Skip wrote on Jan 24, 2007 11:48 PM:RE: We no longer live in a democratic nation >>>>> We never did. We live in a Republic. Remember the pledge of Aligience.....I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the "Republic" for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. A Democratic society is run by the majority will of the people, and a Republic is run in accordence with a Constitution.

Accurate Alf wrote on Jan 24, 2007 11:49 PM:There have been mentions of the quote "First they came for...". The true historical sequence, which Rev. Niemoeller who was a “guest” at both Sachsenhausen Dachau concentration camps, of course followed, was communists, socialists, trade unionists, and Jews (and then "me"). Are you ready for the real thing? - "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me." - His was a chronicle of the slide down the slope of loss of civil rights that the German people were led by Hitler.

Randy wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:42 AM:The lack of transparency at both MiraCosta College and El Camino High School is disheartening. These institutions confiscate our property tax dollars and then thwart every attempt at accountability!

Don't be a fool, Robert wrote on Jan 25, 2007 3:47 AM:Robert Thompson doesn't get the big picture. Localized low temperatures do not dispute the reality of Global Warming. His sophomoric understanding of science fails to consider that the concern of Global Warming is not day-to-day locally isolated temperatures, but rather the shifting of weather patterns. Low local temperatures are the result of Global Warming, not an arguement against it.

El Guero wrote on Jan 25, 2007 5:14 AM:I'll respond to Rob Thompson's letter because I know he's so vain he'll want to read all the criticism. His friend is right; he's wrong Ninety-nine point nine percent of climate scientists believe that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming. To call them 'greedy' is incredible. How are they greedy? Is this really just a large conspiracy by educated people to steal government grant money? I guess Rob would answer in the affirmative. I don't care for the simpleton label. But it fits the global warming denialists like Rob to a tee.

Truthman wrote on Jan 25, 2007 6:50 AM:Rob Thompson is right. As Walter Williams wrote in his latest column..."The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives". I have to ask myself: Why is it opponents of the war in Iraq "know" what is supposedly going on behind the curtain (the war is really all about oil, control, imperialism, etc.), yet they fail to see what is going on behind the curtain with the global warming charade?

to Alfred Marton wrote on Jan 25, 2007 7:36 AM:I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If the radical Muslims put down their guns, there would be no more war; If the Jews put down their guns, there would be no more Jews.

Sorry Jane wrote on Jan 25, 2007 7:53 AM:I'll respect the Escondido City Council as public servants when they respect us as the citizens who elected them. I could fill this blog with quotes from the city council that 90% of Escondidans would find offensive. For example Ed Gallo calling the folks who were against the condo project on the sight of the old Fireside Restaurant "Hayseeds".

Harold wrote on Jan 25, 2007 8:57 AM:I just don’t know Rob Thompson. I think you’ve only got one oar in the water.

A couple of questions wrote on Jan 25, 2007 9:00 AM:for Rob Thompson. We know that the major international scientific organizations, comprised of thousands of those with the most expertise, have formally come out with statements of belief in human contribution to global warming. Of course, we don't have to believe them. But I have two questions for Mr Thompson. First, he says it's all about greedy scientists. Most of these scientists work in academic institutions or for governments. If you know anything about salaries in these institutions, they ain't getting rich. So I'd like Mr Thompson to explain why he believes that these thousands of scientists the world over are indulging greed. And if it isn't greed, why ARE they promoting something with so much near-unanimity? My second question is simply this. Mr Thompson has told us before that he teaches High School, but is not a science teacher. Why, then, does this issue matter so much to him? Just as I wonder about what the world scientists' motivation for their "butt on the line" statements could be, how does a non-scientist HS teacher come to care SO much about being just positive they're all full of hooey? I am truly perplexed.

Robert wrote on Jan 25, 2007 9:02 AM:Did anyone notice that the majority of those favoring the Chargers move to Oceanside were season ticket holders or frequent attendees to games? How great would it be for them to drive only a couple of miles! Not all of us can affort the admission price. The remaining supporters live miles away from the proposed site. So what do they care?

to Alfred Marton wrote on Jan 25, 2007 9:05 AM:This is only a tiny answer from someone who is not anti-Israel, but pro-truth. Most of the first truck/bus bombs aimed at innocent civilians in that area were the work of Zionists who were determined to terrify Palestinians into leaving the area that is now Israel, prior to the 1948 establishment of the state. Israel no longer has to do such things because, thanks to the US, they have much more sophisticated weaponry. People use truck (and suicide) bombs when that's all they have. Once, these were all the Zionists had, and they used them.

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 9:37 AM:Innovation can begin taking place at MiraCosta, once you've cleared out all the thiefs.

Escondeeter wrote on Jan 25, 2007 9:51 AM:Hooray for Jane McNamara! It needed to be said.

Alf wrote on Jan 25, 2007 9:54 AM:What the heck, "Skip", is a Democratic Republic? 40 years ago I was taught that the U.S. is a Democratic Republic.

Harold wrote on Jan 25, 2007 10:15 AM:To “Don't be a fool, Robert”—some people that just didn’t ‘get’ it are slowly ‘getting’ it. In “The Australian” today: “A former climate change skeptic, John Howard has shifted his position on the subject, saying he now accepts global warming has contributed to Australia's long-running drought.”

It's Not Just the Dems Any More, Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 10:19 AM:Even an increasing number of congressional Republicans, most recently Sen. John Warner of Virginia, have made it clear that ending this disastrous adventure is vital to their electoral future. Warner, along with several moderates in both parties, proposed legislation on Tuesday opposing Bush’s sending of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

ken wrote on Jan 25, 2007 10:19 AM:It is because the erosion of rights is usually slow that I, and I hope we all, must always be mindful of that first step.

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 10:32 AM:John Terrell must be thrilled, Bush's warrantless wiretapping was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. (it was declared unconstitutional before it was declared constitutional.) I got just one question: If your an American talking to a known Al-Queda terrorist, what they heck are you talking to them about? The weather in Iraq? Maybe Grandma Terrorist needs a new knee so he's consulting about a good American surgeon. Who know's? But in Jon Terrel's world, it just doesn't matter. So much for connecting dots. And he goes on to say that Bush "condones torture", so he has no respect for him. I guess if standing for long periods of time means torture, I say torture away. I've seen all of the 7 techniques, and they in no way "torture" suspects. It's a red-herring. Then he says: "Further, there's no evidence that Bush's efforts have prevented any major terrorist attack on the U.S." As opposed to Clinton's lack of effort which directly contributed to further attacks. By the way, are we searching all shipping containers yet? Yeah, I thought not. So much for feeling safer with the new Democrat majority.

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:03 AM:Rob Thompson is right. and his statement: "They are billion-dollar snake-oil salesmen and all you simpletons are embarrassingly falling for it." Is even more funny. If you know anything, about anything, you know that Kyoto was set up as a wealth transfer system from countries that produce, to countries that don't produce. Here's how it works: Sure, their are benchmarks for reductions in carbon, but there are also "carbon credits." We have the same programs in California. If one country over pollutes per the agreement, they can "buy" additional carbon credits from countries that are under their allotment. Los Angeles frequently buys additional smog credits from other cities. Sure, they attempt to reduce their emmsions, but how do you reduce when your economy requires more enrgy consumption? You don't have viable enrgy alternatives (thank you very little enviro-nutters), as those alternatives they say will also harm the environment. So, your locked into an agreement, with no other alterative than to buy more credits. In short, it's welfare for poorer nations.

to Harold wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:16 AM:Skeptics of environmentlists take on global warming are not disputing the fact that we are experiencing, in general, global warming. It is whether or not man has contributed a significant amount (or anything) to the warming. Are these expert scientists prepared to say, without a doubt, that we can expect increasingly more warming in the next several decades? No they can't. Why? Because many of them were the same ones who emphatically stated in the late 60's and early 70's that their "research" showed that the earth was definitely headed into another Ice Age.

Dang wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:24 AM:John Musser is maaaaadddd! Take a breather from politics John. You might want to sit the next couple of plays out.

to Truthman...better get a new moniker! wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:27 AM:To answer your questions. First, even though environmental activists scream about global warming, the more important fact is that almost every scientific organization related to that field (actually, it's ALL of them if you don't count those with close ties to the energy industry) support the human-global warming connection. I'd be skeptical if it was just the earth-first-types, but when just about every scientist in the world says so, I'm a whole lot less skeptical. Pointing to the issue as though it's about environmental extremists is simply a lie. If Mr. Williams were more ethical as a journalist, he'd be taking on the scientific organizations rather than pretending it's merely political outliers. Second, you ask how people know about Iraq. I'm not sure about "it's about oil" claims, but opponents to the Iraq adventure have many experts, including reporters on the scene, generals, Congresspeople on the appropriate committees, the Iraq Study Group, anonymous polls of our troops and the Iraqi people, testimony of the leaders of Iraq's Parliament...well, you get the idea. Another reason we are skeptical of the "reasons" we are in Iraq is that our fearless leader has given us many versions of this, some of which we know now are plain false (I didn't say 'lies'. Maybe they were, maybe they were errors, but either way, they were false.) We know there are many areas in Iraq that are doing well. But we also know that this is the very minor part of the story...if it was the major part, we'd be long gone.

Global warming wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:32 AM:Think of all the ways you behave and all the things you think that, in effect, display your belief in what good science says. But because the whole enterprise of science aims towards the continuous improvement of ideas, sometimes science is wrong. So many of you "argue" against the global warming idea based on a few hand-picked examples of science being wrong, it's quite ludicrous. How does being wrong about something prove, or say anything at all, about what different people say about a different topic? Next time, before you post, try being a no-spin-zone, and include a list of things scientists (when they speak in consensus) have been right about alongside the errors. Then make your point (as if even such a list had anything to do with the question). When you go to a football game, and see (maybe on a challenge) that the refs blew a call, do you call for the game to continue without refs? Do you disbelieve every subsequent call?

Did you notice? wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:34 AM:Ron did it again (11:03). Rob Thompson's letter was not about the Kyoto accord. Ron says Rob was right, and then goes off on another topic. Straw!

To Robert Cartin wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:50 AM:While I totally argree with you, that the vast majority of our kids are great kids with terrific futures, I firmly believe that the article on El Camino High was fair and accurate. If you talk to your kids about the gangs at school, you will find that they do in fact have to take them into account in their daily lives at school. They have to be aware of what they wear, where they eat lunch, what bathrooms they use and many other considerations that we don't usually think of. When speaking with my kids I found that it was no big deal to them. "You just have to know what to do to avoid them mom". They go to a party, they stand in the back yard to talk, not the front. You look the other direction to avoid eye contact with them. You wear your red shirt with blue jeans, not black. You don't wear certain logo's. They have made alot of adjustments. They are so used to it they know what to do and what not to do. It is so routine to them that they don't even give it a second thought. That is the sad part, it is so much a part of daily life to them that they don't see how scarry it really is.

Alf wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:52 AM:Failing to revise your opinion based on new or more accurate facts is not the same as being wise, how about stubborn?. The change in global temperature is, by our current abilities to detect, a fact. How much is caused by the shift in the magnetic poles (which means) the axis of the core is changing, or the the industry of man or the breathing of 6 BILLION people is much harder to quantify.

Truthman wrote on Jan 25, 2007 11:55 AM:There is a lot of money in global warming scare. I mean a LOT of money. We've all heard of "Big Oil" or the "Ole bidness". How about "Big Warming" or the "Womin' bidness"?

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:03 PM:Robert Tormey just doesn't get it. He thinks condo density contributed to disaster in Escondido. "How many condos can we cram on the head of a pin?" As many as the environmentalists tell us we have too. We have to conserve, smaller is better. How small does your car need to be? As small as they tell you it needs to be. Better yet, no car, ride the bus. You know it's funny. For people who don't want to be told what to do, as they will freely tell you, they certainly want to tell the rest of us what to do. Here's a suggestion: Why don't all of you environmentalists start living out of your closet, and riding the bus. Show us the way, you know, by example. Maybe if we see you do it, then we'll get on board. What? You won't be able to get to your next protest? The bus schedule does run at that time of day? Not close enough to the protest, you might have to walk a mile or two? Now, you know why we don't do it either.

GAD wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:18 PM:TO: PRISCILLA ROBERTS. I moved to Temecula in 1992. I have witnessed tremendous growth in this area. However, I'm getting a little tired of people who move here thinking they will be the last ones to do so. It's nice you moved here to get away from chaos and crime. That's one of the many reasons people move here. This of course increases the population, which increases chaos and crime. If you are truly upset about how Temecula has grown and changed, maybe you could move to another small town and ask the Planning Commission of that town to halt approval of any new development so no more people can follow you to your new town.

to Truthman wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:21 PM:Fuzzy thinking, dude. Yes, sure, there's a lot of money in the global warming thing. But I still have to ask: the scientists, the thousands of scientists, who are nearly unanimous in their support of the human-warming connection. Why, since they themselves reap near nothing from this, should they be so vocal about what they think is happening? Or let's put it another way. Assume for a moment that the vast, vast majority of studies on this subject tended to support the idea that there was NO connection between humans and global warming. So if they said anything at all about it, the major scientific organizations would endorse this non-connection. Do you think the environmental activists or even those who would financially benefit from global warming actions, would even get microscopic attention under these circumstances? Of course not. Right wing radio, and our dear President, have got you all believing that the only things that exist are political things...talk about relativism! Science? Just a bunch of smart guys with a socialist agenda on the take. Of course science has been wrong. But since I am not equipped to independently evaluate atmospheric science, I have to decide who to believe. Hmmm. Walter Williams or the major scientific organizations in the world? If these scientific organizations said tomorrow that, oops, they were wrong, that'd be perfectly all right with me. My only stake is in what seems to be the truth, as best we can decipher it. What's Walter Williams' stake? Whose stake is it to persuade people that there is no truth, only politics? I leave it up to you...

More straw wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:23 PM:Ron's attacking environmentalists for not riding busses now, folks. He knows them all, of course. Straw.

to Global Warming wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:29 PM:Man's contribution to global warming is very hard to prove, perhaps even impossible. So many holes have been punched in their theories and so many different explanations offered (for instance, why is the solar system also heating?) that it just becomes odd that these climatologists continue to move forward. At this point, it's like, do they even know if they are on the right track anymore? I certainly don't have a problem with them continuing their search...please do. What I have a problem with is people such as Al Gore simply dismiss good questions and contrary research out of hand, proceed to tell us the evidence is there, and then are ready for global policy change in a huge way. They want to cut industry WAY back, and it is obvious that no one is certain what the planet will be like in 20 or 30 years. They remind me of these Bush backers on the Iraq war...good questions are being asked by opposers of the Iraq war and good people have predicted what would happen and may happen. Yet Bush just presses ahead. What is any different that what Gore is leading?

to Did you Notice? wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:37 PM:If you do not know by now that the Kyoto protocal is a relevant topic in the discussion about global warming, then we can't help you. Your goal here seems to be to attack Ron. Not sure what that does for you, but heh, to each his own I guess.

Truthman wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:52 PM:to "to Truthman"...You say above "the more important fact is that almost every scientific organization related to that field (actually, it's ALL of them if you don't count those with close ties to the energy industry) support the human-global warming connection."...ALL? Come on, now that IS a lie. A simple google search will show you the vast # of scientists - whether they belong to a scientific organization or work at a university - who simply know the man connection to warming simply is not there. The evidence just isn't there. I'm not saying it's a majority that feel this way. But when you say ALL (except those connected to the oil industry), you're not fooling anybody.

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:57 PM:Can it be true? Garth Gregory Hansen says "We no longer live in a democratic nation?" "...and the (Democratic) Congress will gripe and do nothing. Why are you surprised? I think John Musser was onto something in his letter today, although he utterly failed to include the self-righteous, defeatist blather from those on the loony left. Hanson, Musser and their like-minded legion of liberal utopian faithful will continue to believe every bit of drivel that proceeds from the mouths of their Messiah's Pelosi, Reid, MoveOn and a host of ex-Air America gasbags. And when the Democrats in Congress fail to live up to the promises they gave, Their extremist base will begin to eat their own, as seen recently by the protest of Cindy Sheehan (close personal friend to recently quoted Venezuelan President Hugo "I hate the gringo's" Chavez) at a Democrat victory party. Man, this is getting good!

Truthman wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:04 PM:to 12:21pm poster: And what about the thousands of scientists in the field who are on record that there are too many unanswered questions in the connection? Saying they are oil company bought doesn't cut it anymore. There are too many scientists in our universities who won't sign on. You ask what is in it for all these scientists who are so sure about global warming and their findings? I don't know, name recognition? Book deals? Wanting to make history by being a part of studying and preventing the coming "disaster"? You said it yourself, there is a lot of money to be made in the global warming business. Fear sells. Just like Bush trying to keep us scared with the terrorist boogeyman, the global warming doom and gloomers are doing the same.

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:15 PM:If you want an eye opening view into the world of environmentalists, read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. I know it's fiction, but he did a lot of research into environmentist groups and how they fund themselves. For example, he claimss they spend nearly 80% of their donated money to advertise for more money. And for those who think scientists are "all objective" and can't be swayed by money, just think about their employment. Maybe their just trying to keep a job. Or what about pressure from those who fund them? You really believe these people are above all that? I'm getting the feeling "Scientists" are the new clergy. It also seem to me that there were "Scientists" behind recently pulled medication. Like I said, people are religious beings, it just a matter of who your putting your faith in.

Did you notice? wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:38 PM:Of course Kyoto and global warming are related. But Ron said (1) Rob is right, global warming is nonsense, and (2) the Kyoto treaty... My point is that these are two independent things. But I admit that Ron does need to be attacked. He is, if you've noticed, extremely narcissistic and pontificates as though he is expert at all things. It is important to the blog that when he attacks straw men or throws out nonsense, that he be called on it. A public service. His incredible narcissism does bring this out in me with some fervor. But I think unfounded arrogance is quite ugly. Don't you?

Global Warming wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:48 PM:To Global Warming (1229) notices something very important: "it becomes odd that these climatologists continue to move forward". Yet they do. As a neutral observer I have to conclude that it's because they still feel the evidence is on that side. My conclusion is tentative and would be ready to change if they do, or even if it became much more disputed within the field. But To Global Warming then makes a typical move: the topic changes from the climatologists (whose behavior s/he just said was puzzling) to Al Gore (and Bush). Again, it's switched to partisan politics. Why is this? Gore, for whatever reason, has come to believe the scientists and wants to sell the idea. Sure he has political motives as well. That's a no-brainer. But the only real question in an area like this is: is this true? And the scientists are the only ones who can answer this. Now Ron, of course, thinks he has discovered something ingenious by saying that scientists are not saints or infallible. Straw, as usual. It's not "scientists" that say there's a human-warming link, it's just about every national and international scientific organization in this field. A near consesus world wide. This has nothing to do with science=religion, because, as mentioned several times, if that many scientists changed their minds tomorrow (when's the last time a religious person did that?) most people, including me, would change along with them. I wish people would just be honest. 1) I am unqualified to determine anything about global warming 2) I am pretty comfortable with the world as it is 3) Whether the scientists are right or wrong, it would be a pain in my rear to have to change my way of life...so who cares who says what about it, I would rather have my comforts and my world left alone. But no, we have to pretend we know atmospheric science; we have to pretend that scientists are conspiring lackeys controlled by enviromental wingnuts. I can see why Gore called his film an Inconvenient truth. That's all it is about.

We asked for signs, the signs were sent, signs for all to see wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:53 PM:Well, I don't know them all, but it's a fact that if we went looking for "green" people who walked their talk, we'd find plenty, along with a ton of others who struggle to find ways to become "greener". So the models are there, taking mass transit, riding bikes, walking, you name it. Will you follow now, or is it only when there's not a single green hypocrite on earth will you be satisfied?

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:59 PM:I just love people like John George. In his protest letter today he trys to despatately, as do many bloggers, to attempt to impress us with their brillance, or baffling us with their wit. The one word that really drives a stake in the heart of every anti-religionist is the word: "Creator." They can't get around it. It's there in black & white. No way to escape it, so they must move on to the next phrase, of redefining what the word "Creator" means. It means the one who creates. Simple, right? Not so simple. "The Creator" the founders knew listened to their prayers, otherwise, why would these brillant men offer prayers to an unhearing, uncaring god? A god of "Nature" was invented by those who reject a Biblical God to fill the gap. Well, I've looked at the nature this Creator has created, and what I see is, animals eating other animals. In short, Darwinism. Then how do all these anti-religionists get these ideas of morality? If man is just an animal, as the scientists you guys think are always right, are correct. I owe you nothing. If Nature is truely your god, then live by nature's rules. If I'm more powerful, then I make the rules, that's nature's way. But you know what's even funnier, watching these guys tie themselves up in knots trying to explain all this nonsense.

Ron's Wife wrote on Jan 25, 2007 2:03 PM:Narcissism? It's time to stop arguing with liberals!

to Did you notice wrote on Jan 25, 2007 2:18 PM:In all fairness to Ron, he was agreeing with Rob Thompson that (1)"man-induced" global warming is nonsense and (2) the proposed Kyoto remedies amount to little more than a massive wealth transfer, intentional or not. But yes, I think unfounded arrogance is quite ugly, but I don't think this was the case here.

Ken wrote on Jan 25, 2007 2:33 PM:Ice that is melting that has not melted in recorded past is proof that something is happening. Of this there can be no argument. And there can be no argument that ice is melted by an increase in temperature. Many are flailing around trying to determine what is causing this increase to happen, but maybe there are multiple forces at work over which we have no control. Maybe all we can do is to slow down the process, by way of reducing our contribution to it, that will happen no matter what we do. Lots of maybes and unanswered questions, yes, but we can not stop the wind, can we? We can not even deflect it, except on an extremely small scale.

Global Mule Butts wrote on Jan 25, 2007 2:46 PM:There is no proof that humans are adding to global warming anymore than cows are adding to it. Just remember for the past 5 decades these so called scientists have been preaching the same psycho-babble, the world is no worse off today than it was then. There is no way to destroy the earth, it will always be able to sustain life. Now please don't tell me how to live for sake of the planet. Tonight when you go to bed, don'te your gas heaters please it might cause the warming of the environment in you house

El Guero wrote on Jan 25, 2007 3:08 PM:Scientist Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography wrote an illuminating essay in the July 12, 2006, issue of the San Diego Union-Tribune about global warming and the doubters whom he calls 'denialists.' Here’s in part what he had to say: ‘A group of people dispute the scientific consensus. They like to call themselves skeptics. A healthy skepticism, however, is part of being a good scientist, so I am unwilling to surrender this label to them. Instead, I call them denialists. You don't get anything like a balanced view from climate denialists. Their only goal is finding ways why the climate might be resistant to human activities. By and large, these denialists have convinced very few knowledgeable scientists to agree with them. Science is very much a cooperative process and is largely self-correcting. We publish our research methods and our findings in detail and invite other scientists to confirm or disprove them. Incorrect science ultimately gets rooted out and rejected.' I think I'd take Somerville's word on global warming over Rob Thompson's. But that's just me, poor simpleton that I am.

Jill M. wrote on Jan 25, 2007 3:16 PM:I read the letters to the Editor daily and I have to say that I always agree with Rob Thompson. He's not a whacko. He's to the point and as far as global warming goes, since when do any of us care what will happen 5000 years from now?

Cool it! wrote on Jan 25, 2007 3:23 PM:I think we are all going to believe what we want to believe about "global warming." If we like to think another polar bear falls through the ice each time our neighbor fills up his SUV, we will believe it. Knowing this about our nature, is what keeps demagogues in business.

Winnie wrote on Jan 25, 2007 3:39 PM:I’m a latte drinking, sushi eating, body pierced, NY Times reading liberal, so I know something about global warming! Let me tell you this: there is so much hot air coming out of this argument today, I could cook my soy hot dogs!

GFN wrote on Jan 25, 2007 3:44 PM:Thanks Ken, 2:33 post...probably the best description of where we actually are overall with the topic of global warming.

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 3:50 PM:The problem with "Global Warming" is has produced yet another way to reduce my freedom, instead of giving me more freedom. What do I mean by this? When you hear the solutions offered by the left, environmentalists, and such, what they offer you is always less. Smaller homes, smaller cars, public transportation, fewer building permits, etc. It would seem to me that those who claim to be liberal should be a little more concerned about personal freedom. If you look up the term "Liberal", personal freedom (liberty) is a key component. Allowing each person to decide for him or herself what is right for them. How about some thought about increasing my choices in energy I can consume, rather than always thinking about how much "Less" I need to use?

Nature and Creation wrote on Jan 25, 2007 4:04 PM:1: Nature: amazingly, nature is very complex. Some people of simple mind think of nature as a big mean machine, each against all, strongest always wins, might is right. But if you study the sucker as it is, you find all kinds of other stuff as well. For example, cooperation is widespread in many animals' social groups. Our very cells work because microscopic organisms kindly produce the chemicals we need, and we give them the same. It's so incredibly rich and so unlike a simple Tarzanian brutish hierarchy. Check it out sometime. 2: Creation: in a trivial sense, the universe can be said to be created, but really all we mean by that is "came to exist". We have to be careful that when we use the word "created", some people, simple ones, feel that this must mean there is a creator (a person-like being who made something from nothing). This is a merely grammatical truth passing for metaphysics. There is no reason to think that the universe was "created". We can always ask: what caused that? what came before that? In fact, even if there were found to be a creator, we'd ask, how'd she do it? what brought her into being? how old is she? For some reason, people have relatively little trouble imagining an infinite future, but a much harder time imagining an infinite past. But this says things about our imaginative abilities, not the universe, necessarily. Let's all let ourselves imagine bigger, more awesome things about the world than was in the minds of some desert people a few thousand years ago. The universe is so much more inspiring and vast than that!

Global Warming wrote on Jan 25, 2007 4:11 PM:to El Guero: well said, hombre. I admit I may have overstated the case, but seriously folks, scientists do not tend to sign on to organizational statements easily. Make a list, as you Google, of the organizations that endorse the connection. It's hefty and impressive. Do the same for the "denialists". See for yourself. As I've said repeatedly, I have no stake whatsoever in this, and tend to vote with the leading scientists, pro or con. But if you look at the posts today, people have a terrible time being calm and rational about this. How many have responded to me as if I were an eco-wacko? Even though I say repeatedly that if these same experts said, "New data, cancel the human-warming thing", I feel just the same following their assessment as now. I just don't get the intensity of the denialists, except if Mr. Gore is right, it's just that these folks hate inconvenience that much. Or maybe they vehemently hate anything that Mr. Gore approves of, even if it's a matter of scientific fact. Wow! Explains a lot about the success of the Limbaughs of the world.

Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 4:45 PM:So I'm reading this blog by Nature and Creation {4:04 PM}, and I'm ready to fall off my chair. Just like clock work, here they come. Nature writes: "amazingly, nature is very complex." Yeah, until you get near a bear cub, and it's mother comes out to maul you. Well, so much for cooperation. And again Nature writes: "cooperation is widespread in many animals' social groups." Yeah, if your in the group! If your an antelope, you better stay in the middle of the pack, otherwise the pride of lions following your herd, may just pick you off. That my friend, is Tarzanish and brutal. For the antelope, no cooperating there I can see. Then they get into some sort of metaphysical thing.... refers to the creator as a "she". Heck what do I know.. could be? But interestingly, they say nothing about "First Cause", now you can refer to first cause as she, if you must. But the founders refered to the first cause as the Creator. They are not concerned about where "she" came from, only that "she" gave us inalienable rights. Are the pot stores open again?

Boogy Man wrote on Jan 25, 2007 5:01 PM:OK, now I've got it. The Boogy Man gave us inalienable rights. Good one, thanx Ron.

Ken wrote on Jan 25, 2007 5:04 PM:My question to "Global Mule Butts" is - How many humans were on this planet 100 years ago? I think less 1/2 of the 6 or more BILLIONS that we have now. How is it possible that a few billion more people who eat, exhale Carbon Dioxide, use some form of power and require food are not creating or adding to problems such as Global Warming.

Rob T. wrote on Jan 25, 2007 5:06 PM:When I think of global warming I don't think conservative or liberal. As with all politics, there is an agenda on both sides of the issue. What I do think about however, is the audacity of man to think that he has he ability to destroy something that God created. The earth will be here long after us humans have apologized ourselves from the earth. Is my view of global warming a religious one? No. I just know that I am 40 years old and the last 4 decades have each been different weather wise. Some colder, some warmer. It's common sense, and it makes more sense to assume that the earth and it's hemisphere do what they do because they have been doing it for millions of years. For us to think that we can, in 100 years, disrupt greatly, something that has been spinning for millions of years is asinine and full of unwarranted paranoia. Mother Nature does what she wants to do. Unfortunately, even though we'd like to be able to, we can't control everything. We need to get over ourselves. 1000 years from now the George Jetson's of the world will be flying around in their new Ford Cosmos and some offended group will claim that the jet streams being created by these vehicles are disrupting the high and low tide cycles of the oceans. So, please, stop with the SUV induced global warming arguement. It's going to cost us citizens billions in unecessary taxes, it's irritating and frankly, it's down right corny.

Lemme get this straight wrote on Jan 25, 2007 6:16 PM:Regarding nature. Christian Conservatives believe that nature is a vast, cruel hierarchy of violence and might makes right. They say that the Christian God made humans differently and Jesus was the prime example, that love can defeat all this horror of blood. Turn the other cheek, do unto others, that sort of thing, among the most beautiful sentiments the world has ever heard. Cool. So then, we inquire of these Christian Conservatives, "What kind of society should we have?" And you know what they say? Free market capitalism, unregulated, so that it's man against man, survival of the fittest, ruled by social Darwinism. Go figure.

El Guero wrote on Jan 25, 2007 6:16 PM:There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the voice of invincible ignorance.

to Global Warming wrote on Jan 25, 2007 6:34 PM:In my opinion, I think everyone that responded to you and each other were quite reasonable. I don't see anyone that went overboard. All in all a pretty decent back and forth. Some days, especially with the Iraq war, this blog gets pretty nasty. But today, come on. No one thinks you are an eco-wacko, definitely not me. You choose to follow the majority of scientists associated with this field of expertise, nothing wrong with that. Others think there are way too many unanswered questions, and we don't want to be subject, just yet, to what Kyoto would have in store for us. Kyoto would be far from favorable to our way of life. It probably wouldn't affect you or me, but over time it would definitely affect your kids and your grandkids. And if today's scientists turned out to be wrong, would those in charge allow any new scientific findings to be published? Given man's track record, it is very doubtful. So, actually, you do have a stake in this.

Hey Rob T. wrote on Jan 25, 2007 6:50 PM:The Man of the Day! You've ignited quite a conversation with your letter today. I have to say that you are 100% on the money with your letter and your 5:06pm post. Who in the heck do we think we are? Man is a tiny speck on the massive radar of Earth's history. Try as we might, we cannot harm her. We are a single flea on a polar bear. Always have been, always will be. Until we start to colonize other planets and other ends of the galaxy, of course. Sometimes I think that these "leaders" are so arrogant about our exististence that they actually believe that Man is the ultimate problem, and they - the elites - are the only solution; Gotta set straight the backward thinking simpletons and capitalists of this world; they are after all the problem. It's a sham. Just a sham. Keep on talking, Rob. I'm proud to have you teaching in our community.

suicide bombers wrote on Jan 25, 2007 6:56 PM:Israel doesn't need suicide bombers. They have US planes and bombs to drop on Lebanese women and children.

Global Warming wrote on Jan 25, 2007 7:00 PM:to 'to Global Warming': thanks and well said. Your question, "if today's scientists turned out to be wrong, would those in charge allow any new scientific findings to be published?", though, deserves an answer. I have been a scientist in my life, and while it's true that there are trends and various favoritisms that play a role in scientific publishing and research, in the long haul, data well gathered and interpreted tends to win out. Scientists, generally, want to be right, and the various professional journals (I know this from first hand experience) are published and edited by a diverse group of people and over and over, the data tends, overwhelmingly, to win. So, yes, I have a kind of "faith" in that process, something ideologues or religious people cannot understand: it's a faith in the process, partly methodological, partly social Darwinian, to keep working at improving ideas based on good data. Ideologues and religious people are, in a sense, the opposite. They have their conclusions and could care less about the process of learning/challenging ideas as long as the result comes out right. Scientists, as a social group if not individually, and as a system of publication, care only about the process and individual ideas come and go...but for good reasons. So if the data started supporting the "no global warming" position, it'd be out there front and center...the system insists on it. Again, thanks for being sane.

to Ron wrote on Jan 25, 2007 7:05 PM:Once again, your style is consistent. The nature/creation person didn't say that there was not competition and cruelty in nature, only that there was other stuff (like cooperation) too. Living things eat, ok? Great point! And your appeal to "first cause"...well, I guess you didn't read the whole post, also no surprise. Of course it's the word "she" for Creator that gets you making accusations about pot smoking...big surprise. So, ok, show us why there has to be a first cause, an unmoved mover...take us back to midieval times where your mind seems to live...and spell this out. It wasn't called the dark ages for nothing.

thanks to Ron and Rob wrote on Jan 25, 2007 7:22 PM:Well, after a day of argumentation, you two have finally done some work presenting clearer arguments about your views of global warming. Ron, some of it has to do with people, unnecessarily, curbing your freedoms. Well said. Rob, in addition to the convenience argument, we find a sense that the greatness of God's nature just could not be so easily messed with. OK. Regardless of whether readers/bloggers agree with you, you have finally pressed through the name calling and given actual reasons. Thank you. This is good stuff. (And I happen not to agree, but it's still great stuff, refreshing, and worthwhile!)

Alf wrote on Jan 25, 2007 7:35 PM:Although I do not know to which person you refer in your 6:16pm post, and I hope is that it was not aimed at me.

Former Escondidan wrote on Jan 26, 2007 4:50 AM:After reading Rob Thompson's latest sophomoric screed, and some of the replies to it, I'm glad that the North County is now a political backwater, its Congressional districts all represented by members of the party out of power.

El Guero wrote on Jan 26, 2007 4:50 AM:No, Alf, my remark wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the guy who got this whole ball rolling and his post at 5:06. At 40 years old he still has a lot to learn.

Proud Teacher wrote on Jan 26, 2007 7:16 AM:after reading the numerous blogs on Thursdays Letter section, it is clear why the youth of today is so far wasted and lost. What schools need are more teacher like Thompson, who teach students to seek truth and not just become one of the many sheepeople that is unable to think for themselves. Keep up the good work, and keep fighting the good fight.

Rob T. wrote on Jan 26, 2007 8:19 AM:El Guero is about as ignorant as they come. I've done more in my 40 years than he will ever hope to do. I think it's time for El Guero's to take a nap. He's obviously not thinking straight.

Global Warming is REAL wrote on Jan 26, 2007 12:44 PM:I am continually shocked at the ignorance of such a large portion of the population. Read. Think. Please! Global Warming is no longer a theory, its REAL. We need to do something about it SOON. Next week a new study will come out. Should open a few eyes.

rob T. wrote on Jan 26, 2007 6:43 PM:Hey global warming is real, what is ignorant is handicapping the American consumer, taxpayer and business with regulations that the rest of the polluting world doesn't have and never will have to adhere to, AKA China, Korea and so forth. We do enough. It's time for the rest of the world to pony up. They won't though. We'll be the only ones that suffer and the world won't be any greener or warmer. Have some common sense and stop hating Americans for being world leaders, world saviors and the worlds bank.

travb wrote on Feb 12, 2007 3:37 AM:i believe in global warming but i also believe in polar shifts but for some reason theres not much going on in that area of study that i can find .maybe both are happening ! we should get ready for both ! all i have read say that a polar shift happens every 13000 years & kill of 60% of all life on earth that scares me .im not saying we shouldnt stop polution im saying we are due for a polar shift .could we not be looking deep enough into the problem ?

travb wrote on Feb 12, 2007 3:54 AM:re:Global warming .i believe in global warming but i also believe in polar shifts but for some reason theres not much going on in that area of study that i can find .maybe both are happening ! we should get ready for both ! all i have read , say that a polar shift happens every 13000 years & kill of 60% of all life on earth that scares me .im not saying we shouldnt stop polution im saying we are due for a polar shift .could we not be looking deep enough into the problem ?