San Diego big business and the city whistle past the greenhouse-gas graveyard

I guess you and those filing this suit still don't understand that the more bus, light rail and other mass transit that you create to run around almost empty will by definition create much more CO2 than it eliminates. How subsidizing more white elephant mass transit will help slay your imaginary doomsday climate change monster has yet to be revealed. I guess you could use government to force us to make transportation choices you probably don't even utilize, or if you do, more power to you, let us make up our own minds.
— December 4, 2012 11:13 p.m.

San Diego big business and the city whistle past the greenhouse-gas graveyard

Why must your arguments always start with deliberately contrived false positions? Here, let me clue you in on how obviously wrong you are: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climat… Exxon site talking about what they're doing to deal with what you and others claim they don't believe in: CLIMATE CHANGE. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/10/31617… Funny how, like you, they insist EXXON is NOT "playing ball" on "climate change" even as they announce they're putting a high stakes bet on it! Don, if you wouldn't take obviously fraudulent positions we might be able to have a discussion on the merits. But when you prove we can't even start from a position of honesty, we're wasting our time.
— December 4, 2012 11:09 p.m.

San Diego big business and the city whistle past the greenhouse-gas graveyard

Very well stated! I suspect, though, the comments aren't. Haven't read them yet, just guessing!
— December 4, 2012 11:04 p.m.

San Diego big business and the city whistle past the greenhouse-gas graveyard

This article is full of the usual disinformation. Where to begin? 1st, the measured "global warming" was mostly milder winters, warmer nights, not higher daytime temperatures. There is ZERO data that suggests we're headed towards the temperature results given. 2nd, the wildfires we had were due in large part to the mistaken policy to prevent ALL fires as fire is a natural way the Earth keeps a balance. Preventing ALL fires allows fuel to build up to catastrophic levels and then when a fire does come through it burns so hot that the soil chemistry changes and instead of a natural cleansing affect you get disaster. Anthropogenic, yes, in part because no doubt greeniacs demand we don't do any proscribed burns to keep things reasonable, but it had NOTHING to do with climate change. 3rd, the opening sentence: Yes, climate change is real - it has been ever since Earth formed a fluid envelope. However, there is NO VALID EVIDENCE for a significant human contribution despite decades of trying to manufacture it. Now watch, I'll be called a "climate change denier" even though I just pointed out climate change is a constant we cannot hope to stop - we just have to ride it out. Indeed someone needs to write an HONEST, FACT BASED piece for the Reader on the truth about climate change. I would but I know I'd be wasting my time - they seem as caught up as many others in the nonsense that is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism - just work out the acronym, it sums the matter up perfectly. What is certain is that pretty much for all my life people have been predicting doom and gloom and the fact is it never happens, it's ALWAYS nonsense. Please, Reader, stop printing nonsense propaganda. The U.K. Met already admitted there's been no statistically significant warming in 16 years despite ever increasing atmospheric CO2. Didn't you get the memo? Or the one from NASA? p[Here, I'll CC you all!][1]p What do you know - turns out more CO2 is better... turns out global warming is GOOD for the biosphere. Who would have guessed? Anyone who studied history, paleontology or geology, that's who! Keep putting your faith in climate models which have only proved they are failures if you must, but stop expecting us to go along with it. [1]: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id…
— December 4, 2012 11:01 p.m.

Judge rebukes SANDAG plan

1st Climate change is inevitable, you can't stop it. 2nd Building public transport in places where few if any will ride it ALWAYS produces more "pollution". How many SANDAG PubTrans vehicles do you see that are nearly empty? I see them all the time. Funny these litigants are usually on the other side, now they're fighting against what they usually support. What is their goal again? Making money off SANDAG, I'll wager.
— December 4, 2012 10:47 p.m.