Reardon wrote on Feb 18, 2008 9:55 PM:Heaven help us! Letters about Global Whatever means The Torrent will strike with FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS, and then some guy wants to mandate 2,0 litre engines, one car per family, and a 75% gas tax -- so the liberal fascists are at it again. They want your thermostat and they want your car! (They already have your smokes, and your diet!) If EVERYONE who believes in Global Warming would voluntarily cut back to one 2.0 litre car and send their money to Sacramento and Washington, our carbon footprint would diminish, and the rest of us would be left alone by the liberal fascists. (I know, I just dreaming.)

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 18, 2008 10:05 PM: The published letters from Mary Owen (on the need for more legislation to lower CO2 emissions) and Tassia Cardona (on the need to protect our oceans from toxic pollution) are both excellent!
It is way past time to stop polluting our precious planet, and to listen to the warnings of a virtually unanimous consensus of serious scientists on the dangers of environmental harm and catastrophic climate change.
It is time to elect a president who will actually follow through with bold initiatives to tackle the problems left over from the stencth of the current administration and its corruption, cronyism and living in the pocket of the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 18, 2008 10:44 PM: The comment in "Fresh from the Web" by "Gringo" shows double ignorance. A two-fer!
First, he repeats the much-discredited urban myth about Al Gore inventing the Internet.
This snide little accusation is a complete LIE, which has been thoroughly debunked by anyone who has the slightest familiarity with real news. This has long been debunked on Snopes and many other sources that debunk urban legends. It started when Al Gore stated during an interview with Wolf Blitzer March 9, 1999 and said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" which accurately reflected is leadership role in passing the enabling legislation to open up and convert the old Arpanet into the Internet. He never used the word "invent" and he used the term "create" in an appropriate legislative sense, in the same way Eisenhower could have said he "created" the interstate highway system. After the slanderous misrepresentation was spread, initially from a misquote by Declan McCullagh in Wired News and later repeated in a debate line by (of course) liar Dubya Bush, Vint Cerf, who DID invent the Internet, wrote a spirited defense of Gore's statement, fully validating it, and the 2005 Webby Award for online achievement was issued to AL GORE for his leadership in establishing the Internet. The same Luddites who champion old, outdated FILTHY FOSSIL FUEL technologies of the past ridicule the visionaries to implemented the Internet and who seek the clean, effective, affordable technologies of the future.
Second, he says Al Gore DID invent Global warming. Again, not true. Global Warming (climate change) has been reported by a virtually unanimous consensus of SCIENTISTS, as reported in PEER-REVIEWED studies.
As a journalism (yes, that was his college major), Al Gore merely reported on their findings.
The ignorance of these comments, and how widely they are repeated, including needlessly by the North County Times in selecting them for this forum, shows the extent of casualties in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Feb 18, 2008 11:05 PM:Um ... DD Wiz ... Gringo said "Al Gore did not invent the Internet". Please read carefully before you launch. The thesaurus reports the following words are related to your posting (which are shown in lower case for your reading pleasure): misconstrue, misinterpret, misread, miss, mistake, and misconceive.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 18, 2008 11:27 PM: The post from "Reardon" (9:55pm) ridicules those who listen to real scientists, instead of ignoring warnings and taking action to prevent disaster. His attitude is reminiscent of our current Republican administration that ignored warnings on New Orleans that had been out for more than a year, with imminent warnings in the days ahead and then tried to pass the blame for a tragedy of national scale onto local officials. Heckuva job, Reardie!
"Reardon" has admitted in the past that he was one of those who tried to prevent the massive effort that successfully averted the Y2K bug, but fortunately we didn't listen to ostriches like him and, while a Democrat was in the White House, action was promoted and disaster averted, no thanks to "Reardon."
And in yesterday's posts, "Reardon" (2/18 - 9:27pm) describes himself as "a Realtor, currently unemployed because of the market." Hello! Earth to "Reardon!" There were warnings about a market turndown for months or years in advance. My wife, after a long and successful career as a corporate cost accountant (CPA), decided to go into Real Estate and Financing several years ago. Unlike you, SHE LISTENED TO THE WARNINGS and prepared a business strategy to address distressed properties, foreclosures and helping people refinance bad loans with good, solid, affordable packages. Guess what! She is not "unemployed" and resigned to "sitting in a few courtrooms for awhile."
But that is the difference between those who listen and learn and the casualties in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE who stick their heads in the sand or any other warm, dark place they can find and IGNORE THE WARNINGS.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 19, 2008 2:10 AM:The post by dd wiz at 10:05 pm above is wrong as usual. He endorses the letter by Mary Owen. She endorese a bill that said all th eelectrical companies would have to use a specified amount of solar and wind. One of several problems is a number of power companies are located in regions where there is not enough sunlight for a solar power plant and not adequte steady wind suitable for wind farms.
Then he pastes in his stupid false mantra about "virtually unanimous consensus of serious scientists..."
Which NICK, RON, and I have proven false over and over. GEE!

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 19, 2008 2:30 AM:. I get tired of this boring phrase "the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators", and several similar phrases that dd wiz uses. How about each of us makes a few phrases to throw back in each of our posts on the subject for a few days. Here is one sample of an idea to work into every post. "The human caused Global Warming myth is a vast left wing conspiracy perpetrated to establish extreme political control, then hand our country over to United Nations for discipline and control." This needs more work, but something like this might work.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 19, 2008 2:40 AM:. How about instead of saying "solar panels" in a sentence how about saying "over-hyped heavily subsidized solar panels that make no power at night or when covered dark clouds, heavy rain or snow" (Actuallly I think there is a useful place for solar panels here in the Southwest, I am looking for something to counter dd from an oposite position to shoew him what it looks like.

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 4:34 AM:>>>The Torrent will strike with FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS>>>First, your choice of gender mandated by SB777 will need to be approved by them

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 4:38 AM:>>and prepared a business strategy to address distressed properties, foreclosures>> You gotta love the "foreclosure specialists" They offer you 20 cents on the dollars for your home and try to convince you they
re doing you a favor. And then when they sell it, they put on their tax form as cost- the value of the home when they bought it, not what they paid for it

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 4:55 AM:>>But tell us, Chuck, how many of those mom and pop outfits go wrong? How many guinea pigs of the "experimental" cures die? How many of them are snake oil?>>. To your type, they are all scams. Everything is a scam to your type unless Hussein or Hillary buy into it. But, when the the cannine tests are completed and the FDA and Mexican govt approve human trials and they are successful, you'll swallow hard & do whatever is humanly possible to get your cancer ridden parent treated either in Mexico or at Scripps up here. And when they are cured, you'll blast the greedy Mom & Pops that cashed in on their risk money. Its just the way of the liberal. And by the way, they are not Mom & bPop labs, they are highly sophisticated labs paid for Mom & Pops that were willing to take a risk--A concept hateful to liberals

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 5:18 AM:>>The biggest hindrance is not President Bush or money, it is the FDA. Although I understand the need for scrutiny at every turn, I believe the FDA goes way overboard.>>> You are right. This concept may be a different animal for the FDA. And money is always an issue. I volunteer my time to do paperwork and bookwork so they dont need to hire secretaies and accountants, and when I have extra money, I'll buy them a needed filtering machine. Frankly, I'd be ecstatic just to get my money back. But, I've got my moneys worth just seeing how it has helped the dogs. First, suppose a therapy was subtractive, instead of additive, ie no chemicals ot radiation is added to the body. But instead using sophisticated protein and other molecules, the blood is filtered, somewhat like, and somewhat unlike dialysis. It then becomes a device issue, not a drug issue, ie a fast track to human trials. these people are not quacks and not stupid. they know the FDA runs the show, but in this case the FDA has competiton--The Mexican govt, who are drooling to see the remaining cannine tests, and then will supply the guinea pigs for human trials--and no lawyers. Hopefully, this is the real deal for humans. If not, clinics for cannines will pop up here and there at Vet offices. Either way, the planet wins

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 5:29 AM:>>0412 wrote on Feb 18, 2008 6:04 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 18, 2008 3:22 PM: Right back at you. Then, I do not need to visit 100 labs either.>> then try just one, but of course you wont, because you're more interested in implementing SB777, and neither will. And neither will the ACS or Lance Armstrong because they are all talk and no action unless their is a check in it for them

Focal Point wrote on Feb 19, 2008 6:09 AM:BILL HASTY: Just does not get it. Ron Paul will not be the nominee of any major political party. Even if he runs as an independent or a Libertarian, he will not be elected. So, Bill write your letter if you must but realize you are wasting your time and our tim.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 19, 2008 6:24 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (11:05pm), again proving he is not one, misrepresents my 10:44pm post. He "corrects" me by saying, "Gringo said, 'Al Gore did not invent the Internet'."
Nor did I say that he said any such thing. JUST AS I SAID, his statement that Flat Earth "Floyd" repeats seeks to repudiate the assertion about Al Gore inventing the Internet which means, if it needs to be repudiated, that by reference he is bringing it back up again.
He is not saying that Al Gore did invent the Internet; he is inferring that Al Gore CLAIMS to have invented the Internet but that, since he didn't really do it, the implication from "Gringo" is that Al Gore is not honest (though the actual record shows that what he actually said was completely true and backed up by statements uttered and awards awarded by those who actually did invent the Internet), when it is "Gringo" who is not being honest.
Here are some words that apply to Flat Earth "Floyd's" posting: "misconstrue, misinterpret, misread, miss, mistake, and misconceive."
I was almost gonna say that Flat Earth "Floyd" is also not being honest, but there is a difference between being dishonest and being ignorant, and obviously Flat Earth "Floyd" is just another casualty in the ongoing CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE.

DoIKnowLiberalsOrWhat wrote on Feb 19, 2008 6:54 AM:I should go into the prediction business. In my 6:43 am post yesterday, referring to Mayor Sanders erratic behavior, I surmised a massive water rate increase was imminent. I really didnt know how imminent until it was a top story in the NCTimes today.

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 6:59 AM:>>Cement plant will not improve corridor>> No one wants cement, no one wants oil, no one want nuclear, everyone hates the drug industry, the automobile industry, the banking industry, wall street, the brokerage industry, the insurance companies, WalMart & everyone wants free healthcare and of course bigger paychecks, bigger benefits and bigger pension. Liberals stab their employers and their suppliers and related corporations in the back, and they think they'll get higher pay and benefits out of it. -- Its just the liberal way of thinking

A Blow to Liberals wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:03 AM:I see your torturing, dictator buddy, Fidel, is retiring. I guess he's having trouble with his bedpan. I wonder how long it will take Nancy Piglosi and Harry ... Reid to ask Chavez to take over Cuba or will the people have a say in a new democracy?

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:05 AM:>>Workers' compensation was created to provide prompt, equitable and fair benefits for those injured on the job>> Yea, but the liberals, trial lawyers and crooked chiropractors turned it into a life long feeder trough for themselves

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:15 AM:>> more legislation to lower CO2 emissions) and Tassia Cardona (on the need to protect our oceans from toxic pollution)>> LOL That is laughable. I presented a program to do exactly that for free to the City of Encinitas, & they told me to get lost. My program was called "Adopt a Drain", which I even trademarked and copywrited. What would happen is that individuals or businesses would adopt a storm drain, by putting up about $600. Some construction Company would install a fossil filter in the drain to absorb the pollutants, and they'd also monitor & change the filters quarterly. In return, I would present the business with a nice little certificate with the GPS coordinates of the drain on it, and epoxy a small plastic plaque with the Company's name on the drain. It would be my litle contribution to storm drain runoff into the oceans. but, as usual, the lazy bureaucrats in Encinitas turned my plan down.

MANTRA wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:26 AM:Snowbird expresses annoyance at the repetition by DDWiz of "FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS" etc and suggests his own opposing mantra.
Of course, he is free to post anything he wants.
Every time I see the phrases from Wiz, it is just a reminder of what I already know.
And ever time I would see a mantra from Snowbird, it would be a reminder that he says things he can't prove.
For all I care, he can repeat "The earth is flat. The earth is flat." over and over and see if the repetition is what changes people's minds.

Revelation wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:38 AM: Did everyone see the short article on page A-3, "Britain releases prewar dossier"? The truth is slowly being revealed about how Bush & Blair conspired to lie to the world and commit war crimes. They pretended there was an "imminent threat" so they could claim self-defense, but there was no imminent threat and they knew it. They should be behind bars or ..., like Saddam Hussein, who killed far fewer Iraqis than Bush & Blair's war of choice has so far.

Ron wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:42 AM:Behind medical care, the second fastest and highest cost to middle America is education, College Education to be exact.
I mean, if we are going to investigate Big Oil every single time they raise the prices on their product, I say it's high time we start having Congress get some answers under oath from College Presidents.
The cost of a year of college rose by about 6 percent in 2006, outpacing wages, inflation, or financial aid.
Some high-priced private colleges now ask more than $50,000 a year, the average annual cost at private universities for 2006 is just over $33,000. But about three quarters of private school students receive financial aid to reduce their out-of-pocket costs. The average net price those students pay is only about $22,000. So while a degree for today's private school freshmen paying full sticker price will very likely cost about $200,000, a degree will cost private students receiving financial aid about $124,000.
University officials said one reason they were raising prices was to counterbalance reductions in the subsidies governments (in other words, taxpayers) provide for higher education.
So, let me understand this. When government subsidies go up, the price goes up? And when the government reduces subsidies, the price goes up?
Yes, A thorough investigation is in order, Sarah Turrito.
As it now stands, the only conclusion is that price fixing is rampant and these profiteers are guilty of collusion.

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:01 AM:>>>The truth is slowly being revealed about how Bush & Blair conspired to lie to the world and commit war crimes>> Is that the truth, Chris?? or is that just your hate-America propaganda. Why dont you get the list of WMD's that were a part of the GulfWar 1 surrender. Then compare it to the list that the UN says were never accounted for and you will see that the Iraqi AirForce was hiding in Iran and the other missing items were either buried in the sand or shipped to Syria. The UN merely asked Hussein to account for all of the weapons and he refused to, and now many of your terrorist friends are dead, along with the civilians your friends used suicide bombs on

Ron wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:03 AM:Returning briefly to thoughts about supply & demand. Was there a DEMAND for the carbon credits/offsets Al Gore sells? Or did he create, and continues to create a larger market for selling his credits/offsets? Of course, we all know now, he was so far off the map on his predictions, but those thoughts & ideas are still stuck in the American mind set as facts. Thus by scaring people, he created a market for his supply of credits/offsets.
Seems to me, he created a SUPPLY, made some weak minded people feel guilty, thus expanding the DEMAND.
Just food for thought...

HorribleDayfor AmericaHaters wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:11 AM:The news is reporting that the Supreme Court told the ACLU to shove it in their attempt to stop Bush from spying on the terrorists. ...

Ron wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:11 AM:That is the "moral component", Snowbird-@ 2:30 AM, of the Church of Sustainability. Whenever wiz uses that phrase: "the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators."
Just keep in mind, that would be their version of the Devil. Fundamentally speaking.

SB777 wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:15 AM:Chuck sure is obsessed about SB777!
He is now finding ways to bring it up when responding to posts that have nothing to do with it.
Note to Chuck: it is not normal for grown men to be that obsessed with little children and gender.
It is especially not normal to refer to laws in ways that are pure fantasy.
You keep referring to children checking off a box on a form.
Please cite the exact form number you are referring to, or direct us to the state government web page that has information about such a form. Or is this "form" part of your fantasy?

Pluto wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:18 AM: A Blow to Liberals @7:03am pretends to be against torture. Maybe (s)he will now speak out against George "Waterboarding" Bush and his criminal regime. BTW, does anybody -liberal or conservative - really believe there were only three instances of waterboarding?

Marky Marx wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:25 AM:Two things today, folks. First; the greatest leader of the PEOPLE, Fidel Castro has stepped down as benevolent leader of his country, Cuba. We can only hope that his successor will be as astute a custodian of the rights of the peeps. Immigration activist Mallika Dutt has created a video that brings the reality of the draconian U.S. Immigration system to the masses. Google ICED (I Can End Deportation). Learn the truth! Power to the peeps!!

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:29 AM:>>Note to Chuck: it is not normal for grown men to be that obsessed with little children and gender.>> OK, Then please tell us why your type put that in the bill. Allow me to quote: 66260.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth""

Just what did your type have in mind with the words "whether or not
associated with the person's assigned sex at birth"?? Can you explain what that means??? Why are you obsessed with that??

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:34 AM: The post from "Ron" (8:03am) claims to be a return to his voodoo economic misunderstandings about supply and demand (in which he really only talked about supply, riding the one-winged airplane of failed "supply side" economics), but he really wants to take a swipe at Al Gore.
Yet again, he refers to "the carbon credits/offsets Al Gore sells."
I have asked him several times to be more specific about what exactly he is referring to, but in typical conservative evasiveness he refuses to, so there must not be any "there" there.
In any case, what would the point be?
Worst-case scenario: "Ron" turns out to be correct and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Emmy Winner, Oscar Winner, etc., etc., etc., Al Gore is a complete fraud, making more profits than ExxonMobil and all the other Big Oil Bully Bush Cronies combined.
So what? The issue of the global climate crisis has NOTHING TO DO WITH AL GORE.
I have never cited Gore as a primary source.
Gore is a journalist, not a scientist.
The issue of the global climate crisis is not based on Al Gore, but on the PEER-REVIEWED science reported in academic and scientific journals, where the conclusions are essentially unanimous. Any comments about Al Gore are simply irrelevant (in addition to being wrong, but that is off the point anyway).
So how does "Ron" address the fact of PEER-REVIEWED CONSENSUS? He simply denigrates scientists and the scientific methodologies of which peer review and replicability of observation and quantification are a core element, proving that he is just another foot soldier in the ongoing CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE.

reminder for Pluto wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:39 AM:Pluto, you're forgetting that the only way the conservatives here make their points is by lying, remember? Chuck makes up all kinds of nonsense about SB777, Ron invents stories daily, Nick does the same with his tales of "science". Without fabrication, they'd have nothing. If you want Bush to simply get a warrant, you're against his doing intelligence work. If you oppose waterboarding or other forms of torture, you love terrorists. When you have nothing sensible to say, invent a homosexual mafia that runs Washington DC. The scientific evidence for global warming? An international cabal of all the elite scientists controlling everything that's published. You know, when you start listing it like this, it actually is pretty amusing, don't you think?

SB777 wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:57 AM:To Chuck:
You didn't answer the question in my 8:15 a.m. post.
You repeatedly refer to kids checking a box on a form.
What box? What form?
Please be specific, or we can only conclude that it is part of your bizarre, unnatural fantasy.

esteban wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:05 AM:DD WIZ...the scientists YOU read about believe in global warming, but there are thousands of other real scientists who dispute the global warming apocolypse you believe in. Warming is a cycle. We are not doomed. Please finish the 3rd grade before forming any real world opinions. You are gullible.

Oh, Chuck (@ 8:29) wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:13 AM:One in a bizillion people is a person whose brain and body don't match as far as gender goes. That little phrase is nothing but a gift to that incredibly small minority of humans, to acknowledge the difficulty and the process of possible change later in life. Big deal. It's nothing like an obsession, it's a gift, an acknowledgment. But to count the number of times you've mentioned, and the number of ways you've stretched its meaning...well, it's rather obvious where the obsession is. Grow up, please. Get over it. It's no big deal. Good grief!

Marky Marx wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:15 AM:reminder for Pluto wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:39 AM: So simple, soooo cool! Power to the peeps!!

Nick wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:19 AM: We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.
“This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.
"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."
Most leading geologists know this? But, how can that be true? After all, Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio – despite having absolutely no expertise concerning this matter – say otherwise. As such, why should we care what someone that actually specializes in this field thinks?
Regardless, the article demonstrated how the IPCC has basically created computer models to predict an end result it wanted while totally ignoring current and past scientific observations regarding CO2’s expected life in the atmosphere:
With the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.
Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.
"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."
For those that are interested, this is why anthropogenic global warming is regularly referred to as junk science. As Segalstad stated, rather than base future expectations on known past and present observations, the IPCC has created models to predict future events lacking any historical basis.
The article then explained what has been observed, and why what the IPCC is predicting is so ridiculous:
In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."
So, how does the IPCC resolve this conundrum? Better remove all fluids from proximity:
Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success.
Marvelous, wouldn’t you agree? But, not as good as the Professor’s conclusion:

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.

"It is all a fiction."

Tom V. Segalstad (1949 - ) is a Norwegian geologist and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo. He was an expert reviewer for the 2001 IPCC Scientific assessment on climate change (see IPCC Third Assessment Report) and has taught in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, United States. He was also formerly head of the Natural History Museum and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo.

Reardon wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:26 AM:Tp Pluto: have you ANY evidence that there were more than three cases of waterboarding? (PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED.)

Asteroid to Pluto wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:26 AM:Pluto wrote on Feb 19, 2008 8:18 AM: What you and chris…..way out there on the fringe believe is quite irrelevant. But thanks for keeping in touch during your travels to Berkeley

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:42 AM: The post from "Chuck" (8:29am) responds to a question about his apparent obsession with "little children and gender from an earlier post (SB777 at 8:15am) by giving an answer that did not address the question in the original post about a specific form "Chuck" keeps referring to, many times, almost every day, that "Chuck" keeps obsessing about.
"Chuck" then tries to turn the question around and asks the questioner about their own "obsession." But it begs the question (literally): how is asking a single question one time an "obsession" compared to over and over, day after day?
"Chuck" then quotes from the act.
Nothing in the quote references this "form" that "Chuck" keeps obsessing about.
It does refer to the long-overdue need for recognizing that disorders relating to gender identity issues are serious and complex and need to be addressed in a sensitive and appropriate manner.
The constant denigration by "Chuck" of a serious issue is not merely unnatural, it is also cruel.

Surfer wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:58 AM:Reardon wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:26 AM: Bush has classified just about everything having to do with his administration. Even if there were evidence, it would be impossible to know. We did not even know about three until Mr Gates and Agent Pino informed the general public. Anyway, Dude, that is how my peepers see it.

CHUCK wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:59 AM:>>You repeatedly refer to kids checking a box on a form.
What box? What form?>>
Here is what it looks like:

SB777 DECLARATION

Name: Johnny Jones
Parent 1: Suzie Jones
Parent 2: Billy-Jean Smith

Declaration of student:
I Johnny Jones declare, under my rights afforded by SB777, as jammed down California's throat by the gay mafia, declare myself to be a girl, even though I can look down down and see that it is not my assigned sex at birth. If you give me any crap, about it I will find a lawyer who will sue you.
Signed,
Jeanette Jones, formerly Johnny Jones

Affirmed: We accept that Johnny Jones can now be Jeanette Jones, after all, Jeanette now has two mommies

Signed: Suzie Jones
Signed: Billy-Jean Smith

Nick wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:06 AM:To reminder for Pluto: Nick does the same with his tales of "science". Really? Says who? "DD Whizzer", the great twister of science. He uses the same twisted Science that Al Gore used from the IPCC, which is a JOKE when asked by THE MAJORITY of Scientists studying the Sham called Global Warming. He has NEVER disproved the facts and science I cite with references from. All "The Whizzer" ever does is say " I researched your links and data and found them to be "lies", "fabricated" or "misconstrued". He has NEVER posted his PROOF! Only his so-called research on my facts. NO PROOF, just his word and opinion.
Have you EVER checked the references I cite with my posts? I'll bet NEVER! So, that makes you either to lazy or to ignorant to do a little work, or your just dumb enough to take "DD's" word. A man who is neither a Scientist or a Professor, just a man with an opinion.
YOu sound as fishy and "The Whiz".

Reardon wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:09 AM:I have not seen much support today for the 2.0 litre maximum engine size, one car per family, $6.00 gasoline and 75% tax on fuel. More the pity, because it would be a good debate. I suspect that some (many?) liberal fascists agree but don’t want the obvious label. DD: Please do not worry much about my being an "unemployed Realtor." All salespeople pick their niche, and I decided early against the scavenger market (short sales and foreclosures). Purposely, I have elected to have only have two listings from close friends -- both well above $1 million -- so I have time for sitting in courtrooms. Worry not.

Pluto to reminder@8:39am wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:10 AM: Thanks for that. I was away for a few days. I forgot.

to Marky @ 9:15 wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:10 AM:It IS cool, Marky. Thanks for pointing it out. When you read their posts, these crazy and dishonest things just go on the march, one after another. Glad you enjoy them as much as I do. Power to the perps.

Chuck wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:13 AM:>>Nothing in the quote references this "form" that "Chuck" keeps obsessing about>> I'm sipmly wondering why it was found necessary for the radicals in Sacramento to define gender to include other than the sex of the child at birth?? Its a simple inquiry. The answer must be in your agenda playbook somewhere?? I ask a few simple questions and get attacked for being homophobic. I'm sure the answer will soon be known as your full agenda unfolds in front of the kiddies while mom and dad are at work, and then later on, to the parents after the damage has been done---just like the sneaks at Planned Parenthood

Ron wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:13 AM:The only question I'm asking is:
Which came first? Did Al Gore SUPPLY the credits/offsets first, or was there a DEMAND for them. Truly, many, many old fashion American businesses started because of an idea, prior to a DEMAND for them. If wiz wants to refer to those as "voodoo economics", I think we all know who has the "misunderstanding."
Take for example, Ring Tones. Last year, Americans spent $2 Billion in changing the ring tones on their cell phones. Now, someone thought of this idea, but was there a DEMAND for it?
I mean, the phone already rang, cell phones manufacturers already gave several options of varying the ring tones, and yet... these new variations sell like hot cakes. To me, it's a kin to last minute buying of items at the checkout counter. It's more induced consumption, conspicuous in nature, and invidious, at worst. The niche, it would seem, to be the deliberate purpose of inspiring envy in others, so they too buy.
Same too with Pope Gore. In creating his "documentary", which we now know was filled with so many outrageous lies, he is profiting from scaring people. If you tell people the seas will rise by 20 feet, but... if you buy these offsets I just happen to sell, you can save yourself. I see that as CREATING a market, and creating a DEMAND. Smart, and just a little baleful, but smart marketing.
Contrary to the futile
viagrate defense of Pope Gore
by Wizzer @8:34 AM. Pope Al Gore IS THE ISSUE. He made himself the issue, by being the front man for this marketing campaign. And the hanger-on's who sought to bolster his position, and affect, have gratuitously heaped upon this liar huge praise and accolades. They have, by default, placed him in the position of being "the mouth-piece" for the movement. And let's not forget, he sought it, out of sheer ego. Now, he's a Rock Star, instead of a failed Presidential candidate.
As to being a Nobel Peace Prize winner,
he's in good company along with Yasser Arafat, the Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud.
DD Wiz @8:34 AM writes: QUOTE:
"Gore is a journalist, not a scientist." Gore is a journalist...?
Really? Then he's a pretty bad one. Creative license is granted to Film Makers, but not to "journalists."
According to the British the Government, schools must amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that:
"The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument." In the same way, Sicko was both political and propoganda.
"Eleven inaccuracies", one of which is:
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
See the DEMAND being made?
And people have the nerve to talk about supposed "predatory lenders?"

Pluto to Reardon@9:26am wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:15 AM: Does it make any difference to you whether I have proof or not? As soon as they admit to more instances of waterboarding, you'll say that's OK too.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:16 AM: The post from "Reardon" (9:26am) continues to ridicule PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE.
Specifically, he demands of "Pluto" scientific "PEER REVIEWED" evidence for a claim of a news item, a report of a single incident, not an ongoing observable phenomenon, which is not based, on a scientific claim, nor on replicable, observable, experimental or empirically quantifiable data. "Reardon" is mixing oranges and bananas.
But then, this is "Reardon." What else can we expect? This is the self-described engineer, computer expert, college professor and real estate maven who continually fails to listen to serious warnings in his fields and ends up jumping from job to job.
"Reardon" either has no grasp of what science is or how and when it operates (meaning his would be a casualty in the ongoing CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE) or, if he really does know better and is perpetrating this misinformation intentionally, then he would be a foot soldier in the ongoing CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE.

Pluto to Asteroid @9:26am wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:20 AM: What Chris and I believe is no more or less relevant that what you believe, but our beliefs are more fact-based. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Pluto to Asteroid @9:26am wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:24 AM: BTW, I wasn't in Berkeley. You made that up like everything else you say. You're like GWB - "if it sounds good, say it".

To Ian Pistone wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:34 AM:Well said and spot on!

Evidence for waterboarding? wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:36 AM:No, there's no evidence for more waterboarding. How can there be? Our president has made it clear that there are many, many topics that are off limits "for national security reasons" or due to "executive privilege". In fact conversations that have gone on that Bush had no part of are covered by executive privilege, which seems to extend to anyone and anything Bush desires. And in time, an appeals court is found that agrees. So, no, there'll be no evidence. No discussion. No public knowledge. We are stuck with our imaginations, on the right and the left, as are all the people of the world who wonder about Bush and America. I know what they increasingly assume, and, no, Bush offers no evidence to oppose their thoughts.

to Nick wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:40 AM:No, it's you yourself who's declared that the absence of peer reviewed articles that you cite are good enough. That's what my criticism was based on. I don't have any stake one way or the other in GW, only in doing what the best science says is most likely. So far, that's all on DD's side. If you could produce the goods, I'd change my opinion in a second. Actually, if you were right, I'd be much happier than if DD was right, since it would mean that the best science would be now saying that a catastrophe was averted. That'd be great news. So? Where's the beef? All I ask, and insist on, is that it be in the form of peer-reviewed research in the appropriate field. IMHO, that's a completely reasonable request. So? Where's the beef?

Oh, Chuck (@ 9:59) wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:43 AM:You really ARE obsessed, aren't you? And immature on top of it. And spiteful. And unwilling to apologize for obvious dishonesty. Great display of character, Chuck. If you ever want to know why no one takes your more serious posts seriously...oh, never mind.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:45 AM: The post from "Chuck" (9:59am) responds to requests for the actual form he keeps referring to by simply making something up. Look at the wording carefully. It is not a state form.
This is just part of his ongoing fantasy. And what an elaborate fantasy it is!
This must have taken a lot of thought. A LOT of thought. Over and over. Obsession!
Again "Chuck" -- the rules of this forum do allow you to post links to official ".gov" websites (and I would like to request consideration of also allowing ".edu" certified educational sites) that show an official form.
Either that or, I know how disappointing this will be, admit it was all a dream and come back to the real world. ... .

Nick wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:53 AM:"Reardon", do not fear the Real Estate Phob's, they no NOT what they speak of. My wife has closed 3 different Million Dollar+ deals in the last 2 weeks and is in the process of closing a 3 Million dollar deal. Apparently, people are still buying Real Estate. There is actually NO inventory to pick & choose from because people are buying like crazy right now.
So much for the so called Real Estate Slump.
Cheers, Nick.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 19, 2008 10:59 AM: The post from "Reardon" (10:09am) follows his usual failed practice of jumping to conclusions.
He dismisses his admitted failure in real estate, because the markets changed and he was not listening to the warnings that had been out there for a long time, and says he is just finding his "niche."
But in describing that "niche" yesterday the term HE used (not me) was "unemployed" and "sitting in courtrooms (as an observer)."
I noted that my wife, also in real estate, DID heed the long-standing warnings, and adapted her business accordingly to anticipate a need for people with problems that she could help solve.
Like a typical conservative who can only see business in a predatory sense, that business owners prey on customers instead of win-win, he assumes that the adjustment I described is a "scavenger" market, because I mentioned foreclosures.
Hello! Foreclosures are a part of this market and a huge problem and they are terribly traumatic for those who go through that experience. But instead of relying on the Bush "stimulus" that only promotes the economy of China, some people, like my wife, help people who have