about, Tim?


 +   5 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 23, 2020 at 11:17 am

"[Global Warming] isn't the ‘in' phrase anymore"

Wrong.
Web Link

"because we are not warming"

Nope.
Web Link
Web Link


 +   5 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 23, 2020 at 11:17 am

"NASA's predictions have never come true"

Wrong again (also, NASA isn't the only one modeling).
Web Link
Web Link


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Feb 23, 2020 at 7:40 pm

I have been heating my home with wood for the last eighteen years. I have a highly efficient wood burning insert, at half damper it emits 1.60 grams an hour, at full damper it emits lee then half gram an hour. That is much less then what the average commuter emits every day.

The EPA has stated that my insert is acceptable for environmental emission. Recent legislation passed by California requires home sales to brick over fire places before sale.

My inset is legal, California cannot brick it over, the BAQMD, along with the EPA has stated that my insert is acceptable for heating my home, that the brick over law does no apply to my fireplace.

Of far more concern over global warming and the lack there of, is illegal immigration, the sanctuary cities in California, and throughout the U.S. The democratic policy of no prosecution of illegal immigrants, for rape, murder, absolutely no prosecution of illegal immigrants and the lawlessness they bring.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 23, 2020 at 9:37 pm

Michael,

I'm glad you picked an efficient wood heater, but cars newer than 2013 emit 0.003g/mi of particulates (with tires adding slightly more), so even over a 60 mile commute they are still emitting less than your wood heater.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Feb 24, 2020 at 9:10 am

Jake Waters is a registered user.

@sjd

‘The U.S. government alone paid $64 billion to climate researchers during the four years from 2010 to 2013, virtually all of it explicitly assuming or intended to find a human impact on climate." - Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report On Scientific Consensus. Follow the money- that is what this is all about.

That is just one of the 7 books I have read disproving your religion. You must only listen to CNN, Al Gore, Leonardo Di Capri, and Obama for your opinions. You got this one wrong @sjd, and people like you scare the heck out of us. You are aimlessly wondering around with dumbed down people clutching their purse to a false religion.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Feb 24, 2020 at 9:10 am

Jake Waters is a registered user.

@sjd

‘The U.S. government alone paid $64 billion to climate researchers during the four years from 2010 to 2013, virtually all of it explicitly assuming or intended to find a human impact on climate." - Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report On Scientific Consensus. Follow the money- that is what this is all about.

That is just one of the 7 books I have read disproving your religion. You must only listen to CNN, Al Gore, Leonardo Di Capri, and Obama for your opinions. You got this one wrong @sjd, and people like you scare the heck out of us. You are aimlessly wondering around with dumbed down people clutching their purse to a false religion.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 24, 2020 at 10:15 am

How fast we shift from certain disprovable claims about temperatures to “the way the US funds research means the scientists are corrupt." I hope others notice the shift.

Actually no, I don't get my news from CNN or Al Gore. My college roommate read the entire IPCC 3rd assessment and I read good chunks myself.

Seven whole books disproving my religion? (And with no mention of what those books actually are, nice)
Man, stop.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Wombat, a resident of Downtown,
on Feb 24, 2020 at 10:53 am

@Jake Waters

You didn't disclose what this biased "NIPCC" organization that you quoted is. I'll make the disclosure about them that you should have made:

"The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is a climate change denial advocacy organisation set up by S. Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project, and later supported by the Heartland Institute lobbying group, in opposition to the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.[1]"

"The NIPCC presents itself as an "international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming". Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are predisposed to dispute that climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC claims to offer an independent “second opinion" of the evidence reviewed " or not reviewed " by the IPCC.[2] The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC report have been heavily criticized,[3][4] as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.[5][6]"
NIPCC (Wikipedia): Web Link)

- - - - - -

As a scientist (Ph.D. in physics and over 30 years of research experience leading projects at LLNL), I'll also point out some facts that you're apparently unaware of: (1) Virtually all of modern 20th and 21st century scientific research is funded either directly or indirectly by governments or government supported bodies. If you want to deny all government funded science, then you're essentially denying virtually all science that has been done in over the last 100 years. (2) The scientific consensus for manmade global warming is strong. The vast majority of scientists working in fields related to climate science believe in manmade global warming. I have seen the figure that over 98% of scientists in the climate science field believe in manmade global warming and have no reason to doubt that figure since when I read current peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate science in journals such as Nature and Science, there is essentially no debate about the existence of manmade global warming. Current scientific papers treat manmade global warming as a given fact. And it's pretty much of a given fact due to all the abundant evidence supporting it including increasing average global temperatures (including increasing ocean temperatures), increasing ocean acidification (due to increased CO2 uptake by the oceans), the rise of sea levels, decreasing snow and ice coverage in Greenland and Antarctica, and large glacial retreats in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Rockies, etc., etc., etc.. One would have to be a total dolt to ignore all the abundant evidence.

There have already been practical consequences to global warming, too. Even Russia is now admitting to a major problem with manmade global warming creating widespread damage to building foundations and infrastructures which had been built in areas where there had always been perpetual permafrost. Much of that permafrost is now thawing, causing immense damage and repair bills of around $2.3 billion per year. That's not some imaginary left-wing loony damage of $2.3 billion per year due to some imaginary damage to building foundations. That's REAL damage to building foundations and infrastructure that will take a REAL $2.3 billion annually for Russia to deal with.

"Russia's Thawing Permafrost May Cost Economy $2.3Bln a Year" - The Moscow Times, 10/18/2019.
"On thin ice: thawing permafrost dampens Russia's economic growth prospects" - World Finance
"Why Vladimir Putin Suddenly Believes in Global Warming" - Bloomberg, 9/28/19
"Russia was happy that global warming opened up Arctic oil, but the melting of permafrost poses a huge threat to its hydrocarbon heartlands."


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 9:44 am

Did Jake deliver a knock out punch to the "austin" and his firewood stove? yuppy yup-yup...

What it means to have a firewood stove is that more trees are being murdered for the likes of you...grow up austin.

As for your hateful comments re: "illegal immigration". tough titty...

hahahahahahahhahahahahha....tee hee


 +   15 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 9:55 am

Deforestation so that some folks can have a wood burning stove...Web Link


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 10:03 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

When they changed the wording of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", THAT'S when you knew the gig was up.

Its a complete and utter fraud, just like the "Global Cooling" fraud of the 70's.

We can impact the Earth' climate, but we cannot contain a virus?

Think about it.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Wombat, a resident of Downtown,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 10:21 am

DKHSK wrote "We can impact the Earth' climate, but we cannot contain a virus?"

That's right, Dan. FYI, we also sent men to land on the moon about 50 years ago but we still haven't developed a cure for the common cold virus. Don't let your brain explode thinking about that!

Let me know if you have any other tough science related musings that I can help you with.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 11:14 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

"We can't stop the flow of illegal immigration and drugs coming over the border, but we can control the climate of the entire planet just by doing what WE say!"

...says every climate alarmist twit.

Yawn...so dumb.

Dan


 +   11 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 11:33 am

GOODNESS GRACIOUS!!!

LOOKY LOOKY AT ALL THE ALCOHOL/DRUG TREATMENT CENTERS IN PLUTONIA...OH MY!!!

Web Link

I WONDER WHOSE DISTRIBUTING THE ILLEGAL DRUGS IN YOUR VERY OWN HOME TOWN?

hmmmmmmmmmm...you can tell ole cholo mio...i won't tell anybody...promise


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 12:17 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Be careful.

Yes, I'm talking to you.

Dan


 +   7 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 9:12 pm

Hey DHKSK,

You should read the link I already used for Jake's first point. We've already covered this. Try again.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 10:41 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

SJD,

Nah, I'm not suffering you climate hoaxers any longer. You're as bad as the pot-heads telling me that marijuana cures cancer.

Warming, cooling, changing...make up your minds BEFORE you attempt to pick my pockets.

Dan


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Wombat, a resident of Downtown,
on Feb 25, 2020 at 10:53 pm

@DKHSK

There never was any scientific consensus of “Global Cooling" in the 1970's. Just another fake story made up by climate change deniers.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 7:25 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"As a scientist (Ph.D. in physics and over 30 years of research experience leading projects at LLNL), I'll also point out some facts that you're apparently unaware of"

I guess math, economics, and the United States Constitution are not your strong suit?

I suggest you make yourself aware of the provisions of the Green New Deal, how many trillions of dollars it will cost, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be lost, the amount of increased government control over the citizens as a result, and how other nations/governments will somehow voluntarily want to cripple their economies just to "save the planet".

Leave it to the so called "progressives" (regressives) to want to get rid of an abundant supply of clean burning energy (that has already substantially reduced emissions) for their irritating agenda of "we know what's best" and managed decline.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Wombat, a resident of Downtown,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 8:07 am

@MichaelB wrote “ I guess math, economics, and the United States Constitution are not your strong suit?"

It appears that neither reading comprehension nor logical thinking are your strong suits. Did you see anything in my posts here where I expressed an opinion, pro- or con-, on the specifics of the Green New Deal? No. Did you see anything here where I argued for any specific approaches or solutions at all? No. I have pointedly avoided mentioning any specific approaches for mitigating the effects of manmade global warming because my focus here is to to beat down these ridiculous denials that manmade global warming even exists. And the reason for that is that the first step in dealing with the problem of global warming is to first admit that the problem exists.

Also, the US Constitution has nothing to do with the scientific question of whether or not manmade global warming exists. The subject of economics doesn't have anything to do with the scientific question of whether manmade global warming exists, either. It appears that you put your brain in standard Fox News or Breitbart climate denying autopilot mode without even bothering to carefully read and comprehend what I wrote.

Yes, dealing with global warming will be costly. Ignoring global warming will also be costly, as Russia is currently finding out. What, you thought that the problem of global warming could be simply ignored at no economic cost?


 +   3 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 8:19 am

DHKSK,

Let me quote it back to you since you refuse to read it.

“In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic' [Frank Luntz]"


 +  Like this comment
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 8:59 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"I have pointedly avoided mentioning any specific approaches for mitigating the effects of manmade global warming because my focus here is to to beat down these ridiculous denials that manmade global warming even exists. And the reason for that is that the first step in dealing with the problem of global warming is to first admit that the problem exists."


So what? That doesn't mean none exist. Did you put your brain on autopilot?

Complain about "Fox News" all you'd like. We're past the theoretical discussions on this issue. Sounds like the "problem" is you denying what has already has been offered by numerous politicians from a major political party to supposedly deal with it, how disruptive it would be, how much it would cost, and how other nations are not going to go along with it. It's ridiculous - and just so happens to fit in perfectly with the command and control/government dependency mentality of the political left.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 9:23 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"Driving less, sharing rides, having electric heat and electric stoves, flying less? They seem severe because we've been subject to lifestyle creep, where we think we are now entitled to all these conveniences.We are trying to grapple with these issues while you just snipe away as if that's a reason to do nothing, and that speaks more of you than it does of us."


Not about "entitlement".

It's about living in a free society with a market economy. What you are trying to "grapple with" is a collectivist government command/control system with managed decline. Banning natural gas doesn't speak well of "us". There is a plentiful supply, it burns cleaner, and we've already reduced emissions by replacing coal fired power plants with it. So naturally we need to get rid of it?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 9:52 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

“In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic' [Frank Luntz]"

For whom you whole-heartedly went along with, apparently.

Nope. Not getting into your 'chicken little' screaming anymore. Go peddle your BS someplace else.

I, for one, will NOT manage my carbon output.

Sue me.

Dan


 +   2 people like this
Posted by sjd, a resident of Livermore,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 12:20 pm

MichaelB,

Good, now we're actually having a discussion about what the best way to actually reduce emissions is. I have my doubts about whether natural gas appliance bans are the best, most market efficient way to do that.

But natural gas isn't a pathway to zero, either.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Wombat, a resident of Downtown,
on Feb 26, 2020 at 7:03 pm

@MichaelB wrote “ So what? That doesn't mean none exist. Did you put your brain on autopilot? Complain about "Fox News" all you'd like. We're past the theoretical discussions on this issue."

What does that mean? You're saying that you acknowledge that manmade global warming exists and that your beef is with proposed practical solutions to address the problem?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Feb 27, 2020 at 7:34 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"What does that mean? You're saying that you acknowledge that manmade global warming exists and that your beef is with proposed practical solutions to address the problem?"


Nothing "practical" about what is being proposed. The United States needs a plentiful,inexpensive source of energy for consumers/businesses and the so called "progressives" are trying to shut down abundant resources we already have to supposedly "save the planet". They have no viable alternatives. Solar panels and windmills can't supply the needs of the nation.

This will result in substantial economic disruptions, higher costs, and more government control over individual behaviors/less freedoms. Other nations will not bother to comply because of damage to their economies.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Feb 27, 2020 at 8:02 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"YOU have doubts on climate change? Who the heck are you? Your educational and career background is in journalism and daily newspapers. You have no scientific credentials."

Speaking of reading comprehension, did you read the article?

The state is using climate change to impose costly, draconian (carbon free) regulations on residents to the point that some will have difficulty affording them - and removing an abundant source of low cost energy. Regulations enacted in a free society should have to undergo a cost/benefit analysis before being imposed. "Saving the planet" is too vague and subject to abuse, regardless of the credentials of those who want it.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Feb 29, 2020 at 10:26 am

Jake Waters is a registered user.

It requires a large number of disciplines to understand weather, and only a few scientists have one or two of them. The models and data to prove their religion requires guesses to fill the data boxes, which cause the problem. I dare any of these commentators to start reading books that are in opposition to climate crisis, but they won't. NASA is paid billions to maintain this faux science that supports the wages to own a home and send their kids to college- you really think they will buck the system.

I'm a climate Realist, I don't believe the earth is flat or that the sun reveals around our planet. See you all in 12 years for another failed prediction.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on Feb 29, 2020 at 2:16 pm

DKHSK is a registered user.

Jake,

Well said.

Dan


 +   12 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Mar 2, 2020 at 2:05 pm

I wonder why somebody above who calls itself "Dan" the "DHKSA" is waaaaaaaay touchy, touchy, touchy? hmmmmmmmmmmmm...what does it all mean?

Now I axe you, how come Plutonia has SO MANY ALCOHOL/DRUG TREATMENT po-grams?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...jus axing...tee hee



Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.

Email:

SUBMIT

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields


Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Repairing a Disagreement with your Beloved & “Physical” vs. “Social” Distancing
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 2,580 views

Next Step opens in Livermore and offers free diapers
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 2,213 views

Pet Safety Net?
By Tom Cushing | 3 comments | 1,955 views

Taking AP Exams in the Time of COVID-19
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 439 views

Visual Games During Shelter-in-Place
By John A. Barry and Bill Carmel | 1 comment | 230 views