Comments by tabatha

Page 1 of 108 | Next

Posted on October 23 at 4:15 p.m.

I have not seen any proof and have not claimed any proof. What I posted about was the Kern aquifers near fracking. And gave up, because, instead of a rationale, factual discussion, someone went off the deep end.

What air quality impacts do current cyclic steaming operations have in Santa Barbara County?

I can see both sides of the issue, as I have stated before. If those in the county oil industry truly believe that future operations will not harm air or water, I can see your point of view. However, it is not difficult to find stories about the harm that oil drilling has done all over the world.

California has a huge water problem - more so than Dakota or any of the others states that have an oil boom. We cannot waste water. It will affect everyone including those who work for oil. Yes, there is wasted water on golf courses, farms, etc - and the local powers that be are trying to eliminate those wastes. But that water can return to the water cycle.

The water problem in California is going to get worse, not better. To get to the point where we were 4 years ago, will take an amount of rain we will never see. I predict that there will be a huge exodus from CA in the next decade.

On Measure P: Are You Kidding?

Posted on October 23 at 1:43 p.m.

I have not read anything by Al Gore, not seen anything by Al Gore, do not quote anything by Al Gore, do not link to anything by Al Gore. Al Gore is not on my radar.

As I stated .....

"Information from those gathering data via satellites that they launch, ground measuring stations, ocean measuring devices - i.e. science-based get my vote."

But, to give the Weather Channel credit, they do post some pretty good videos of non-weather related topics.

On Measure P: Are You Kidding?

Posted on October 23 at 1:11 p.m.

Opening paragraph to the rebuttal to Coleman.

"It seems strange that Mr. Coleman does apparently little to no research prior to making statements. In this article he relies mainly on insinuation, inference and emotional arguments to claim the science of global warming is wrong. Within the scope of his arguments he makes clearly obtuse errors that are sometimes even comical."

More ...

"Mr. Coleman continues to confuse weather with climate. A 'local' cold spell does not reverse global warming and a 'local' cold winter does not mean 'global' warming has stopped. Local, or regional, is not global."

"Example: If the average winter temperature in your area is 13 degrees fahrenheit and the global average temperature goes up 1 degree to 14, does that mean you don't get snow? Of course not. Remember weather is a short-term event, and climate is long-term trend. The global trend is up, and forcing and inertia as well as the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 will keep it going for a long, long time."

"Another strawman argument. Here Coleman is trying to say by implication that because a person was seeking funding, global warming is wrong? Again, absurd at best. To say a scientist would not want funding for research is kind of like saying a weatherman would not like money for doing the weather. It's a red herring argument with no substance or relevance."

What a joke.

On Measure P: Are You Kidding?

Posted on October 23 at 1:06 p.m.

Drudge Report, World Net Daily, Anthony Watts - scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Here are the rebuttals to Coleman's nonsense.

Information from those gathering data via satellites that they launch, ground measuring stations, ocean measuring devices - i.e. science-based get my vote.

On Measure P: Are You Kidding?

Posted on October 22 at 2:22 p.m.

Thanks, Spacey, for that link.

When I read this ....

Based in California, the multinational energy company is the third largest producer of crude in the world and greedily grateful for ongoing, generous subsidies from Congress.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "In 2013, its revenue topped those of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Apple Inc. and General Motors Co., trailing only retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and rival Exxon Mobil Corp... In August, Chevron reported $57.9 billion in revenue for the second quarter, which ended June 30."

Yes, Chevron has money to burn – look at the millions and millions the company has spent fighting the $9.5 billion in damages they were ordered to pay by the Ecuadorian Supreme Court for pollution of part of the Amazon rainforest.

... and then this ...

A year later, Chevron paid $2 million in fines and restitution and pled no contest to six charges that included, the Associated Press reported, "failing to correct deficiencies in equipment and failing to require the use of certain equipment to protect employees from potential harm."

Around the same time as the settlement, Richmond's City Council decided to file its own suit, accusing Chevron of "a continuation of years of neglect, lax oversight and corporate indifference to necessary safety inspection and repairs." Fourteen other incidents of toxic gas releases from the refinery since 1989 were cited in the filing.


I am filled with disgust at the sheer, immoral, disgusting behavior of oil companies. Greed to the 100 th power. Irresponsibility to the 100 th power.

Maybe, I'll not use Chevron for the $50 worth of gas I buy a month.


How can they be trusted? They have gobs and gobs of money and they cannot keep their equipment in proper condition. They do not stop leaks where they can be seen. How will they do with leaks that cannot be seen?

On Measure P Deserves Your Support

Posted on October 22 at 7:56 a.m.


1. What is methane?
Methane (CH4) is a hydrocarbon that is a primary component of natural gas. Methane is also a "greenhouse gas," or GHG, meaning that its presence in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature and climate system. Methane is the second most prevalent human-influenced GHG next to carbon dioxide (CO2).

2. Why is there concern about methane emissions?
Methane is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to human-related activities. Methane now accounts for 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Because methane is both a powerful greenhouse gas and short-lived compared to carbon dioxide, achieving significant reductions would have a rapid and significant effect on atmospheric warming potential.

3. Where does methane come from?
Methane is emitted from a variety of both anthropogenic (human-influenced) and natural sources. Anthropogenic emission sources include agriculture, coal mines, landfills, and natural gas and oil systems. About 60% of global methane emissions come from these sources.

4. Who are the biggest methane emitters?
China, India, the United States, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Ukraine, and Australia are estimated to be responsible for almost half of all anthropogenic methane emissions. The major methane emission sources for these countries vary greatly. For example, a key source of methane emissions in China is coal production, whereas Russia emits most of its methane from natural gas and oil systems. Landfills are the largest source of U.S. methane emissions.

Please note that in item 1, it states "second most prevalent". There may be other yardsticks that could place methane in a different order, but as far as prevalence is concerned, it is second.

On Measure P: No Revelations

Posted on October 22 at 12:04 a.m.

14noscams - you have to know about the non-transparent, company-thick shields of the billionaire Kochs.

Citizens United has thrown transparency out of the window. Citizens United was not promoted by environmentalists.

There is money on the left, there is money on the right, there is money in the middle. We all know that. That is not what it is all about.

On <em>The Independent</em> Got It Wrong

Posted on October 21 at 11:52 p.m.

Palefaces of all colors need to get their own house in order.

Yep, the desire for money drives the road to the Casino.

On Chumash Cash In on Chumps

Posted on October 21 at 11:50 p.m.

dolphinpod14 - please copy and paste from where I have ever posted anything pro Capps. She is just not on my radar.

On Capps Trouncing Mitchum in Campaign Dollars

Posted on October 21 at 3:50 p.m.

Tieber - you need to learn to count (and read).

I mentioned Putin twice in my own words. (Do not count excerpted material.)

I did not post about ANY POSITION at all on what Capps has voted on.
Not once.

I posted that the claim of neo-Nazis by Putin was false.
That's it.

Funny how some can make a giant mountain out of a molehill. And distort. And make stuff up. And generally be less than truthful.

On Capps Trouncing Mitchum in Campaign Dollars

Page 1 of 108 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: