Comments for: Wednesday, June 20, 2012: Dennis Dechaine, R&D and relocating Paul Bunyan

Posted June 19, 2012, at 3:47 p.m.

Summertime blues This summer I am vacationing in Maine. I am particularly anxious and incensed this time, as Dennis Dechaine gets his hearing to review DNA evidence from Sarah Cherry. Dennis’ integrity is obvious, due to the wide support for and visibility of his case. I want as many people …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • kcjonez

    Robin E. Brooks–Great letter!  I am with you in reducing emissions from power plants as an important step in slowing the change that we have started with our polluting lifestyles.  Unfortunately, until glorification of profits takes a back seat to humane principles, we will solve nothing.  Until the vast majority of us are willing to sacrifice some of our “exceptionalism”, it is going to get worse. Until we evict the rapacious power mongers who have hijacked our democratic process and usurped the power of the citizens, we will move towards extinction of our species.  

  • Anonymous

    Robin E. Brooks, there have been stricter regulations in place for years on coal fired generation plants. The problem is that they were allowed to keep operating with their poluting plants as long as they bought carbon points from clean energy plants. It seems that this practice was written into the laws to enable them to do nothing for our environment. What we have is a lot of lip service to cleaning our environment with little real action. This legislation, if passed, will just stop any development of new coal fired generating plants.

  • Guest

    ….

    • Anonymous

      Just seems to me a lot more people go by Paul where he is now than would if he were removed to a side street.

  • Anonymous

    Robin Brooks – Climate change is a hoax. I know for a fact that it’s a hoax, so don’t come asking for any support from me. But, you have the right to support it with all your money and time if you want. So forget the legislation; just write those checks and send them into the treasury. The treasury will find somewhere to spend it or someone to give it to. They always do.

    • Anonymous

       Agree, if someone wants to throw money at every big government investment scheme I say go for it. I probably will not. Stopping global warming is a good example of how big government sucks money out of folks and then throws it away at something else.

      • Anonymous

        We have only one planet that is inhabitable.  You would be willing to lose it in order to score political points.  I’m inclined to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are correct. 
        If you’re wrong, your grandchildren and great-grandchildren won’t have a planet to live on, but hey, who cares about them?

        • Anonymous

          I agree with you.  And when I see Al Gore and any number of celebrity doomsayers–with monthly carbon footprints bigger than my annual one–start living like Ed Begley, Jr., I’ll know it’s serious.

    • Anonymous

      EJ, you have fallen for the anti-science hoax, but you believe in so many hoaxes that I should not be surprised.

      • Anonymous

        It is a hoax being pushed on the dumb masses by the world elite in an effort to bring the world together under a one-world flag. The climate change science has been debunked over and over and more and more scientists are jumping from the climate change train. Of course, as soon as they jump off the train, those left demonize them as not being climate scientists in the first place. 

        But, just for grins let’s say it is real. Go ahead and tell everyone just how much money needs to be gathered and what will that money buy in terms of climate change prevention. 

        • Anonymous

          Google Richard Muller, the climate change skeptic who was funded by climate change deniers to study the science.  He did and he recanted his criticism and acknowledged that global warming was real.
            Read the letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, all agreeing that climate change is real and largely man-made.  The Wall Street Journal refused to publish their letter.
          If you do neither, I will know that you are a flat-earther who cannot understand the logic of science.

          • Anonymous

            There is a plethora of information that supports and debunks climate change. The choice to believe or not believe is just that, a choice. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that proves or disproves climate change. That is a fact. It all depends on what a person chooses to believe. 

            That said, even if climate change was bringing this world to an end, there’s not a thing we could do about it that isn’t already being done. And the world leaders that are pushing for money, money, and more money know this. They are using climate change as a vehicle to gain power and introduce us all to a one-world government. 

            Al Gore is the climate change Pied Piper, and he’s got a whole lot of people dancing their way over the cliff.

          • Anonymous

            There are none so blind as those who will not see.  
              I am trained in science (physics) and have read the “plethora” of evidence on both sides.  The evidence is overwhelming and what little contrary evidence is funded by Big Oil, directly or indirectly, and has not been peer-reviewed.  It is not a matter of belief.  It is a matter of the application of reason to an undisputed core of facts.

          • Anonymous

            And I worked weather data analysis and manipulation and know just how easy it is to make the date prove whatever point is being made. With a single parameter change in an embedded or external module is all it takes to tweak the results. 

            I also know about the problems with the worldwide data collection system, the elimination of exaggeration of weather extremes, and the regional averaging that goes on. It’s an easy system to manipulate.

            I’ve seen how easy it is, therefore I am not blind.

          • Anonymous

               The word is “data,” not “date.”  
               Do you concede the planet has warmed significantly?  Do you concede that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased significantly over that same time?  There is an overwhelming wealth of data to support those two findings. 
               If you contend that scientists world-wide are lying about the temperatures and CO2 concentrations they have measured you are suggesting a conspiracy so vast that any rational person would deem you paranoid.

          • Anonymous

            The planet has warmed by less than one degree Fahrenheit over the last century of recorded and reliable data. The CO2 concentrations have risen and fallen several times over the last 60 years. They do that on their own. And those dastardly ozone holes open and close in accordance with the amount of CO2 and other pollutants in the air. Isn’t it amazing how perfectly God created this planet?

            As for the scientists, they are bound by the data they are given and by the paychecks they receive. If the data is skewed, they provide inaccurate information. If the paychecks are high enough, then who knows what they will say.

          • Anonymous

            Ah, EJ, you cite data without attribution, suggesting that it only comes from your fevered imagination.
                 Here, with attribution, is the real evidence.  Global land temperatures, in just 5o years, have risen 1.64 degrees F per the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Group (confirmed by NOAA, the Hadley Centre, and NASA’s GISS).  Overall temperatures over land and water have risen about 1.0 degrees F in just the last 30 years.
                 The CO2 levels measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii have risen steadily in the last 60 years, not waxed and waned.  The concentration has moved from 316 ppm to 392 ppm.  That is almost a 25% increase.  It comes with consequences that you wish to blindly ignore.
                  The ozone layers were depleted not by CO2 but by CFCs.  The ban on CFCs has had a significant effect on ozone depletion.  Ozone depletion has nothing to do with CO2.   I can take you through the basic chemistry, but I am tired of casting pearls before swine.  Matthew 7:6.

                   

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for your BDN Trust letter Mr. Asalone.  I have to agree with you.  If the BDN were truly biased I don’t think my recent LTE would have seen ink.

    Most media outlets do have some bias however.  It’s just good to know that the BDN still allows opposing points of view on the important issues that we face today.

    Together we can make a difference.

    • Anonymous

      I agree that the BDN prints letters from the left, right, center, and every other point-of-view.  Their columnists also have a range of opinions.

    • Anonymous

      The recent changes in the editorial department, though still left of center generally, are more reasoned in their approach and a lot less knee-jerk. I am still not sure why some things (5 people standing in the rain with signs) are newsworthy.

  • Anonymous

    Missed opportunity…Michael, you are correct this is what should be being done to advance Maine’s future by investing in new technology and our industries. Maine has some very unique industries and qualities. By advancing technology and attracting new industry our college grads will remain here and have good paying jobs. Maine would attract industry because of the quality of life and environment. However, unless and until we are willing to make an investment in such we will remain in a stagnant state of affairs.

    Robin E. Brooks..there are 2 sides to this equation here. On one, yes carbon needs to be reduced conversely there needs to be an equivalent push to replace the energy that is
    producing the carbon emissions. It is one thing for the EPA to place a mandate, there must be an alternative here. In my view it is more productive to place assets towards clean energy than to continue to keep placing restrictions and mandates on energy companies. Now, I am sure you are not in favor of nuclear energy but I am and that is the best alternative there is in my book.      

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Belleveau, A bond paid for by the citizens of Maine is not what is needed to grow jobs in R&D. It’s the big corporations who should be shouldering R&D, they get to write off these costs on very lenient tax codes, and we, the citizens pay twice.  

    And for Mr. Brooks, The corps. are only concerned about their bottom line and the rest of us are concerned about our health and the quality of life we can enjoy in clean air and water. The legislators who allowed the biggest polluters to keep on polluting by way of carbon trades were bought off by the corps. 

    Get out to vote! NO to the BONDS. 

  • Anonymous

    Belliveau is a D name, I believe, so we know from whence this letter is coming.   Too many voters simply vote for bond packages without thinking about the long term taxpayer expense involved. It is not free money.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. McLaughlin – You say “…Dennis’ integrity is obvious,…” I’m sure the fact he was on drugs when he killed Ms. Cherry and three months was added to his life sentence this week for using drugs didn’t enter into your conclusion. Isn’t it time Ms. Cherry got some justice?

    • Anonymous

      I thought he was in prison, how could he be using drugs??

  • Anonymous

    Ryan Asalone

    The BDN  is awsome…..
    I agree 100%

Similar Articles