He Said wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:39 AM:Are Ann Scott and James Anderman bored? Are they looking for another nitpicking cause? Hopefully Obamacan won't pick up on these seemingly important issues and somehow blame McCain for them.

Poor Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:28 AM:Yesterday's discussion of the "debate" among physicists about global warming was telling. Ron could hardly be contained, so anxious was he to "report" on one of the major scientific societies "changing its stance". But, alas, Hank went and actually read the primary source and (no surprise here) Ron had it completely wrong. OK, so this is a fine moment to test Ron's capacity for humility and integrity. Will "what'd I tell you?" Ron have the maturity, courage, and honesty to write one of his typically long posts confessing his error of judgment, his jumping to a conclusion, his getting the story 180 degrees wrong, perhaps even admitting a deliberate misrepresentation? Or will he be his usual self? Today will be, for the regulars here, an education in what Ron is becoming. I wait with baited breath. (And, more importantly, thanks to Hank yesterday for doing the journalistic legwork that is so often absent here. Excellent summary of what actually was going on in that debate on GW and on the physics groups actual position. I hope that Hank chimes in here more often. The facts are truly refreshing, Hank. Great job!)

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:43 AM:Here's a quote from todays news: "New layoff filings jump as companies cut back workforces". Just as the 11% approval rating Congress tells the American people to shove it on drilling for oil to relieve the crisis, and instead, they invite in the the dont ask, dont tell racketeers to force policy on the military. And who do we have to thank-- Pelosi, Reid and Hussein

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:47 AM:I see Naploean Aguirre has now proclaimated San Diego as a foreclosure free zone, and sued Countrywide. LIberal borrowers came in, lied about their income, read and signed the loan papers and are now $150,000 upside down on their mortages and the pip-squeak blames it on the lenders and demands that the loans be written down to current market value. See how liberalism has destroyed this country. Its always someone else's fault with liberals

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:50 AM:>>>to allow the building of 3,000 homes outside the General Plan 2020 guidelines, a new two-mile road to nowhere>>>>
Here's another liberal who has his home and wants to deny property owners the right tho build homes.

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:03 AM:As a matter of fact, I do know how peer-review is supposed to work, it is sad because the process has been taken over by a few extremists jealously guarding their own theories, "Hank" {Jul 23}
@4:17 PM. The claim that this post is not peer-reviewed is polticial in nature. The Gatekeepers in the higher realms of the oligarchy at APS,
as pointed out by "Ron Watcher" {Jul 23} @8:13 PM: "It is true that Monckton ... HE WAS INVITED BY APS TO PRESENT!, ... including... Monckton's claim is that his submission was peer-reviewed..."

What you clearly have here, is a group in the top tier, the elite, disallowing open debate, and stopping any dissent.
And this is how it is done by most elite journals. The elite gatekeepers, generally pulled from the scientific community, also have a dog in the fight, and because of this, they will choose not to peer-review a dissenting viewpoint, and force the scientist to publish in a lower tier publication, which they then can point to as being either not worthy, or not peer-reviewed.
In short the game has been fixed by the true believers, who gain fame and monetarily.

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:30 AM:I wonder if Hussein will plagarize today and use the phrase "Ick bin ein Berliner" or whether he will just wave his staff for the Rhine River to part, as the women swoon and faint?? I wonder what will happen when the German Chancellor and then Sarkozy both tell Hussein how much economic growth they've enjoyed since slashing taxes, and by building nuclear plans. When he hears that, he's liable to blurt out: "Ick bin ein Cubano and Venezuela-er, or Marxist-er"

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:37 AM:Here's the newest gig by those who are upside down on their home. Now, they dont think they should have to pay anything on their loans. The banks are 6-8 months behind on finishing foreclosures, so homeowners have merely stopped paying altogether, yet will continue to live in the home until they get thrown out. Yes, they are the same ones demanding a bailout, a big payraise and a big benefit and pension increase, as they pray for higher taxes on their employer and $7 a gallon gas and refuse nuclear.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:58 AM:To Poor Ron: In 1998 Michael Mann, and American physicist published his “hockey stick” graph that showed a huge increase in temperature as a result of recent CO2 and its massive effect on “global warming.” It was so convincing that the 2001 IPCC published it in their UN analysis.

Then in 2003, two Canadian scientists showed that regardless of what information was fed into Mann’s computer model, the Mann algorithm returned the hockey stick effect. Regardless of the input, the hockey stick was the output!

Oooops!

This is the greatest exposed hoax of my lifetime, and it was casually covered, but there may well be more to come.

Then last August, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to withdraw his contention that the hottest year of the 20th Century was 1998, but it was 1934, and that four of the 10 hottest years of the 20th Century were in the 1930s.

Oooops.

Now, it is well reported, that there has been no NET warming since 1998, and actual slight cooling since 2002, which more closely correlates warming/cooling with the sun’s radiation than CO2 – but the jury on either theory will await several more years of accumulated data. The solar effect is in a weakening pattern, and that MAY mean a cooling effect will continue. We shall see.
Measured results trump predictions every time.

This is not settled science. By definition, science is not in a “stable state” but rather inquiry is the means by which it is studied. Monckton WAS INVITED to present to the APS, and his piece did exactly what it purported to do – kick off the debate, because there are many physicists who disagree with the premise.

The arguments will continue, but only the actual measurements will prove the arguments true or false.

Reputations, and arguments will fall to reality. Just like the Piltdown Man!

Poor Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:59 AM:Thanks for your 7:03 post, Ron. It was everything that I expected. You are truly hopeless, and now hopelessly exposed. If anyone is left who reads Ron's posts, I can't imagine why. G'bye Ron.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:00 AM:Favor of Offshore Drilling, posted early today 2:05 a.m., at the end of yesterday's posts
You seem to be missing the point here.
Yes, anything that increases supply of something puts downward pressure on pricing.
In the same way, any time you throw ice on a fire, you help extinguish the fire. But there is a difference between putting a bucket of ice on a small campfire and throwing a single ice cube into hell. Technically, the ice cube in hell did lower rather than raise temperatures, but the difference is not all that noticeable. The same thing applies to other addictions, if you supply more drugs, the price goes down, but is that really what you want?
Similarly, if oil produced from federal leases - PUBLICLY OWNED LAND - is restricted to a single market, our own domestic needs, it is a big boost in a limited market. If allowed to float in the entire world market, the result is far less.
So you are evading the key issues:
a. Why on earth should the people of the United States who own the land allow OUR oil to go first to others who bid up the price instead of requiring that it go first to ourselves. Only oil profiteers could possibly find this palatable.
b. Instead of addressing only supply, why not demand? If there is reduced demand for our addiction to oil, by having lots of people switch to other energy sources, the price will also drop.

chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:09 AM:>>>If anyone is left who reads Ron's posts, I can't imagine why. G'bye Ron.>>> Boy, I bet he's crestfallen over that.

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:15 AM:>>>So I and the rest of hard-working taxpayers would appreciate it if Mr. Bilbray would stop using our money to try to put one over on the voters of North County>>>>> Well, Mr hard worker, pehaps you should look into how the liberals have turned the CleanWater Act into a liberal racketeering agenda. The City of Encinitas has clearly used it as a source of a payraise, and benefit and pension increase, and not for clean beaches and runoff

to Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:25 AM:There are believers on both sides. I don't care about either bunch, only the science. Ron's idea that all the good scientific journals are controlled by an elite conspiracy is ... Having worked in science for a good chunk of my life and knowing the process of journal article publication intimately, his nonsense is transparent to me. Because he posits a conspiracy, I know there is no point in arguing with him, since the best I could do would be to be accused of being in on it. Because I only care about the science, I am quite aware that the matter is unsettled. In fact the IPCC says clearly that it IS unsettled, that their bet on human contribution is up to 90% but by no means 100%. I am not in a field related to this issue, so I have no choice but to go by what the best people in the field say. At the moment, they say that they are willing to bet on human contribution to GW. So that's what I would bet on, knowing that as data comes in and theories evolve, this could change. I'd be thrilled to learn that this idea has been shown to be false. My God, are you kidding? What a relief it would be to know that the predicted catastrophes will not happen! But for now, based on best guesses from the premier scientific organizations, I have to do with that consensus or whatever you want to call it. I hope they are wrong and can find the data that proves it. But Ron, he's no more than an "atheist" in his little religious war, spouting any kind of nonsense, clearly based on ignorance or deceit, to make himself and his "side" sound correct. Totally bogus from top to bottom. It's embarrassing that anyone would take his posts on this topic seriously.

to Fact Checker PS wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:40 AM:I must add that you don't exactly come across as "Mr Objective" on the GW issue when you join the fray by saying, in effect, "Oooh, look! I found a scientist that's skeptical!" No, it shows that instead of being a Fact Checker, you're just another Fact Finder, another Cherry Picker, having a fixed idea and then looking anywhere for something to back it up. That's quite disrespectful to science, you know. My suspicion about you is further confirmed by the Piltdown Man reference. In other words, you are saying that because there have been hoaxes in science (or terrible blunders), that somehow is of importance to the GW debate. Ridiculous, of course. The GW debate goes on, based on the research, and whether or not there was a Piltdown Man hoax has exactly zero to do with it. Please: change your posting name to something more accurate, like "True Believer". LOL

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:43 AM:The published letter from Al Tschaeche continues to tout nuclear energy as a safe, efficient alternative to dependence on foreign oil. However, Tschaeche seems to overlook some rather serious downsides:
The cost is enormous to build these behemoth plants, and it takes many years before they can come online. If the same money and time would be invested in rooftop solar and local wind, the increased production would come online gradually, starting immediately. Oh, but then you wouldn't have that central control that corporate utilities crave.
As to the safety issue, look to what the private sector says. Commercial insurance companies are in business to make money by insuring against manageable, predictable risks. Companies that produce solar and wind generating sources have no trouble getting normal commercial liability insurance. Yet not one private insurance company will insure nuclear plants, which have to operate under federal guarantees. When commercial companies agree that this is safe enough to profitably manage the risk, I'll be willing to listen to the safety issue.

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:43 AM:You know, it is simply amazing. We are often lectured by the liberal intelligensia about racism, and bigorty.
We are told that we must look to Martin Luther King, and to "judge a person based on the content of their charactor, and not by the color of their skin."

I agree with the sentiments of Martin Luther King. But sadly, those who claim to uphold the King mantle, are themselves the same people counting people by the color of their skin.

Hence, we have Joan O'Connor's letter today, regarding the hyphenating of America.

I don't think this is the King Model, yet those who'll say MLK out of one side of their mouths, will quickly point to "a group", based on skin color or ethnic origin.

The dividing and the conquering of America has been done by those who most claim to uphold the King mantle, yet they are frauds.
In America, we are individuals first, who later choose, or not choose to affiliate ourselves with a group.

So, the next time you hear anyone talk about the Latino's, or the African-American's, or any other group. Remember this, they are the one's who seek to seperate, then destroy any vestage of what America was supposed to be, and what is was designed to become.
And they have done so for very personal and petty reasons, usually fame & money.

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:44 AM:Watching Obama Pivot
[-] wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:27 PM:Ms. M -- Yes, I want that debate!
It is NO SECRET that McCain is a politician, he has, and will flip-flop.
How would you like to go about this. I suggest we post ALL of the "flip flops" and then we can discuss them. I have a very, very, very long list of McCains (he's really the king of Flip Flops) and it will take most of the morning then we can have a full debate once they are ALL posted. - Let me know if that works for you.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:45 AM:To To: All scientifically-oriented people are, by nature, neither believers or atheists, but agnostics. We have believers and atheists on this Blog.

I remain an agnostic on GW until the measurements are in. Right now, JPLs measurements for 5 years of ocean temperatures (our largest heat sink) using hundreds of remote diving robots, shows NO WARMING.

We shall see.

We interupt the Ron and Chuck Show wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:13 AM:...with a special announcement:

Whine all you like about liberals this and liberals that, and bolster conservatism all you want. Proclaim the greatness of liberals all you want, and say cute, clever things about how foolish conservatives are.

Stalward Liberals have never, and will never elect a President. Staunch Conservatives have never, and will never elect a President.

Presidents are elected by people who CARE ABOUT ISSUES NOT IDEOLOGY, AND USUALLY IT IS A SINGLE ISSUE...NAMELY THE ECONOMY. Hurting economies drive middle of the road voters for change. Its change from Republican to Democrat if the Republican President is unfortunate enough to be in office when things go south, and visa-versa for a Democrat.

These "real" conservatives and liberals don't have an issue they really care about. All they care is that their guy wins and the other guy loses--they've turned politics into Professional Wrestling.

Ask a california conservative the single biggest issue, and he is likely to say Immigration. But, its not a big issue to John McCain. And, in the end, McCain knows that it doesn't really matter, he himself could load up a pickup truck with illegals and conservatives would vote for him anyway.

Ask a california liberal the biggest issue, and he may say the need for alternative energy. But, if Obama was to say, "While we wait for alternative energy, we will begin drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara," the hapless liberal would vote for him anyway.

You see, its simple, once you filter out the noise caused from the ever flapping lips of liberals and conservatives, (or clicking of computer keys, apparent in this venue), conservatives and liberals have one huge thing in common. NEITHER ARE COMMITTED TO ANY ISSUE OR CAUSE EXCEPT MAKING FOOLS OUT OF THEMSELVES WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THEIR POLITICAL ADVERSARIES LOOK BAD.

As for the rest of us, while you guys go back and forth, we'll be out electing the next president. And, when its done, if your guy wins you won't even know it was us who brought him into office, and if your guy loses, you will be so busy blaming the conservative or liberal, that you won't be aware that it was us, the QUIET AND COMMITTED guys who threw your party out of office.

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM...REST ASSURED YOU HAVEN'T MISSED A THING, BECAUSE ITS THE SAME STORY EVERY DAY!

mt wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:15 AM:Writer Cooper has it right when it comes to Oceanside Mayoral election. The record for Chavez does not indicate responsible fiscal management skills. I think he voted to give Manchester 2.2 million for nothing...

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:16 AM:Did I use the word: Conspiracy? "to Fact Checker" @8:25 AM?
No, I did not. YOU used the word, I never said conspiracy, but I do know a little something about human nature, and how orgainzations works, even scientific organizations.

My point about the science has always been based on linkage, which is why the IPCC always uses the term: "Very Likely", in regards to anthropomorphic climate change. In short, they simply do not know how much. And I would venture to say, at least in regards to the IPCC, they really have not been interested in "other" causations, except human. I totally understand that the IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body. Yet it's importance is upheld as an equal to any other scientific body.

But, back to people, and human nature.
When anyone starts in any field, it is hoped by that particular person to accel in that profession. For a scientist, it's being a good scientist.
But all are still subject to the wants, wishes, desie, and frailties you & I hold. They are nothing special, except for their education, and hopefully their intellect.
In my own experience, When you move up the chain, so to speak, to management something different than science, it's takes organizational skills, it takes people management skills, and it take "taking the company position" skill. If you look at any organization, those who "manage" typically are better at managing & those skills, than they were at actual science. Typically, being a manager takes way time from real science, it naturally mandates other issues, usually resource management, than actually getting in and looking at raw data.
When you hold a group meeting, of differing viewpoints, it then becomes your job to seek compromise and consensus, to facilitate harmony within the group, and to post a single point of view. In short, you are the referee of things you are not intimately familiar with, yet are burdened with the decision making. This is where I am coming from, and this is exactly where the IPCC is coming from.

To come from the point of view, that the science is settled, because of an consensus on a theory not yet proved, is just plain wishful thinking.
As I have said, science is alway like looking through a microscope or a telescope, with other factors just beyond your ability to comprehend, or outside of the ability of our present day technology. Science is ever changing, as if should be. Skeptics should be allowed, and encouraged to poke, probe, and poke holes in theories once thought as settled science.
But this, sadly, is not the case. Unless you have your eyes closed, then I can not understand why you don't see this, for what it is. For example, the once thought elite scientific journal "Science", published an editorial stating point blank, "the debate is over."
Obviously, this is a consensus viewpoint reached within a managed structure. Not a "scientific" point of view, it is a democratic point of view.
In other words, a political point of view.
And one last thing...
Instead of ripping on scientists outside of the "mainstream", and callig them deniers, why don't you guy's ever call them Mavericks? Like you have John McCain, that is.. until he becomes an obstacle of your own political desires.
That is.

One for the Books wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:17 AM:There is a ballot measure in San Francisco to name a sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush. It's only fitting that it should be named for one who contributes so much of what that sort of plant processes.

Loves to Eat wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:24 AM:But, Sally McKenney, I love Hassenpfeffer, doesn't everyone?

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:26 AM:Good point, "Fact Checker" @7:58 AM, I almost forgot that one, thanks for reminding me. "Reputations"...

As I said previously, scientists are human beings, just like you and me, except they have a bunch of sheepskins, and an alphabet behind their names.
All want a nice house, a good life, a retirement...

What does it say about a "scientist" who has been down the wrong path for nearly their entire career? If science is based on knowledge, and facts, I'd have to say if your theories are wrong, then your Reputation is shot.

I'm sure I do not speak for the vast majority of scientists, but the low hanging fruit, of scientific managers I think I do speak to. Building an organization around a theory can prove to be very fruitful, and beneficial to one's career. If you get on the train at the right time, it can prove to be very intoxicating. People want to know your name, your invited to speak at places where once they didn't know you existed. All the trappings of success, are very seductive to these men and women. From nerd to Hero, and all done by those within the political sphere who want to use your theory to advance their personal political agenda.
It's a very, very dangerous combination.

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:27 AM:The news is reporting that the liberals in Washington today have banned all Government Workers stationed in Germany from attending Hussein's speech. Just shows what slimy pantywaists they are.

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:30 AM:The news is reporting that the liberals have cancelled McCain's town hall meeting and his visit to an oilrig. This is what happens with an out of control Hussein-loving left wing press.

To Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:34 AM:You like to think of yourself as unbiased, Reardon, but your personal bias comes through every post you make, just like your friend, Karl One. It is amusing however, to call you on it daily. Thanks for the laughs.

Obama Comes wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:37 AM:For those who are interested, you can catch Obama's speech today live at 10 AM PDT on the internet. I will be at Huffington Post but I am sure there will be Conservative sites that will carry it also. Or you can hang out here and read more of the Chuck and Ron Show. Just sayin'.

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:42 AM:DESPERATION = An ad is being run linking Obama to Castro. Unbelievable, do the cons have no shame. I think they will eventually loose more of the 27% blind followers.

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:44 AM:During my 15 minute commute to work I get to listen to Rush and Beck... after 14 minutes and 59 seconds...aw shucks it too darn early for a drink!!!!

He Said wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:48 AM:The Global Warming enthusiasts have too much invested in grants, publications, egos and personal reputations to let go of the concept if in fact the theory is false. They will or would not give up easily.

Sad to see it wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:52 AM:day after day. Chuck's little quips always seem to come with some kind of name-calling and rancor. I was taught (and try to practice)that to debate honestly and intellectually one should stick to the facts and not let careless emotionalism take over. There's a difference between passion and vitriol. I can't even fathom how he thinks that his method of delivery makes him a sympathetic participant. I know he has a right to his opinions, as do we all. But his continually spiteful manner of expressing himself just gets to me after a while.

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:52 AM:More on the speech ban. The news is reporting this morning: "The liberals have a long and tawdry record of trying to browbeat government agencies into submission, whether it's the CIA or the Centers for Disease Control. This latest action represents a new low. If the liberals are going to these lengths, they must be really worried about Sen. Obama's prospects."

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:59 AM:BEYOND PATHETIC = In a flagrant political act, the State Department has barred its employees from attending Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Berlin tonight....just what are the cons afraid of?

Flip Flop wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:09 AM:I am astounded by how much mileage people get out of the idea of "flip flopping" since that term was invented to insult Kerry. It's gotten to the point that if a candidate even clarifies a stance, or repeats a position with slightly different words, the old "flip flop" is hauled out. In other words, candidates' positions are to be nothing but bumper-sticker-length slogans and never more than that. If a candidate explains, embellishes, articulates a position, the vultures who back his opponent are all over it. Not only is this stupid, but it effectively shuts down discussion, dumbing the whole process down yet another notch. There are a few (very few) issues that Obama has definitely changed his mind on. There are a whole lot more that McCain has definitely changed his mind on. But the vast majority of the claims of flipflopping are wildly exaggerated, based on the candidate daring to veer from the bumper sticker version. Are we voters as ignorant and intolerant of complexit, as dumb, as we seem to be? How depressing.

To Joan wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:13 AM:Well Joan in answer to your question it is the United States Presidential election, not Mexico’s. Are you implying that Latinos are NOT Americans? Yes, Latinos are Americans regardless of how much effort is put forward to deny that fact. They are labeled as Latinos because the government finds it necessary to do so. The Latinos are not the only ones who are labeled, we have Pacific Islanders, Asians, Blacks, American Indian, on, and on. Would it bother you as much if the headline read ; Whites may play key role in presidential election? It is a fact that the Latino populations which is not only referring to Mexicans, but includes immigrants from South America and other Latin Countries, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Portugal, get it. I sure they don’t like being labeled either but that is bureaucracy for you. Please vent your anger to those responsible for the act not those caught up in the bureaucratic net.

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:16 AM:Let's read your post from earlier today and decide if the word "conspiracy" applies. Here you are QUOTE As a matter of fact, I do know how peer-review is supposed to work, it is sad because the process has been taken over by a few extremists jealously guarding their own theories,[...] The Gatekeepers in the higher realms of the oligarchy at APS [...] What you clearly have here, is a group in the top tier, the elite, disallowing open debate, and stopping any dissent. And this is how it is done by most elite journals. The elite gatekeepers, generally pulled from the scientific community, also have a dog in the fight, and because of this, they will choose not to peer-review a dissenting viewpoint, and force the scientist to publish in a lower tier publication, which they then can point to as being either not worthy, or not peer-reviewed.
In short the game has been fixed by the true believers, who gain fame and monetarily. ENDQUOTE Oh, Ron, can you say with a straight face that this is not a 'conspiracy' even if you didn't use "that word"? The elites (where'd they come from? who appointed them 'elites'?) decide (apparently together) to be gatekeepers to the journals. They don't allow research to be published if they disagree with it. And they do this to control the fame and money. That's not a conspiracy? LOL And then, as a bonus, you say the other guy was INVITED! What happened to your gatekeepers? They suddenly decided to INVITE the best person they could find to represent the other side. Why? Did they have to do this? Doesn't it shatter your grand conspiracy idea? Oh, Ron, you make absolutely no sense at all. What nonsense. You know, this is yet another example of your insistance that every other person has the same outlook on life, the same motivations, that you do. You still don't realize that you are, um, unusual, Ron. (Not a compliment)you might consider seeing a professional about this blindness you have to the existence of other people.

McFlipFlop wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:26 AM:Regarding all the comments today about comparing flip flops, here is a partial sample of just a few of McFlipFlops:
Voted against the Bush tax cuts for the richest elites, now says they should be made permanent.
Was against torture, before voting to allow it.
Was against offshore drilling before he was for it.
Sponsored the Kennedy-McCain immigration amnesty plan, now opposes it.
Gives lip service to environmental and climate change issues, but missed 22 chances last year to back up that lip service with actual votes.
Called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" before reversing himself and going hat-in-hand to them seeking their endorsements.
Voted against requiring insurers who cover Viagra to offer contraceptive parity for women, now his spokeswoman Carla Fiorina says he supports that.

In contrast, Obama has fine-tuned a few statements, and emphasized specific points tailored for a more general audience, but has not actually changed his positions on core values or fundamental issues.

Alf wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:27 AM:Well, "Ms M" at 9:59AM, you ask "just what are the cons afraid of?" and that's easy, they are afraid of rational thought, intelligent thought, the general lack of oopses and someone who says something other than "stay the course". "Staying the course" means that those invested in maintaning the war might lose some of their obscene incomes and stratospheric profits.
Regards, Alf.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:37 AM:Is Fact Checker a skeptic? Yes, all of science is based on healthy skepticism, but this particular science now faces the need to present measurable results based upon the theory.

So far, it has failed to do so -- but it may yet do so. By cherry-picking its years of measurement, some scientists have shown good results, but as time goes on, selecting the right starting point becomes meaningless as the data flows over time.

I applaud the American Physical Society for starting the debate -- although apparently there are those among their membership who want to throttle debate of any kind.

We would all do well to follow the debate, instead of choosing a winner in advance. Even agnostics can be convinced with a preponderance of evidence, but hardly through a preponderance of words.

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:43 AM:>>>An ad is being run linking Obama to Castro.>>> Well, they are both Stalinists, and it's no different than the liberals linking Bush to Hitler

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:45 AM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:44 AM:Watching Obama Pivot
[-] wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:27 PM:Ms. M -- Yes, I want that debate!...um are you ready yet?

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:47 AM:Ms. M: Please feel free to post ALL of McCains’ flip-flops, and I'll second each and every one.

Stipulated!

The question is: Is Obama a flip-flopping politician, or is he a new kind of politician, a man of conviction who does not trim his sails as he maneuvers from primary to general election?

That answer is equally obvious to the question of McCain doing so. Now you may comment that McCain flip-flops more, but as the man said to the woman in the var, "We have already determined that, what we are discussing now is the price."

Hope you are listening wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:47 AM:What a treat to be watching Obama speak in Berlin as I write. It's been many years since we've had a major political figure that can actually speak intelligently, that can talk about issues in a way that actually seems to grasp them in their complexity, and that reminds us that it's possible to not be 100% cynical about leadership (95 would be a huge improvement!). I sure hope we as a people have the courage to elect him. I suspect we don't, when it comes right down to it, but even the thought of it is thrilling. The contrast between Obama and the same old, old old same old is like waking from a bad, and badly written, dream.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:50 AM:Ms M[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:42 AM: Before it is over, the conservos and McCain's crowd will be stating that Obama is the anti Christ.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:02 AM:FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PROHBITED FROM ATTENDING OBAMA RALLY IN GERMANY.
"Indeed, the administration has a long and tawdry record of trying to browbeat government agencies into submission, whether it's the CIA or the Centers for Disease Control. The State Department is perhaps highest on the list of conservatives and neocons who see it as the center of disloyalty and treachery. But this latest action represents a new low. If it's going to these lengths, the Bush administration must be really worried about Sen. John McCain's prospects."

One ice cube in hell wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:09 AM:. . . . will not cool the inferno.

A swimmer urinating in Lake Hodges will not cause it to overflow it’s banks.

BUT, human produced CO2 will catastrophically raise the temperature of the earth.

Interesting!

NoMo Bunnies at the Market wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:24 AM:Once again, for clarification, the bunnies were baby dwarf bunnies. These are not the "cooking" variety rabbit. Please let this go. The bunnies have left the market and will not be back!!!

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:38 AM:The news is reporting today: "As the Illinois Democrat speaks before the picturesque Victory Column in Berlin today, the Arizona Republican is doing a slightly less exciting form of German outreach. He is having a lunch meeting with small business leaders at a German restaurant in German Village, Columbus, Ohio." Just like the liberals to infiltrate McCain's plan and then try to upstage him.

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:44 AM:OBAMA SPEECH; "Police said at least 100,000 people turned out to hear Obama speak at the Victory Column in central Berlin." I wonder how many would have turned out for John McCain?

Karl wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:46 AM:One for the Books
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:17 AM:There is a ballot measure in San Francisco to name a sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush.etc.etc.

And the divide between the right and the left grows ever larger by petty stunts like this one. If the right would have lowered itself to a stunt like this on President Clinton, what idiotic symbol might they have choosen?

Except for the one sided lead in "We interupt the Ron and Chuck Show
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:13 AM:" the post is most excellent and right on the money.

Karl wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:50 AM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:44 AM:

Never too early Ms M.

Chuck to Focal Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:58 AM:There would've been 100,000 at that German restaurant in Columbus, but the liberals advertised it with the wrong address. (On the bright side, a German restaurant on the other side of town had a record lunch crowd!)

sdraoul wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:06 PM:What is Joan O'Connor smoking?

Since the beginning of the republic groups have been defined by politicians in order to put together voter coalitions so they could win office and the power that comes with it.

For example, Protestant politicians in Massachusetts banned Roman Catholics from voting.

On the other hand, when Irish Catholics began to dominate the big cities, politicians turned their attention to Irish Catholics and courted their votes.

When German Protestants came, they were courted, as were their Catholic fellow Germans.

When the Sicilians came, the Irish politicians of New York courted them for their votes.

Republicans courted and counted on black votes after the Civil war and received 90 or more percent of the black vote until 1932. Eisenhower managed to get 50 percent of the black vote in 1952 and 56. Nixon received a large black vote in his race against Irish Catholic Kennedy.

Now it is the turn of Latinos to get the attention. It is a matter of numbers, Ms O'Connor. That is how politics works.

If you and your fellow whiners continue to attack our 208 year old political system, we must pity you for you manifest an ignorance of history and a hatred of the country's largest and fastest growing minority.

The Census Bureau projects that Latinos/Hispanics will make up 25 percent of the American population.

Get used to it, Ms O'Connor.

Flip Flop wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:08 PM:The right should get down on their knees and thank Obama for changing his mind about the couple of things he did change his stance on. It allowed them to pretend that McCain's long, tawdry history of dozens of major 180 degree turns are now just normal politician behavior, meaning nothing. Maybe. It is interesting, however, that for years and years, the Republicans have been very public exclaiming their distrust of and contempt for McCain. Now that it's him and Obama, they are twisting themselves into a snit trying to decide what to do. Can they get up and actually praise the guy they've said they've hated for years? I don't see much of that going around. All they got is to find things to smear Obama with. When all else fails, they accuse Obama of not being the Messiah (Fact Checker's version: either Obama is a really NEW kind of politician or he's just the same as the old kind. As if there's nothing in between...like a "better" candidate! The right doesn't want this option to exist, because if it does, they got nothin'. But it does!) Pathetic. The fact that the polls are close says that for many people only two things matter: Republican and White.

Floyd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:15 PM:The 100,000 people who showed up were there for the free concert that preceded the speech.

One Fewer Obama Vote wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:21 PM:From the Mississippi ClarionLedger:

PARCHMAN — Before he died Wednesday evening, death row inmate Dale Leo Bishop apologized to his victim's family, thanked America and urged people to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

"For those who oppose the death penalty and want to see it end, our best bet is to vote for Barack Obama because his supporters have been working behind the scenes to end this practice," Bishop said.

Hilarious wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:23 PM:Basically the same people appear here as bloggers over and over again. Do you guys have real jobs yet? You're so smart and erudite..shouldn't be a problem.

Bill wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:26 PM:Obama is running for president of Germany?

Who cares?

Thats enough to make me vote for McCain......

Whatever Europe wants, I will vote the opposite because I dont want America to become a cesspool for terrorism like Europe is.

Were supposed to follow their advice on terrorism?

I like Bush's plan better thank you.....

Thanks Floyd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:30 PM:Even though they seem to have stayed to see/hear Obama (maybe there was free sauerbraten too), it's great to see that you are out there desperately denying any possible bad news for Republicans and their great candidate. I wonder how many of the usual yahoos here, including you, Floyd, would go even a block out of your way to hear McCain speak, anticipating the excitement, expecting to be inspired. As has been noted, all the yahoos have is to find the negatories. They don't even LIKE McCain but feel obliged by their goose-stepping ideology to do their hit jobs on Obama anyhow. They also are, if you've noticed, awfully envious of the left's having a candidate that many find exciting, the way many of them felt about Reagan. They just can't stand that others have this and feel compelled to attack and destroy, which is their idea of political freedom.

Another One Fewer Obama Vote wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:41 PM:Just before the chicken got hit crossing the road, he implored all Americans to vote for Obama who will demands equal rights for poultry.

Chuck wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:46 PM:Columbus, Ohio. - Nearly three dozen people attended JMcCain's speech at a local sausage house at Columbus' German Village. Tomorrow he will continue with breakfast at the International House of Pancakes.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:47 PM:Is Fact Checker a skeptic? Yes, all of science is based on healthy skepticism, but this particular science now faces the need to present measurable results based upon the theory.

So far, it has failed to do so -- but it may yet do so. By cherry-picking its years of measurement, some scientists have shown good results, but as time goes on, selecting the right starting point becomes meaningless as the data flows over time.

I applaud the American Physical Society for starting the debate -- although apparently there are those among their membership who want to throttle debate of any kind.

We would all do well to follow the debate, instead of choosing a winner in advance. Even agnostics can be convinced with a preponderance of evidence, but hardly through a preponderance of words.

(Resubmitted)

Loves to Eat wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:55 PM:But,NoMo Bunnies at the Market, I really love my Hassenpfeffer, whatever shall I do?

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:56 PM:Floyd
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:15 PM:The 100,000 people who showed up were there for the free concert that preceded the speech....um Floyd just how many left after the concert was over?

Karl wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:57 PM:Some things that I know

I am tired of the words flip-flop regardless who brings it up. I understand that all polititians speak to the audience at hand and to the polls in general. Some "flip-flops" can be good. Heaven forbid anyone including polititians stand firm in their views with new evidence stating otherwise.

Extreme lefties are infatuated with Chuck. I find most of his posts hilarious. To those offended either don't read them or "lighten up Francis".

I find it easy to disagree with Ron, Chuck, Double D's, Ms M, Reardon, Surfer, C-1 and Alf on issues while still respecting the person behind the opinion.

If we (USA) started drilling for more oil immediately, building refineries immediately (and eventually making them absolete), make wind/sun power more available through aggressive research immediately, start building autos that run on something other than petro immediately, toss out all incumbant elected officials ASAP, work harder at recycling all materials now, move the gray line between Political "contributions" and political "bribes" closer to the punishable bribes side, put a third party in a competitive position, put prisoners and loafers to work on something constructive, have a Tea Party and find a graceful way out of Iraq we will certainly be alot better off in 10 years. Hell, if we start tomorrow, we'd be a lot better off tomorrow.

It'd be awesome if one oil company drilled, refined and sold strictly here in the USA.

It will take a tidal wave of correspondence from us commoners to get our elected officials to move on anything listed above. I'm doing my part, how about you?

Our elected officials do not understand how to get something done in a timely manner except for criticizing the other side of the aisle, slipping cash into their own pockets and raising their own pay.

My foot print is much smaller than Alf's.

Golf is a healthy addiction.

The voting majority in San Fran is rather strange.

Life gets much easier after 50.

Turning 55 and getting senior discounts and smaller portions is sweet.

This blog can be enlightening and downright nasty at the same time.

Not all minute men are bad.

Not all illegal aliens are bad.

Not all beer is good.

Some beer is very good.

If it wasn't for the calming effect that the love of my life has on me, I'd be a grumpy old man.

There are a lot of people who complain about City Councils and City Staff that have never been to a council meeting (to get in their 2 cents) or had a personal conversation with any of them.

If I was still working full time I wouldn't be on this blog very often.

People need a lot less money than they think they do.

My golfing buddies are the best.

The California coastline is spectacular and I take it for granted after living in SoCal all my life. I was in Solvang yesterday for a golf tournament and just had to stop on the way home to stroll the beach near Golleta, what a great way to calm one's self down for the drive through LA.

Driving through LA sucks. How do folks who live there cope?

I lean right but not so far that I can't see the left.

It's time for a nap.

To One Fewer and Another One wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:57 PM:Now you are making voting decisions based on the last words of a murderer? Not that you ever planned to vote for Obama, but just for the sake of sanity, let me ask you a couple of questions. First, what did Obama say about the Supreme Court's decision not to allow execution of child rapists? Second, what power does a President have over wether we have a death penalty in the US? Let us know what you come up with. (yeah, right)

Alf wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:58 PM:Correction to my 10:27 post - It should have been - "NOT "Staying the course" means that those invested in maintaning the war might lose some of their obscene incomes and stratospheric profits."
Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:59 PM:Hilarious
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:23 PM:..Basically the same people appear here as bloggers over and over again. Well Hilarious, in order for you to make that observation, you must log on over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:00 PM:Chuck to Focal Point[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:58 AM: I bet it was good chow too!

ObamaOrClinton wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:03 PM:I see Hussein pulled a trick from the Clinton bag. You go over to Europe, get in front of liberal America haters and proceed to bash America in front of the world's cameras. Why didnt Rev Wright go with him and make that speech to the Husseiniacs of the world?

Concerned One wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:03 PM:I think my new favorite part of my lunch with the bloggers is playing "Where's Reardon." Regards, C-1.

hardtack wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:06 PM:Science says, “global warming.”

Politics says, “catastrophic global warming.”

Science says, “human contribution.”

Politics says, “human caused.”

Exactly who, in this GW debate, is being influenced by the science and who is being influenced by the demagogues?

Still to Many wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:19 PM:Another One Fewer Obama Vote
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:41 PM:Just before the chicken got hit crossing the road, he implored all Americans to vote for Obama who will demands equal rights for poultry. ANSWER: The Bunny, who else!!!

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:23 PM:Floyd
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:15 PM:The 100,000 people who showed up were there for the free concert that preceded the speech....ah Floyd - make that OVER 200,000. Yes, I am just so very, very GLEEFUL

Focal Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:25 PM:REVISED COUNT FOR OBAMA SPEECH GERMANY.200,000 Germans gather to hear Barack Obama One thing about John McCains speeches. You do not have to worry about crown control.

One for the Books wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:25 PM:Karl, Bush has done more to widen that gap than virtually any President. The ballot measure is in response to Bush and it symbolizes what The Decider is doing to our country. Politically, economically, militarily, Constitutionally as Alf keeps pointing out and in many other ways, George W. Bush is flushing this country and any stature that we may have left as a nation right down the drain. The impeachment is off the table mantra of Pelosi is right up there, in terms of dividing. When the Speaker of the House refuses to allow impeachment, it looks like she is in league with an out of control President. The Decider IS The Divider, more than any and all other factors combined.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:27 PM:Floyd[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:15 PM:
Sorry. Latest count is 200,000.

Bad news for raoul wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:32 PM:I don't know why I'm posting this, because sdraoul will surely find a way to say it doesn't count. Nevertheless, in the interest of truth, from Reuters QUOTE PHOENIX (Reuters) - Two-thirds of U.S. Hispanic voters support Democrat Barack Obama for president over Republican John McCain and the partisan gap among the United States' fastest growing voter bloc is broader than at any point this decade, a study found.
The nationwide telephone survey by the Pew Hispanic Center released on Thursday said [...] Obama's strong showing represented a sharp reversal in his fortunes from the primaries "when he lost the Latino vote to Hillary Rodham Clinton by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio, giving rise to speculation in some quarters that Hispanics were disinclined to vote for a black candidate." The study said 65 percent of Latino registered voters now identified with, or leaned toward, the Democratic Party, compared with just 26 percent who said they identified with the Republican Party. "This 39 percentage point Democratic Party identification edge is larger than it has been at any time this decade," the study said ENDQUOTE Who knows if Obama will hold this lead, but if he stays anywhere in this vicinity, according to facts preseented here by the great objective journalist sdraoul, Obama will be our next President. Hooray!

To Floyd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:36 PM:Yes, the free concert. That's why they chanted OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA YES WE CAN all thoughout the speech. I guess the band's name is Obama too.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:39 PM:To He Said at 9:48 a.m.
Certainly the consensus of scientists who have come to agree on the reality of climate change are not going to change their conclusions based on an unsupported rant by an anonymous amateur blogger who does not even give a single reason why they should.

And to One ince cube at 11:09 a.m.
Congratulations on proving our point.
One ice cube in hell is small compared to the surroundings.
One swimmer urinating in a large lake is small compared to the surroundings.
But placing billions of independent smog and CO2 producing engines covering all continents of the globe pumping out their filthy spew 24 hours a day for over a hundred years, we would have to be awfully egocentric to think we could do this decade after decade after never risk befouling our planet.
Thank you for these excellent examples!

Looking Good for Obama wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:53 PM:One thing to consider is that the polls are taken over land line telephones and don't include the vast majority of young voters who use cell phones.

It could just be a landslide.

yes we can wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:55 PM:"`He's extremely charismatic -- I've never seen anybody like this,'' said Wolfgang Zuchowsky, a 73-year-old retired police officer from Berlin. ``It's much better than what we've seen from the American style in the last few years, quite a bit more intellectual than the current president.''" said a German spectator.

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:55 PM:Floyd
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:15 PM:The 100,000 people who showed up were there for the free concert that preceded the speech...um Floyd just how many folks left after the speech?

to hardtack wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:57 PM:I can't speak for many people, but it is perfectly clear that one George Bush is either influenced by the demagogues. or is himself a demagogue influenced by his bosses over at big oil. It's good to know, however, that both candidates seem to be placing more of their trust in the scientists, so this will be a more or less dead issue in a few months.

To Karl One wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:58 PM:It is patently clear that you are a very biased soul, sir. You think naming a sewage treatment plant after our president is "a petty stunt" yet you give a pass to the republicans for running ads that say Al-Queda, Castro and Arminadinajad support Obama for President. Wake up and smell yourself, dear.

But to Bad News for wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:01 PM:sdraoul will be voting for McCain because McCain doesn't believe in troop benefits. Witness McCain fought against the recent Vet's Bill (and then took credit for it when it passed anyway) and is now fighting to limit benefits only to those who are wounded in battle. McCain is sdroul's kinda guy! Why does sdraoul hate the troops?

Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:04 PM:Again, that was YOUR word, Sir.. Not mine.
I surely can understand this kind of leap from a far lefter, such as yourself.. "Oh Ron" @10:16 AM.
Within the liberal mindset, they think like this. So, when you try to explain something, their mind automatically jumps to their own preconcieved notions about the world.
Conspiracy is what YOUR side does. Whether they be the boogieman of the left: Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big Something or other.. always trying capture a market, so as to .. how did they say that?.. Oh Ya.. to "corner the market, and charge outrageously. They were, of course, Siting T. Boone Pickens, and talking about these evil Corporate giants trying to seize control of wind power, and sc**wing the little guy. It seems to me, that only BIG thing you do not fear, is Big Government. A corporation has never sold people into slavery, but governments have. Corporations do not seek to destroy your civil rights, but governments have. Corporations do what you tell them to do, with your wallet.
That's all they do. If you don't like what they are selling, then don't buy it. I've alwasys said, the single most powerful thing you do in this country, is spend your own money. Voting counts too, sure. But, by far, willingly giving your hard earned money to a company is something you "willingly" do, not forced, as in taxation, "willingly" do.
You don't have a corporate tax collector on your doorstep waiting for you to get home, but a goverment will.
And they will hound you, seize your money, your home, and your life savings simply because you hit a little hard times, and they DEMAND payment.
Heck, I love Big Oil, and not for the dividend checks I get, although, they ain't bad either.
But Big Oil has given me, personally, so much more freedom that I can possibly imagine.
I still have very fond memories of learning to drive a tractor, plant a field, and raise livestock. All done with oil. I have many wonderful memories of family gatherings, reunions, Christmas, and Thankgivings.
ALL made possible because some guy went out and drilled a hole, to feed his own family. All done with oil.
Whether it was a family vacation to the Grand Canyon, or riding jet ski's at Lake Havasu, all done with oil.
And those memories, are priceless.
Thank you Big Oil.

NSA wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:05 PM:Hilarious[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:23 PM: Might ask the same of you. You seem to be popping on with different handles to give us your observation.

Obamanation wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:14 PM:Is Obama trying to get the German vote as too.
Is he saying just what they want to hear?
Don't forget to invite them all over, because we have no borders and no enforcement of our immigration laws.
Herr Obama.

Ms M wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:25 PM:One of the headlines today is that McCain criticizes Obama's speech in another country. Guess what - he forgot that he spoke in Canada just a little over a month ago........Does he remember anything? LMAO - Yes I am so very, very GLEEFUL!!!!!

Focal Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:50 PM:U.S. shifting Pakistan funding to new fighter jets. Does Pakistan need fighter jets to take on Al Queda. Heck no. Millions of dollars down the toilet so that Pakistan can be competitive with India. What does the US get in return? Probably just another photo op.

gracchus wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:52 PM:ron has called barak obama a stalinist. i would like ron to show in what way obama is a stalinist. if he cannot, ron owes an apology to obama and those who support him for imputing such a despicable eptithet to him. mock obama all you want. but be truthful in your criticism of him. calling him hussein is fine, ron. but don't accuse him of plaigarism unless you have the proof. it's easy to distinguish false vituperation from legitimate criticism

Alf wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:02 PM:Although I'm a Libertarian, I must point out that those who claim that it's the "liberals" and the "enviros" who are getting in the way of getting more domestic oil are full of it, at least according to the AP article -
"GOP kills effort to release oil from US stockpile" that is, for the moment on this very website, the url is
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/07/24/ap/headlines/d924dn100.txt . Your very own REPUBLICANS in the House are holding measures that will help us right here, right now hostage unless off-shore drilling is allowed. Whose side are they on, the People's side or the OIL companies side? We need more domestic oil, yes, but at what price to us, what price to the environment? WHY is it so "necessary" to drill in te most ecologically vulnerable and sensitive areas first? I have my suspicians and the biggest one is that oil companies are holding back pumping from land-based wells and drilling new land-based wells, holding those wells and us hostage so that they can get "their" off-shore drilling back.
Regards, Alf.

Another good one wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:02 PM:Obama's speech in Berlin was quite good. He looked back to the days when the US and Europe were indispensable to one another, emphasizing the 90% of our values that are in common (as opposed to the 10% that aren't, as the yahoos always emphasize) and called for a move in that direction. He made clear his view that Iran should not become nuclear-armed, and that in general, the world needs to reduce the nuclear danger everywhere. I didn't find the speech as thrilling as that amazing speech on race, but Berlin was still very good and well received. There were Europeans waving the American flag, not the burning President in effigy, how refreshing was that! It certainly was a picture of how most Americans would like to see our President greeted and heard, with enthusiasm and respect and good feeling. What a change that would be. I hope (and now I see our allies hope) that Obama wins in November. He clearly has the right stuff. (One couldn't imagine a turnout, speech, or reception like that for/from McCain, even with a free concert, unless the audience members were paid to be there.)

Spitzer and Bush wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:08 PM:I see that Gov Spitzer (NY) of New York has just had 4 of his aides indicted for trying to use the state police to get damaging information on one of Spitzer's political opponents. Unlike the yahoos here, and our Executive branch, New York seems to think that using the police for one's own purely political purposes is, um, wrong. Bush, of course, thinks it's right. When his Federal Prosecutors refused to use taxpayer monies to go after Democratic candidates, or to back-burner charges against Republicans, he fired them. I'd like to know about the actions of the ones he DIDN'T fire, wouldn't you? But we never will, because Bush and his lapdogs insist that his actions are above the law, even to the degree that subpoenaes can be ripped up. I bet Spitzer would like some of that power. So would his aides, who may go to prison.

Chris wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:10 PM:For all you who complain about our government giving in to the Mexican government, how do you feel to see Obama bowing and scrapeing before the Israelis. I just love it when I hear about the American Jews who seem more concerned about wich person will be better for Israel than the U.S. I see Obama put on a skull cap. As one Palestinian said, they wonder what would happen if Obama put on a Palestinian headdress. Oh, I can just imagine.

Backcountry wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:29 PM:I was so embarrased today when the Messiah spoke before his European audience in English. Wasn't it just two weeks ago that the Messiah scolded we ignorant Americans for not speaking foreign languages when in a foreign country?

Obama Comes wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:54 PM:It's just nice to see a politician that inspires people in other countries to WAVE the American flag instead of BURNING it.............

Hank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 4:47 PM:Whew! So much nonsense, so little time and space to respond. Just a little tidbit:

Fact Checker: You cite Mann's "hockey stick" and its rebuttal by "Canadian scientists in 2003." Your "Canadian scientists" are McIntyre and McKitrick, commonly referred to as M&M, and the Mann model is called MBH, for Mann and his co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The M&M paper which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) was actually published in February 2005, not 2003.

BTW, regarding your "Canadian scientists," McIntyre describes himself as "an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies," and McKitrick is an economist.

M&M's rebuttal was based on their testing of the MBH model with so-called red noise (white noise with the higher frequencies removed) as an input. When M&M jiggled certain parameters of their red noise, a "hockey stick" effect was allegedly always produced. This behavior was called an "artificial hockey stick" (AHS) effect. Keep in mind that M&M were addressing only the STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY used by MBH (including so-called climate proxies like rings in trees, ice chemistry, etc.), but not the underlying physics of climate.

BTW, Mann is a climatologist, not a physicist.

According to the AGU, the M&M article has since been cited a grand total of 11 times IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. At least 3 of these citations criticized M&M's methodology and conclusions. If M&M wasn't anything but silly, there would have been A LOT MORE SCIENTIFIC CITATIONS. Professionals know (or should know) better than to argue with a fool.

In a subsequent comment in GRL, von Storch criticized M&M's work. M&M replied that they "never said the AHS appears in every setting: only certain ones, where the data are strongly autocorrelated or where one or more hockey stick shapes are already present." HUH?? WOW!! Or as you are so fond of saying, "Oooops." A strongly autocorrelated signal by definition IS HIDING A PREDICTABLE SIGNAL BEHIND THE NOISE (like maybe a hockey stick?). If the hockey stick is already there, how can it be "artificial"? In other words, intentionally or not (wink, wink) it appears that M&M chose their testing to produce the result they desired. Others saw through this.

In a subsequent paper citing the works of both M&M and Mann, Amman and Wahl analyzed the MBH model and "showed that it remained robust back to AD 1450, and given other empirical information also back to AD 1000." In other words, the MBH model is valid.

M&M are but a footnote. Their "broken hockey stick" stuff is foolishness. No matter what the WSJ or Fox News says.

Fact Checker, check your facts.

Later (maybe).

to Ron wrote on Jul 24, 2008 4:52 PM:Finally you admit in your 9:16 post:"I do know a little". Ron, truer words were never said. I'm glad you finally have the nerve to admit your oh, so obvious limitations. By the by, how does it feel to have someone take something you've said completely out of context and then change the meaning of it.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:07 PM:Backcountry[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:29 PM: Reference the quote. I read where Obama advised parents to make sure their kids were bilingual, English/Spanish. I could not find a quote where he advocated speaking the language of the country your visiting.
Besides, neither the German audience or the world audience had any problem understanding Obama.

caerbannog wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:14 PM:
Fact Checker claimed,

Then in 2003, two Canadian scientists showed that regardless of what information was fed into Mann’s computer model, the Mann algorithm returned the hockey stick effect. Regardless of the input, the hockey stick was the output!


"Fact Checker" doesn't know what he/she is talking about. There are many algorithms (aside from Mann's method) that produce results similar to Mann's.

They are documented in the latest IPCC report.

"Fact Checker" is nothing more than a scientifically/mathematically illiterate talk-radio fan -- he/she does nothing more than regurgitate Rush Limbaugh talking-points.

However, "Fact Checker" can prove me wrong by describing in his/her words the mathematical steps involved in generating the "Hockey Stick" from raw data.

Poor Backcountry wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:14 PM:What has Bush done to us? Have a look. We have a candidate who can speak intelligently, that's all. Can actually speak intelligently. And what do Americans like Backcountry do? Oh! Barack is the Messiah! Oh, my gosh! Obama is such an elitist! Look! He talks DOWN to people! Yes, folks, thanks to W, or to the people that voted for him, intelligence is now called a bad thing. The ability of a (potential) President to speak clearly and with intelligence is seen as a detriment, a huge negative. Remember when this ability, just in the amount Obama has, used to be seen as, well, a MINIMUM requirement to hold the office? Think of FDR, Ike, JFK, even Nixon. They could all SPEAK! They could get to people and inspire them, for good or ill. There was pride in being an American when the Chief would converse with foreign leaders about crucial matters. Not now. The heck with everybody. The rest of the world stinks. We do what we want and we don't need to explain ourselves to anyone. No thanks. I want to be proud again. I want the US to have allies again, and be admired by freedom-loving people again. I want the US to be part of the world again, instead of against it for the sake of accumulating "war powers" for our little king. Backwater may be young, maybe too young to remember what these feelings were like. Well, s/he will be in for a real treat if Obama is elected. It'll seem like a whole different world, namely, the real world.

To Chris wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:23 PM:To Chris - Jul 24, 2008 3:10 PM.

You have bad spelling and much spewing of hate for Jews without accurate information.

You are not an educated rational person.

Alf wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:33 PM:Well, "Poor Backcountry" at 5:14PM, I remember as well. It would be even better if the Constitutional Rights at which GWB has been chipping away and in some cases taken huge chunks were returned to The People and the perversions and excesses of Executive power that GWB has created or expanded were completely and irrevocably removed.
Regards, Alf.

Hank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:34 PM:Whew! So much nonsense, so little time and space to respond. Just a little tidbit:

Fact Checker: You cite Mann's "hockey stick" and its rebuttal by "Canadian scientists in 2003." Your "Canadian scientists" are McIntyre and McKitrick, commonly referred to as M&M, and the Mann model is called MBH, for Mann and his co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The M&M paper which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) was actually published in February 2005, not 2003.

BTW, regarding your "Canadian scientists," McIntyre describes himself as "an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies," and McKitrick is an economist.

M&M's rebuttal was based on their testing of the MBH model with so-called red noise (white noise with the higher frequencies removed) as an input. When M&M jiggled certain parameters of their red noise, a "hockey stick" effect was allegedly always produced. This behavior was called an "artificial hockey stick" (AHS) effect. Keep in mind that M&M were addressing only the STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY used by MBH (including so-called climate proxies like rings in trees, ice chemistry, etc), but not the underlying physics of climate.

BTW, Mann is a climatologist, not a physicist.

According to the AGU, the M&M article has since been cited a grand total of 11 times IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. At least 3 of these citations criticized M&M's methodology and conclusions. If M&M wasn't anything but silly, there would have been A LOT MORE SCIENTIFIC CITATIONS. Professionals know (or should know) better than to argue with a fool.

In a subsequent comment in GRL, von Storch criticized M&M's work. M&M replied that they "never said the AHS appears in every setting: only certain ones, where the data are strongly autocorrelated or where one or more hockey stick shapes are already present." HUH?? WOW!! Or as you are so fond of saying, "Oooops." A strongly autocorrelated signal by definition IS HIDING A PREDICTABLE SIGNAL BEHIND THE NOISE (like maybe a hockey stick?). If the hockey stick is already there, how can it be "artificial"? In other words, intentionally or not (wink, wink) it appears that M&M chose their testing to produce the result they desired. Others saw through this.

In a subsequent paper citing the works of both M&M and Mann, Amman and Wahl analyzed the MBH model and "showed that it remained robust back to AD 1450, and given other empirical information also back to AD 1000." In other words, the MBH model is valid.

M&M are but a footnote. Their "broken hockey stick" stuff is foolishness. No matter what the WSJ or Fox News says.

Fact Checker, check your facts.

Later (maybe).

Hank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:43 PM:Whew! So much nonsense, so little time and space to respond. Just a little tidbit:

Fact Checker: You cite Mann's "hockey stick" and its rebuttal by "Canadian scientists in 2003." Your "Canadian scientists" are commonly referred to as M&M, and the Mann model is called MBH, for Mann and his co-authors. The M&M paper which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) was actually published in February 2005, not 2003.

BTW, regarding your "Canadian scientists," one describes himself as "an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies," and the other is an economist.

M&M's rebuttal was based on their testing of the MBH model with so-called red noise (white noise with the higher frequencies removed) as an input. When M&M jiggled certain parameters of their red noise, a "hockey stick" effect was allegedly always produced. This behavior was called an "artificial hockey stick" (AHS) effect. Keep in mind that M&M were addressing only the STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY used by MBH (including so-called climate proxies like rings in trees, ice chemistry, etc), but not the underlying physics of climate.

BTW, Mann is a climatologist, not a physicist.

According to the AGU, the M&M article has since been cited a grand total of 11 times IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. At least 3 of these citations criticized M&M's methodology and conclusions. If M&M wasn't anything but silly, there would have been A LOT MORE SCIENTIFIC CITATIONS. Professionals know (or should know) better than to argue with a fool.

When a subsequent paper criticized M&M's work, M&M replied that they "never said the AHS appears in every setting: only certain ones, where the data are strongly autocorrelated or where one or more hockey stick shapes are already present." HUH?? WOW!! Or as you are so fond of saying, "Oooops." A strongly autocorrelated signal by definition IS HIDING A PREDICTABLE SIGNAL (like maybe a hockey stick?) BEHIND THE NOISE. If the hockey stick is already there, how can it be called "artificial"? In other words, intentionally or not (wink, wink) it appears that M&M chose their testing to produce the result they desired. Others saw through this, and they did not get away with it.

Another subsequent paper citing the works of both M&M and Mann analyzed the MBH model and "showed that it remained robust back to AD 1450, and given other empirical information also back to AD 1000." In other words, the MBH model is valid.

M&M are but a footnote. Their "broken hockey stick" stuff is foolishness. No matter what the WSJ or Fox News says. No what the talk show talking heads say.

Fact Checker, check your facts.

Later (maybe).

Hick in the Sticks wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:51 PM:Backcountry[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:29 PM: You call him Messiah. Well, if that is the case, it does not matter what language he uses as all those that hear him do in their native tongue.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:09 PM:How dare you question my ability to interpret facts. Just because I get information from Rush does not make it wrong. It is right and easier for me. I taught college for many years and am smarter than most. After I visit Hannity's website I will let you know my next opinion.

to Hank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:23 PM:I don't know why the editor repeated your posts, but they deserve the repetition. The editor posts repetitions by Ron and Chuck endlessly, it's nice to see them balanced by repetitions of facts and truth. Gosh, isn't it interesting to see the neocons look SO bad here, day after day, in their futile, juvenile, desperate battle against logic and truth? Look! They resort to name calling! Observe how they inflate their egos! They're all mixed up: they realize they have a "candidate" that even they don't believe in, so they are running in circles, yelling "Messiah", "The One", "Stalinists" in the marketplace. We can only look at them and scratch our heads: sad, how they are driven mad by the return of the real world. (Ron, better sell your oil stocks and invest in wind power. And find other customers than your imperial army. Raoul, hang in with a good immigration policy, but say goodbye to your militaristic anarchism. Chuck, here's your chance to finally grow up!)

To Alf wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:30 PM:Jul 24 08, 5:33 pm

Alf, you are correct.

It has been 7 years of great pain about what GWB & Fed Govt did.

Also, believe our Founding Fathers would be up thinking, debating, and trying to improve the situation.

The bad of GWB/Fed Govt caught fire and spread to all levels, including State govt, County govt, City govt, District govt, Boards related to any political government including the mini Boards.

And big business continued to plan with big government.

The majority did not try to protect the minority. The red and blue did not unite.

Mid-last-century I worried about Russia destroying us. For these past 7 years I have worried about the destruction of the USA by the current USA politicians.

Cannot Wait for Debates wrote on Jul 24, 2008 6:31 PM:I cannot wait for the debates between Rocky Chvez and Mayor Jim Wood. It will be the first time Rocky has given another person a chance to speak. He usually only does monologues. After all, he knows all, does all and is all for himself. And, oh yes, he is such a good manager, he managed his school right out of existance. I felt sorry for the kids. He had them snowed.

Great Another One wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:04 PM:Hank
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:43 PM: Well, It looks like we have one more know it all book worm in Dodge.

California Observer wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:05 PM:During the short four-year stint of this Governor, the State Budget has risen from about $100 Billion to about $140 billion -- a 40% increase!

Did you get a 40% raise over the past four years? Neither did I!

Do you think the State government is 40% better? Neither do I!

Is this a microcosm of a national Democratic Party administration?

Yes, i think so.

Me either wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:06 PM:I cannot wait for the debates either, the Presidential ones. I would insist that whatever the format, or whoever the clown is that asks the questions, we insist that both candidates pass through a metal detector and be searched for "hearing aids". Let the candidates speak and be seen. No holds barred, mano a mano, no scripts, no teleprompters, no notes. The down side, of course, is that the better Obama looks, and the more confused McCain is, the more votes in some sectors McCain gets. Such is the state of Bushian America. We must get through this difficult Bush pregnancy and delivery, however, & give birth to America as she can be again, worthy of being a sibling to the great nation of the past. McCain is the mere afterbirth. Feed him to the coyotes.

TOO OLD wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:40 PM:Obamanation[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:14 PM: Whine, whine, whine. Old John McCain would not draw 200,000 Germans to hear him. Besides, Old John McCain would have to have a correct his gaffes. John McCain is just darn old.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:17 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:43 AM:
Or John McCain hugging the Vietnamse Minister Cao.

Too Muslim wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:30 PM:Hussein had to have a big rock concert to draw people to listen to his Marxism. He's just too Muslim

Billy Yank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:04 PM:Mrs./Ms. O'Connor has it right. Stop

the hyphenating.


If one feels the need to hyphenate, the

it should be American-Mexican (for one

born in the US of Mexican decent), etc.

If one is from Mexico, with Mexican

allegiance, then one is Mexican, not

Mexican-American.


If one gains American citizenship, then

one is American.

It has nothing to do with denying one's heritage.

Hank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:05 PM:Great Another One, bookworm: a person unusually devoted to reading and study; know-it-all: one who claims to know

everything; also: one who disdains advice (Merriam-Webster).

I take calling me a bookworm as a compliment, as I am always studying and learning. HOWEVER, the more I learn, the less

I know - no know-it-all here.

Consulting credible technical sources for info on technical issues is good. Sure beats the junk (scientifically and

mathematically illiterate and often just plain false stuff) you pick up from WSJ, Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.

Unfortunately for the public debate on global warming, most of the lay debaters (certainly if this blog is

representative) know essentially nothing about the actual technical issues they rant about. And, they appear to be proud

of it.

Oh well...

Billy Yank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:12 PM:I love Chuck! Majority of the time I agree with him. Other times, he makes me think. A few times, I shake my head but most times, not.

In regards to Chris, well, I don't agree with you at all most the time, but, again, you make me think of why I believe what I believe. Most times I shake my head, a few not.

The rest of the regulars, you give me cause to chuckle and contemplation.

BTW: Love the "OBAMANATION" handle! It's PERFECT for obama.

Media Matters wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:18 PM:From the Investors Business Daily:

"An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio"

sdraoul wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:36 PM:When someone challenges me with some juvenile observations, why am I not allowed to respond?

bogie wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:22 PM:Too Muslim
[-] wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:30 PM:

Too funny

Billy Yank wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:35 PM:The online editor didn't post my other post.

I said that I really liked Chuck because most times he makes me think and it seems we are on the same page.

I said that I don't usually agree with Chris.

There are times that both may make me shake my head but that's okay.

Then I addressed the rest of the regular posters with basically an "atta boy" for just posting and giving me pause to reflect on why I believe what I believe.

Lastly, I kudo'd the handle "Obamanation". Loved it for the name obama.

That pretty much sums what my thoughts were.

Wonder why this is the third time this week the editor chose not to post my "thinkings". Guess that's why s/he is the editor.

Regards.

Question for Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:26 AM:Do you have the analogous data for media editors, publishers, and executives? You know, the people that actually control what is published or put on the air? Seems to me that this is the interesting question. Reporters and journalists tend to be people who care about society. They want to find out what's going on and let people know. This isn't the motivational resume of your typical Republican. In addition, except for a few "stars", these are not career paths that lead to the accumulation of wealth. Again, not a big draw for the conservative smart person. (Same as college professors.) But the only important POLITICAL point, if you want to make one, is the party affiliations of the people who actually decide what gets to the public, and what language it's written/spoken in. Let us know. The data you give us in neither surprising nor interesting.

Media Matters really wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:52 AM:You posted figures regarding reporters giving 15 to 1 to democrats. You claim to be from Investor's Business Dailey.
Who complied those figures? How were they complied? How many reporters contribute to neither party? Are the figures accurate or just more made up facts by the Con men who run America?

Virtually no Con facts written on this blog in the last several months about democrats, global warming, media bias,that I have tried to look up and verified turned out to be true or even close to true.

The Cons talking heads that I hear on radio and TV and those on this blog that repeat the cons constantly engage in emotion laden propaganda not in a search for truth and accuracy.

Ask yourself why Cons have to make up facts. Why are Con men who speak only for making billionnaires wealthier the only voice on radio? Could it have to do with who decides who gets the advertising dollars. If a radio host was not pro business and not pro boss and always anti union would his program get any paid advertising?

The liberal media bias lie is a cannard used to get an emotional reaction and knee jerk support for policies, laws and regulations that hurt ordinary American workers and consummers, it is not supported by fact.

Fox News and AM radio con man are driving every news cycle every day of the year. Ninty percent of news stories on the air today start with Fox and Rush.

Native wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:06 AM:As a Native American I will call myself as I choose. If you don't like it, then become a dictator and run your own country where you can deny your citizens of their rights. Stop thinking people have to conform to your views. We have freedoms in this country, if you can't accept that then move out!

He Said to Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:07 AM:Your miscalculation was referencing "Investors Business Daily". If you want to impress the Lib's you need to find a source titled "Government Giveaways Daily". They can't relate to investing.

Still waiting wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:19 AM:I'm still waiting for the data on the editors, publishers, and corporate boards of the MSM, to hear about their party affiliations, since they are the ones who decide upon the content of their media. Surprised that the same article cited by Media Matters has nothing to say about this, since this is the most interesting aspect of determining if there is bias in the media. If I wanted to know if the big oil companies were biased to the left or right, I wouldn't ask gas station attendants, would I?

Sorry Still Waiting wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:02 AM:You won't get "facts" from Media Matters, aka Reardon, aka Fact Checker, aka Greener than Gore, etc. etc. etc. He's too busy thinking up new names.

Another View Ms. Cooper wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:29 PM:The Mayor's role is to be a facilitator not a dictator. Mayor Wood should not try and control the flow of comment but to make sure everyone has an opportunity to be heard. Mayor Wood could have let Chavez speak and followed up with any comment he wished to make after Chavez finished. Instead, Mayor Wood chose to throw a child’s tantrum for all to see.