Executive Orders wrote on Nov 29, 2008 7:19 AM:Bad News: there are still people like Mark Corcoran (letter) who will believe anything they see on sites like "fresh-meat-for-global-warming" or an amateur "weather questions" page or one called "CO2sceptics" but refuse to even consider serious research by qualified scientists using the rigors of the scientific method under the careful oversight of standardized peer review methods.

Good News: much of the anti-science devastation wrought by George Bush was done by Executive Orders, not by acts of Congress or even administrative rulings from government agencies. What was done by fiat can be undone by fiat. The days of anti-science Luddites pushing us farther and father back into the Dark Ages are over. Bloviations such as we see this morning are their last hurrah.

Before January 20, 2009, President Obama will have hundreds of Executive Orders prepared in advance, ready to be signed right after the inaugural speech.
Our long national nightmare is over.

CONCERNED CITIZEN wrote on Nov 29, 2008 7:31 AM:TO DAREN REESE --- I join you in heartily applauding the VONS store on El Camino Real near Hwy 76. And…..Huge kudos to this VONS for installing a cart-theft deterrent system. No doubt this system will drastically reduce the number of abandoned carts in this area.

We can only hope that management of other large grocery stores and “big box” stores also install similar cart-theft deterrent systems. Most folks automatically blame the cart thieves and see the stores as a “victim”. But we need to rethink who the "victims" really are. The victims are the residents in the local community who have to look at the abandoned carts, avoid running over them and generally have their neighborhoods trashed with carts lying around day after day. THESE ARE THE TRUE VICTIMS.

Carts are technically a store's 'business equipment'. As a routine cost of doing business, it is their responsibility --- as a good business neighbor --- to make sure that their “business equipment” (i.e. carts) does not end up all over the surrounding streets, parks, bus stops and neighborhoods. There are very efficient ways of controlling cart loss ---- such as the one installed at the El Camino Real VONS. There is no other business or manufacturing facility or city/government agency, etc. with which scattering 'business equipment' all over local streets, sidewalks, front yards, bus stops and creek beds would be tolerated day after day.

Again --- BIG KUDOS TO VONS FOR THEIR FORWARD THINKING SOLUTION TO THE STOLEN/ABANDONED CART PROBLEM.

CONCERNED CITIZEN wrote on Nov 29, 2008 7:57 AM:TO DAREN REESE --- I join you in heartily applauding the VONS store on El Camino Real near Hwy 76. And…..Huge kudos to this VONS for installing a cart-theft deterrent system. No doubt this system will drastically reduce the number of abandoned carts in this area.

Most folks automatically blame the cart thieves and see the stores as a “victim”. But we need to rethink who the "victims" really are. The victims are the residents in the local community who have to look at the abandoned carts, avoid running over them and generally have their neighborhoods trashed with carts lying around day after day. THESE ARE THE TRUE VICTIMS.

Carts are technically a store's 'business equipment'. As a routine cost of doing business, it is their responsibility --- as a good business neighbor --- to make sure that their “business equipment” (i.e. carts) does not end up all over the surrounding streets, parks, bus stops and neighborhoods. There are very efficient ways of controlling cart loss ---- such as the system installed at the El Camino Real VONS. There is no other business or manufacturing facility or city/government agency, etc. with which scattering 'business equipment' all over local streets, sidewalks, front yards, bus stops and creek beds would be tolerated day after day.

Again --- BIG KUDOS TO VONS FOR TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AND THEIR FORWARD-THINKING SOLUTION TO THE STOLEN/ABANDONED CART PROBLEM. We can only hope that management of other large grocery stores and “big box” stores also install similar cart-theft deterrent systems.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:23 AM:To: Concerned Citizen! Really?

Wanda wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:29 AM:Michael Franck is right on top of the situation. No sooner did the paperboy ride by on his bicycle and toss the North County Times on the porch of Osama bin Laden's cave than he was on to our sensitive defense secrets.

Is this you, Ron?

craig burney wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:39 AM:Thank you Barbara for your insightful analysis of my letter regarding Republican health care. You do understand that this letter is a Parody. An issue wrapped in humor. Let me clarify: Right this very moment in some demented religious mind a health provider, pharmacist, or emergency room provider is DENYING a woman medical care. Primarily for abortion services but also pregnancy planning, birth control, and morning after medicine for rape etc.. Of course republicans have health issues just like progressives. But progressive/democratic lawmakers are not proposing HHS rules to making religious stupidity the basis to determine what care is delivered. A man is never denied medical care for anything. A woman in many states is. That is the issue. Plain and simple.

WELL SAID wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:40 AM:“If Obama follows through on his campaign rhetoric on regulation, it will not be the Bush economic policies he will be overturning. In the financial area, ironically, Clinton was actually the more de-regulatory president. As James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation points out, while there may have been flawed oversight, there really was no financial deregulation under Bush. Indeed, Bush's signature achievement in the financial area was the signing and implementing of the costly and counterproductive Sarbanes-Oxley accounting mandates.
When it comes to overall regulation, as my Competitive Enterprise Institute colleague Wayne Crews notes in his study ‘10,000 Commandments,’ the Bush administration has set records with the tens of thousands of pages it put in the Federal Register. So to the extent that Obama has said he would reverse financial deregulation, what he would largely be overturning are the financial modernizations Bill Clinton signed into law and that Clinton administration officials agree led to the ‘90s prosperity.” – John Berlau, economist / journalist, Reason Magazine, Nov 21, 2008.

global warming is fraud wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:19 AM:finally someone has the sense to defy the one world government global warming people.

Wanda wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:13 AM:That 9:19 AM poster is right!

It's about time somebody stood up to elitist scientists!

Unfortunately, come January 20th it's all over for the flat earth creationists, when we start down that slippery slope of literacy.

But Wanda wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:29 AM:Not literacy, anything but that!!
Have you been thinking again?
Next thing you know, people will understand our form of government.
And then they'll start respecting the Constitution.
And then they'll understand the function of the Supreme Court.
And then
And then.....

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:33 AM:It's the literate people who are laughing at the purveyors of the "man-made global warming" hoax. I'm still waiting for an explanation about how humans in general (and SUVs in particular) are responsible for the global warming seen on Mars, and how increasing taxes on Earth is going to reverse it.

Chuck wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:43 AM:The news is reporting that a Bombay terrorists gunman was 'Smiling' as he fired. It was the same smile liberals had on their face every time they stopped a Bush method for electronically spying on terrorists.
Also, it didnt take long for CNN to side with the Pakistanis in this matter, did it?

Chuck wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:46 AM:Now that "certain" groups have been successful in changing the name of the various Christmas parades, to Holiday parades, I wonder who will stop them from prancing around on the floats in their leather G-strings???

Oh Please wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:18 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:46 AM:
Don't worry Chuck! You can have a close up look in the fist line along the street.

Oh Please wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:19 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:43 AM:
Trying to indirectly link Liberals with terrorist attacks in India. You are one sick ideologue. Its a load. It sure does smell.

Wanda wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:50 AM:No offense, Floyd, at 10:33 AM. I didn't mean to imply there was anything lacking in your flat earth creationist science. You, Ron and Chuck are certainly entitled to your seperate, but equal, reality :)

sdrool wrote on Nov 29, 2008 12:14 PM:Here at the prestgious Raoul Sinverguenza Institute we don't believe any of that silly liberal global warming nonsense either, Floyd.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 29, 2008 1:02 PM:Heya Floyd,

I am surprised you haven't picked up on this.

See, it was the Martians which first had too many SUV's and they are all gone now because "Global Warming" ran amok on Mars and wiped them all out! We should all learn from the example the extinct Martians have left for us.

Bob wrote on Nov 29, 2008 1:07 PM:Yea, Floyd, that Northwest Passage has been there all along. Those sneaky Canadians have just been keeping it a secret. Don't fall for that climate change hoax.

How many Polar Bears do we really need anyway?

But Chuck wrote on Nov 29, 2008 1:37 PM:I realize that it's difficult for you to understand, but most liberals are just as aghast at the 'Bombay' terrorists as you or anyone else. BTW, catch up with the times, the place is now called Mumbai.
You respect for the Constitution, like Bush's, is nonexistant and that explains why you would trash anyone's and everyone's rights.
It's really too bad that you don't have a clue how much you play into the fearmongers' hands.

Roger wrote on Nov 29, 2008 1:53 PM:We don't need no stinkin' pantywaist liberal global warming science. We've got "Floyd the Scientist".

Al Gore is just jealous the Supreme Court didn't appoint him President.

Valid Sources wrote on Nov 29, 2008 2:56 PM:Mark Corcoran's letter lists websites and "scientists" but there is nothing that is peer-reviewed. NOTHING. (And sorry, MarineGunner, but "peer-reviewed" is the gold standard for scientific validity and your ridicule of it yesterday proves definitively your level of science awareness.)

The mere citing or quoting of scientists apart from legitimate peer-review has NO VALIDITY, since they represent a minority science view and are largely funded by special interests such as Exxon Mobil whose businesses profit from continued pollution.

In other cases, Corcoran has simply cited material from the popular media, not PEER-REVIEWED science. The fact that there is an anti-science website somewhere does not mean it's "data" is accurate.
Go to Google. Type in "Flat Earth Society" and, separately, "Geocentricity" (sun revolving around the earth) and you will find websites for more bizarre anti-science theories.
The fact that someone can put up a website does not validate "scientific" merit.

Wanda wrote on Nov 29, 2008 3:04 PM:Yea, Chuck, at 10:43 AM, that's pretty much it for those pesky liberals. They just listen to the Dixie Chicks and root for the terrorists. You and Ron got it all figured out.

It's just a hunch, but, Will Rogers never met you, did he?

Hot and Cold wrote on Nov 29, 2008 3:06 PM:More specific problems with Mark Corcoran's letter:

The reference to Al Gore misrepresents both the substance and the context of his statement. He acknowledged several very minor errors and allowed an errata to be included with his book. This letter gives the false impression that he has backed off from his campaign to fight the global climate crisis. He has not. In any case, the point is completely irrelevant since Gore is not a scientist and models of climate change did not come from him.

Formation of snow and ice do not occur at the LOWEST temperatures; there are optimal temperatures. When Arctic snow and ice increase, it is because temperatures have INCREASED from sub-optimal to optimal.

Fluctuations of cooling and warming (with long-term overall warming) validate the model.

And for Floyd Not A Scientist at 10:33 a.m., since no one is talking about humans on earth causing global warming on Mars, your off-the-planet remark is truly from outer space.

Looking Glass wrote on Nov 29, 2008 6:39 PM:I am willing to give Obama a chance. I know he can fix the economy, since most democrats are good at domestic issues. However, I hope that he'll keep the safety of the American people foremost in his mind when there are people hell bent on exterminating our way of life. I hope he stops the partisan bickering and builds the border fence, too.

to mark cocoran wrote on Nov 29, 2008 7:30 PM:get a life

Bring Back Carts wrote on Nov 29, 2008 7:37 PM:CONCERNED CITIZEN[-] wrote on Nov 29, 2008 7:57 AM: People who take the carts from the business's premises are technically thieves.

Journalism 101 wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:00 PM:It is truly disappointing to see that the North County Times would publish a letter with as much factual misrepresentation as the one from Mark Corcoran.
The NCT shows great responsibility in refusing to print letters that are obscene or libelous, yet feels no responsibility to guard against providing a forum for passing along Internet rumors and material that is extremely misleading.

In the present case, there is a combination of outright misinformation from unqualified sources, factoids irrelevant to the conclusions, as well as some facts that are accurate but are taken badly out of scientific context and/or do not support the conclusions claimed.

Corcoran complains about the UN and the "mainstream media."
Perhaps the "mainstream media" (which actually represents a wide range of diverse viewpoints but, being corporate owned, is generally conservative) has merely exercised a little journalistic integrity but, in this instance, the standards of the North County Times have fallen sadly short.

Get It On Or Get OVER wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:26 PM:Reardon was wondering why the freeways were so busy all the way to Tehachapi and back – now it is obvious that all of the Bloggers were on the road.

They certainly were not blogging. 27 Blogs is a new low.

Now if we could just keep the liberals out of the left lane so that better drivers in faster cars could pass, the world would be better.

Here is a clue, liberals: Your Echo CAN do 85 on a flat road, but when it hits a two-lane up-hill passing lane, you have no passing power left so you pass trucks like a snail – holding up powerful cars with “legs.”

The signs that say, SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT applies to your Prius! I wish we had those signs that said: IF YOU ARE BEING PASSED ON THE RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG.

I wish you had been blogging.

CONCERNED CITIZEN wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:35 PM:To BRING BACK CARTS --- I totally agree that those who steal shopping carts are “thieves”. And prosecuting repeat shopping cart thieves is part of the city code in Escondido and the new code in Oceanside. But the main goal of these two cities is to get stores to deter cart thefts in the first place. By all accounts, Escondido’s enforcement of the abandoned cart code --- which requires stores to take responsibility --- has been very successful. And Oceanside’s new code is also on the right track.

If all it took to solve the abandoned cart problem is to get police to step up and arrest cart thieves, then there would be no need to even bother with city ordinances and this problem would have been solved long ago. The reality is that the so-called “victim” ---- which is a store ---- will never agree to press charges against cart thieves and will never sign a complaint. Without "victim”/store cooperation, there can never be a PROSECUTABLE theft case and an arrest is nothing more than a useless waste of time.

If you don’t believe this, just try to get a cop to arrest someone with a shopping cart heading away from a store and see how far you get. I guarantee you will get nowhere. So…… maybe it’s time for a reality check??? Simply blaming those who take the carts is pointless because they are not the true source of the abandoned cart problem.

I have personally been working with SAN DIEGANS AGAINST ABANDONED SHOPPING CARTS (SDAASC) --- an active group which has done research and work on this ongoing cart blight in San Diego area for a long time. After you get into this problem and look at it from all angles, you get way past simply blaming the cart thieves. That is definitely NOT the solution to this problem.

The bottom line is that stores must step up to the plate and control their own carts. Obviously, the VONS at El Camino Real is on the leading edge of “enlightened” stores taking responsibility for its own carts. AGAIN….. KUDOS TO THE EL CAMINO REAL VONS!!!!

MOS 8541 wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:43 PM:MarineGunner, Floyd The Scientist is a hyperbole specialist with a subspecialty in sarcasm.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:11 PM:To: Valid Sources,

No need to apologize to me.
Everyone wants their buddies to agree with them. I do not care whom it is that agrees with me or disagrees with me. While "peer-review" may indeed be the "Gold Standard", it most certainly is not the "end all, be all" of science.

Are you familiar with the term "lobbyist"?

All "peer-review" means is that it is "accepted by colleagues", it does not mean that the data is validated.

Well, I have a problem with that. See, I understand corruption and the "pushing of agendas". I have been lied to before by those that are supposed to be "peer reviewed".

Are you saying that "peer-review" means that what is "peer reviewed" is beyond reproach or question?

Are you saying that because something is "peer reviewed" we just just accept it without skeptisism?

Just asking...

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:42 PM:To: Valid Sources,
I am most certain my previous post hasn't been published yet, so I just want to say: I am genuinely curious about the questions I asked.

I am not trying to be caustic. I really want to know how you honestly view the questions I have raised about the validity of "peer review".

Help wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:17 PM:Will someone define PEER REVIEWED? Because common sense dictates that crucial information that's ignored demonstrates lack of intelligence. Some help here?

republican wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:18 AM:Global shmobal. Drill baby drill, build baby build, pave baby pave. God gave us dominion.

PEER REVIEW wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:16 AM:MarineGunner at 9:11 p.m. continues to confirm his abject ignorance of the very rigorous protocols of the scientific method when he says: "All "peer-review" means is that it is "accepted by colleagues", it does not mean that the data is validated."
This peson obviously has no clue about how PEER REVIEW works in science and, no, MarineGunner, it is not just the fact that other professional peers get a chance to read a copy of the journal.
And no, it is not the same as a political lobbyist.
Again, your constant denigration of real science shows you to be a victim of the anti-science propagandists.
There are very clear guidelines for peer review in scientific circles, for oversight, verification and validation of both the methodologies and their implementaton, PRIOR TO PUBLICATION, in addition to post-publication review and replication.

The fact that you do not understand this reveals much.
You can ridicule the peer-reviewed scientific method all you want, but each time you do it confirms why your comments are not worth taking seriously.

MORE PEER REVIEW wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:26 AM:Oh, I do note that MarineGunner at 9:11 p.m. further asked if PEER REVIEW means "beyond reproach or question." Once again, merely asking such a questions betrays great ignorance about not only scientific methodology, but the whole basis of scientific inquiry.

NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS "BEYOND REPROACH OR QUESTION."
For example, there was consensus in geology about a stable earth's crust, until Wegener turned geology on its head, upset the consensus, and completely changed geology with the discovery of Plate Tectonics.
Similarly, there was medical consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and worry until Greek physician John Lykoudis discovered that it was caused by the bacterium H. Pylori and successfully treated them with antibiotics.
In both cases, there was resistance to the challenges to established consensus, but when documented evidence was supported by PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY, the consesus was adapted.
In contrast, it is unlikely that the current consensus that the Earth is round as revolves around the Sun will be challenged, but if ever it is, it would have to be by protocols of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY, not some amateur making guesses on a website.

And if and when there are challenges to the CURRENT CONSENSUS on climate change, it will have to be by protocols of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY, not a bunch of amateurs, or even renegade scientists bought of by oil company payoffs.

3D wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:30 AM:Republican at 7:18 a.m. equates "dominion" with utter destructive abuse for the short-term gains of what we want.
But the term "dominion" is also used repeatedly throughout the Bible to describe a man's DOMINION over his wife or wives.
Is it Republican's view that the Bible authorizes a man to decimate and destroy his wife to get what he wants?
Blessings,
3D

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:38 AM:I would like to put forth the following as to why I question the validity of the "peer review" process as far as the "global warming/climate change" agenda is conecerned.

I would suggest that anyone interested in making up thier own minds find the site for the Science and Public Policy Institute.

There is an article by John McLean entitled "Peer Review? What Peer Review?" that takes a look at the peer review process of the IPCC report(s). There are many others that are equally interesting as well and they are not hard to find.

I would also like to offer up the following quotes as an example of policy gone wrong:

"...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead Author of many IPCC reports

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, former US Under Sec of State, current Head of the UN Foundation

Greenergy wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:15 AM:Amazingly, MarineGunner at 9:38 a.m. ADMITS that his source for "science" information is none other than the much-discredited Science and Public Policy Institute.
The Executive Director of this outfit is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, a former Chief of Staff to REPUBLICAN Congressmen Jack Fields
The New York Times reported that in 2002 this organization, under its original name of "Frontiers of Freedom" received $230,000 in funding from Exxon and the institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006.
Thank you for admitting that your source is NOT A SCIENCE ORGANIZATION, but a REPUBLICAN POLITICAL group funded by ExxonMobil.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:53 AM:I would like to ask some of the previous posters why they insist on making ad hominem abusive attacks on me?

What is with this insistence that I am somehow not qualified to ask questions?

If I am "ignorant"... then educate me, don't attack me and think it is going to convince me of anything.

Apparently, the questions I ask make you uncomfortable. Is attempting to belittle me the only way you can make your point?

I would say that the fact that I can ask those questions actually indicates that I am not as ignorant as you would like to believe.

You betray your bias in the way you are responding with broad generalizations, assumptions, and attempting to prove your point by attacking the messenger.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:15 AM:Greenergy @ 10:15 AM:

So what?
Here you are... again, trying to debase information based on political bias.

Why don't you actually address what is being talked about in the papers published there? Why not state why they are wrong?
You can't can you?

What is your point, other than pushing a liberal viewpoint without anything to offer in rebuttal?

Skeptical wrote on Nov 30, 2008 12:34 PM:When I see phrases such as "much discredited" I wonder... by who?

Pointing out who funded something does nothing to discredit the information supplied on that basis alone.

All that does is indicate a bias by the poster.

Alf wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:29 PM:Well, "MarineGunner" at 10:53AM on the 30th,
some people simply do not have it in them to debate or discuss things without personal attacks.
Maybe challenging their perceptions or beliefs, no matter how it's phrased, is perceived as a personal attack and must be responded to accordingly.
To others it is the only way that they think that they can have the upper hand, unaware of how false that belief really is.

As to your 11:15AM post,
If someone quotes anything from the AFA, for example, I automatically know the bias and veracity of it and know that it is suspect at best and outright propaganda and lies at worst.
Why?
This quote is taken directly from the squib on the google search before entering the AFA site - "The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change
the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values.", THEIR version of "Biblical truth" and THEIR version of "traditional family values" are the bias and it is typical religious right-wing PAC (Pick And Choose from the Bible) whatever supports their position and ignore that which doesn't.
Anything purporting to be "scientific" emanating from there has a 99.9999 percent chance of being anything but "scientific".
Regards, Alf.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:29 PM:Heya Alf:
I hope you and yours had a nice Thanksgiving.

I hear ya on both points. As to the first point you made. I guess I just find it sad that there are still people that react that way to discourse.

As to the second point you made. I can understand why you would dismiss that particular group, based on their statement for existence in the first place.
One thing I would like to point out though, and this relates to a conversation I had recently.

We were discussing the fossil record, geology, evolution, etc. The person I was speaking to brought up the Institute for Creation Research as the basis for their belief the Earth is only "thousands" of years old. Obviously, this institute is going to have a strong bias.
However, instead of dismissing their belief and that person out of hand, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I went and read the research posted on that site and was able, through that investigation, to refute their particular claims. I guess I just feel that I am able to debate more effectively and make more salient points if I am familiar with the information I am attempting to refute. As opposed to just saying, "Well, it was written by a creationist, so it must be garbage."

Bottom line is that people need to be educated, or educate themselves if they intend of having any kind of meaningful intellectual converstations. One cannot rely on information that has an abject bias or hearsay and have any hope of convincing anybody of anything. One most certainly cannot rely on "ad hominem" to prove a point. That is nothing more than incredibly ineffective and is alienating.

Alf wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:45 AM:Well, "MarineGunner" at 7:29PM on the 30th,
we most certainly did, thank you!
And how about you and yours?

I only know of the bias of the AFA because I had already done many months ago as you advocate, I checked the "facts" and "studies" against other sources, sources more widely accepted in both the medical and psychological fields. It's because I found several things to be "out in left field" (not just their mission statement) that I do not lend them any credence. For one example of their distortions you can google - 'Home Depot Christmas snopes' , in this case they not only distort, they flat-out lie by saying that Home Depot deleted "Christmas" from its advertising "vocabulary". When AFA was caught in their outright lie, they backed off a bit and issued a "correction".
Regards, Alf.