Our readers' views July 2
Thursday, July 2 | 1:00 a.m.
Being patriotic isn't being loudest
It appears that the 4th of July madness in Clark County has begun in earnest once again. Actually in my area, just a couple blocks outside the city limits, it started on Memorial Day weekend, and I've been hearing them intermittently ever since then. From past experience, I can expect to hear lots of fireworks and lose a lot of sleep from now until at least mid-August, no matter what restrictions city and/or county government puts on them.
I don't understood why "being patriotic" these days equates to being as loud and as obnoxious as possible until the wee hours for weeks (or in the case of Clark county, months) on end, particularly since most fireworks are now manufactured in communist China. It seems to me that being truly patriotic would be to do whatever you can all year long to help make both your community and this country a better place to live in.
And for a good celebration, whatever happened to 4th of July parades with marching bands and floats and lots of flag waving and picnics or barbecues afterward? They seem to be a thing of the past.
Valerie Wheeler
Vancouver
Iran's youth defy oppression
Ann Donnelly's June 25 column, "Human rights in Iran need your help," relies on the "expertise" of Hossein Khorram from Bellevue, who shares his (Republican) party membership with Donnelly. To turn the unbearable bloodshed we are witnessing on our TV into a partisan affair is unethical. It connects the struggle of people in Iran to two outfits that have nothing to do with it: the Republican Party and leftover followers of the former Iranian monarchy who reside in the U.S. This far-fetched association endangers those protesting in Iran because it plays into the hands of the regime's claim that the post-election uprising is orchestrated from the outside.
Instead of exploring any of Iran's complexities, Donnelly's column relies on claims that are not documented but ensure an emotional knee-jerk reaction, such as the statement, "Young people in Iran are selling their kidneys to feed their families." The young people in Iran, particularly the 60 percent of female university graduates, are highly educated, which is precisely the reason they are in the streets now. With their incredible courage to defy the oppressive actions of the Iranian regime, the people of Iran have demonstrated that they do not need foreign forces to act in their behalf.
Gabriele Ross and Goudarz Eghtedari
Portland
Attacks will not get us ahead
I'm puzzled by the viewers and letter writers who won't give President Obama a chance to see what he can do to turn this country around. Goodness, it's only been six months, and it took eight years to mess it up. George W. Bush didn't clean it up, yet there are people who continually want to blame Obama who came into office determined to try to make this a better place to live.
The people on the right are so vicious in their attacks. Talk show host Glenn Beck shouldn't even be allowed to be on the air, Bill O'Reilly is equally as vicious, and Rush Limbaugh makes no sense at all, yet people eat it all up and believe their lies and words that are just thrown out there without any consideration for how they hurt people. Try watching Anderson Cooper, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, commentators with a different perspective, and see if you don't open your mind up to different views.
We need to support President Obama, not attack him. We are all in this together, and the more we stay grounded and hopeful of what he's trying to do, the more we are likely to get somewhere.
Toni Jacobson
Battle Ground
Media aren't pressing for the issues
The media have reached an all-time low with President Obama. They covered up his association with a hate-mongering radical pastor, yet flamed Sarah Palin for her conservative Christianity. Now we have heard the ultimate in profanity from the press when Newsweek editor Evan Thomas gushed, "… in a way Obama's standing above the country, above — above the world, he's sort of God." Add to this the press photos that depicted Obama with a halolike radiance and we find a monarch-worshipping media.
When was the last time you heard a body count for Iraq or Afghanistan? When has this president been chided for invoking "God" so much? What is the number of people who have given up looking for work or the homeless created by this Democratic economy? Why aren't the media doing their job in relating how many people are out of work while this president jets his wife to a New York play or his family to Paris? Why have they not questioned his takeover of the banking and auto industries? Now he desires to strap us with a multitrillion dollar health care program while Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid go bankrupt. The press is too busy worshipping.
Lee Hemen
Vancouver
Good health plans do exist
Recent letters have outlined various concerns about health care and socialized medicine. As someone from a successful medical family, I take exception to the use of fear when discussing personal health. Our society cannot continue to pay outrageous fees so that a very few may profit in obscene amounts.
We have not had a nationwide debate on this topic. We've only heard the usual suspects from both sides give us their take on the matter. The truth is, there are many ways to combat this problem, and all of them should be on the table.
I have been heavily involved in one health care system the past three months dealing with the health of a family member. That system has supported my efforts in every way, from the clinic level to the hospital level to critical care. The therapies involved have been invaluable and the healing process enhanced because of their practitioner's diligence in providing the best care possible. We chose our doctor and we have had excellent care. Stop listening to the fear mongers and start expecting our elected officials to do their jobs. The health of our way of life should not be compromised by any "middle man."
Randy Cate
Vancouver
Baird's vote was misguided
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., does not seem capable of doing his job with any kind of independence. He just voted for House climate change bill that included the cap-and-trade legislation that will indirectly raise all our taxes, Republicans predict by $1,300 to $3,100 a year.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Humans contribute 3 percent of all CO2; the rest is naturally occurring. Any fifth-grader can look this up on the Internet. Apparently Baird is not as smart as a fifth-grader.
David R. King
Vancouver
by Corn Tooth : 7/2/09 5:31am - Report Abuse
Blow up stuff. Shoot bottle rockets at your neighbor's house. Leave a giant mess of garbage in the street. Keep all the neighborhood dogs scared and barking. Endanger the kids by letting them light light fireworks while you drink and socialize. Keep the fire department on edge because they don't have enough to do. Have a "so what I'll do my thing deal with it" attitude and defy anyone to deny your constitutional right to act like a bozo. Light off Indian fireworks well into the night, even if they are illegal. Don't worry about the fireworks laws because everyone knows the budget cuts will stretch enforcement patrols thin this year. Shoot your guns into the air because they sound like fireworks and no cops will come to tell you to stop. After all, we're celebrating our freedom and this is how the founding fathers would have wanted it. Have a nice fourth.by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 7/2/09 5:57am - Report Abuse
Right now, in health care, the U.S. is already over 60% towards single-payer health care (Medicare, Medicaid, VA etc). The U.S. spends $8,000 per person per year, 16% of GDP, and with per capita expenditures 40% higher than the nation that comes in second in per capita health expenditures, we have 44 million people with no coverage, 36 million with marginal coverage and raniking 37th in the world (just below Costa Rica and just above Slovenia) in indices of overall health care outcomes and with 200,000 dying each year from iatrogenic (medical mistakes) causes. These are basic facts not opinion, and red herrings like how many of those without health care coverage are illegal immigrants etc, or the scare stories about Canadian health care are just that: scare stories and red herrings. In Canada, for example, government is only involved in collections and payments not in dictating allowable or coverable medical procedures, there is a higher and increasing percentage of total physicians in private practice in Canada than in the U.S. where insurance companies dictate allowable and coverable medical practices far more than government has any influence on medical practice in Canada (and I am someone who lived under the Canadian system both prior to and after universal coverage and have never met one Canadian who would give up the present system for the U.S. one) The right to access to health care is the right to life itself and those who call themselves "pro-life" on the basis of opposition to abortion, yet who oppose universal access to health care are simply Neanderthal-like hypocrites and typically not very bright, schooled or educated.On "patriotism", yes in America, having a loud mouth, ultra-theatrical, narcissistic posturing, and being so absolutist and so certain of one's views as not to even need to hear any other position or read any views other than one's own, just like quantity over or in lieu of quality, seems to be the definition and manifestation of "patriotism" of many. I can get a chimp to wave a flag, but I canot get a chimp to read and live the U.S. Constitution, or perhaps take time to do some serious research of different and varying positons, sources and data, some difficult to read and digest, on an issue of importance to the nation, before writing on a subject.
On Obama, well he has been in office at least two months less than Bush was in office when 9-11 occurred and Bush was not blamed for 9-11 (while he kept taking credit for another 9-11 not happening on U.S. soil but no repsonsibility for the one that did) even though it was on his watch and even though we now know that from 1989 on, the FBI, CIA, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. not only had some of the terrorists on the U.S. payrolls, but all missed, and later covered-up having missed, connecting a whole bunch of naked and "in-your-face" dots leading up to the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the bombing of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and 9-11 (see "1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI, The Untold Story" by Peter Lance for but one source with full documentation).
On Bush messing up the country, well he had a lot of help including from spineless, opportunistic, corrupt and triangulating Democrats who, in some ways are even worse than some of the ultra-rightists who make no bones about or apologies for being racist, backward, ignorant, selfish and mean, whereas the Dems often put on their multiple faces, granola rhetoric and "bleeding hearts" theatrics and posturing while the only hearts really bleeding are those of the victims of both the nakedly vicious Republicans and the spineless and opportunistic and yes corrupt Dems, who, like those running many state governments, are just like Blagojevich and just as capable of stealing elections as the likes of Bush.
On Obama, he also needs to learn that just because he can seem and posture being so sure and confident that "Yes we can", intention and certitude are not enough. He also needs to get over himself and how his own biography is somehow so unique or that his rise to power is real "proof" that they system really works. His own biography shows a calculating player and triangulator of the system who stayed in each calculated position he has held just long enough to move to the next level and I have no doubt that had he been born and raised on an Indian Rez or in an inner city ghetto to a Black single and unschooled mother, had Bush and his cronies not made and left such a mess and been so hated for it, had the U.S. and global recessions not been so deep, and had the alternatives of both the Dems and Republicans not been so slim and unattractive, no way would he be where he is. He needs to understand this and get over himself about how unique o how much of "something different" as a politician he really is.
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 7:12am - Report Abuse
RE: David --CO2 is not a pollutant.-
As part of the natural and balanced system, that is partially true. However, we are adding the accumulated Carbon (stored solar energy) into the atmosphere as CO2 faster than the system can remove or store it,trapping heat (Global Warming). This is an out of balance system, caused by anthropogenic CO2, a man made component, a pollutant.
-Humans contribute 3 percent of all CO2-
CO2 has been essentially stable at 275-285 ppm for last 10,000 years, through the birth and growth of civilization. the '3%' is a spike up starting ~1750 to 2005 at 379 ppm
An increase of 100ppm since 1750. That is an increase of 36%
(p 137 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf)
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html)
A few sites debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:
* The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF)
o http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
* This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used.
o http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
* How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
o http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
* Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
o http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
* Anti-global heating claims - a reasonably thorough debunking
o http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
* Responses to common contrarian arguments
o http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
* Climate change - the big picture
o http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
* Global Warming Myths and Facts
o http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=274
* Spot the Recycled Denial series
o http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 7:18am - Report Abuse
Re: co2 not a pollutantAlso see: Carbon dioxide is a true pollutant
http://dailyuw.com/2009/3/30/carbon-dioxide-true-pollutant/
Walks through the basic denier arguments in easy to understand science.
by Ryan Thomas : 7/2/09 7:33am - Report Abuse
Valerie Wheeler - You are on the right track just keep up the fight. You have figured out what bothers you, you have found out the the government isn't going to help you, now brace yourself this one is a shocker.... You might actually need to go out and buy some ear plugs, or maybe a radio, you ever try listing to the tv? Are you really that lazy that you dont want to take care of the issue yourself, you'd just rather sit here and complain?by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 7:42am - Report Abuse
RE: -Republicans predict...-Yes, the Republicans may use that figure, but they've never actually shown how they got to it. Perhaps someone will point to the analysis or whatever passed for it.
On the other hand, the CBO did do an analysis of the bill:
Cost per household max $340 for top earners $235 for middle, and a benefit of ~$40 for lowest. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 7:54am - Report Abuse
The best of our system is the actual caregiving that is available IF one has a good health coverage. What needs to be gotten rid of is the parasitic for-profit insurance that only adds expense and reduces the quality of care. They are the ticket takers, not a provider.We already have single-payer in place. It needs only to be expanded to cover all Americans from cradle to grave. We have the benefit of reviewing multiple systems that are in place and successful.
Take a look at who is doing the $$$ lobbying for not going single-payer.... And if those companies are the same ones you are sending money to every month, think about what you are enabling.
The Case for Universal Health Care:
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhc_counterarguments.pdf
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/IHSprimer.pdf
http://www.nhchc.org/singlepayer.html
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/mythbusters_by_the_canadian_health_services_research_foundation.php
http://www.pnhp.org/reader/
http://www.truthout.org/061209R
http://www.pnhp.org/
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
-The Senate is bending over backwards for their new best friends, the health insurance industry. Over at DailyKos, nyceve has described the abuses of the medical insurance racket as Murder by Spreadsheet, and lately, as a Reign of Terror.
Maybe that sounds hyperbolic to some, but the fact of the matter is that health insurance companies market defective products that kill people for money. -
http://www.openleft.com/diary/13848/stop-killing-people-for-money
by Not So Fast : 7/2/09 8:19am - Report Abuse
Toni, I'm sure there's a few of the fringe-left talking points you've left out, but the fact is that in a few short months, Obama has buried us in debt that generations will not be able to pay; he's lied about everything from letting lobbyists into his administration to raising our taxes with his bait and switch campaign.When a president lies to get elected and then lies to get bills passed, that sort of thing should outrage people like you... even when they ARE people like you.
I'm sure that while you wrote this, YOUR leg tingled as much as Chris Matthews. So, that you're puzzled is due, in large part to your ignorance and partisanship.
Please let us know if we can address your "confusion" again in the future.
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 9:06am - Report Abuse
FYI: Dave Reichert also voted for the bill.by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 9:40am - Report Abuse
blah blah blah fireworks bad, blah blah blah fireworks good, blah blah blah global warming is real, blah blah blah global cooling is real, blah blah blah beer is good, blah blah blah beer is bad, blah blah blah pro-abortion, blah blah blah pro-death penalty, blah blah blah I am a small minded senior citizen living in Clark County afraid to go out of my house because all I do all day is watch 24 hours news networks trying to find something to be offended at.Try going outside and enjoying the 4th with some neighbors. Have a beer and unclench those b@#t cheeks. While you are at it realize that there is more to life than always being negative, and finding faults in those around you.
by Lew Waters : 7/2/09 10:00am - Report Abuse
Seems revisionist history is play again. President Bush faced heavy condemnation from the moment Gore lost the court battles. His only respite was for a few days after September 11, 2001 and even then, several came out and still maintain he caused it and had the World Trade Center buildings wired with explosives.Obama has done nothing but plunge us deeper in debt than in our entire history with promises of even more debt as he moves to remake America into a cheap copy of Cuba and the former Soviet Union.
As for Cuba's great healthcare, ever notice none of our outspoken leftist leaders ever travel there for treatment? Yet, they hawk it as so great?
by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 10:20am - Report Abuse
blah blah blah Bush, blah blah blah Obama....by K Gero : 7/2/09 10:56am - Report Abuse
Burl!!!!! You make me smile. Great comments.People, read in between the blah blah blah by Burl (say that 4 times really fast) and have a safe and Happy Independence Day to everyone!!!
by OCCNC : 7/2/09 11:10am - Report Abuse
In a June 26 article in the Columbian Brian Baird commented on the cap and trade bill he voted for. He isn't in favor of cap and trade and he really wanted 72 hours to read it all but because wood was included in the bill somehow he thought he should vote for it.The man is a career politician (not unlike most of them) and should not be trusted for more than one term.
http://www.columbian.com/article/20090627/NEWS02/706279962/Wood-waste provision drew Baird s vote
by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 11:15am - Report Abuse
blah blah blah Baird is bad, blah blah blah Baird is good, blah blah blah I like Burl, Blah blah blah Burl should stop...by OCCNC : 7/2/09 11:16am - Report Abuse
Toni JacobsonI'm sure you felt the same way about Pres. Bush (even though you show signs of BDS in your letter). Supporting our President is easy when all is going well. When he is a large cause of the problem things in the support realm get tougher.
Sorry, but I have to lean more towards Lee Hemen's letter.
http://www.mrc.org/bozellcolumns/columns/2009/20090508024950.aspx
by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 11:23am - Report Abuse
blah blah blah support Bush, Blah blah blah Bush is the Devil....by OCCNC : 7/2/09 11:23am - Report Abuse
Blah blah blah Blah Burl blah Blah blah blah Blah is Blah blah blah Blah posting Blah blah blah Blah Blah blah blah Blah again. Blah blah blah Blah Thanks Blah blah blah Blah for Blah blah blah Blah the Blah blah blah Blah comic Blah blah blah Blah relief Blah blah blah Blah.by OCCNC : 7/2/09 11:31am - Report Abuse
Valerie WheelerI agree, let's just sit back and sip whine in celebration of the 4th.
You should be happy they don't celebrate Cinco De Mayo with fireworks. I think that holiday has been mistranslated to 5 days in May. Why do we celebrate an obscure Mexican holiday with 5 days of partying and yet only want 1 day to celebrate our independence? And that without noise.
Sad to say but the general understanding of either one of those celebrations is rapidly being lost and has just become another opportunity for sales.
by Not So Fast : 7/2/09 11:35am - Report Abuse
Looks like this thread has the blahs.by Shann McFadden : 7/2/09 11:39am - Report Abuse
NSF aka TBH. How many pseudonyms does one little fella need?by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 11:46am - Report Abuse
Blah blah blah I hate blah, Blah blah blah Blah is funny, blah blah blah Cinco De Mayo, blah blah the 4th...by dee little : 7/2/09 11:46am - Report Abuse
REGARDING BRIAN BAIRD AND THE LACK OF NEWS IN OUR NEWSPAPERthis is excerpted from The Wall Street Journal, "Congress's Travel Tab Swells", dated today. Written by By BRODY MULLINS and T.W. FARNAM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124650399438184235.html
Some of the most expensive travel is to exotic locales.
Last summer, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) took a four-day trip to the Galápagos Islands with his wife, four other lawmakers and their family members. The lawmakers spent $22,000 on meals and hotels, records show. Mr. Baird, a member of the House Science Committee, said the trip was to learn about global warming.
On the first day, lawmakers toured a breeding center for giant tortoise and land iguanas before dining with scientists, according to an itinerary for the trip. The next morning, lawmakers headed to the Galápagos National Park while their family members had the option of hiking, swimming or shopping. That afternoon, the group boarded a boat to visit a sea-lion colony and search for white-tip sharks.
Mr. Baird didn't respond to a request for comment.
by Not So Fast : 7/2/09 11:51am - Report Abuse
Let's not lose site of the fact that, once again, Baird voted for ANOTHER bill he hadn't read.His hypocrisy, given the 72 hour rule he keeps whining about, is almost as bad as the bill he voted for.
Almost.
by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 11:52am - Report Abuse
blah blah blah Baird travel, blah blah blah taxes, blah blah blah anger....by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 12:18pm - Report Abuse
-notice none of our outspoken leftist leaders ever travel -Rather a strawman argument there. Generally speaking, we have excellent care giving happening in the US. But, and this is just the first but, there is a huge amount of Americans who can not access it.
We signed onto the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. We were the major advocate for that declaration. Take a look at Article 25 (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a25).
We were arguing about a national health care plan back then...
Between those who can't afford paying the gatekeeper / insurance companies and those companies and their efforts to turn a maximum profit by denying care, we now have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, health affecting educational goals. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003832640_life12.html) (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/) (http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential)
We also have the highest medical expenses per capita in the world. (http://www.infoplease.com/science/health/expenditures-country-2006.html)
by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 12:31pm - Report Abuse
blah blah blah Health care, Blah blah blah medical expenses, blah blah blah obesity, blah blah blah tax fast food...by billy o : 7/2/09 12:55pm - Report Abuse
Dee, is there a local politician that you actually like? Your disdain for local government has not prompted you into running yet. Why not? If you think you can do a better job, or make a difference, then RUN. If not, then vote, and encourage others to vote for your candidate. As far as I can tell, you have no opinions, except that everyone in control sucks. What a whiner.BlahBlahblahblahblahblahBurl has ceased to be funny, blah blah blah blecch!
by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 1:11pm - Report Abuse
dee littleThe artical on the news also said the biggest problem keeping the Galápagos Islands pristeen is the visitors. That would make him part of the problem with his family not the solution.
by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 2:26pm - Report Abuse
CF CO2 and V-AThe artical showed no science though with Vit. A it is true but didn't say anything about level to OD or if it is natural or synthetic. There is reason it can be gotten anywhere and is non restricted rather then over the counter.
On CO2 it is covered the same way they even polute your soda pop not mentioned. The reason is 5,000 ppm is considered safe for full time ocupational exsposure. 1o,000 ppm like at a sporting event inside for occasional exsposure on a nondaly base. Plenty of science behind it in makeing of laws on the books. So is it like proper use like Vit. A at say 3,000 ppm or a OD at 500 ppm on your mind. Plants are happiest at 700-1,000 ppm sounds like a good goal. The artical gives no science or limets.
The only comment is disagrees.
by billy o : 7/2/09 2:32pm - Report Abuse
So, Jon, do you like the nature films of Galapagos?Please give us a list of the other lawmakers on that list.
Anybody want to tell us about the "golf trip" to Scotland that ended up landing a few righties in Jail?
The WSJ article has a definite right handed slant to it; in fact, they only named ONE GOP politician and he was a governor leaving office 2 weeks later. Rupert Murdoch will stoop to any level to slam Dems. This is a definite agenda. If you look you can find a similar article in the WSJ defending GOP members accused of traveling on taxpayers dollars.
Fact is, BOTH SIDES are equally guilty. Find something new to distract us with... Please.
by Burl Ives : 7/2/09 3:08pm - Report Abuse
blah blah blah not funny, blah blah blah laughing on the inside...by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 3:18pm - Report Abuse
BO I voted for the man but not happy with how he is doing his job. Just not a total party line man.by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 3:25pm - Report Abuse
Re: -V-A--There are four major adverse effects of hypervitaminosis A: birth defects, liver abnormalities, reduced bone mineral density that may result in osteoporosis (see the previous section), and central nervous system disorders-
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina.asp#h7
CO2 in a factory setting isn't the same as CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas. Your argument isn't logical. And you probably know that.
And let's see; out of all those sites you can only comment on one and get it wrong on both counts....
Couldn't find anything wrong with the other 10 or so?
So, here's the basic science
* http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
* or a bit more simplified: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
* http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
* http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/09/basic_science/
* The Discovery of Global Warming
o http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 3:37pm - Report Abuse
Lets try a dew well established numbers.With out green house effect the temp would be -18 deg C with 15 deg.C.
Water vaper is the number one green house gas at 95% the other 5% listed by Kyoto and the IPCC as green house gas CO2 being s.6% of all the atmosphere on average. Mans addition a part is 3.2% of that 3.6% or 0.12%. with man related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs ect contributing : 0.066%, 0.047% and 0.046% respecivly.
If we removed all of them the inpact so slight it would be about the width if the line on most graphs. The line on the graphs used by everyone are real close to the natural variable.
Is this why the numbers are not used seperate on graphs and the IPCC includes natural variable in its green house effect with mans not seperate showing all green house gasses listed except water.
Show me real numbers that are different and science that uses just mans part with out the natural variable.
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 4:30pm - Report Abuse
Oh, bother....-Humans contribute 3 percent of all CO2- -
- Mans addition a part is 3.2% -
CO2 has been essentially stable at 275-285 ppm for last 10,000 years, through the birth and growth of civilization. the '3%' is a spike up starting ~1750 to 2005 at 379 ppm
An increase of 100ppm since 1750. That is an increase of 36%
(p 137 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf)
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html)
Yup, only 100 ppm. Pretty effective GHG. By trying to emphasize the % rather than the increase, you're playing with the numbers in a typical rw attempt at a ruse.
So, maybe cite some science, not a weatherman who doesn't cite his CV or his resources.
-Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047, and 0.046 per cent respectively.- - rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/06/paul_krugman_climate_expert.php
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 5:44pm - Report Abuse
Actually, the -Water vaper is the number one green house gas at 95% the other 5%...- is questionable.Usually CO2, at least in the science that everyone except the 7% of the population who are attempting to deny Anthropogenic Climate Change, is figured to be ~ 9% -30%.
So, first, I'd ask you to defend your 5% with some science.
To start: It seems that the 5% figure comes from Fox (What a surprise) who got it from some whacko non-science site (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220).
by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 6:35pm - Report Abuse
LOL you didn't prove your facts. First I don't watch Fox so get over it. Second if you read the IPCCs owen work it says right in it they do not distinguish between natural and man made in there calculation. Second you can argue all you want with the work done by this meteralagest.http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12425
You provided no argument.
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 6:36pm - Report Abuse
Well, have fun ladies and gentlemen,We've loaded the camping gear on the bicycles and heading out for the weekend.
by Collegial Fool : 7/2/09 6:40pm - Report Abuse
-it says right in it they do not distinguish between natural and man made in there calculation.-Cite it. Show it.
And the CFP article is the same one we just talked about! -the late Augie Auer, Chief Meteorologist for the Meteorological Service of New Zealand-
I'd ask you to defend your 5% with some science.
by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 6:52pm - Report Abuse
Cf this paper will show you where the IPCC says they they do not distinguish between natural and man made in there calculationhttp://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=483&Itemid=1
This is the sight you said you did the down load on and responded on there thread. It has no thread and the down load to what all 31,478 American scientists that have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs is under Summery of Peer Reviewed Research here http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Stop spewing and show them all wrong. Show the real numbers not just tell us.
by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 7:03pm - Report Abuse
CF I keep asking you to defend where you got your numbers other then exstreamests blogs trying to keep AGW alive. Lets look at a little history in the news. A lot of news in the last 100 years from people that hold your view now. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 7:18pm - Report Abuse
I think the late Augie Auer, Chief Meteorologist for the Meteorological Service of New Zealand. is a pritty good sorce do you have a better one with different numbers. Your source with or with out science was unlisted and just as very lacking in credabilaty. Go to the http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050 and go towards the bottom where it says Peer Reviewed Science and do a lot of reading with a open mind it will deprogram you. Maybe a vidio of Alvin saying we need to overstate the problem to get people to listen, The same thing he said on Letterman or the vid when he was in the wWhitehouse saying we would not sign Kyoto Treaty untill developing countries where on board. It is all there even the little science that shows natural and man made as being all man made.by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 7:36pm - Report Abuse
What CFs sight is doing is saying natural CO2 is cycled but Man made is not so all the increase is man made. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220Simple science showes when from natural warming the oceans and soil expel CO2 holding less like warm water holding less oxigen for fish. From this fact natural CO2 rises in the atmostpher on its owen. This makes there clame of all the growth man made wromg. Then again this is a well funded exstreamest sight.
by Corn Tooth : 7/2/09 7:48pm - Report Abuse
Collegiate D-Bag posted 38 links so far today. Is any one really that impressed?Blatherskite.
by dee little : 7/2/09 8:20pm - Report Abuse
CTno.
by Jon Alldritt : 7/2/09 9:11pm - Report Abuse
To bad he will not read or comprehend even what he puts up. He demands science and uses blogs only from exstreamest groups funded by his cause. They often say what may look logical but the flaws and disclamers are easly found. Land based biased temp sights that are hand picked, exclusion of water vaper and 2 doz. other factors, biased or simply inadaquit computer modeling, Hand picked frame of referance to exclude pre developed CO2 and temp fluction or denial of and including natural and man made CO2 togather. The funding of his link in my last post can be found here. http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050by OCCNC : 7/2/09 9:31pm - Report Abuse
Science makes an attempt at explaining what is happening and why in most cases. What's done with that science is what scares me more than any global warming. I don't believe we can change the climate of the globe significantly but politicians can twist that science and react to the twisting by destroying much of what sets the US apart from much of the rest of the world.Enter Al Gore and cap and trade.
by K Gero : 7/3/09 7:29am - Report Abuse
Man oh man, just wait until CF is back from his trip. Corn Tooth, you thin 38 links is a lot, CF will have three whole days worth to add. It wouldn't hurt to read a couple of them once in awhile with a neutral view rather than bashing the messenger. Don't underestimate the strength of CF's OR JA's convictions. There's no challenging each others points of view. It would be like hand plucking the quills out of two porcupines as they stand ready to throw their quills at each other.Nobody can deny there is an issue with worldwide pollution. Nobody can deny this pollution isn't changing our atmosphere and the air we breathe and the water we drink in one way or another. Nobody can deny the ground, water and air pollution needs massive cleaning up in order to contain the Earth's liveability. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out! Everyone can agree that saving energy and conserving water will save money in our own personal wallets. Everybody can agree that every single solitary politician, scientist and special interest out there isn't trying to take advantage of our planet and the needs of energy in one form or another.
by K Gero : 7/3/09 7:32am - Report Abuse
Sorry Corn Tooth, that should read "you think 38 links is a lot" not "thin!"by Collegial Fool : 7/6/09 3:16am - Report Abuse
If I understand Jon's argument correctly, it seems it hangs on two things:1) is the claim by a two years dead meteorologist Augie Auer that water vapor is responsible for -...95 per cent of the greenhouse effect...-. This is from the canada free press article, copied from another newspaper.
So, let's discuss this first. Where is 95% cited? Who's done the research that demonstrates that number? Is it a number that is accepted as factual?
Where did he come up with it? From a Fox news story. Yes, the original quote comes from a speech at a Rotary Club meeting. That author cites a Fox news story. (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_9241.htm for the speech, footnote 8 cites Fox).
Where did Fox come up with that number? Who knows. The only other place that number shows up is a fossil site that has a couple of denier pages stuck on.
In any case; no science. No cites to anything for support. This is Jon's support for his argument.
Then go look in any middle school HS, or college textbook for the real number 60-70%. Or for a look at the science explained fairly clearly for the layman, try http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/
Or trust the denier weatherman....
His second contention is based on a denier complaining that the IPCC changed a definition. And for that, we note the site doing the complaining does not bother to explain what attribution means. Or rather, attempts to imply that it just means 'claim;s'.
That is the second reason Jon cites as proof the denier literature is correct.
If he can't cite what he's claiming from any real science, I'm done responding. It is also tiresome going backwards trying to figure out what he says I've said or cited. And when he makes a claim like -What CFs sight is doing is saying ...- it is obvious he doesn't understand the science, or is trying to misinterpret it
So, if he wants to put more credence into a dead weatherman, or a claim supported by a Fox news story, that just shows a lack of critical thinking. Sorry to bust your bubble, but a simple look at any reasonable science publication, or even a news story citing the science shows what the understanding is.
Other than that, there is just name calling going on.
And, as always, note that the denier camp picks on little things until the weight of evidence shows they are wrong. Then they jump onto a new paper that supposedly proves all the other science is wrong, until the weight of evidence shows that is also incorrect. Meanwhile, the original claims keep recirculating, adding confusion to the discourse.
So, for debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:
* The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF)
o http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
* This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online as well as how often each argument is used.
o http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
* How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
o http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
* Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
o http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
* Anti-global heating claims - a reasonably thorough debunking
o http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
* Responses to common contrarian arguments
o http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
* Climate change - the big picture
o http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
* Global Warming Myths and Facts
o http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/page.cfm?tagID=274
* Spot the Recycled Denial series
o http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/
* Climate Change: Debunking a Denier
o http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/02/09/1381/
Or to get the basics:
* IPCC http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
* IPCC-FAQ: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
* EPA-Basic Info http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
* EDF-Basic Science http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/09/basic_science/
* The Discovery of Global Warming http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Or put your faith in the dead weatherman......
by K Gero : 7/6/09 8:58am - Report Abuse
Corn Tooth, I should've been a psychic...!)Seriously Collegial Fool, you will always have the deniers and skeptics. For some of us who understand your argument, there is nothing more you need to prove. As you have already cited through repetitive discussion, you must keep on providing the links ANY time there is ANY discussion regarding whether or not someone believes this very serious issue of global warming or climate change. Jon A obviously has a different perspective and is sharing what he feels and understands regarding the issues of global warming and climate change. Do both of you have substantiated claims of facts? I would say so. As far as your comment regarding the "dead weatherman," many scientists, philosophers and explorers since the beginning of time provided factual information of which we utilize today. If not, we would all still live with the fears of living on a flat land and we would fall off the end of it should we sail the seas! Either that or we would think Orion was shooting flaming arrows at us every time there was a meteor shower!
by Collegial Fool : 7/6/09 9:00am - Report Abuse
So, read the literature. If you use the Inhofe speechs listing only deniers, or the IT guy's list of news articles citing that same short list of deniers to inform your thinking, look at what they the cite for evidence. Read up on the accuracy of those studies. Then compare that 'science with the thousands of corroborative studies in the IPCC reports. Read the citations used to build the support.Look at the CVs of the 31k; what have they published? Where is their expertise? Do you trust an animal doctor as a source for environmental research? An electrical engineer?
Then ask how EPA or IPCC or MET can be considered 'extremist'.
Or even RealClimate, or Tamino, or skepticalscientist; what data do they cite that you can show is inaccurate? Where is your evidence that they are giving bad information?
by Collegial Fool : 7/6/09 9:07am - Report Abuse
-As far as your comment regarding the "dead weatherman," many scientists, philosophers and explorers since the beginning of time provided factual information of which we utilize today.-If the dead weatherman was giving valid information, then there would be a body of scientific literature that supports his claims. There would be studies based on his hypothesis that support it. There isn't any. There would be other voices, especially voices with some expertise in the field that support it. There aren't any.
Sorry, but Jon really has no -..substantiated claims of facts...- Look at his resources. There is no science there. Even the IT guy's list has only a few 'peer-reviewed' papers and they are from publications that specifically state they'll publish anything just to give some denier credibility. Otherwise, we have opinion pieces, newspaper reporters citing abstracts. Nothing substantive.
by Collegial Fool : 7/6/09 9:18am - Report Abuse
-they are from publications that specifically state-I overspoke; should be mostly from publications.....
The few that are from respectable sources generally get poor reviews in the follow up discussion and /or get proven invalid in further studies. Often poor math, inaccurate data, etc.
It is a problem that the science gets very technical. And it is easy to 'sound bite' positions that don't hold up with close scrutiny. But that's all they've got.
by K Gero : 7/6/09 12:08pm - Report Abuse
Collegial Fool, let me rephrase myself. The interpretation of facts by Jon and the interpretation of facts by you will always be different. Jon strongly believes in his views as you do yours. I am not stating who has the substantiated facts and who doesn't and I do not intend to state whether one person's links outweigh the other. I AM stating that you should continue to post these links as other articles regarding global condition issues surface as they do hold their own, unless they can be debunked, though unlikely.As far as my comment in relation to the "dead weatherman," skeptics thought Christopher Columbus was not playing with a full deck of cards either when HE set sail. Aristotle and Plato, although great philosophers of their era, were frowned upon by their own governments and brought to trial because of their own beliefs.
New facts continue to surface which debunk other "facts" generated by years of study and speculation by the experts. In certain instances, certain facts hold true, while others change. Weather modification methods have changed over the years as well as EPA standards of what was determined to be safe levels of pollutants and CO2. Auto emissions are getting tougher as new facts support the theory of reducing carbon emissions. What was once considered the most viable energy source - Coal - is now considered the dirtiest form of energy production. Facts change as more information becomes available.
by dee little : 7/6/09 3:53pm - Report Abuse
KG:since you profess belief in GW, are obviously familiar with arguments on both sides, please answer this for me:
what weight is given the current sun-spot cycle in the GW literature?
by Collegial Fool : 7/6/09 4:39pm - Report Abuse
-The interpretation of facts by Jon and the interpretation of facts by you will always be different. -The problem with that statement is that JA hasn't been able to provide any scientifically factual data. Conjecture, statements that don't hold water, bad science, inaccurate reporting. Notice his fast and early namecalling, labeling, and insults, the attempts to equate oped pieces as science, semi-quoting of dubious sources, and complete inability to cite a resource that supports any contention or assertion he has made.
by K Gero : 7/6/09 6:58pm - Report Abuse
dee little: I am a strong believer not necessarily in global warming but in climate change through natural factors and anthropogenic factors. Although I am not a scientist by any manner, I will try to explain the best I can.To date, we are currently in cycle 23 which has lasted about 142 months. To explain, the Solar Cycle is the Solar Magnetic Cycle with peaks and lows in solar activity. There is a current trend of reduction in solar activity in the way of sunspots. There is no exact science to prove this is slowing down the global warming on a large scale, although there are smaller fluctuations in temperatures.
There is also a higher risk of violent solar activities such as solar flares with this cycle which could wipe out satellites and power grids globally as we have witnessed in the past. According to yet another source I studied as listed below, it is believed that with an increase in sunspot activities and the relation to what would be termed as a brighter sun, there is the theory of a relationship between higher activities and the increase of CO2 and methane gases within our atmosphere. But this information I found is speculative in manner.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
by K Gero : 7/6/09 7:17pm - Report Abuse
dee little, here are two links which I have studied that go into further details regarding solar activity and climate change, and anthropogenic climate changes.http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
by K Gero : 7/7/09 5:56am - Report Abuse
dee little: I restudied the issues of our solar cycles on the NASA website, and the information has stated that Solar Cycle 24 began in May of 2008 and will have less solar activity than 23. It is estimated to peak in 2013 with the lower calculations of sunspots and interruptions. The possibility of large solar storms or flare-ups is greater which will provide stronger aurora borealis events and continued interruptions with satellite transmissions and communications.
by Ham Chuck : 7/2/09 1:14am - Report Abuse
Hi David King. Taking your logic and reasoning, let me put your words this way.Ammonia not a pollutant. Humans contribute 3 percent of all ammonia.
And yet we don't want to drink that in our water, do we? So please stop regurgitating Glenn Beck. We are talking about excesses here, not what occurs from life.
Oh and um...in the first paragraph there - Baird is not capable of...what? Independently follow republican reasoning? You subscribe to party lines, that's clear. Anyone not following your belief is automatically not capable of independent thought. Heh, we see your limitations.
Oh and Cuba does have an awesome health system. Read it on Wired.com.
Don't forget, 4th of July is upon us. Celebrate with your money. Buy fireworks! I plan to explode as much gunpowder as possible before midnight!