Saturday May. 26, 2012
Comments on:
Letter
Let’s be civil.
The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail webmaster [at] flatheadbeacon.com.

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

By RussCrowder on 02-20-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Hey Zak…Let someone propose getting the bio-fuel off of National Forest land and see where you and
your “green” buddy’s stand then…Anyone care to bet? ...Keep up the good work Jerry !
By Craig moore on 02-20-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Peter Gleick just set back the “cause” with his deceit:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

===quote===
Another question, of course, is who wrote the climate strategy document that Gleick now says was
mailed to him. His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland
documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s
leadership insists is fake.

One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling
out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released
documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate
fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues,
friends and family).

The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has
greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote
— correctly — is so desperately needed.
===end quote===
By Westside2 on 02-21-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


What does your mother think of you?
By hotfishmt on 02-21-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


The one renewable energy that is needed is Alcohol power for cars & trucks. Simple to say
hard to get done. Given the prices experts are saying for this coming Spring….due to the
constant disagreements between middle East countries oil will always be the trigger for
raising gasoline products each day/month/year/lifetime…..so its way past time to convert to
alcohol power like Brazil had/has done for decades.
By Eileen Wright on 02-21-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Hydroelectric dams are about as renewable as we can get. But, we’re tearing them out. How does
that make sense while we are building wind farms that need coal generated power to move the
energy they create (when they create it) and we are pushing electric vehicles that have to be
charged most likely with coal generated power?

I think a lot of our problems would be closer to being eased if Warren Buffet and some of
Obama’s other supporters would invest in natural gas and oil shale projects. Then, he’d be all
for them.
By Fast on 02-22-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Too many people wanting/needing a finite resources . Let the future generations take care of it. They will have plenty
of help. At the current population growth rate the will have 90000000 people to discuss it with. 
By Mark Phillips on 02-22-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Okay.
By BiggerMig on 02-23-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


Legs and lungs are renewable energy resources.
By Mark Phillips on 02-23-12
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:


There’s a lot of lifting legs and blowing hot air around this thread.