Reardon wrote on Feb 9, 2008 9:04 PM:Kim Oakley's letter is a hoot. She is the perfect leftist to participate, but she probably won't. I almost hate to broach this subject, but I am interested in the reaction of some of our blogging leftist and left-leaning friends.

With whom do you side in the fight between Chavez and EXXON?

Chavez seized through expropriation, some $4 billion in oil rig and exploration equipment from EXXON.

EXXON has taken this to international courts, and if the courts agree, Venezuela is probably on the hook for $12 billion in restitution, costs and fines – but in the meantime, awaiting arbitration, the credit rating of Venezuela is drying up.

Chavez claims corporate terrorism.

Gosh, who to support – a Leftist tyrant, or a greedy corporate producer of Filthy Fossil Fuel?

Game on.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 9, 2008 9:25 PM: The post from "Reardon" (9:04pm) duplicates his post in yesterday's page (7:49pm) so if he is permitted to do that, I'll do the same and duplicate my response: "Reardon" claims to present a problem. But as usual, it is just his narrow, inside-the-box conservative thinking that is the problem. His question; who to support in the disagreement between a duly elected presdient trying to expand presidential powers to the point of infringing civil liberties (hmmm, sound like anyone else we know?), or a pusher of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.
IT IS AFALSE CHOICE!
1. Why should we be placed in the position of choosing between dictators, terrorists and Big Oil Bullies?
2. Put solar power on all the residential and commercial rooftops; add new wind farms, and expand geothermal, hydroelectric, etc.
3. Convert all our cars to serial plug in hybrids, i.e., electric cars with range extension recharging provided by ethanol or fuel cells.
Presto! As easy as 1-2-3 no more problems choosing between dictators, terrorists or Big Oil Bullies.

Nick wrote on Feb 9, 2008 9:59 PM:I guess Gary Myers is against waterboarding. A little info for you Gary. Of the 3 terrorists who have been waterboarded, one of them, "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed", was the man who beheaded Daniel Pearl and helped organize the hijackings on 9/11. Why don't you ask the families of Mr. Pearl and those who died on 9/11 if they think it was to mean and inhumane to waterboard the wonderful and caring human being responsible for the death of their loved ones. Personally, I think he got off lucky. I would have rather seen him be given the same treatment he gave Daniel Pearl. Revenge doen't make it right, but it sure feels good!

sdraoul wrote on Feb 9, 2008 11:16 PM:Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention. So why the uproar about "waterboarding" that might have been used on three terrorists. These are not soldiers, they are not even guerillas who are covered by the Convention. They are terrorists, period, end of discussion except for Chris who thinks they are heros.

Chris to Nick wrote on Feb 9, 2008 11:36 PM:The point is that it is the Marines that are trying to lure our young people into the military for their own purposes. I keep hearing how it is the Marines that are protecting me. It is the Marines that put out these TV adds and misleads our young into the business of sacraficing their welfare for that of the rich. So therefore I am criticizing the Marines. Yes our government is composed of a bunch of crimminals but to just talk about them and leave the Marines out of the equation would not be addressing the problem as I see it. As far as the war I criticize the Marines because they commit many crimes because they know the Corps will cover for them. It is only when the media uncovers some terrible attrocity that the Corps will do anything and then it is usualy just a slap on the wrist. So to just criticize the government and ignore what the Marines do on their own just because they are a sacred cow would be wrong. The Marines need to be held accountable for their part in this terrible thing we have done.

Board Watcher wrote on Feb 9, 2008 11:39 PM:To Beth Tibbs, parents and taxpayers:
If you want to know what services will be eliminated from the classroom as a result of the governor's school budget cuts attend your scholl board meeting while they discuss what needs to be cut. You can also put in your two cents worth for their consideration.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Feb 9, 2008 11:51 PM:So if DD Wiz is going to summarily reject any information the contradicts his personal beliefs, that makes his assertations "dogma" and not "science". And I can't post links to the source material because the posting policy for this blog prevents them from appearing, but I can explain how to find it (which is what I did). Speaking of oil, we have 300 years of reserves in the state of Colorado but it cannot be retrieved due to liberal policies preventing domestic exploration and recovery. The reason we have to buy oil from "dictators, terrorists, and Big Oil Bullies" is because that's what the liberal Democrats want us to do. To break our dependence on foreign oil, vote the Democrats out of office. See, that was easy!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:13 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (11:51pm), reaffirming yet again the dishonesty of his self-appointed screen name, again says I "summarily reject any information the contradicts his personal beliefs" which is, of course, an outright LIE.
I reject undocumented, uncited, unsupported claims that say he has scientific supported with no verification whatsoever!
I also reject the material from the Flat Earth Society or their modern equivalent "The Geocentric Bible Foundation" which is completely serious when it sends out its mailers citing "scientific evidence" (along with Bible verses) that the world is FLAT. I have actually gotten mailers from them, as I know several other participants have also gotten.
Poor, poor Flat Earth "Floyd" whines that he "can't post links to the source material because the posting policy for this blog prevents them from appearing." What a pathetic cop-out. The policies of the board do not prohibit citing U.S. government (".GOV") websites such as NASA and scientists from various government agencies, AS I HAVE DONE (hmmm, wonder why you can't find any) and even though you can't post web sites that are not ".gov" or "nctimes.com" you can post sources, and I have posted repeatedly the names, organizational affiliations, and sources from PEER-REVIEWED scientific and academic sources that were actually qualified.
Similarly, those on the other side have been allowed to also cite names and sources, and if enough information was provided to check them out, we found that they were NOT peer-reviewed journals, but popular magazines, obituaries, self-published "open access" "journals" that had no scientific or academic standing, and even citing a local weatherman with no degree and calling him a "meteorologist."
Oh, but Flat Earth "Floyd" protests that he "can explain how to find it" -- except -- HE DOESN'T.
Hey, Flat Earth "Floyd," you are allowed to describe how to find something. I described several times HOW to find peer-reviewed scientific and academic sources using Google Scholar instead of regular Google, and had no problems.
Is there a reason you want to brag about what you CAN do, but don't actually DO IT -- like maybe that you don't want us to actually find out who these "amazing" sources are?
So far, you have claimed to have "sources" but have provided NOTHING. Your claims are completely unsupported, and are completely fabricated exaggerations of your own imagination. The vaporware of documentation.
Are you afraid of being embarrassed and humiliated like those who posted "sources" from popular magazines, obituaries, self-published "open access" "journals" that had no scientific or academic standing, or local weathermen? Don't be shy. We'd love to see who your sources are. In fact, we'd like to take a good long look at who they are.

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:59 AM:>>What will be cut from the classroom?>> I dont know, but i guarantee the piece of paper where the kiddies can choose their gender under SB777 wont be cut, becaue that agenda is way too important to those who infest Sacramento and San Francisco

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 6:14 AM:>What will be cut from the classroom? >> For starters, the words weather cycles have been cut from the public schools. The offending words Mother and father have been cut from the public schools by the special interest groups. ASnd Tom Sawyer has been cut from literature class and replaced with "Johnny has Two daddies"

Backcountry wrote on Feb 10, 2008 7:13 AM:DDWiz dazzles us with statistics and overcomes us with minutia but the Wizard can't produce any evidence from his "peer reviewed" sources that there is a scientific "concensus" proving global warming is man-made. For you see the Wizard only reads "peer reviews" that are written by peers who HE agrees with. By his own arguement, he rejects any discussion that may be different from his. This is why he must refer to everyone who disagrees with his belief in unproven peer review opinions of a hypothetical as being "ignorant, flat-earthers" and those "conservatives who are at war with science." Therefore the Wizard loses the argument.

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 10, 2008 7:21 AM: If, as Nick says, and I have no reason to doubt it, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was the man who beheaded Daniel Pearl and helped organize the hijackings on 9/11, why hasn’t he been tried and executed? There’s something fishy going on here. Is it because the evidence against him is his own confessions? And why wouldn’t it be admissible? I think we all know the answer to that. The United States government can’t step foot in a U.S. courtroom to put these people on trial. The government would have to show how the interrogations were carried out and the confessions obtained. They would have to tell who ordered the waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques”. They can’t let that happen. They know what they did is illegal under U.S. and international law. The proof is that they won’t even try to defend it in a courtroom before a judge. The Military Tribunals are a joke. They’ve convicted one guy so far, and that was only because of a plea deal, and he’s out and running free in Australia right now. Guantanamo Bay is a revolving door for suspected terrorists. We round them up, hold them for a few years and send back from whence they came. There’s only a handful that we plan on keeping. To make things easier, Mohammed and some of the other “high value detainees” could be shot while attempting to escape. It worked for the Nazis.

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 10, 2008 7:57 AM:sdraoul is correct in saying that terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. So why the uproar about "waterboarding" that might have been used on three terrorists. Because they ARE protected by The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The United States signed the convention on April 18, 1988 and ratified it on October 21, 1994. It is just as binding as the Geveva Conventions. I will post the relevant sections.

Article 1 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:01 AM:Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Article 2 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:03 AM:1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:05 AM:No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

question for raoul wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:07 AM:At the moment, the US has over 150K non-military "advisors" and "contractors" in Iraq and many old-fashioned merceneries in Afghanistan. Do you think they should be covered by Geneva? The question is not whether their captors think so, by the way. The question is whether you think so. After all, to an Iraqi or an Afghan, are those people not terrorists? Non-uniformed foreign fighters?

theWolf-to Leon Levy wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:08 AM:I am amazed that you (or any other lefty)think the Congress or the President can wave magic wand and cause a recession. So, apparently, Bush & co. have kept the economy growing for 7 years and have now decided to a recession is due?

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:12 AM:"Chris", I understand what you are trying to say, but "WHY" just the Marines? Why not the Army, Navy and Air Force as well? You constantly berate the U.S.M.C., and in doing so, you are attacking myself and all those Marines who have ever served. That is the only reason I take you to task on this issue. If you look closely, I have never gone off on you for bad mouthing our Government, only when you single out The Marines. If you have been following the new like you do, you would know, that NEVER BEFORE in our history of military conflicts have our soldiers been persecuted and held accountable for deaths during a war like they are today. All these trials are going to do is put doubt in our soldiers minds at times when they need to make life or death, split-second decisions. Picture this scenario, a soldier has his finger next to the trigger and in an instance must decide whether or not to pull that trigger, and instead of relying on his training, in the back of his mind, he has to play out the scenario to make sure he won't get put on trial for murder just for doing his job. That split second of indecision could cost him his life or the lives of his fellow soldiers. Our soldiers wear the same uniforms and are required to play by a certain set of rules. The problem with that, is that the terrorists and insurgents dress like civilians and hide behind civilians and don't play by any rules whatsoever, making our soldiers jobs even more dificult than it alredy is. It's kinda like asking a water polo player to play with both of his legs tied together. He could probably do it, but it wouldn't be pretty and he would eventually drown. I think we need to change the rules we play by. Just my own honest opinion.
Cheers, Nick.

theWolf wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:18 AM:School custs-what a sad joke. What they do is reduce the increase. I have been watching the political scene for 30 years and never, ever, has the government school system had enough money. The con game works every time.

Hey, Chris, didja ever notice? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:19 AM:I can't count the number of posts here, including as many from conservatives as liberals, that scream about the government's failures, corruptions, criminality, earmarks, failed ideology, you name it. But mention "military", which does the violent bidding of these exact same politicians, and the whole tone changes 180 degrees. Suddenly the politicians who all say are only out to milk us, serve the corporate donors, and all the rest, are pure in heart, sending our kids only to do noble battle to protect our freedoms. How can this be? I mean, isn't it impossible that people they say are crooks and scoundrels in every way suddenly become heroic patriots when it comes to military action? Is to me. LOL

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:23 AM:As you can see, the United States has violated each and every one of these provisions. If you want to advocate that the U.S. withdraw from the treaty so be it. The State Department would have to place us on its own Human Rights Watch List. Just don’t be saying that what we’ve been doing is in any way legal. Period. End of discussion.

Watch out DD wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:35 AM:have you noticed that in the style of the worst of political campaigns, your references to peer-reviewed journals is being referred to here as a kind of "wacky" tic of yours. Like Al Gore and the internet, DD's "peer reviewed journals" are spoken about to get people to automatically, without thought, roll their eyes, forgetting the entire substance of your point. This is commonplace as a political tactic, and a shameful one. But one would think this blog space might, just might, be a place where learning is possible, where new important information is broadcast. The fact that peer reviewed journals are the one and only gold standard in science is, I'd think, rather important for all to understand. But because those journals have tended to print research that passes the validity test and favors global warming, the other side has only one option: make a joke out of it so the truth will sound like a lie. This is what you get, but don't take it personally. We know the other side will do anything to sway people their way, even from important truths. For them, winning trumps facts each and every time. It's all that matters to them and they have little morality about it. Keep up the good work.

Get the last word wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:37 AM:Chris to Nick wrote on Feb 9, 2008 11:36 PM: So what da ya say to that Nick?

Why the uproar, raoul? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:41 AM:Why the uproar over waterboarding, raoul, even if a loophole might exclude the victims from Geneva? Simple: it's immoral. Even your hero of the smirk and the signing statement, W, said loud and clear, many times, to the American people: The US does not torture. He didn't say we don't torture people who are covered, strictly speaking, by Geneva. No, he said we do not torture. Forget for a moment that he was, as usual, lying. Why did he say it? Because he knew that American people care about how we, as a nation, behave. He knew that if he said that we do and should torture (as you do) there would be quite a loud uproar. I know you don't understand why things like torture are wrong. You've made your "morality" clear here often. But you asked the question: why the uproar? So that's the answer: almost everyone, raoul, is not like you in this way. Almost everyone finds torture immoral and almost everyone, including those American military who prosecuted Japan for it after WWII, believes that waterboarding is torture. I hope this answers your question. I know it's tough for you to live amongst people with moral beliefs, but keep trying. Maybe some of it will leak your way.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:42 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (11:51pm), reaffirming yet again the dishonesty of his self-appointed screen name, says "we have 300 years of [filthy fossil fuel] reserves in the state of Colorado...."
Yeah, and we have probably at least that much off the coast of California, and a few months worth under environmentally sensitive land in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve.
The problem is, these to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS are FILTHY. Not only is using them FILTHY, but producing them is FILTHY and destroys the environment.
Guess what, Flat Earth "Floyd": the people of Colorado don't want their beautiful state torn up by the devastation of destructive oil fields.
The people of California don't want our pristine beaches soiled by non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS.
And the world can't take further devastation of sensitive, pristine Arctic environments for the same of a few months of producing non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS when they are NOT NECESSARY because we have better, cleaner and (in the long run) CHEAPER RENEWABLE alternatives such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric that the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS don't want you to think about.

Chris to sdraoul wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:53 AM:Many of these people are not terrorist. They are innocent but the military waterboards them anyway to see if they have any information the military wants. I am disgusted by people like you that just say that everybody our military tortues or detains are terrorist when the fact is that most are innocent. But what do you care?

Barb wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:01 AM:The letter about eating meat is typical of boilerplate letters that are printed in many papers - word for word exact duplicates - with many different "authors". I tend to suspect the "facts" and don't respect the viewpoints of people who are dishonest in presenting that view. The end does not justify the means.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:09 AM:My post to "Chris", Mr Ed please.

BRAVO!!!! To Kim Oakley wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:11 AM:"Somehow, I've seen the illegals as the bad guys." I agree whole heartedly we have been and sadly will continue to attack the most visible and vunerable in this illegal immigration issue. We must address the root cause of this phenomenon in order to resolve the problem, poverty and greed!! Great letter Kim Oakley don't let the critics get you down. They way down deep inside know you are right and have a guilty conscience but their fear and ignorance outweighs rationality.

Floyd, here's an image for you wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:12 AM:It comes from the newspapers and tv news. I know you've seen them many times. It's your Republican President holding hands with, smiling with, schmoozing with, the leaders of Saudi Arabia. Is this the leader that is so intent on breaking our addiction to the foreign oil sold to us by dictators? Look at his face, Floyd. Look at their hands. Look at the history of the relationship between the house of Bush and the house of Saud. Then tell us, parrot-style, that it's the liberals. LOL

G'bye MItt wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:14 AM:I hope the good people of Massachusetts have been watching their governor speak lately. Mitt has made it clear: anyone who votes for a Democrat is in favor of surrendering to terrorists. I hope the Democratic majority in Massachusetts never lets him forget what he said. I hope this disgraceful man's political career is finally over.

Four mor years! Four more years! wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:22 AM:If you've been listening to McCain speak to his base lately, you've heard his one and only message: four more years! All the Bush legacy to continue. Make the tax cuts permanent. Appoint great judges like Alito and Roberts. Cut corporate taxes even more. Stay the course in Iraq. Call the Democrats cut-and-runners. But he does Bush better: despite his entire history on this matter, McCain says that whatever he wants to do with the illegals who are here, the first priority is to secure the border. So he's running as Bush-plus. If you think the last two terms have been models of success, and think that Bush has been a great President, then no doubt, McCain's your man.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:26 AM:On a totally different note: Has anyone else besides me, driven down Broadway in Escondido and noticed the billboard for Lincoln Elementary is posted in Spanish for the public. Let's see here, tax payer funded public school with billboard on tax payer funded public street IN SPANISH. I took a closer look at the school and found that for all the signage, there are actually 2 signs. One in English and one is Spanish. So now all the tax payers are actually paying TWICE what they should for signage because the majority of parents and students can't read English. There is something fundamentaly wrong here. I know for a fact that there is a high percentage of Philipinos and Vietnamese living in Escondido, what about those folks? I say they sue the pants off the School District for Racial Discrimination. Come on , fair is fair, or are we just catering to the Hispanics?

Yokozuna wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:29 AM:Some times new scientific data findings have no postive peer review immediately. For instance, the scientist who discovered that stomach ulcers (not all)were a result of a virus. Many other scientists for awhile after the discovery had a difficult time accepting that viruses could live in the acidic environment of the stomach and refused to concur with the discoverer. After a time the findings were validated by the community.

Karl wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:30 AM:To; "Karl is funny, don't you think? wrote on Feb 9, 2008 9:02 PM:". Thanks for the post. I will try to please you more in the future. Just tell me what it takes and I will be there. I may be guilty of name calling on occasion but I sincerely try not to be. I recognize other posts of yours under a very annonymous title. What exactly have I done to offend you so deeply. Next time I use the name calling tactic please call me out on it on the specific post. I am not beyond apologizing for stupid posts, I will admit the errors of my ways.

Thanks, White Rabbit wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:42 AM:Brilliant posts. Simple factual information often is just what's needed on these pages. You're right. Treaties that we sign are, by law, US law. The matter is closed and we also realize that debate about Geneva is a red herring diversion. If posters can read and think at all, they will never post about waterboarding again. Great job.

Karl wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:50 AM:To "DD Wiz wrote on Feb 9, 2008 8:37 PM:" You make a very good point. Realize however my attention span is as short as my brain cell count.

Okay Ron, Reardon and Floyd ("my buddies, the footsoldiers in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE") your posts on Global warning bore the hell out of me, are repititious and they serve to wind up Double D's. Also from Double D's yesterday "Every single post (DD's) starts out by specifically identifying exactly which published letter or previous post I am responding to". Enough said. Peace on global warming.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:57 AM: The post from "Backcountry" (7:13am) whines that I only cite "peer reviewed" studies that are written by peers *I* agree with.
Of course, the problem for this foot soldier in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE is that I have not found any peer-reviewed sources that disagree with me. In fact, I am a late convert to this issue, convinced only by a preponderance of the evidence. But having been exposed to the legitimate science of the issue, not the propaganda and hype of the Big Oil Bullies, I am aggressively taking steps to address the issue, in both public comments and my personal carbon footprint.
But, heck, it is an open message board.
"Backcountry" has access to the same Internet, including Google Scholar (which restricts search results only to peer-reviewed sources).
"Backcountry" is welcome to find and cite the specific peer-reviewed sources he feels I have missed.
As for noting that those who denigrate the scientific method and belittle scientific sources and methods as being foot soldiers in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE, their systematic efforts to undermine legitimate science and replace it with the DUMBED-DOWN propaganda of Big Oil Bully pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, can be described as nothing else.

Puh-lease, Gen. Kelly wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:07 AM:Your guest piece today by General Kelly is astounding. He actually has the unmitigated gall to say that the troops in Iraq are our own "greatest generation". Yes, folks, they're stooping that low, now, to equate the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan to the invasion of army-less Iraq on false pretenses and the endless occupation that ensued. Is this supposed to inspire us? As the WWII vets and their children and grandchildren read this, are all to think that this is true, that this is how the WWII GIs are thought of by our military? One of the most insulting comparisons I've ever seen in my life. Didn't an editor converse with the General about the content of his opinion piece?

cvhn8 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:07 AM:Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:26 AM If the non Spanish speaking parents of the students of that school wish to sue, then they can sue. The action to sue is not predicated upon your observation or suggestion.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:09 AM: The post from "Yokozuna" (9:29am) makes a valid point. Just because something is peer-reviewed, AND even when it represents scientific consensus, does not guarantee with absolute certainty that it is accurate. He cites the example of the scientist who discovered that ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection, instead of the prevailing previous consensus that it was caused by stress.
Other examples would be Newtonian physics, which work within the confines of planet earth but not in the large-scale dimensions of the universe, or the prevailing views in geology that resisted the introduction by Alfred Wegener of the hypothesis of plate tectonics, which was later supported by empirical evidence and is now the prevailing (virtually unanimous) consensus.
UNLIKE RELIGION OR DOGMA, when there is scientific consensus, it represents the most current state of scientific knowledge. On some points, there is conflicting data and not a consensus. On most points where there is consensus, it is because the science is RIGHT, such as with the round earth theory, which goes back to Eratosthenes 240 BC. It was right, and isn't going to change. Newtonian physics represented the consensus because -- IT WORKED, as did the geocentric model of planetary motion under Ptolemy's complex schema, UNTIL Einstein provided a better model of physics (AND IT SURVIVED THE RIGORS OF PEER-REVIEWED EXAMINATION) and until Copernicus and Kepler provided better models of planetary motion THAT SURVIVED THE RIGORS OF PEER-REVIEWED EXAMINATION.
The discovery of a bacterial infectious cause of ulcers was met with resistance because the consensus is well established and should not just be overturned because someone comes up with a new idea.
However, when experimental and empirical examination by qualified scientists was provided, and it SURIVIVED THE RIGORS OF PEER-REVIEWED EXAMINATION, the consensus was revised and, today, is virtually unanimous.
The answer is not to have every two-bit half-baked amateur throwing around speculative conjecture, especially when it is paid for by pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators who clearl have a vested interest in the outcome.
Provide the validated data by qualified, independent examiners, that survives PEER-REVIEWED EXAMINATION. When you do that, then and only then will the consensus change.

Last word wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:15 AM:Chris to sdraoul wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:53 AM: So there sdraoul!!! Chris has been there, seen it, done it, and don't you forget it!

Focal Point wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:17 AM:Nick, sdraul, and Chris" The issue of water boarding and the Geneva Conventions were discussed previously in depth on this blog. Repeating the same discussion seem futile. Chris, you assume that all suspected terrorists were water boarding as a general rule or intelligence procedure. There is no evident to support that contention. On the other hand, how would we know the truth since all facts are classified. Gentlemen, enjoy your day.

Check the Box wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:22 AM:Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:59 AM It is rather important for children to identify their perceived gender. The form should be filled out in triplicate.

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:24 AM:It wasn’t a magic wand, Wolfie. What Bush & co. did was to inject so much borrowed money into the economy that it had to grow (and to distract Americans from their failures in Iraq) and then inevitably crash. They were just hoping that the crash wouldn’t occur until they left office. Just another in a long line of messes that Bush has left his successor to clean up. But Bush has had other people cleaning up after him his entire adult life, so you had to see it coming.

Check the Box wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:25 AM:Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 6:14 AM As it should be. Johnnie does have two daddies. Mother and Father should be known by their birth names,usually Dick and Jane. Tom Sawyer should be removed. I prefer, IT TAKES A VILLAGE.

REARDON'S GAME wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:31 AM: Reardon ends his 9:04 p.m. post about the choosing sides in the dispute between the dictator (Chavez) and Big Oil (Exxon) with: "Game on."
What? He thinks our dependence on foreign oil is a game?
Actually, that does explain a lot.

Yokuzuna to DD wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:33 AM:Thanks for not taking me to task for referring to viral and not bacterial. My error.

to Focal Point @ 1017 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:47 AM:Read the posts of White Rabbit today. Your questions about the facts and waterboarding, about the identity of those waterboarded, all irrelevent. The UN condemned such practices against anyone, for any reason. We signed it. It's our law. The case truly is closed until such time as we pull out of that treaty.

sdraoul wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:19 AM:Baloney! (That's for Gary Walker's benefit who finds other colloquialisms insulting) There's a famous scene in a modern western in which Robert Ryan, a former desperado, is asked by a former colleague why don't you join us and Robert Ryan responds "because I gave my word." The retort, "Doesn't matter because what matters is who you gave your word to!?

I agree. Sure we signed the Geneva and the UN Convention, but that was with and for civilized nations and peoples. The terrorists aren't either. Remmeber the Japanese on december 7th. They didn't bomb Honolulu, they went for military targets only. Those were the civilized Japanese, The Naval Japaanese, the barbarians were Army and in the Philipines and other Asian posts like Nanking. Their Navy respecte dthe ryles, the army didn't. We have a similar situation here. Who knows how many Japanese soldiers were sumamrily exectuted be vengeful Americans and Brits when Japana surrendered.

We know for a fact that American soldiers massacred a number of Korean civilians when they panicked and returned fire into a civilian mass from which came some burp gun fire from amogn the civilians. Should those American soldiers be charged with war crimes?

To state that we prosecuted Japanese SOLDIERS for torture is one thing because they were soldiers, not rag tag civilian roadside terrorist bombers. There's a difference.

To suggest that our civilian contractors and government employees in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered to be terorists is the silliest thing I have read at this site since Chris (Better Red than Dead, It is Better to Live on your Knees Than to Die on Your Feet) first criticized the USMC.

Wither to now, Ron Paul? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:25 AM:What will Ron Paul supporters do now? Will Ron run as an independent so that conservative McCain-haters can make a statement? Do they have the courage to do so? Within a few weeks, Coulter, Rush, and the rest will be telling all of you to get in line with the party, that McCain has changed and is listening now. LOL

Focal Point wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:29 AM:to Focal Point @ 1017 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:47 A Agreements, International Treaties, National laws etc against torture and specifically water boarding are useless unless the victim, the victimizer and methods employed can be identified. Mr. Bush had this information classified so that it is not available. That is revelant.

MERCY MERCY wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:34 AM:to Focal Point @ 1017 wrote on Feb 10, 2008 10:47 AM Open your eyes. GWB does not care one fig about any international agreement against torte especially the UN.
GWB does not obey US law as well. He simply changes the definition of torture and then has it committed. Information regarding said tortures are classified. The case is closed because no case can be opened without substantiated fact.

Just Curious wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:47 AM:McCain a 'True Conservative,' Bush Says
Whada you Repugs think?

White Rabbit wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:48 AM:Torture advocates don’t care whether it’s legal or illegal, moral or immoral. Or whether it provides useful and accurate intelligence or not. For them, it’s all about revenge. As Nick said earlier today, it makes them feel good.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 12:04 PM:"White Rabbit", would you still feel the same if it was your loved one who was beheaded while still alive and video taped for the whole world to see? I seriously doubt it. If you do, than your nobody I would want to be associated with.

About what? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 12:16 PM:When DD Wiz gets to the point (10:09 AM) and says: “However, when experimental and empirical examination by qualified scientists was provided, and it SURIVIVED THE RIGORS OF PEER-REVIEWED EXAMINATION, the consensus was revised and, today, is virtually unanimous,” the imperative question is: About what? Global warming? If so, we are beating a dead horse. Human culpability? If so, please tell us the source of the “virtually unanimous” scientific consensus that believes humans can alter the course of global climate change by drastically altering the world economy.

Moreover, one should consider if relevant climate scientists have a balanced knowledge of economics. Since FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS are virtually the life blood of the world economy, further political meddling could harm the next few generations infinitely more than climate change.

Karl wrote on Feb 10, 2008 12:19 PM:Response to "Just Curious wrote on Feb 10, 2008 11:47 AM:" Neither are even close.

w5a5r wrote on Feb 10, 2008 12:55 PM:Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 12:04 PM A terrorist who commits such a crime needs to be captured, tried and executed under the law. Torture is still illegal and immoral. I for one should not like to become a terrorist as well. Who cares with whom you wish to be associated? Your high opinion of yourself is not necessarily treasured or shared.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:27 PM:The post from "About what?" (12:16pm) shows he is new to this message board, as I have actually cited specific sources on the HUMAN CONTRIBUTING FACTORS to global climate change on several occasions, including the names of authors, their credentials, their affiliations, and the titles, dates and publication details from PEER-REVIEWED scientific/academic journals.
This is something that comes up repeatedly, and the pervasiveness of this widespread ignorance shows how successful the effort to DUMB DOWN public knowledge of science has been in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE.
Please note, what I have done is gone to Google Scholar, where search results a restricted to qualified peer-reviewed academic and scientific journals on many scientific subjects, and for search terms have typed in "global warming human cause" and watched as THOUSANDS of articles came up, each one from a pre-qualified, peer-reviewed sources.
I read through the first several, confirmed their conclusions, and cited them accordingly.
Please, don't take my word for it or expect me to keep re-inventing the wheel.
Check it out for yourself.
Why don't YOU go through Google Scholar and see how many YOU can find that reach an opposing conclusion -- you know, the one that the Big Oil Bullies want you to fall for as they make BILLIONS in profits from pushing the addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dictators and terrorists.
And as for your ridiculous comment about those FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS being the "life blood of the world economy," they are only the life blood of Big Oil Bully profits. The world would do much better converting to renewable alternatives such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric that are feasible NOW, except that the profiteers from FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS don't want you to find that out, which explains their CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE.

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:41 PM:>>Exactly how will rebate solve problem>> You should have attended your economics classes, instead of diversity class

Nick's problem wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:42 PM:The rule of revenge is older than the hills. It's what keeps people aiming at the lowest common denominator. In our lifetime there have been people who have seen loved ones slain and said, "No, I will not keep this going!" They follow Christ or other great teachers of morality and say the violence stops here. They follow the law or, even better, wrestle with forgiveness, trying to understand the perpetrator as a human being. I know these words are wasted on you, Nick, but maybe other readers will see that we can, if we try, rise above the endless revenge and violence that you prescribe.

White Rabbit is right again wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:45 PM:People who seek revenge pretend that it's about justice. That's absurd, of course. It doesn't bring the dead person back, but just inflicts on others (mostly innocent like the families of the victims) equal pain, as if that made things "fair" or "even". No, they do it because, as WR says, it makes them feel good. It's purely self-indulgence and way down low on the morality hierarchy. Doing what feels good to you is not anything to brag about...it's the same morality practiced by roaches.

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:47 PM:>>FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS>> Finite?? How do you know they are finite. Every year we use more and more oil and every year we discover more than we use. As for filthy, thats just the excuse the crying liberals use to ruin the businesses that pay the wages and benefits in this country.

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:52 PM:>>The world would do much better converting to renewable alternatives such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric that are feasible NOW,>> Feasible?? but not in sufficient quatities to run the wordls economies. So you and your pathetic type choose to ruin the worlds economies by blocking drilling before alternatives are available in sufficient quantities. And then you wonder why you got a puny raise and your benefits got cut, and then you celebrate that the little kiddies have to choose their gender because of gay mafia whack-jobs in Sacramento

Chris to Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:55 PM:Yes I agree with you inthat people in the other sevices also commit these criminal acts. I guess that I talk more about the Marines because they are sationed right here in our community and it is they who are always brought up by the people attacking me. I have seen a number of letters by Marines who denegrate the other services by talkin about how Marines are not soldiers and they use the word soldiers in a derogatory way. It is the Marines who are the biggest bragarts as to what an elete bunch of warriors they are. Now you use the scenario of a military person having to make a split decision. Bull. What split decision is involved in deciding to enter a home and dragging out a disabled individual to a hole in the ground and executing him and them planting a weapon on him and telling command that they shot someone planting an IED. What split second decision is involved in stopping a car on the road and after the individuals get out of the car and have their hands up then you shoot them and then go to nearby houses were no one is shooting at you and then setting the door ajar and throwing in a granade. Then after that go into the house and execute all the unarmed civilians in the house including women and children. Then going to other houses and doing the same and then telling your CO that these people were all killed by a roadside bomb. But as typical you don't want to put the situation that led to Marines being tried into context but instead manipulate the circumstances to justify their response.

Wrong econ class, Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:55 PM:Did they cover economic history in your good schooling, Chuck? Didn't think so. Because even if rebates are helpful according to the theories in econ 101, the historical fact is that they fail every time. You should've taken another class. The facts trump simplified theories. That's why there are more than one econ class, for when things get more complicated than in econ 101 graphs.

Funny wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:02 PM:If conservatives love rebates and other givebacks to stimulate the economy, why do they hate welfare so much? Isn't money that we give to the truly needy immediately spent? Doesn't it stimulate the economy and create jobs, maybe jobs for those very people who need them to get off the dole and make taxpayers out of them? Funny how when money goes from the government to the people, presumably for good reasons, conservatives only like it when the money goes to them! LOL

Monitoring Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:22 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 1:41 PM: LOL
Diversity classes are just like Home Economics. Green cucumbers are served.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:25 PM:TO Nick's Problem: I'll leave following Crist and foregiveness to you.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:28 PM:The post from "Funny" (2:02pm) makes the assumption that conservatives hate welfare. Silly you! Conservatives do not hate welfare. They only hate welfare for people who are POOR, sick or needy and who actually need the help!
But they LOVE corporate welfare, no-bid contracts, pork, earmarks, and military contracts to make money on invading other countries who happen to have our non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS under their sand.
But if you would even think about incentives to partially defray the costs of conservation or environmentalism or to promote any other postivie community contribution (instead of punishing people for regulatory non-compliance) they would call that "welfare" -- while they eagerly profiteer off government spending on death and destruction, waste, fraud, corruption and no-bid contracts.
No! Conservatives don't hate welfare at all. They just hate the poor.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:37 PM:Come on "Chris" ... You just painted all Marines in one broad stroke. According to your post at 1:55pm, ALL MARINES are guilty of straight up murder. NOW THAT IS A BUNCH OF BULL, and I'm calling you on it. The Marines in Iraq have to make life or death split decisions on a daily basis. You make it sound like all the Marines do is run around murdering innocent people and them try to cover it up. That's a bunch of crap and you know it. There are 10's of thousands of Marines doing their jobs honorably, and you CONDEMN them all for a few bad apples. Your analogy just doesn't work. A few cops abuse their authority, does this mean that ALL cops are bad? No! Some Blacks and Latinos do crimes and murder, does this mean that ALL blacks and Latinos are bad? No! Some white folks are racists, does this mean that ALL white folks are racists? NO! Your way off the mark here and I think that there are a whole lot of Marines that you owe an apology to for calling them murderers. ...
Cheers, Nick.

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:40 PM:>>If conservatives love rebates and other givebacks to stimulate the economy, why do they hate welfare so much?>> Rebates are for a temporary economic stimulus, welfare is an entitlement enslavement of the lazy to the liberal agenda

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:43 PM:>>Because even if rebates are helpful according to the theories in econ 101, the historical fact is that they fail every time.>>> Well professor,why dont lay this history of failures on us all and educate us

Chuck wrote on Feb 10, 2008 3:10 PM:>> maybe jobs for those very people who need them to get off the dole>> What do you car about jobs. You celebrate when the Sacramento mafia forces another business out of California. You celebrate when this country sents enormous wealth to Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico etc for oil, when we have plenty in our own back yard. You celebrate impossibly tight emission standards on Detroit, as tens of thousands get laid off. You implore the government to raise taxes on those evil corporations, and them moan when your wages and benefits are cut. So please dont use the word jobs,you're embarassing yourself and its pathetic

About what? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 3:25 PM:DD Wiz (1:27 PM): Thanks for the prompt reply. As you say: why “keep re-inventing the wheel.” I went to Google Scholar and the search looks like it would be rather tedious. So, since you have already done the leg work, please give me the name of one notable meteorologist or geophysicist (with reference) who has published his/her conclusion that there is virtually unanimous scientific consensus that believes humans can alter the course of global climate change.

On another point: The fact that “Big Oil Bullies” profit from “FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS” does not negate the fact that it is currently the life blood of the world economy ... it supports the fact. None of which disparages the notion that both the environment and the economy would benefit if Big Political/Social Bullies would simply allow market forces to exploit alternate forms of energy. However, in my studied opinion, if government (at national and/or world level) attempts to micro-manage global climate through economic controls, we, and particularly the poor and undeveloped nations, will be in for a rough trip.

Asteroid to Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 3:43 PM:Alright kid, enough! The more you argue with this fool the more ridiculous he gets. Stop lowering yourself to his level by responding and arguing with him. This is a troubled person. ... Grow up!

Karl wrote on Feb 10, 2008 3:45 PM:To "Funny wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:02 PM" HA, HA. Which Conservatives besides politicians have said that they love rebates? I would think that the Liberals would be enamored with them but I haven't heard from anyone on either side outside of the polititians. I have no idea why they're calling them rebates, sounds like a give-away to me.

Yokozuna to DD wrote on Feb 10, 2008 4:04 PM:When you replied to "About What" why didn't you just remind him that Global Warming wasn't even in your post? People who cannot read do not deserve as much attention as you afforded.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 4:58 PM:"Asteroid", your right, I'll try my best. It seems as though your not the first person to tell me this.
Cheers, Nick.

Yokozuna to Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:07 PM:Asteroid is right (except for the Grow UP part). That man's obsession is really out of the mainstream. At first I was pondering the thought that maybe a Marine took a girl friend away from him or something. His enmity appears no less than that of Hitler towards all his imagined "subhumans".

Karl wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:21 PM:To "DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 2:28 PM:" Yesterday you said in response to my "and over and over" comment that "Every single post starts out by specifically identifying exactly which published letter or previous post I am responding to". While you do indentify a post about the rebates, you have to bring up "FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS" Do you get my point now?

As far as your statement "No! Conservatives don't hate welfare at all. They just hate the poor." Your statement would maybe be creditable in some circles if you added the word
some, most, or a percentage in front of Conservatives.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM:Hey "Whizzer", I just spent an hour or so trolling around World Climate Report's website, and there is an awful lot of good stuff in it. Lot's of articles on "peer-reviewed" stuff and scientists who are now starting to back peddle a bit on their figures and assumptions from just a few years ago. Have you read any of their stuff? Your take? Although, I already know what you will say about anyone actually debunking some of the alamist propaganda.
Cheers, Nick.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:37 PM:The post from "Yokozuna to DD" (4:04pm) asks why my reply to "About What" did not remind him that "Global Warming" wasn't even in my post.
The reason is because I did understand wha he meant, and it is a subject common to many of my posts, so what would the point of that have been?
Similar to the reason I did not
"take yout to task" as you put it in your 10:33am post, for making the careless error of referring to a virus instead of a bacteria. It was not relevant to the point and it was not the kind of malicious, intentional deception that is fostered by those who intentionally promote the profiteering agenda of the pushers of non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from terrorists and dictators.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:38 PM:The post from "About what?" (3:25pm) claims to have gone to Google Scholar and found the effort to review potentially THOUSANDS of articles confirming human contribution to climate change would be "rather tedious." Incredible! These conservatives have all the time and patience in the world to review hundreds of books and articles of fiction, obituaries, junk science in popular media magazines, but when they have to sort through real science, they go whining and crying that it is "too tedious" and beg the liberals to repeat for the umpteenth time providing very specific references, yet again, about the HUMAN CAUSATION (as a contributing factor among other natural causes) to climate change.
OK, here's the deal. I have already posted these references several times, but I'll do it again. But I don't want to keep reinventing the wheel and spinning the ones I already have. So: I will re post several sources that I have posted previously on the condition that you first confirm that if I do so, you will then either
a) acknowledge that peer-reviewed science confirms that human activity contributes to climate change; or,
b) provide alternative PEER-REIVEWED documention of the same caliber that offers a dissenting conclusion.
Deal?

Nick, here's your chance wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:41 PM:You say that you're googling the real stuff and that the data are showing more uncertainty than before. If this is true, it's science progressing and moving as usual. But you have to deliver the goods. It's sad that it's true, but people like Ron here have made all kinds of claims about things that turn out to be invented. Tell us the names of a few of these peer reviewed research papers that cast serious doubt on the global warming idea. If DD means what he says, he will have to incorporate the new material since it meets his quality of standard. Good job. Looking forward to hearing about the specifics from you.

To Chuck from Professor wrote on Feb 10, 2008 5:45 PM:If you look at the historical record, what you find is that when people have little faith in the strength of the economy, and then they get a rebate or whatever you want to call the stimulus, they tend NOT to buy stuff. Instead, they overwhelmingly tend to use the new money to pay off debts because they're frightened. Now you might argue that it doesn't matter, that when those debts get paid off, that money still enters the flow. Perhaps. This reminds me of the theory that conservative economic polities trickle down. That the incentives that make big bucks for the companies invariably finds its way down to help all. But we've seen that this is false as well. The "economy" has been doing well until very recently, but the middle class has been stagnant or shrinking for decades and the size of the impoverished class has grown. All that which was to trickly down just made the wealthiest even wealthier. Another gem from econ 101 that failed in the real world.

Is this true? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 6:06 PM:I saw a headline that Bush said McCain was a true conservative. Is this true? Do you guys think Bush knows what a true conservative is? Do you think McCain is one? I know that McCain seems to be in favor of continuing all the Bush policies except on global warming, in which he agrees with Al Gore, but does this make him a true conservative or a true Bushie? This is purely a question about the meaning of these words. The question has nothing to do with November, by which time all of you will be so "scared of what will happen" if Hillary or Obama win that you'll vote for the Republican no matter what, even if you knew it was, in effect, a vote for four more years of Bushian philosophy.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 6:55 PM: The post from "Nick" (5:28pm) claims to have been "trolling" (his word) more unofficial websites, and assures us they cite "peer reviewed stuff: but (surprise!) offers the names of no writers, no peer-reviewed publications, no titles, NOTHING. His post is completely worthless! (Like I said, what a surprise!) I have no intent of embarking on a wild goose chase for something I don't actually expect to find.
If "Nick" really expects anyone to believe his outlandish claims, he is going to have to offer something a lot more specific, as I have done in the past.
Hmmmm. I wonder why he doesn't? Too tedious (like "About what?" (3:25pm)? Or nonexistent?

About what? wrote on Feb 10, 2008 7:52 PM:DD Wiz (5:38 PM), I cannot “(a) acknowledge that peer-reviewed science confirms that human activity causes climate change; nor, (b) provide alternative PEER-REIVEWED documention of the same caliber that offers a dissenting conclusion. However, since you apparently claim to be in possession of such data, please give us the name of ONE notable meteorologist or geophysicist (with reference) who has published his/her conclusion that humans can alter the course of global climate change.

Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:00 PM:To Nick here's your chance and "DD Whiz": Debunk this "Whiz"!
(1)“Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled over the last century, raising concerns that it is contributing to global warming and will continue to do so in the future. Although these past increases were alarmingly rapid, subsequent measurements showed a persistent slowdown in the trends to nearly zero at present.” [Khalil, M.A.K., C.L. Butenhoff, and R.A. Rasmussen, 2007. Atmospheric Methane: Trends and Cycles of Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science and Technology]
(2)"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."[Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters]
(3)Wöppelmann et al. note that “two important problems arise when using tide gauges to estimate the rate of global sea-level rise. The first is the fact that tide gauges measure sea level relative to a point attached to the land which can move vertically at rates comparable to the long-term sea-level signal. The second problem is the spatial distribution of the tide gauges, in particular those with long records, which are restricted to the coastlines”. The records that we do have contain any number of inhomogeneities related to observer and instrument changes – the IPCC estimates of sea-level rise may be even less accurate that we are led to believe.OK – here’s the bottom line. When Wöppelmann et al. factored their measurements of land motion into the estimate of sea-level rise, they determined a global value of 1.31 ±0.30 mm per year compared to the 1.8±0.5 mm per year value given by the IPCC for the recent half century. We understand that the IPCC acknowledges a low-end value of 1.3 mm per year in their estimate, but another way to look at this article is that Wöppelmann et al. just reduced observed sea-level rise by 27%! Perhaps the IPCC should reconsider whether they still have high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has in fact increased from the 19th to the 20th century.[Wöppelmann, G., B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, and Z. Altamimi. 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change]. Of course, these results gained absolutely no press coverage whatsoever – imagine the coverage they would have received had their results increased sea-level rise by 27% and suggested that sea level rise was occurring faster then previous research indicated.......I will be posting daily for you "DD Whiz"!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:55 PM: The post from "Nick" (8:00pm) froths at the mouth as he dares me to "debunk" his sources.
What is there to debunk?
He cites several sources that show natural factors such as the sun contributing 45-50% of global warming from 1900-2000, but a much smaller share, only 25-35% from 1980-2000. Every time I have mentioned human causal factors, I have specifically noted that it is a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR in conjunction with natural factors. That is exactly consistent with the data "Nick" found.
What is more significant is that "Nick's" own data shows that the share of natural factors has decreased. What "Nick" left out was, what was the part that was increasing, and of course he didn't want to tell you that it is the human contributing factor, steadily rising as the natural factors decrease.
THANK YOU, "Nick" for this important confirmation of exactly what I said!
See, research does pay, doesn't it, "Nick." I'm proud of you.
Now, what are you going to do to decrease YOUR share of the increasing percentage of human contribution to global climate change?

As for the "challenge" in the post from "About what?" (7:52pm) -- he admits that he can't provide authoritative sources opposing mine but demands that I keep repeating over and over and over again specific sources. I have done this before.
The last time in this forum was January 13, 2008 in a post at 1:35pm. I listed FOUR sources from peer-reviewed journals, including authors, qualifications, journals, and precise citations, each of which had extensive documentation on the HUMAN contribution to global warming in conjunction with natural factors that have already been around. Look it up yourself. It is still there (I just checked).

Reardon wrote on Feb 10, 2008 8:59 PM:Pssst, Nick: Check out International Journal of Climatology (Royal meteorological Society, December 5, 2007) A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson , and S. Fred Singer) Their findings are that the topographic predictions by computer models are off by as much as 100-300% from the actual observed.

Chris to Nick wrote on Feb 10, 2008 9:39 PM:You know discusting things with you is just going around in circles. I did not say ALL Marines were guilty. I am talking about the Marines as an institution but you military lovers will just go around and around and bring up some nonsense in order to keep criticizing what I am saying. The Marines on trial are not on trial because they made a wrong decision in the split second they had to make a decision. I also said why I offten say Marines instead of just saying military. If you don't have a comback for what I say then don't bring in some red herring.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 11, 2008 3:40 AM: The post from "Reardon" (8:59pm) again cites a new study from two months ago, reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal: "International Journal of Climatology" (Royal meteorological Society, December 5, 2007) by David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson , and S. Fred Singer.
He also cited this in a post January 23 at 4:39pm and I responded at 10:35pm that evening, near the top of the next day's posts (in the 1/24 postings).
At best, he presented ONE article, an aberrational statistical outlyer, which has already been successfully picked apart by other mainstream experts. At worst, the paper identifies an interesting statistical variation in a very narrow piece of climate data, dealing with a variation between a computer prediction and observed data. Such discrepancies occur all the time. While the authors, most notably Singer, have expressed the opinion that it undermines the human contribution to global climate change, and have published subsequent NON-peer-reviewed articles to that effect, the actual peer-reviewed article does not include that conclusions and, in fact, nothing at all in the peer-reviewed article refutes the mountains of other statistical OBSERVED data from human measurements as well as longitudinal studies covering hundreds of thousands of years using ice core samples, not computer models or predictions. Once again (how many times does this make now?), "Reardon" has simply misrepresented both the state of scientific consensus and the contents of research he claims to be citing.
One has to wonder: what is "Reardon's" motive? It is not enough for him to be satisfied toodling around town in the fancy Pollutionmobile he brags about, he has to encourage others to wantonly disregard serious warnings about environmental damage. For conservatives, it was not "scare tactics" to use fabricated fears about terrorists to go to war to kill MILLIONS of people if there was just "one percent" chance it could be related to terrorism (Cheney's famous "one percent doctrine") but if there is a 99% chance of catastrophic environmental devastation if we fail to simply use cleaner technologies, then they have to protect the interests of the pushers of our addiction to FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS that will be the death of us yet.