Alf wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:01 AM:The letter from J. Howard Crews makes a wonderful point although I'm not sure it's the one he intended. The point is that the U.S. has been so arrogant for so long that we are no longer the world leader in just about anything, except maybe being consumers.
Remember the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo?
He says "Detroit is shutting down, GM going bankrupt" and I ask why? Did Detroit respond by rethinking what was needed to reduce our fuel comsumption? Nope.
We live in a global market.
Detroit was still producing Hummers as of a year ago.
Stupidity in action defines Detroit.
Regards, Alf.

Yokozuna wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:31 AM:Congratulations, Alf. You also found the regular letters today. I figured after a couple of weeks ago I would look in the F&V section again. I have been waiting all morning to see someone post. Actually, all automobile manufacturers were down last month except Honda. Surprised Toyota was included. I haven't bought a GM car since 1983 when I got stuck with one of their poorly designed diesels which kept blowing head gaskets. They wouldn't do anything beyond their crummy warranty. Sold the $14,000 car two years later for $500.00. If I didn't happen to own GMAC corporate bonds that will be called in January I wouldn't care if they went belly up right now.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:44 AM:Compassion lacking for sick friend Most stations are neither localy owned or managed. Your letter may have been forwarded to the various corporate headquarters or deposited in the trash.
You are right about any requested empathy or courtesy from them.

Yokozuna wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:04 AM:RE:Herbert Pairitz letter. I believe any regulations issued in the U.S for speculators would include only those doing business here.

Granny wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:05 AM:As evidenced by numerous letters to this paper, patients are getting good care at Tri City. Why the rush to add more tax burdens on the local residents, many of whom will never use that hospital? Many of us use Scripps, Sharp and so forth. I will never vote for a new bond on this hospital until the Chairman, with his big fat salary, is gone and they prepare an incremental approach to updating the hospital.

I dont wonder at all wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:30 AM:The only thing that Vernon Jaworski did that nixed his message getting out was to use the "p" word. You can't expect TV or radio station, unless it's a religious station to respond when you use the "p" word. What's the "p" word? Prayer.

Focal Poiint wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:55 AM:Mercenary groups in Iraq I find the employment of domestic or foreign mercenaries by the United States repugnent.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:38 AM:I dont wonder at all[-] wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:30 AM: Sure they can respond. They can issues a polite, "no" reply. Its called courtesy.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:19 PM:Supply and demand... Clinton emasculated our Army by disbanding 10 full Army divisions.

Blackwater is supplying a demand.

Halliburton companies are filling jobs that the military can't do any longer because there aren't enough of them.

This started with Clinton. Halliburton was paid millions upon millions of dollars by the Clinton Administration.

Thank the lord that facts are stuppong things.

hardtack wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:20 PM:I hate to be the one to break it to J. H. Crews, but that was his money he just spent – not the U.S. Treasury’s “paper.”

Imagine that you are standing in a check-out line. The guy behind you picks your pocket, taking $100. You get to the check-out counter and come up two dollars short. You are embarrassed. Apologizing to the clerk while everyone behind you in line wait impatiently. Finally, the guy who picked your pocket says: “Here, buddy, take the $2 – it’s on me. Have a good day.” Everyone thinks: gee, what a nice guy!

Bush’s rebate proposal went through Congress like Tomlinson blowing past a free safety. Every politician wants to look like a “nice guy” with someone else's money.

As for the economy: Just like standing in a bucket and lifting yourself up by the handle.

hardtack wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:44 PM:Herbert Pairitz’ describes oil futures trading as somewhat of a Ponzi scheme – where those who get in early make a killing, while late-comers take the loss. He seems to pretty accurately describe the oil futures market today. In which case, time will take care of oil futures trading without any help from Congress.

The real “third factor” effecting oil prices is actually a subset of the supply factor – instability in the Middle East and our own governments’ (at many levels) stubborn resistance to domestic oil production. Our politicians like to scapegoat oil futures traders to deflect the blame for high gasoline prices away from themselves.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:45 PM:D.BECK: Merely gives us a synopsis of the book, BLUE PLANET GREEN SHACKLES. He like you or me is entitled to his opinion and to write a book. Other than that, it is no big deal!

Suzie wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:47 PM:Looks like Jean Kristapovich didn't do her reasearch and now wants something she didn't buy. Sorry you bought a house near an airport and a riverbed. Do you really expect them to close the airport because you didn't realize it was there before you bought your house? Natural habitat happens in a riverbed, yes they need to work on clearing it out of both brush and transients, but firebugs, come on Jean, I have been in North County 46 years and never seen a fire bug, but I'd like to come over, drink a little moonshine and watch them if I could

To NCTimes wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:59 PM:Are the picture & stories on your home page the same as yesterday because nothing new has happened in the world, state, county, cities? Was the Letters to Editor section also not on your home page for the same reason? Did your web designer take a day off? I bet your blog editor is here today & having a field day - only 7 comments as of 1 p.m.? Unheard of!

Oh Please wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:19 PM:Darrell Beck: This guy should have given Czeh for what he wrote or for what was written about him. Nice cut and pace job.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:32 PM:The published letter from Darrell Beck repeats his tired refrain of regurgitating oil company propaganda, showing himself to be just another ... IGNORANT victim of the DUMBING DOWN of science education in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE by the Big Oil Bullies and pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.
It is always the same vain repetition, over and over: big bad scientists trying to scare people and control the world and are making gazillions of bucks fooling and scaring people. The gullible dupes who fall for this diversion from how the Big Oil Bullies are actually raking in huge bucks and controlling domestic and foreign policy right from the White House, are the same ones who fell for the distraction from the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan, so the Big Oil Bullies could take over the oil fields of Iraq and, whaddayaknow, churn out no-bid contracts to their oil cronies.
C'mon, Beck and the others, tell us exactly how you got to know so much more than real scientists.
Tell us exactly where all the multi-millionaire control-freak power-hungry scientists are hiding.
I am so disgusted by these gullible dupes who believe all the propaganda of those who are bleeding them dry and emptying their wallets every time they fill up their, hahahahahaha, SUV's (Suckers' Unnecessary Victimization).

Post 10:33am; re-post 1:32pm

Editor: I support free speech and don't object to your printing Beck's repetitive drivel. The best response to bad speech is more good speech. But if you are going to print this stuff, then please have the decency and professionalism not to censor responses that do not violate posted guidelines.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:35 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:19 PM:
So, the great war lord, GWB, invaded Iraq short of divisions, short of reserves and on credit. Heck of a job.

Where is the real raoul wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:37 PM:To the raoul imposter who says that the private companies are supplying the demand that the military can no longer do because of its size, I demand you apologize to the real sdraoul. Why it was only a couple of weeks ago that the real sdraoul insisted in no uncertain terms that our military has had no trouble whatsoever recruiting people, that they are meeting their quotas and are in absolutely fine shape. BTW, I was against Clinton paying Halliburton exorbitant fees as I am against Bush doing so. Anf that was before I read about the shoddy electrical work that has been killing and maiming our kids. BTW #2: According to Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have. Well, apparently not! You use the army you have and then pay top dollar for lousy work to the army you DON'T have. Disgraceful.

to He Said part two wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:53 PM:He Said was skeptical of McCain's positions on women's issues because they were reported by the NY Times. I just looked at Vote Smart's site. This is a non-partisan site which describes how all members of Congress, candidates, etc vote, how they "score" among interest groups and issue groups. They also offer candidates a "political courage test", asking them to respond to multiple-choice questions about the issues of the day. For the first time in his career, McCain refuses to take the test now that he is a presidential candidate. Women's groups (including the NOW, the American Association of Univesrity Women, Business and Professional Women, and others) consistantly have given McCain abysmal "scores" for representing the interests of women. You can see that this is not just so-called "radical feminist" organizations like NOW, but also BUSINESS and PROFESSIONAL women, who are probably conservative in general. I'm convinced. Any woman who votes for McCain is a masochist of some kind. Or uninformed. The record is crystal clear: John McCain is no friend of women. Please: look it up yourself. Look at his voting record yourself. Decide for yourself based on your own best interests and values.

Chris to to chris wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:00 PM:As for your last post for yesterday just more smoke and mirrors. What is my favorite news source that Soros backs. You don't know my news source because you don't pay any attention to what I say only try to belittle me. Yes I hate the warmonger and militay worshipers we have become. We have done far more damage and killed far more people in our history than anyone else. Spare me all the bull about grey areas. ... The difference between me and you is that I condem all atrocities whereas you only condemn atrocities done by others and not those done by us. I concentrate on the U.S. because even many of those atrocities committed by other have their roots in what we have done. Just spare me the bull and do your homework before you dare come out here and chalenge my history. I hate the conservatives who talk out both sides of their mouth and our military who we glorify when they go and do their ... deeds. Grey areas. Bull.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:41 PM:Washington -- Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on U.S. military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal Army documents.

Bill wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:54 PM:So what happened to John Kerry was in 2004 was character assassination?

Huh?

Kerry dared his fellow vets to "bring it on" and they did by exposing him for the fraud that he is.

Kerry is the one that never quite explained himself and thats why he is seen as less than a veteran.


But to insult the American people and their intelligence?

How liberal.

I guess the American people werent as smart as liberals were in figuring things out huh?

How condescending.

"SWIFT BOATING" is just another liberal catch phrase covering up excuses for why America doesnt trust Democrats in power.

800 votes in Montana is all that seperated Madam Speaker from being just another democrat.

John McCain is a real war hero.

Lets see someone swift boat him.

Get a Grip wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:02 PM:John McCain is a real war hero.
No one wishes to swift boat John McCain. Please name any democrat that has questioned his honor or his service to our country?

Oh Bill wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:05 PM:Jeez, we are a little testy today aren't we? I am aware of no one that criticizes John McCain's war record, or that denies that his experiences as a POW were heroic. I'm certainly a liberal and I wouldn't say otherwise. On the other hand, there are aspects of McCain's war experiences that trouble me. When the napalm and other munitions on his ship accidentally exploded, killing and maiming many of his peers, McCain saw up close for the first time what his bombs did to human bodies and lives. While I appreciate and even salute his sense of duty, getting back in that bomber after witnessing this, it does make me wonder. When interviewed on 60 Minutes, McCain admitted that he had dropped such bombs on women and children, and that this made him a war criminal. That's war, I guess. People do monstrous things. Was it heroic to napalm villages? Yes and no. Yes, he did his missions risking danger for a cause he truly believed in. No, he exterminated villages, burnt babies, caused horrific suffering. Both. Does any of his military experience have anything to do with the kind of President he'd make? Not to me, not in the least. He's been a true hero. He's been a true monster. That's war. That's why you only should GO to war when you have no other choice.

Trust and power wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:30 PM:Bill says Americans don't trust Democrats in power. I don't know about that, but it's pretty obvious that Americans learn they shouldn't have trusted Republicans in power. Even while being impeached, Bill Clinton's approval ratings were 2-3 times Bush's. (And BTW, Bill, regardless of John Kerry's actual military record, there can be no question that while a candidate, he underwent steady, coordinated, underhanded character assassination. Remember? His hair? His sailboarding? His military record being compared unfavorably to Bush's...who has also never come clean on his life of years past. No, Bill, I don't know or care what actually went on when Kerry was in Nam, but it's irrelevent: he still was victimized by character assassination. I wish you guys would admit this instead of pretending the issue is how big a cut he got on the way to a purple heart.)

He Said to Trust and Power wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:11 PM:Your comments are right on. Additionally, he came under fire because he was married to a wealthy woman. Sound familiar? Some people will go to any lengths to achieve their goals. Most candidates don't demean themselves by participating in rubbish. Only their followers. Can you imagine Obama wanting to associate with someone who puts forward the following premise: " I'm convinced. Any woman who votes for McCain is a masochist of some kind. Or uninformed."

Blame the messenger wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:35 PM:It looks like DD Wiz has blown a gasket today by going after D. Beck who is merely the messenger relaying facts about the global warming hoax. Apparently Mr. Wiz is beginning to see the global warming theory crumble before his eyes and is starting to panic because he has absolutely NO PROOF of the global warming THEORY other than Man-made computer models. No proof other than phony temperatures allegedly extracted from tree rings and ice cores. No proof that CO2 is harmful other than "peer reviewed" opinions by a few buds who get together at places like Bali and agree to agree on their contrived theories.

Thirty one thousand scientists now say global warming is a hoax and the list is growing daily. With fuel prices going up by the minute, more and more people are jumping off the hot air band-wagon. It looks like Mr. Wiz will soon be all alone howling at the moon blaming a theory called global warming on big oil and conservatives against science.

To Chris wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:53 PM:You have proudly stated before that you get your news from Democracy Now, and you may not believe this but I actually watched it to see how they report the news. You bash America, and demonize conservatives, but watching DN it was obvious that you are just regurgitating what they feed you.

Concerned One wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:55 PM:Thank you John Harris for a little humor and Herbert Pairitz for a little insight into the price of oil. I've been reading some interesting articles on oil that include many little discussed facts about the oil market. I won't go into them now because I know DD and Greenenergy will want to jump all over the facts because they definitely do not support what those two have been selling here. I'll just leave a couple of little tid bits. 1. America's largest oil company, owned mostly by 401ks and pension funds, is the 14th largest oil company in the world. 2. 40% of the oil we used in 2007 came from the U.S. 3. The main reason we are paying more for gas is that we are not using our own resources. Now, that said, let's all drive a little slower and plan our trips a little better. Regards, C-1.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:02 PM:With 31,000 scientists saying global warming is a hoax, we have a consensus that must be accepted by naysayers such as DD Wiz.

Alf wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:03 PM:Well, "hardtack" at 12:20PM, how right you are. There are currently only 2 sources of income for government of these here United States - 1) borrow and 2) the people. Some say that business contributes, but business gets its money from where? From the people who buy the product(s) of business. Taxes from businesses are simply taxes from the people "once or twice removed". So this "stimulus" money came from 2 sources, the very people who pay taxes and borrowing. Since we are running a deficit and borrowing money, that "stimulus" check was written on the backs of future generations who will have to pay back what was borrowed PLUS INTEREST! Some "giveaway", huh? I believe that was your point! Regards, Alf.

To Get a grip wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:23 PM:How about Wes Clark that said that because McCain did;t command a unit in combat, that his leadership wasn't much. If that isn't questioning his military service, I guess I don't understand the question.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:38 PM:Blame the messenger at 4:35 p.m. and Floyd the Scientist (not) at 5:02 p.m. are marching in anti-science lock-step, repeating an unsupported "31,000" mantra.
DDWIZ has repeatedly cited peer-reviewed scientific journals as the basis for his statements.
Messenger and Floyd cite nothing, though I'm betting they could find a few renegade scientific traitors who got paid big bucks from oil companies to make up the same kind of propaganda that the big tobacco companies used to cite proving cigarettes are really good for you.
Messenger and Floyd are the ones wallowing in name calling and attacking the messenger who can document his claims with evidence from the real scientists that these anti-science extremists dismiss as "peer reviewed opinions by a few buds who get together at places like Bali."
What a crock. If you are alleging scientific fraud, cite the dates, times and places and provide some real evidence. You obviously don't have the slightest idea how the peer reviewed scientific process works.
DDWIZ is right. You are victims in the conservative war against science.
Either that or you have something to gain from the deception of oil company propaganda.

Eppur Si Muove wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:46 PM:Just two facts make Global Warming questionable: 1) The earth has not warmed for a decade, and 2) The vaunted predictive computer model on which Gore bases his apocalyptic view, did not predict the ten-year mini-cooling period.

So, where do we go from here? We question. Kool-aide drinkers on both sides, aside, this is not a settled issue.

There is LOTS of money on the table for such debates – not the $100 million Gore is reputed to have made in selling snake o…excuse me, “carbon offsets” – but large amounts of money, at any rate.

Gore has not even acknowledged the offers. He is too busy collecting huge speaking fees and selling sn…ahh, carbon offsets.

But could we hear from DD how good those predictive computer models are, if they missed 10 years of cooling, or is that an inconvenient truth?

hardtack wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:47 PM:Alf @ 5:03 PM : You nailed it!

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:17 PM:The post from "Eppur Si Muove" (5:46pm) misstates the scientific record. We do not know if this is intentional deception in support of Big Oil propaganda, or if this pseudo sophisticate is merely another victim of the propaganda of others.
The earth has warmed every single year. The statement that "the earth has not warmed for a decade" is FALSE. What happened is that, due to a specific event, there was a brief period early last year where the global temperature dropped to aberrant levels equal to a decade earlier. As predicted, this was a brief, aberrant departure from long-term trends, not a decade-long cooling and, also as predicted, the warming trend has snapped back right to where it was before and continues its onward, upward trend.
"Eppur's" premise is flawed to the point of utter dishonesty, thus the conclusions have no merit whatsoever.
Is this ignorace or intentional deception?

Eppur wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:23 PM:The price of oil continues to slide – and no, ALL of the credit does not go to Bush for his Monday announcement, there is a growing surplus caused by conservation and Brazils’ new oil fields are a factor – but the catalyst was the Bush announcement.

Now, if we can just get the recalcitrant Democratic leadership to stop their obstruction (but Green=Obstruction,) so that is just the norm until the American public revolts.

The Democrats are hoping the public will just adjust to a new but higher norm. They may be right.

This from today’s WSJ: “Crude-oil prices fell for a fourth straight day, ending down 41 cents at $128.88 a barrel in New York. The commodity dropped 11.2% for the week, its biggest weekly percentage decline since December 2004.”

to to get a grip wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:25 PM:Please look at what Clark actually said. He said that he admired McCain's record in the military. He said McCain was a hero. He also said that his military command experience was not preparation or qualification or pertinent to the Presidency. When you read what he actually said, you learn that those who tell you what he said are spinning. Clark very obviously has nothing but respect for McCain's service. His words say so loud and clear. But he also says that this heroic service is not training that is very pertinent to being President, which sure as heck is true!

Focal Point wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:35 PM:To get a grip: This is what Gen Clark said.""Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot _ and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam _ that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."
The same could have been said of Nixon, Kennyedy, LBJ, GWB etc. Gen Clark did not disparge the quality of the service rendered. Gen Clark questioned the scope of the service and the command experience. What he is said is true.

Mother Goose wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:40 PM:Eppur[-] wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:23 PM Or just maybe, oil is following the old axiom, "of what goes up must come down."

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:47 PM:The post from "Eppur Si Muove" (5:46pm) invites some additional comment.
Is this yet another nom de keyboard for the "computer chameleon" formerly known as "Reardon"?
This absurd claim, repeated here, of ten years of cooling, was first raised back on April 4 by the person then posting as "Reardon" who subsequently "cut and ran" when someone usurped his screen name, a legitimate annoyance to be sure, but something most regular participants have had to put up with at one time or another.
"Reardon" cited the BBC article of 4-4-08 titled: "Global Warming Dips This Year." (Google it! Don't trust me or "Reardon" or whatever name the chameleon is using today -- read it for yourself.) Yet, as I pointed out at that time, "Reardon's" own BBC source says that the last ten years have been the hottest ever recorded, and that this year's single dip to the same level as 1998 is a one-time, temporary aberration caused by a La Nina condition.
Again, don't trust me or "Reardon" or "Eppur Si Muove" or whatever. READ IT YOURSELF, then you will understand why "Reardon" has to keep changing his nom de plume in embarrassed humiliation.

Realist wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:48 PM:As for global warming, I do not dispute that man has made a negative impact on the environment. The question is HOW MUCH. From the articles I've read, technological innovation from private investors is the way to go. If we were able to phase out CFC's, we can certainly switch to better sources of energy (such as solar and nuclear power) and keep our money inside the U.S. instead of giving it to unstable dictators. As a result, the impact on the environment will drop drastically. -Realist

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:53 PM:30 or so years ago, the cry was "global cooling" and predictions of icebergs in LA harbor "in ten years". Now it's global warming and the icebergs are going to melt "in ten years". While all of this political activity is happening the climate cycle continues serenely on, cooling and warming ever so slightly along seasonal patterns, even as the doomsayers predict death and destruction "in ten years" every other decade or so. If you really want to get excited about something, research the year 2012 in the Mayan calendar. It's only four years away and there's a growing consensus on what will happen. The global warming zealots will feel right at home.

a test for to get a grip wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:01 PM:OK. You have now been given the actual remarks that Clark made. You can see, if you are brave enough to look, that your understanding of what he said was erroneous. This could be a big moment for you, "to get a grip". You have what you thought, and you have the factual truth. You see the difference. You could say to yourself: "hey, I was mislead about what Clark said! Who mislead me that way? I wonder what else they've mislead me about? Hey!" Have you the integrity and courage to face this issue? To look at where you get your information and what this means about other information you get from the same sources? Can you rise to the occasion and change your mind when the facts make it clear that you need to? Can you be really brave and question your sources? The ball's in your court, to get a grip. What are you gonna do with it?

Greenergy wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:20 PM:Floyd the scientist (not) unbelievably repeats the same mantra that he has had his nosed rubbed in so many times before. This thing about 30 years ago being concerned about global cooling?
Oh dear! I know Wiz has covered this several times before (and be my guest to jump in again and do a much more thorough job) but, my goodness!
Again, and please pay attention this time Floyd, 30 years ago we were seeing higher highs and lower lows and, when the observations were new, scientists were not sure if it portended global cooling or warming. The peer-reviewed papers were debate and diccussion of conflicting reports, unlike the consensus of today, after 30 years of examining the data.
As Wiz has said before, are you still using the 8-track tape, Atari computer, and Arpanet modem connection of 30 years ago?
And what is Floyd the scientist's (not) alternative to real science? Mayan witch doctors' predictions!
Way to go, scientist Floyd! Is this a joke? The war on science continues!

hardtack wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:25 PM:So, Alf, let me tweek my scenario, expressed @ 12:20 PM, just slightly.

Imagine that the guy standing in line was Bill Gates, who everyone in the store recognized. The guy behind him picks his pocket, taking $1000. Gates gets to the check-out counter and comes up two dollars short. He is embarrassed. He apologizes to the clerk while everyone in line waits impatiently. Finally, the guy who picked his pocket says: "Here, Bill, take the $2 – it's on me. Have a good day." Everyone thinks: gee, what a jerk that guy is – giving Bill Gates $2. Doesn’t he know he is rich?

Three D wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:29 PM:I know the apocalyptic evangelicals have been saying that the whole environmental thing is irrelevant since the second coming will come and make the issue irrelevant (in contrast with more practical Christians who acknowledge the responsibility of environmental "stewardship"), but Floyd the Scientist at 6:53 p.m. drops the bar to the lowest level yet. The Mayan calendar (or some modern Anglo's interpretation of it) says the world will end? So this means it is OK to pollute and ignore climate change? Are you kidding me?
Sorry, but this is just the most bizarre perversion of religion against science I have ever seen.
And I've seen a lot.

Regarding Floyd wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:35 PM:Floyd's favorite slogan is "consensus is politics, not science". So we know that everything Floyd says about so-called scientists is politics, as is everything Floyd says about GW. Is Floyd actually employed by any agency or University to study the real thing? No, of course not. So everything Floyd says, by his own definitions, is not science, but politics. If the leading national and international organizations in the pertinent scientific fields are, according to Floyd, just politics, then what are we to make of Floyd's claims, white coat or not? Simple. Floyd defines himself and his remarks about science as completely irrelevant and biased. No reason to read Floyd, is there...Floyd? I guess we just have to choose between the politics of the best scientific organizations in the world and the politics of Floyd. Hmmm, let me think on this awhile.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:44 PM:Once again you miss the point. Over the decades, there have been many predictions of death and destruction "in ten years" with all the pomp and circumstance exhibited by the current global warming fanatics. Somehow the predicted destruction never occurs but the leaders score well in the political and financial domains until their followers figure out they've been bamboozled again. If you think global warming is caused by mankind (and especially the emissions from their SUVs), how do you explain the global warming seen on Mars where no humans (or SUVs) exist? (If this keeps up, I'll need to wear my WHITE LAB COAT so you'll know it's a scientific discussion!)

Mars wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:30 PM:Floyd The Scientist[-] wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:44 PM Mars is not in the same orbit or distance from the sun as Earth. Why don't you ask one some planet in a different galaxy is or is not warming.
Go ahead and argue about weather and climate and warming or what have you. Open your eyes, the planet is changing, the planet's weather is changing and quite possibly the climate.

To DD Wiz wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:47 PM:"Eppur's" premise is flawed to the point of utter dishonesty, thus the conclusions have no merit whatsoever.
Is this ignorace or intentional deception?" It's Reardon. My guess is Number 2.

Interesting wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:49 PM:Interesting that Reardon blames the Democrats for obstructionism when today the Republicans blocked a bill to force Oil Companies to drill on land they already lease. Expected no less from you, R.

An idea for Floyd wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:40 PM:You're right, Floyd. "Science" consensus is not always right. Tell you what. Make a list of the important things science has been right about (since, say, 1800) and a list of things consensus science has been wrong about. See which list is longer. Then tell us how you are going to bet earth's life one the short side. No cheating, now, Floyd. (To help you, go ahead and put on your lab coat)

Reardon wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:43 PM:I hope that all of the "liberals" -- who theoretically abjure personal attacks and preach "tolerance" have noted the personal attacks on Reardon.

But Reardon just checked his income ledger, and none of those names are on it, so he cares not -- except to point out hypocrisy.

Chris to to Chris wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:50 PM:Well let's see. I first heard about the real story on Jesica Lynch about a week or two before the real story came out. I first heard about the military paying off the Iraqis to not shoot at them before it came out in the media. I heard about the White Phosphorus and DN had a Pentagon spokesperson denying the story and the next day the Pentagon confermed it. I heard about the 47 civilians killed in Afghanistan on DN and just today in the NCTimes it was confermed that our military was lying about the dead being insurgents. I heard about the sham rescue of Jessica Lynch on DN before the real story came out in the media. There are more but a lot of what I say comes from other sources like books. Now I also get several sources conferming what I found in the first place. You say you watched DN. Well I dare you to tell me what story is not true. Amy Goodman always tries to get both sides of a story. But I know that trying to get through to you is a wast becase anything that disrupts the mythology you have ingrained in you, you just dismiss. No DN is only one source and ther have been numerous instances where I heard something there and sought to verify it elsewhere. By the way you still didn't say where I get my information that had anything to do with Soros. No you are the one who reguratates all these right wing lies.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:38 PM:Clinton disbands ten full Army divisions. The size of the Army is set for a generation. And there are some who complain because the government turns to private contractors.

The size of the Army is set by CONGRESS, not the President. As Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the Army you have.

The President has proposed the Army and Marines grow, but Congress is slow to act.

I guess my critics here don't know the Constitution that says that Congress shall "raise and maintain" the Army.

The emasculated Army did a fine job of winning (with the Marines) the war in three weeks. Of course, it took the Marines to fight three hundred miles from water for the first time in history and it was the Marines, not the army, that reached Baghdad first.

One msut understand that all troops were gung ho.

In the first quarter of this year, the Marines were at 142% of their recruting goals.

esteban wrote on Jul 19, 2008 4:27 AM:Holy %#$%^%^% I agree with Crews!!!!!! Someone lock me up!!!!

esteban wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:01 AM:Chris, you are an idiot.

Alf wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:42 AM:Well, "hardtack" at 7:25PM on the 18th, the answer is easy from a moral and ethical standpoint. Yes, everyone knows Bill Gates is rich, BUT the point is twofold, 1) to help the person who is "short" because that person needs help at that time no matter whether they are Bill Gates or John Q. Public and 2) that the thief should return AT THE VERY LEAST part of the money which he has stolen. The thief, not being recognized as a thief, is still a thief. Perception is, indeed, an interesting thing. Regards, Alf.

scientists wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:47 AM:What 31,000 scientists claim that burning fossil carbon is not the cause of greenhouse warming of our planet? I wanted to know. So I googled and found THE LIST with supposedly 31000 names of presumed scientists.

THE LIST contained no identifying information about the names. No information about what institutions they work for or what their degrees are in or even if the names are real at all.

I tried googling several of the names on THE LIST. Some names had NO GOOGLE hits whatsoever. One name I found a hit on was for a professor at CSU, Chico. A school I am familiar with as I am an alumni.

At the CSU, Chico website this name was listed as a PE professor which I presume means Physical Engineering and not Physical Education. There are hundreds of professors at CSU, Chico with doctorates in a plethora of subjects. I only found one CSU Chico professor’s name on THE LIST, pretty poor ratio of CSU Chico professors signing THE LIST. In fact if he is the only one, he represents less than ¼ of ONE percent of all professors at CSU, Chico. Why didn’t more CSU Chico professors sign THE LIST if global warming is a hoax? Why doesn’t THE LIST identify the institutions of the signers so one could easily verify the veracity of the list? Could this famous LIST just be a hoax?

I also wondered if THE LIST were not a hoax what would a PE professor know about geology, climatology, meteorology, botany or biology. Those are the five scientific professions that have documented the most effects of the current warming trends. Shouldn’t signers of such an important LIST be educated in the area they are expressing an “expert” opinion?

I decided to contact the CSU, Chico PE professor in question. I emailed him months ago and asked him if he signed THE LIST and if so what made him believe that the documented phenomenon of human caused global warming was in error. So far no answer from him. It has been over three months since my original email. I wonder why he has not answered.

Perhaps he did not sign the petition and someone just put his name on the list without his knowledge or he is ashamed that he signed the list in the first place.

How many other named individuals on THE LIST are too ashamed to answer simple email queries? Or which names are simply made up? Or whose names have been added by someone else and not the named party? How can anyone know? THE LIST contains no information about the signers, not who they are, where they are, when they signed, or even verification that they actually signed THE LIST themselves or even that they exist in the real world.

Why is any one impressed with THE LIST? Why would anyone mention it on this blog? It looks and feels like a made up list. I would think any educated person would be ashamed to use something with so little substance in any argument.

flip raoul flop wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:50 AM:Poor raoul is getting dizzy from having to take both sides of an argument to defend his Commander in Chief. One minute, he's raving about how fantastic military recruiting is going, we can't sign enthusiastic youngsters up fast enough. The next minute he's explaining the shoddy work of electicians in Iraq and other privatized services: we don't have the military manpower, you see, to do those jobs so we are forced to outsource them. Flip. Flop.

slower wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:14 AM:Fascinating conversations all. One suggestion, however, I would like to offer to all writers. Imagine that you were sitting at a table with two other people. One of those is the person to whose last posting you are responding, and the other person is an observer who has not yet voiced a position on the subject. That other person represents the large number of other readers of this forum, and who may be looking for good reasons to form a particular opinion. Now, in a face to face discussion before an unknown audience, would you ascribe motivations to the person across the table with whom you disagreed without asking him or her first “What brought you to that conclusion”, or “Are there alternative explanations”, or “What evidence would you accept”? It would seem that the reasons for our beliefs are far more important than the beliefs themselves, and must therefore be understood and addressed before the beliefs, if detrimental, can be altered.

richard wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:46 AM:When John Kerry's war record was attacked by people who never met him in Vietnam, I lookedd up the straight goods from two sources, the U.S. Navy and a biography of Kerry by an observer. The critics were nothing but jealous partisans. Their whining spread so far and wide that Kerry was 'unAmerican' and 'unqualified' that people actually believed it. So the U.S. Navy reexamined all the details of Kerry's two tours in Vietnam for nearly a full year. The final decision was that ALL his honors and medals stand. Bush never apologized of course nor have the accusers. Amazingly people now whine about Clarke's statement that military service, no matter what it is, is not required to be President. Apparently if you are a registered D, then your statements, even when true, will b e denounced anyway. And by the way, obviously a White House pre-requisite is not military service. Bush evaded the Vietnam draft for God's sake and was pushed to the head of the long line of people who wanted into the Guard, and yet he still commands our military around. Now I hear he's agreed to a "timeline horizon". As though this isn't doubletalk as usual. What is a time horizon? Sorry, to me it's not a horizon at all, even though Maliki wants a timetable for withdrawal to appease his citizens who also want it. The surge isn't working either, since Rich Lowry's column made it clear it will only continue working if that high level of soldiers remains there to insure it. That proves the surge never worked in the first place, it merely rearranged violent people who don't want us in their country to some other place. Al Qaeda was invited by the way into Iraq by citizen Sunnis who feared our invasion, and it is likely AQ will be sent out later if we left. Bush-McCain will never accept such facts, even though it was an English General who served in Basra who discovered this.

Not too Slow wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:07 AM:While I mostly agree with your suggestion, slower, there are people like sdraoul and a few others who would rather distort facts or fabricate their supposed facts to support a very rigid, usually irrational, position. Even when these people are caught in their invented facts, even when they are called to task for their out and out falsehoods, their response is not one of contrition, instead they resort to name-calling and insults or change the subject. Many of the people who comment are open to new information and may change their view based on that new information. Some of the people who comment here are so set in their wrong position that no amount of proof to the contrary will change their mind. They are usually those who base their position on religion and emotion or those who want to be at war, they must have war, war with someone, anyone, war somewhere, anywhere, just so long as there is war. Lest we not forget, there are also those to whom there is no excuse, no provocation, no crime, nothing vile enough, nothing despicable enough to go to war.

great job Richard wrote on Jul 19, 2008 3:37 PM:Ahh, Richard jumps into the Kerry "Swift Boat" matter with the best available facts and puts the it to rest. Or one would think it was put to rest. "Not too Slow" admires, as s/he should, people willing to learn and change their views as the facts become known. One would think that among adults with any degree of integrity, we'd have seen the last of anyone defending the Swift Boaters or continuing to insult Kerry's military career. The closest we can come to the truth is now out there, known, unambiguous. So let's grab some popcorn and a brewski and watch the yahoos continue to say the exact same things about Kerry and the heroic, "truth telling" Swift Boaters. In the context of an adult discussion, this sort of behavior is obviously dispicable. A conversation has to be based on the principle that everyone respects the facts, logic, and the truth, and perhaps even that when we see such truths tell us we are wrong, we must graciously admit it and be glad to have become more learned. Not these yahoos. C'mon raoul, Ron, Chuck, esteban, Mike A, and the rest: tell us the "truth" about John Kerry's military career. Can't wait. (Then they'll say that people who don't read these clowns make that choice because of a difference of opinion. No! It's a difference of honesty and integrity.)

Hatch wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:21 PM:SDRaoul, I think I owe you an apology. I mistook something you said a few weeks ago and ranted about you. You are not only a patriot. You are one that thinks.

The Other Science wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:19 PM:scientists
[-] wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:47 AM: Global warming of the Earths surface by man's auto's and factories, is like saying, "Everyone on the observation deck of the Empire State Building must dawn a breathing mask", Simply because a poorly tuned moped puttered by the front of the building at street level. It's all about cycles people.