• Numbers flawed in global warming argument • Bill 2573 goes way too far • What’s the deal with fresh fish tacos? Numbers flawed in global warming argument I have been monitoring email conversations with some very intelligent and reformed people. Here is
• Numbers flawed in global warming argument • Bill 2573 goes way too far • What’s the deal with fresh fish tacos?
Numbers flawed in global warming argument
I have been monitoring email conversations with some very intelligent and reformed people.
Here is a reply regarding global warming from a very savvy HalI Griffin. The “97 percent of climate scientists” favor AGW is a fraudulent, manufactured number.
It is derived from a 2010 study of 12,000 papers published between 1991 and 2009. The papers were classified as to whether they believed in global warming, and whether they expressed an opinion, yes or no, as to whether human activity had “some impact,” on global warming. Note particularly the word “some” not necessarily a major impact. Out of the 12,000 papers, about 4,000 were classified as having an opinion on human activity, and 8,000 were classified as having “no opinion.”
Out of the 4,000 with an opinion, about 3,800, or 97 percent, were classified as making some statement to the effect that human activity had “some” impact. Thus, the 97 percent figure has been used over and over for more than four years to establish the contention that “97 percent of climate scientists believe that mankind is responsible for having a major impact on global warming.”
You are one of the persons who has been taken in by this lie, and it is truly a lie, as it has been used many times as a corrupted statement, even of the original study from which it originated. At best, only 32 percent of the 12,000 papers included a statement to the effect that human activity had impact, and this was to the effect that it had “some.”
Bob Bartolo
Lihue
Bill 2573 goes way too far
County Councilman Gary Hooser, if painting a portrait, would fail because he would try to use a paint roller where a fine brush is required. It is truly ridiculous that the county cannot stop a person from pouring smoke into a neighbor’s home, but 2573, as reported in The Garden Island, would be too far reaching.
Would people be prevented from using an outdoor barbecue? How about the car, idling in the parking lot, whose exhaust is choking people walking by? Would all uses of propane be prohibited? Would that pickup, with one set of wheels off road kicking up dust, be breaking the law? Etc, etc. Then off to the judicial system we go again, with the property owners on Kauai paying the bill.
If the County Council wants to fix a specific problem, first ask the county prosecutor to find a way to fix the problem using existing law. Failing that, take action directed at the problem, not craft some far-reaching legislation that may have unintended consequences. Then, if the county attorney says the action would be illegal, fix it so it is legal, instead of using the court system to adjudicate poorly written legislation.
Mike Taylor
Princeville
What’s the deal with fresh fish tacos?
Does anybody know the meaning of fresh fish or fresh fish tacos?
I have gone to three different establishments that advertised on banners and their menu’s “fresh fish tacos.” I ask them, when was the fish caught? The reply is usually, oh, it’s fresh frozen.
My reply is, if it’s been frozen, it’s not fresh. Fresh frozen is somewhat of an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or honest politician.
It’s like buying frozen desserts that say, homemade, fresh from the kitchen.
Simple concept, food cannot be fresh if it’s been in the freezer.
Next time you see a sign that says fresh fish tacos, or fresh fish in general, buyer beware.
If, by chance, you actually find truly fresh fish tacos, where the fish was caught that day, you are most likely in store for a treat.
James “Kimo” Rosen
Kapaa
