OBSERVATION wrote on Nov 5, 2007 8:27 PM: Will you vote for evil? The barbarians entered the gates long ago.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 5, 2007 10:10 PM:The posted response from "Reardon" (11/5 - 12:04pm) challenged my earlier assertion of unanimity of scientific consensus in peer-reviewed scientific journals by claiming to cite dissenting views in very recently-published scholarly articles. All of those cited are within the last three months, after my most recent compilation, and are at least partially in response to the recent IPCC (UN) panel report on climate change. I promised to review these items and get back, and am fulfilling that promise. "Reardon" first cites the Schwartz article published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. This is a legitimate scholarly journal. There is nothing here inconsistent with the scientific consensus. He clearly does confirm the existence of global warming, and he clearly does show that the change (increased mean temperature) in the last century is well outside the normal fluctuations in anomalies. As to whether it is caused by human activity, Schwartz does factor human activity in with other causes, but this is not at all inconsistent with the consensus view which has never claimed that human activity is the sole cause, only that it is an important cause, and the only one within human ability to control. In fact he cites the 2007 IPCC report extensively. He does calculate slower rates of change than the IPCC, but not their absence, and there have already been scholarly rebuttals showing that factors he applied are inadequate. Republican Senator James Inhofe cited this, in a really desperate attempt to undermine the unanimity of consensus, but in fact, it actually does the opposite. As for the Tsonis article, while he has excellent credentials as a MATHEMETICIAN, not a geologist or climatologist, "Science Daily" is a popular science digest, NOT PEER REVIEWED, and is part of the popular mass media, and not a scientific journal. His purely speculative hypothesis as to a synchronizing of separate phenomena has been debunked by serious physical scientists; he is of the "flat earth" mentality when it comes to the earth sciences. As I stated earlier, a majority of mass media articles (even by scientists) question the climate crisis, whereas prior to this year the academic journals have been UNANIMOUS. The Mackey article in Journal of Coastal Research is a tribute to Rhodes W. Fairbridge, a recently-deceased colleague who had questioned the extent to which the IPCC had emphasized human contributions to the exclusion of other factors, but this is a remembrance, more like an obituary, not a peer-reviewed article. The reference to Camp and Tung doesn't cite the titles to their articles, but does note that they are, again, MATHEMETICIANS, not geologists or climatologists. "Reardon" has stirred up a lot of mud in the water, but did not produce one single valid PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC study that actually challenges the views either that climate change is occurring at an accelerated pace or that human activity is contributing to it. In a later posted response from "Reardon" (11/5 - 3:55pm) he make another statement that really shows the extent of myopia with which these conservatives are stricken: "Among computer scientists, there was near unanimity for Y2K-- I was one of the computer science dissenting voices." What you fail to note is that you were, again WRONG!!! My company provided support services for several companies involved in proactive measures to head off this problem. It was extremely serious. But here is what happened: the world did not listen to you. Huge programs costing billions of dollars, with millions of programmers working around the clock at countries around the world, wrote trillions of lines of code to correct the problem before it struck. Even so, if you are actually involved in the field, you know that there were still tens of thousands of scattered events, some actually fairly serious costing many millions of dollars, but because companies finally listened to the warnings and took prevent action, for the most part, the most serious devastating consequences were averted. As with the climate crisis, if they had listened to you, the result would have been catastrophic. You were extremely dangerous then and your scientifically illiterate path of self-destruction is even far more serious now. The good news is that, like Y2K, if we listen to the warnings early enough and take actions soon enough, we can be saved from the awful consequences.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 5, 2007 10:14 PM:The published letter from Jack Fulton warns about choosing the lesser of two evils. Well, I would hate if that is the choice, but if it is, what alternative does he suggest, that we vote for MORE EVIL?

jvc wrote on Nov 6, 2007 1:10 AM:To DD Wiz: The present concensus of thought on the subject is well within the outlines as you have submitted and we can all be grateful for your efforts to affect the kind of change that is so neccessary for the bettermint of humankind!Thank you!

Ron wrote on Nov 6, 2007 4:41 AM:Wow! At first... I thought I was reading the unabomber manifesto, then I realized it was only wiz. Let me, as I always do, cut to the quick on this. A biased scientist watching another biased scientist does not compute to good science. This is what this guy means by "peer reviewed." It's the fox watching the henhouse. That's why, instead of answering the questions raised by skeptics, they have to point to "who" funds them. It's always the same with these guys, always some big conspiracy, right wing, or Big Pharma. Yet, they drive their cars, and take their drugs. Why doesn't it play all the way out? Bad science coming from Big Pharma, only aim is profit... equals bad drugs to me. Somehow, it just does not add up. But, with libs. It really doesn't have to.

The Prophet wrote on Nov 6, 2007 6:25 AM:I know that anyone can find a score of polls showing 60% or more disapproving of President Bush's handling of Iraq - but even if we leave aside the fact that such polls are invariably of "adults" rather than "registered" or "likely" voters (and, if past polling history is any indicator, they are also heavily over-weighted in favor of the Democrats), the plain fact of the matter is that a goodly portion of those people who disapprove are distressed because President Bush isn't bombing them until the rubble bounces...and bombing Iran and Syria for good measure. Point blank, I'm not even sure that the number of people who definitely want the war to end exceeds the number of people who definitely want the war to go on until complete victory (my bet is that such opinion repsectively covers about 30% of the population...with 40% wavering and mostly waiting to see how things come out before joining the side which emerges triumphant next election). But what about all the enthusiasm and money for the Democrats? Simple - 30% of the population works out to 90 million people...that many people can easily generate that sort of enthusiasm and money. And can thus be easily mistaken for a lot more powerful than they actually are. While Democrats have attempted a re-write of history and are claiming that the results of 2006 are a clear mandate for an early or immediate end to the campaign in Iraq, the plain fact of the matter is that during the 2006 campaign they didn't run on a program for early or immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They campaigned on a "new direction". This phrase was obviously carefully poll-tested as the phrase most likely to seem like Democrats wanted to win the war while also clearly differentiating themselves from President Bush's policies. Such as it was, that is entirely ok and a fair political gambit - but post-facto claim that "new direction" meant "precipitate withdrawal". Its not what the American people voted for, and to try and spring it on them as if they had...well, we can see how that backfired as President Bush immediately implemented a "new direction" after the 2006 election and was rewarded with just enough political support to see things through to our now ever more clear victory in Iraq.

theWolf wrote on Nov 6, 2007 6:54 AM:It seems to me that DD Wiz, Al Gore and a large contingent on the left have to have an existential threat to mankind in order to function. From the 50's when it was the bomb, the 60's when it was DDT, to the 70's and the coming global ice age to the 80's and hetrosexual AIDS to today with global warming, their lives are seemingly empty and purposeless unless there is something "out there" that is trying to kill us and and they alone see the truth. They are, in my view, no different than religious fanatics proclaiming the end of the earth. In fact, most of these folks would be in religious cults of 200 years ago but the new cult of "science" gives them cover for inanity. Suppose they are right for the 1st time and global waming is caused by people? Ok, so we have to adjust to the change. Build desalination plants for fresh water using nuclear power plants and for rercharging electric cars. Mankind has always adapted to change and always will. The kind of change they advocate is not progress but regress. If the left truly believes in evolution, they have to beleive that our species will adapt.

Ron like the pot... wrote on Nov 6, 2007 7:15 AM:calling the kettle black. He says, 'Wow! At first... I thought I was reading the unabomber manifesto, then I realized it was only wiz. Let me, as I always do, cut to the quick on this...' Jeez, Ron, you are the original uni-gabber, even though guilty of your allegations, DD is a relative newby. But, good god man, don't you find it a bit disingeneous for you, of all people, to point at others for being a boring, long winded,...?

3D wrote on Nov 6, 2007 7:52 AM:Irvin H. Forbing continues to challenge the science of evolution, yet hypocritically runs from science himself. He quotes the Bible (no problem in matters of faith, but not relevant to issues of science), and offers as the alternative to scientific consensus the mythology of Eden from Genesis, though he doesn't tell us which of the mutually-exclusive, contradictory accounts (Genesis chapter 1 or chapter 2) he is referring to. Show us the scientific evidence for Genesis. Show us the empirical, measurable, quantifiable proof of God blowing the "breath of life" into Adam's nostrils, or shaping Eve out of his rib. This challenge to Forbing, that he apply to his alternative the same level of scientific rigor he requires of scientists, has been made several times, but every time he flees from it like a dog with its tail between his legs. Whatever his standing in matters of faith, in matters of science he is a fraud and a phony.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:04 AM:The posted response from "Ron" (6:25am) says: "A biased scientist watching another biased scientist does not compute to good science." "Ron" obviously has very little understanding of scientific processes (another casualty in Bush's successful war on science). Scientists are very competitive and it is very common for them to challenge each other. They are also eager to be the first to buck a trend and lead the way in a new direction that might get named after them, as long as they have a solid basis for bucking the consensus. Strong claims require strong evidence. Copernicus and Einstein both bucked established scientific consensus (as Wegener also did when he first proposed plate tectonics) and the scientific community rightly had initial resistance, but turned around when the evidence was conclusive. If good science truly undermines the current scientific consensus on the climate crisis, that view will also be reversed, but so far the opposite seems to be happening. As to "Ron's" point about bias: Questions of bias are always legitimate in challenging specific studies. Ron has not done this. He has mere expressed his own prejudice against scientists as a general class of people, with no specific example. Do the same thing to minorities or women would make one a "racist" or "sexist" but since this blanket prejudice against science would make "Ron" a "scientist" I'm reluctant to use that term. In any case, at least I give Reardon credit for finding some specifics, though they didn't turn out to be what he claimed. As for Ron, he didn't even get that far. And as for the length (as if "Ron" is one to complain), yeah, I understand it is a lot easier to just list titles and authors and claim that you've cited academic sources, but it does take a little longer to actually examine the evidence with some degree of specificity. My apologies.

Roy wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:05 AM:To Prophet: In college I took some courses in statistics. As a result I tend to look at polls with alot more scrutiny and sketicism that most because I know that a properly worded question can draw a yes answer from opposing sides. A few years back an ignorant blog liberal could not or would not understand the concept that the people who are against the way Bush is conducting the war ARE in two camps. Those that want the war ended and feel we never should have gone in and those that want the U.S. to go "shock and awe" until the enemy is either dead or surrenders en masse. Unfortunately the non thinking, or deceiving Democrats and the media portray the majority result of war polls in a slanted fashion in order to further their pre meditated biased positions. Thanks Prophet for using something that most Liberals lack: Critical Thinking

of course it is race wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:09 AM:Brian Berg tries hard to convince us that the Minutemen types in North County don't care if you look Mexican - only if you are here without papers. Does he really not hear the name calling - diseased, criminal, rapists, third world, hordes, etc - that spews forth from these protectors of our "culture", these so called "patriots"? The fact is that to some of these people it doesn't matter that much if you are here legally or not. Just looking Hispanic is enough to make them apoplectic with rage. You can read it every day in the NCT and on these comments pages.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:14 AM:The posted response from "theWolf" (6:54am) criticizes those who called attention to various threats from the 1950's to the present. He includes nuclear weapons, DDT, and heterosexual AIDS. I am proud to have been a part of the resistance to nuclear weapons, which remain a very grave threat. DDT caused extraordinarily catastrophic damage to the environment and resulted in the extinction of numerous bird species, and came very close to eliminating several more, including the California condor and peregrine falcon, the latter of which has recently been delisted from the Endangered Species List, because people actually listened to Rachel Carson ("Silent Spring" 1966) and others. Even so, the environmental hazards remain grave and much yet remains to be done. As for heterosexual AIDS, more than 90% of deaths from AIDS worldwide are from heterosexual events, but of course "theWolf" doesn't care because the sinners are getting their due from a wrathful God, even if it happens to be an impovershed woman infected by a cheating husband. Who cares about poor women of color in faraway lands? In any case, "theWolf" is really just in a bad mood because one of his buddies, yet again, got caught red-handed with bogus references. Do you think people won't just do a quick search and check these things out? Even before the Internet it wasn't that hard to just stop by the local library. Oh yeah, that's right, you guys are conservatives. You just listen to Rush and he tells you what to think. "Ditto!"

K.A.L. wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:26 AM:"This NCT article reflects the very egocentric and ethnocentric agenda of these groups. At a time when a lot of people in the county are suffering, they once again have to put their negative spin on the event." Truer words have never been spoken. Let me make something crystal here the illegal immigrants are people too and they are suffering also. Funny how the one who is accusing others of putting a spin on things is the very one who is spinning things out of control. I think Norma's letter is the most self-serving, self-seeking, egocentric, and ethocentric bunch of malarkey I have ever heard. Please read your letters before you submit them because this letter is useless babble. One thing remains true to form that the anti-immigrant sentiment folks always resort to name calling and finger pointing when they really don't have much of a case. How sad.

theWolf wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:46 AM:Poor DDWIZ. All the ranting does not dimish the fact that: The US and USSR never did engage in nuclear war, DDT was doing more good than harm to humans as it nearly eradicated malaria, Surgeon Gen Koop (a conservative!) said the US would be overrun by heterosexual aids and it has not been,(I think adultery stil goes on here too) no ice age occurred,(darn that really ruins the credibility) and the list goes on and on. DDwiz is the Jim Jones and Elmer Gantry of "scienceism". The folks like him have been time and again discredited ala' chicken little. I think the scientists all agree that the sun will burn out in 3 trillion years, too. Is that too far out for the DDWiz to worry about? How close does the big event have to be to worry? I wonder if after posting, do you DDwiz, go out to the street corner wearing a sign "the end is near" LOL

Chuck wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:48 AM:Here is the difference between someone who will protect America and liberals like Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Hussein Obama and Hillary, etc. If the FBI nabs a terroist who has just planted a a nuclear device in NYCity, and won't reveal its location, people like Colby Cheney, North, Poindexter, MacFarland, Secord, Hackworth, Schwartzkopf would show a satellite photo of a laser track on his home with his wife and kids inside and start chopping his fingers and hands off one by one. Liberals would ask him: "Oh, pretty, pretty please tell us where the bomb is and we'll give you free healthcare and a free ticket back home and we wont make those bad people in the jail make you wear panties, or eat a ham sandwich.

The Prophet wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:51 AM:I was actually amused by the Democrats who said they would oppose Michael B. Mukasey appointment as AG because of his response to waterboarding issue. What Mukasey response was that he would have the issue reviewed for legal opinion. The Democrats wanted him to say it was illegal. Seems the Democrats think that the role of the AG is to determine what the law IS and not just uphold the law. If the Democrats oppose the use of waterboarding and want an AG to uphold the law, then they should be passing the law thru congress to make waterboarding illegal. It's not the AG's postion to make laws, his role is to simply uphold the laws that Congress passes.

bvv wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:52 AM:Re: THE BROWN ACT [open meeting laws] See State Code 54952.2 The opening paragraph [CA Code 54950]is very clear about the motives of the act. "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and delcares taht the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, donot give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is ot good for them to know. The people inist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

Chuck wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:10 AM:>>Why are we the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care?>>> We are also the only ones who dont have to wait 8 months to get an emergency operation, see a dentist, get broken bones set. It's proven that the Stalinist type medicine you want, doesn't work. Also, why do you want the same people who have run and bankrupted the Social Security Ponzi scheme to create and run a new healthcare Ponzi scheme???

bvv wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:12 AM:In response to "of course it is race posted 11/6/07 809am" Please see the LA Times website and search on key word "Chagas disease". You will see that LA County [largest immigrant population in the nation] has opened a clinic for treatment of Chagas Disease, which is endemic in Latin America. "A Los Angeles County hospital has opened the first clinic in the country devoted to studying and treating Chagas disease, a deadly parasitic illness that has long been the leading cause of heart failure in Latin America and is now being seen in immigrant communities in the United States." A blood test for this disease has only recently been established and most blood/tissue banks use it to prevent passage of the disease. Several transplant patients who were infected have died. The word "racist" is not a magic mantra. It will not prevent the problems associated with massive [millions] in-migration. It might make the name-caller feel good, but that's no protection from reality.

Ron wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:15 AM:Wiz likes to throw a lot of big words out, scientific sounding words, that makes it seem as if everything is under control, as processes are working well, and scientific protcol will save the day. Far from it. Science has a long history of frauds, particularly for one's name sake. Like I said yesterday, scientists are not superhuman, they are all subject to the same whims, wishs, and wants, each of us are. Because of that, they need to watched, carefully. Does this make me anti-science? No, it makes me a realist. I know people, and because I know people, I understand they are not immune from trappings either. It is because the very things they do, can have, and have had, devastating effects upon people, animals, and this planet. This is why I like to point to the hypocrisy of OUR scientists versus YOUR scientists. That's a political battle, not a scientific one. My point simply, has there ever been fraud through peer reviewed scientific journals, writings, and other methods? Yes. Many of them. All basically for the same reason, to be famous. Of course, with fame comes acollades of your fellows, and then there's money. Grants to fund future research, etc. One such person was Hendrik ...I won't go into detail about this man, and what he did. But I want you to read what was written about this man, and how he singularly affected one particular field of study, causing great harm to it, and generating many, many more questions about the how we would be able to trust again. QUOTE: "Big Physics" is a small world. Very few people can understand, let alone judge, what experimental physicists do. They work in close professional communities of specialists and subspecialists, conducting expensive experiments and publishing papers with names like "Gate-induced Superconductivity in a Solution-Processed Organic Polymer Film." But physics is also a field in which millions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year. Now physics has an accountability problem and the only possible auditors are other physicists. As the field reels from what may be the biggest fraud in its history, scientists across the world are alarmed: Bad science can cost lives -- think of the untested O-rings on the space shuttle Challenger that froze stiff and caused the ship's tragic explosion. But what about phony science?" END QUOTE I submit to you, change the word "physics" to "Climate", and re-read it.

Chuck wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:18 AM:>>Brian Berg tries hard to convince us that the Minutemen types in North County don't care if you look Mexican - only if you are here without papers>> Well, maybe you havent heard that terrorists are being made up to look like Mexicans as they cross the border. Since Bush has apparently forgotten that the main job given to him by the founding fathers is to provide for a common defense of our borders, why do you have a problem with someone else doing what Bush swore to do?? You apparently have no problem with rent-a-cops protecting your neighborhoods, shopping centers and banks, so why can't volunteers protect the border?

Typical wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:28 AM:of course it is race 8:09 AM: thinks that because they call it a race issue it is a race issue. Does that mean if I say "of course it is race" is a liar, they are a liar? Seems to follow.

Ron wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:29 AM:Another file scandal with the Clintons? Let me see... Wellesley College Rodham Thesis of Saul Alinsky under lock and key, then the missing Rose Law firm files, then it was 900 FBI files and Craig Livingston, then Sandy Berger shoved various reports down his shorts, and now...the First lady's paper are locked up. What is the deal here? And where is Norman Hsu?

To "K.A.L." wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:31 AM:You must not get out much.

Chuck wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:52 AM:Much to the delight of liberals, the Chinese have proclaimed no Bibles will be allowed in the country during the Olympic Games. You'll only hear the liberals scream if the Koran is banned.

K.A.L. wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:58 AM:Well you just proved my point!!! If one does not agree with you and your way of thinking than you resort to insults! I get out enough, thank you.

Reardon wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:00 AM:DD Wiz: Yes, there were "scattered" examples of problems with Y2K (mostlt legacy software in corporate installations, but it was sold as even a PC problem)-- and there is "global warming" and probably some small element of human activity therein. But both Y2K and global warming (were) (are) brought to the public as catastrophic events for which the populace are excited beyond rationality. The best example is that Al Gore "predicts" a 20 foot ocean rise -- the UNs IPCC says 2 inches. Fear mongers take all computer models "worst case scenarios" and multiply them by, say 12,000% as in ocean rise. Scientists seldom (never) attach the word "prediction" to their analysis. The most recently publiched papers are seldom arguing that there is no global warming,

Astounding wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:19 AM:The responses from the right to DD Wiz's posting are nothing short of astounding. All of science is a conspiracy of similarly biased individuals? Peer reviewed is meaningless? It's the left's latest in a long string of scare tactics (with no mention of the right doing this with everything from a Communist domino theory to Islamo-fascism)? I hereby resign from this blogspace. The sheer magnitude of the ignorance of these people is beyond my comprehension, along with their confidence and their willingness to say and do anything to discredit anyone who dares give us actual truth. My complaint has nothing to do with whether I "believe in" global warming. It's about the nature of the discussion here. You guys on the right should be ashamed of your tactics and resistance to real discussion and factuality, but I'm now convinced that shame is not in your repertoire. G'bye.

Pinky wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:21 AM:Nah, Nick, I won't be voting for Hillary, but I might just vote for that crazy Ron Paul. I am sure that will get your knickers in a twist, dear. "This morning, a collective gasp of dismay was heard coming from the Republican party candidates for president. The news? Texas congressman Ron Paul has set a new GOP single-day fundraising record. In a 24-hour period Mr. Paul raised $4.2 Million dollars through on-line donations. The astonishing total suddenly has people wondering: Is this guy for real? Though he may not win the Republican nomination, his candidacy can no longer be written off as "the longest of long shots." He's raising top-tier money, and attracting thousands of new supporters every week, in part due to a strong performance on the Tonight Show (see below). Much to the disdain of the GOP establishment, one thing has become certain about Mr. Paul, he will have an effect on the race."

Concerned-1 wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:29 AM:Obviously we've once again found ourselves at opposite poles concerning global warming. Fine. I will adapt to global warming if I'm around long enough. I will vote against ill-conceived knee jerk measures-ethanol, carbon credits, massive emission cutbacks, etc. If the world is warming due to manmade carbon emissions, I suggest the Wizes of the world focus their efforts on China and India. Al Gore and rest are out for one thing, and it's not about saving the world.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:35 AM:The posted response from "theWolf" (8:46am) tries to minimize very real hazards, just because humans (Democrats) took action to rein them in. "The US and USSR never did engage in nuclear war" only because Kennedy and not Nixon was president during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and he and LBJ began the process of Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (SALT) that Republicans later (reluctantly) picked up. "DDT was doing more good than harm to humans as it nearly eradicated malaria" Very few things are all good or all bad. The widespread, unregulated, uncontrolled use of DDT in areas where malaria was not an issue caused an environmental cataclysm that you obviously do not understand, and which would have been much worse if it had not been brought under control. Reasonable environmentalists understand that targeted applications of DDT in malaria-prone regions have their place, but it has to be controlled. "Surgeon Gen Koop (a conservative!) said the US would be overrun by heterosexual aids and it has not been" When Koop was Surgeon General (under Reagan) the current AIDS "cocktail" treatment drugs had not been invented yet. Even with modern treatments, it is still a serious medical issue and, yes, does strike heterosexuals, too. "no ice age occurred,(darn that really ruins the credibility" There was never scientific consensus on "global cooling." When the early indications of climate change began to be recognized, which include fluctuations of greater extremes in both heat and cold, there was scientific inquiry as to whether it suggested cooling or warming. There was never a unified sense of agreement as there is today, decades later, when there is far more scientific data. As for "theWolf's" other comments, and those of "Ron" (9:15am) who simply resort to middle-school name-calling in frustration over their inability to offer anything of substance, I clearly concede that you are quite able to win in that department and I'm not going to get down there and mud-wrestle with you. As for "Reardon" (10:00am) -- much higher tone of dialogue which his appreciated, but he again grossly exaggerates discrepancies and, in any case, I have never cited nor quoted Al Gore, who is not a scientist and deals in public policy strategies. He did not win a Nobel Prize in physics, climate or any other scientific field. He won the Peace Prize for contributing to the overall betterment of humankind by calling attention to a potentially catastrophic event that was generally not known beyond the very elite intellectual circles of academia "Ron" mentions, without explaining why he is so much better qualified to assess the data than those whose expertise he describes.

The Prophet wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:40 AM:Clinton admitted she “wasn’t as clear as [she] should have been” but added, “I broadly support what governors like Elliot Spitzer are trying to do.” Help us out here leftists. What does she mean? Does she support drivers licenses for illegals or doesn't she? This sounds like another rhetorical contortion which permits her to have it both ways. She permits the listener to interpret what she meant. Some will say she supports drivers license for illegals. Others will say she is against drivers licenses for illegal but supports Spitzer's efforts to solve the problem. (Which is just another way of saying she supports drivers licenses for illegals without actually saying it.) This is Hillary at her best, coming out with a statement that can be interpreted either way. So she can stand on opposite sides of the same issue. Is this who you want to be President? You may not like Bush, but at least you know where he stands. She says she wants to be more nuanced. Gee, who has said that that before? Nuanced? Isn't that a sophisticated way to say "good at lying"?

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 6, 2007 10:46 AM:The posted response from "Concerned-1" (10:29am) says: "I suggest the Wizes of the world focus their efforts on China and India." I agree that China and India are far greater environmental threats than the U.S. and I support increased pressure on them from the international community. However, I live in the U.S. and my first responsibility is in my own country. He also says he will oppose "ill-conceived knee-jerk measures" and I agree that, as in all public policy arenas, we need to weed out the silly and counterproductive from pragmatic, realistic strategies. I agree that there are better alternatives than ethanol; I agree there are some silly and outright fraudulent "carbon credit" schemes but there are also some valid programs providing companies who can't fully convert to carbon free to at least "offset" their carbon footprint by funding or otherwise supporting reduced pollution by others. And if he wants to make accusations against people such as his comments about Al Gore, please be specific and back it up. Oh yeah, you're conservatives. Rush said it so you don't need to back it up. "Ditto, ditto."

Ron wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:04 AM:No... what is Astounding is how those who want to believe in human causes to global warming aren't willing to answer the skeptics questions. And I'm not saying, all scientists are biased, or corrupt, or that they don't actually believe what they are publishing. Sometimes, they are just plain old wrong. And that's a huge problem. You go to a doctor, he gives you a diagnosis, and then you get a second opinion. Why? If his diagnosis is scientifically based, why do you have to take the extra step, and verifying what the last dude said? We have boatloads of cases where the scientific community at one point in time, by consensus, agreed something was so, it was the truth, it was fact. Time goes by, new advances, new procedures, new technology... and then we find, they were wrong. And sometimes, the previous understanding actually harmed people. Case in point. If you had asthma 30 years ago, a very standard practise by doctors was to prescribe a maintenance dose of Prednisone. It is a synthetic corticosteroid drug and the total effects of the drug on people prescribed a maintenance dose was not known for many years later. Now we know it destroys bone density, causing osteoprosis in later years. Did the doctors do anything wrong? No, that was the best science at the time. Did they do it to harm anyone. Absolutely No. They wanted to cure the patient. In hindsight, now we know. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Like I've said repeatedly, science is always like looking through a telescope or microscope. When higher power scopes are developed, then you can now see, what you couldn't see before. This is not a bash on all scientists, this is reality. Just a some in the scientific community have taken short cuts to greatness. It's a human condition, and it affects scientists.

to Dean Hardy wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:09 AM:I love it when people tell other people what they should be doing. You obviously have nothing to say on Mr. Flores' subject. What a joke.

Reardon wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:12 AM:DD Wiz: I wish I could print the table I found as an analysis of scientific articles published on the subject of “global climate change” (tables do not print properly) – but the short of it was that more than 40% took no position on man-induced changes, and 6% opposed that concept completely. Again, the purpose in doing my research was simply to deny your ALL CAPS “UNANIMOUS” peer-review contention. It is not unanimous, as you have now admitted, and longer and longer posts will not change that. It is NOT unanimous, and, while it is still overwhelming, the recent trend is more and more disagreements with all or major parts of the catastrophic contention. The scientific view of catastrophic results is moderating – and while I do not expect anything quite so dramatic as Navy over Notre Dame in three overtimes last Saturday, anytime soon, Al Gore’s contentions are widely questioned even by those who support man-induced global warming. If there was a scientific consensus (as there was on the world being flat in 1491), there is no longer any such consensus.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:13 AM:The posted response from "Reardon" (10:00am) continues the metaphor of Y2K as an example of flawed caution that he introduced yesterday (3:55pm). He now admits (though at least he maintains a tone of rationality and makes some attempt to interact at a substantive level) there were, at least, "'scattered' examples of problems with Y2K" -- this after billions of dollars were spent by hundreds of thousands of programmers writing trillions of lines of code and every conceivable programmer staying up late 12-31-99 on call for quick fixes of latent bugs, instead of ringing in the new millennium. And there were STILL "scattered" problems. Of course, a "scattered" problem in a huge corporate mainframe system might be worth a few million dollars here and there. Now, can you imagine how many more "scatterings" there might have been if we hadn't gone to those lengths? My point is, again, that the real lesson of Y2K is not that it is OK to ignore dangers, but that when we actually listen to the warnings and take action, we can turn things around. It is a success story! It is not about "the boy who cried wolf" -- speaking of which, there are two morals. One is the traditional lesson for the little boy to learn, that if you lie too much (listen carefully, Rush), people won't trust you when it really matters. But that isn't the only moral to this fable. What? You want to teach your kids that lying was worth the death penalty? The other lesson is for the community: when someone calls for help, no matter what, you always go. Nah, I didn't think you conservatives would get it. Thanks firefighters and first responders!

Ron wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:14 AM:I think Mrs. Bill Clinton has been very clear on immigration. She wants comprehensive immigration reform, like the last one. That's pretty definate, in my opinion. She wants to give amnesty to those who are here, and allow the thousands of relatives to get in line. And all, without "fixing" the immigration system itself. If the problem, it's being broken, is that it's too slow, then add more people. You saw what happened when visas were backlogged. They worked overtime to catch up. Finally, it's not "broken", it's just too slow for some people.

Waterboarding wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:14 AM:Not torture, says our guest columnist. Proof? Journalists volunteered to be waterboarded but not to have their fingernails pulled off. There you go. But did the journalists really volunteer for waterboarding? I don't think so. Did the journalists know with 100% certainty that they would not be allowed to actually drown? Of course they did. Real detainees don't have that luxury. That's the kind of little thing that changes "I can tolerate a minute of this for a worthy cause" into "Oh my God, they are going to kill me!" But this is just par for the course for any criminal that has nearly unlimited power, isn't it? With a Congress and Press Corps cowered into submission? For Cheney and Bush, the most important job of the government is to see to it that the government is not investigated. Mission accomplished.

Tortue? wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:28 AM:Chuck wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:48 AM Why don't you people wise up. If a nuclear bomb was planted, it already would have gone off. The guy is a suicide bomber and they like to go off with the bang. Water boarding is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of the reason for which it is used. The majority of the American people do not want to be like the KGB or the Gestapo or the Texan sheriff who is doing ten for its use in his jurisdiction. GWB would not be using it that one instance. They like to use it as SOP. You ideologues are not interested in morality, justice or even survival. What you care about is the one upmanship on this blog. You certainly do not care about this country or its citizens. Grow up!

The Prophet wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:29 AM:I was waterboarded during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Training as a new Naval Aviator prior to reporting to my first squadron. The purpose of this training was to prepare naval aviators for what they may experience if captured during a time of war. This training was based on the experiences of Naval Aviators and others who had been prisoners during the Viet Nam War. Mr. Mukasey is correct in his assertion that stating what types of interrogation techniques we will or will not employ, allows the enemy to prepare for these interrogation during their training. Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was subjected to this interrogation technique and was able to resist much longer than would have been expected from an individual who had not been trained to resist waterboarding. This is an indication that our enemies are being prepared for the possibility of being captured.

to DD Wiz wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:29 AM:So how does it feel to be dismissed out of hand by the geniuses on this blog? As you have noted the Bush anti-science agenda appeals to the type of person who doesn't understand the "pointy headed intellectuals". You know the type who "feel" something rather than "think". Science of course promotes a new truth. A truth that replaces the bible, and many of the bloggers here just can't deal with that. Luckily most Americans seem to have had enough of this anti-science rhetoric and understand how much their lives have benefitted from scientific discoveries. So the once grand Republican Party, which has been reduced to pandering to the imbecilic religious right, will fade away to irrelevence.

Health wrote on Nov 6, 2007 11:31 AM:Chuck wrote on Nov 6, 2007 9:10 AM: LOL. Stalinist Health Care. Stalin never had any health care. Why would you invoke his name? Typical of you conservatives on this blog. All you do is rant and rave about Stalin and Lenin and Marx. They are dead and so is communism. We don't care about your philosophy. We care about the health of this nati