I couldn’t agree more, accuracy in reporting is a much maligned aspect of gathering news. Much like the individual that lumps all Conservatives in to that group of uninformed. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for responsible stewardship of this planet, but I do not believe that cutting off water to California farmers just so an endangered spices will have enough mud to have sex, is right either. In light of all the information circulating around internet that puts a serious question to the validity of the science of global warming, it’s no wonder that the most intelligent people are asking for validation of science rather than simply except it as fact because some goober in a lab jacket said so. The left wing agenda to move as much manufacturing and industry to 3rd world nations is real and has been documented. Oh lefty say it isn’t so… go ahead, why else would they create a program to send $$$$$$$ dollars to these poorer nations all in the name of reducing the carbon foot print of larger richer nations. If it take X amount of energy to produce a she in this country it will take just as much energy to produce one there, only the cost of labor is cheaper.

ooooo
Fred doesn’t like his religion of global warming to be challenged (similar to the anger of Tom Cruise with his “scientology”). Too bad Fred, your cathedral is beginning to crumble.

“Why is the United States the worst informed country in the world on matters of environmental change?”

Says who? You? Yeah, I’ll take that to the bank. You people—true believers in the AGW religion—really are getting more deranged. You never quit despite the continual unraveling of this hoax. Have some courage man, grow a pair and admit you were all wrong on this man caused hoax.

“a right to an opinion, people who have studied the issue” You mean like the CRU of UEA? Yeah, they’re a credible bunch. Idiot.

If anything the media is an accomplice in this whole hoax, so what is your beef, besides not liking this crap being exposed?

This demonstrates the scientific, analytic approach of AGW hysterics to debate and tests. Never mind that the AGW modeling backed by Gordon Brown predicted warming over the last few years that never materialized. Questioning AGW “science” makes one equivalent to card-carrying members of the Flat Earth Society (via Geoff A and Newsbeat1):

“Mr Brown last night insisted that the science on climate change in settled, and accused those who question the consensus of being outdated.

He said: “With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.”

Greg Clark, the Conservative shadow energy secretary, told the Daily Telegraph the emails were a cause for concern.

“This has clearly concerned a lot of people, including myself. You need to be able to rely on the scientific opinion. It is important that we should be able to have confidence in the research,” he said.

Announcing a review of the case, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be “brushed under the carpet”.”

“Anti-science”? Maybe those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. As Dr. Pachauri himself notes, the entire issue with the East Anglia CRU is that they weren’t doing science, but advocacy. They conspired to silence critics, refused to release their methodology, used “garbage” data to bolster their claims, and then destroyed the raw data on which they based their models and conclusions. What about that is pro-science?

Perhaps Gordon Brown needs to familiarize himself with actual science rather than political hackery. Actual science gets conducted in the open, and needs repeatable conclusions and full data sets to be considered “settled.” It welcomes scrutiny and testing; actual science doesn’t hide from scrutiny, or conspire to block it, and actual scientists don’t plot ways to ruin the careers of those who question the models or results.

Brown has put himself clearly in the “Shut up, he explained” school, which isn’t science at all. It’s what leaders of a cult say when the brainwashing starts to weaken.

It’s now been 12 days since the emails from the CRU lab found their way on to the internet and into the consciousness of many Americans.

But if you’re looking for coverage of the story on TV, you have to really look for it. Fox News is covering many of the revelations, but as for the rest, The Maxwell Smart Cone of Silence has descended and it’s as if the story doesn’t exist.

A Washington Times editorial puts this in perspective:

Never mind that two major universities have at least temporarily removed prominent academics from heading major climate research facilities. Never mind that there are real questions raised about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report that the Obama administration and global-warming advocates have continually hyped in order to advance their case for new global regulations to curtail purported global warming.
Liberal news agencies might be casting a blind eye at this controversy, but even left-wing comedians such as “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart take these events seriously enough to make fun of the defenses being offered by the scientists caught in the scandal. Take one of Mr. Stewart’s jokes regarding the now infamous e-mail about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].” A Tuesday repartee follows:

Mr. Stewart: “It’s nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It is just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here is what is great about science in disagreement. We go back and look at the raw data.”

Announcer: “University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.”

Jon Stewart: “Why would you go and throw out data from the 1980s? I still have Penthouses from the 1970s.”

Say what you want about Jon Stewart – and we’ve said plenty here at AT – the guy has a nose for news that the American people want to know. And what little people have learned about Climategate from the internet, Stewart, and late night TV comics has whetted their appetite for more.

This hasn’t moved the gatekeepers of the old media who continue to bury the story, hoping it will just go away. Fortunately, there are enough internet outlets as well as a precious few newspapers – many in Great Britain – who know a good story when they see it and are pursuing it with energy and intelligence.

It should be interesting to watch as mainstream news outlets have to really work to ignore Climategate at Copenhagen. My guess; they won’t even cover the questions asked about it.

To arms! To arms! The scourge of western civilization is upon us and only Barack Obama and his army of Carbon Destroyers can save us!

How long do you think the war in Afghanistan would last if Obama fought the Taliban as hard as he wants to fight CO2 emissions?

From a piece by Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post:

“The Obama administration will formally declare Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare, a move that lays the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon cap even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation, sources familiar with the process said.”

Nothing like giving the finger to the Democratic process.

“The move, which Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce at an afternoon press conference, comes as the largest climate change conference in history gets underway in Copenhagen. It will finalize an initial “endangerment finding” by the government in April.
While an EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the matter, the agency sent out a press advisory that Jackson will make “a significant climate announcement at a press briefing” at 1:15 p.m. at EPA headquarters. Jackson also will speak at the U.N.-sponsored climate conference Wednesday; her address is titled “Taking Action at Home.” President Obama, who will attend the end of the U.N. talks Dec. 18, has sent a series of recent signals to the international community that the United States will curb its carbon output as part of a new global climate deal.

The endangerment finding stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision in which the court ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases qualify as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It could trigger a series of federal regulations affecting polluters, from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.”

The regs could affect a lot more than that.

“An endangerment finding from the EPA could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery.”

The potential to control economic activity by executive fiat is huge. In effect, any president will be able to regulate economic activity to a degree that is unprecedented in American history. All because the politically motivated EPA has determined that CO2 is bad for your health.

And note our brave and true Chamber of Commerce getting on board the green bandwagon. Don’t worry. Large corporations will shape the regs to fit their needs while leaving small business in the lurch. This seems to be a pattern repeating itself as Obama’s far left agenda is being if not supported, then certainly shaped by Fortune 500 companies who figure it’s better to get along and go along rather than fight. We are seeing it with new banking regs, new financial services regs, and now the new CO2 regs (watch them assist Obama with regulations on national health care too).

Republicans can do little to stop this power grab by the executive. And forget the Supreme Court. They were the ones who enabled this monstrosity in the first place.

How long before the government regulates your breathing?

In 1960, I became a professor at Durham University in England. I taught botany to undergraduates and led research teams at Masters, Ph.D., and postdoctoral levels. Between 1969 and 1996, I was a TV personality. The BBC, rapidly followed by ITV, gave me free rein to inform the world about botany, natural history, and the environment.

My media popularity brought me many accolades: I was only the second person to have his photo on the cover of Nature. (Beaten to this position by Charles Darwin, no less!) The caption? “Science is Fun.”

Back in those days, it was. I regularly got my research papers published in Nature, that august journal.

I also was invited to become trustee, president, vice president, or patron of over 30 organizations, including: WWF, Wildlife Trusts, YHA, Population Concern, Marine Conservation Society, Coral Cay Conservation, Galapagos Conservation Trust, Plantlife, and BTCV. I was also bestowed with media and conservation awards from around the world, including the Dutch Order of the Golden Ark, BAFTA’s Richard Dimbleby Award, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award for Underwater Research.

Then the global warming rot set in.

Two media colleagues, Julian Pettifer and Robin Page, were publicly sacked by the BBC — in essence, because they could no longer be viewed as non-biased in their opinions.

I can only only assume that, to them, I also fell into that category — because from that point on my career on TV came to an abrupt end. Despite my resume of approximately 400 TV shows.

Since that time onwards, anyone who sticks their head out for the anti-wind power or anti-global warming arguments has been subject to vilification, never scientific debate.

But I am proud to carry on, sticking my head out for both.

I knew Henny-Penny, founder and Recording Secretary of The Holy Order of The Sky Is Falling, had been having a couple of bad weeks, what with the announcement that the big UN global warming conference in Copenhagen was not expected to produce a treaty. Little did she or I know, however, that recent days would bring catastrophe to the entire movement that believes in manmade global warming.

She called in great distress when she learned that Phil Jones, who heads the Climate Research United at East Anglia University in England, had stepped down while his role in Climategate was being investigated. Our conversation went this way:

Ms. H-P: To make matters worse, Michael Mann, who was involved in a lot of those e-mails planning to manipulate data, is under investigation by Penn State University where he works. This is awful.

Us: Granted, it is serious. Jones, Mann and others worked, via e-mails, to deny dissenting scientists peer review forums. They manipulated temperature data and stonewalled Freedom of Information Act requests — among things.

Ms. H-P: I believed them when they said man-made global warming was a matter of settled science.

Us: It never was. The “proof” is in the form of computer projections based on data considered to be insufficiently comprehensive by many scientists. Furthermore, Jones and his CRU colleagues claim the base data that started this process was lost or disposed of several years ago. Very convenient.

Ms. H-P: But why would they falsify data?

Us: No one knows for sure. The lure of big money might be one reason. Jones, for example, received approximately $19 million worth of research grants between 2000 and 2006. That’s six times greater than he received for the entire decade of the ’90s.

Bear in mind that UN bureaucrats, egged on by the some of the members — not to mention the most ardent environmentalists — kept sounding the alarm that icebergs were melting, sea levels would rise and we would all fry within a few years. Their motivation? An international treaty that would bind the industrialized nations to sharply reduce industrial production while forking over billions of dollars to non-industrialized ones. All these grand conferences are intended to produce that result. It’s social engineering on a worldwide scale. The state of the climate is only a vehicle to achieve it.

Ms. H-P. I hadn’t thought of it that way. When I first observed that the sky was falling, I contacted a scientist friend who said I might be on to something. He’d noticed that the average temperature that year was up a little and he thought there might be a correlation. He spread to some of his colleagues and it caught on. Why one of them, James Hansen of NASA, became a regular Paul Revere sounding the alarm. During the George W. Bush Administration he claimed he was being muzzled, but he managed to give 1,400 interviews and turn out many alarming NASA press releases. Now it looks as if the temperature data he was using was wrong.

Us: Don’t forget John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor. He’s been an alarmist for over 30 years. In 1971 he predicted a new ice age. He said it would be caused by burning jet fuel, agricultural dust and smog — all things generated by human activity. The ice age didn’t happen, so now he’s selling global warming.

Holdren was also involved in a Climategate e-mail exchange. And, he sought to undermine the professional credibility of two physicists for papers they published in which they concluded there was not persuasive evidence to support the widely held view that anthropogenic (that is, man-made) globe warming is a fact.

Ms. H-P: I am devastated. Before I called you I canceled by tickets for Copenhagen. I’m just too depressed to attend. On top of that I haven’t been able to get through to our Pontiff, Al Gore. I was sure he would give me reassurance, but both his voice mailbox and his e-mailbox are full. He hasn’t said a word publicly since the Climategate scandal broke.

Us: Maybe that’s because he’s an investor in a firm that will sell “carbon credits” to companies that are over their quota. That would be a very profitable business if the Obama Cap-and-Trade bill were to pass the Senate. So, your Pontiff may be spending all his time in Washington lobbying. .

Ms. H-P: Oh.

Scientists around the world have been observing, measuring and predicting global climate change.

When I saw this letter in the hard copy edition of the Daily Lobo, I predicted that right-wingers like damian and chayal would blast it here on the Web site.

Right again.

Damian, old buddy:

Religion and science aren’t the same thing; you ought to know that from the debates on abortion and evolution.

Global climate change is real. Sure, the climate on Earth has changed many times as a result of natural phenomena since the beginning of the planet. But the preponderance of scientific evidence, from many scientisits the world over, is that in the past century there has been an unusually rapid increase in average temperature caused by human activity.

Now, there are far too many scientists, institutions, books, conferences and journals for me to list all the evidence that man-made climate change is real. So the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that all these scientists are wrong.

The proverbial ball is on your court.

Epitaph for humanity:

They all died a hideous, painful death but at least their lifestyle was intact….

With this many scientists believing in the CO2 effect we might as well pay some attention to it just in case. While I do not believe that they are infallible, I suggest playing it safe. While they’re all focused on Co2 and Water Vapor there’s probably something much larger and more definitive that they are missing.

Lawrence,

As a scientist and observing what I have read and understand about global warming. Of course it is real, as is global cooling—the earth goes through phases. What I object to is the alarmism and the need for politics involved.

“Scientists”, many involved in the rationality of global warming, look to fill their own pockets. If politics are involved, well, it forces the public by absurd laws, to fill the pockets of the scientists and the politicians alike in their global warming crusade. It is immoral and does great disservice to science.

They, the global warming activists, look to scare people under the disguise of “objective science” with their ideas of Armagheddon (the rise of seas, and the raging weather). Then their priests, (Al Gore) call for humanity’s support to their faithful cause by forcing Americans (cap and trade) into paying for their fight to the end of the world. Very similar resemblance to religion indeed.

Why is there not any focus on some of the dissent? There is plenty of it as many many scientists left the IPCC. East Anglia is another example of the fraud of the global warming by lying to Americans by invoking a “ends justifying the means” sort of philosophy. Look at the leading climatologist from MIT who dissented from the global warming alarmism—he was immediately painted as a liar.

In science, one has to remain objective, accepting criticism and understanding other points of view. If we cannot bring to light the challenges and debate them—not merely dismiss them as lies—then it isn’t science. That and I cannot stand politicians getting involved in the subject (and my livelihood) that I am extremely passionate about. Politics and science should not mix, especially when they continue to lie.

When I say global warming, I am descibing the alarmism of it…sorry about that.

Do you object to getting some more of these scientists, such as Lindzen involved? I wouldn’t think so.

What lawrence is a true believer in this crap?! NOOOOOOO?!!!! say it ain’t so. Well, actually no big surprize here. The biggest power grab and usurpatioin of individual rights and freedoms in history and he supports it; and he calls me a right-winger. Putz.

We know the mechanism, folks. Carbon dioxide absorbs and then re-emits infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. While some details remain in question, we know more carbon will return more heat.

Let me just throw this in there…Let’s just say that science is wrong, and there is no global warming. I see nothing wrong with ending use of oil and coal as mail power sources. Should we keep using them? Yes, but only in moderation. How wonderful it would be to not have to worry about oil spills in the oceans, hundreds of thousands of people dying in wars over oil, nasty fumes coming from autos, and miners dying for the black gold. Why is this a bad thing? I personally don’t care about the debate, the more important part of the agenda is making the world better for our future family.

Um, 1Sky’s platform is informed by science-based targets and a scientific steering science council (see http://www.1sky.org/about/ourteam).

When 1Sky quotes a 20% reduction by 2020, it’s not political, it’s the base that most scientists agree that this country needs to achieve. 1Sky is using science to help politicians see that we need these laws to match what science says we need to fight climate change.

The CO2 decision of the USA is significant only in setting an example. India and China are not going to cooperate, and we can drive clown cars and screw in curly light bulbs from now until the cow’s come home and it wont have any impact. I wonder what the “scientific opinion” is on that fact?

Much more than that. We have special interest groups that put out preconceived study after preconceived study with the sole purpose of giving backbone to the preconceived article they intended to write.. The media reports this paper thin drivel for sheer political gain..

How can the WWF or the Sierra Club be trusted to compile and annalize data that might go againt their POLITICAL goals? They cant be trusted..

Point to one (just one) Special interest study that came back inconclusive.. You cant can you.. Why do you think that is?

Science of old used to turn over one rock that would lead to another.. Often they would have to refine and restart their studies to get to the heart of the matter.. Seems the political special interest groups are far better at reaching conclusions than field scientists crunching field data..

To pretend that the media and special interest groups are pushing truth over politics is to be a zealot fool..

Errr we also know that all CO2 is .038 of 1% right.. (all) Man is responsible for a small fraction of that.. Our cars and heating (you know the part where we get taxed into the ground) is a small fraction of that small fraction..

Now educate yourself on water vapor and dust in regards to the greenhouse effect.. Its like 90 % against .0012% .. The only edge we stand upon is the edge of insanity.. Political nonsense..

The theory is possible but it falls apart if its left to stand on its own merrit.. Nothing supports it except lies and bogus computer models.

Oil has provided us with an invaluable resource of energy and has bettered the lives of most of humanity. To paint it as a resource that has only worsened our lives does it a grave injustice and is void of reason. Oil not only has provided the energy to heat our homes to provided energy for transportation which we all use, but it also used to create plastics—from coats to keep us warm, to medical devices that lengthen our lives.

Only the richest humans can afford to live in an oil-free world. Ever wonder why “alternative energy” needs government subsidies? Because it is completely inefficient. Try attending a green conference sometime and watch the windmill people squabble with the solar power people over the scraps from government.

Indeed it is arrogant and insensitive to the poor to demand higher prices for affordable energy, clothing and anything that is related to the resource of oil—especially when it relates to China or India. All of it is done for our demand of submission to our environmental god for the “survival of future generations”—which is essentially a power grab by the high priests of environmentalism.

Damian, you are an idiot! OIL IS SUBSIDIZED, moron, that’s why we’ve never gotten off our oil addiction! IF we put our money into alternative energy it would take off, too! But we’re not because the Bushys, Cheneys et al OWN oil and they will flog that dead horse until they can find their next cash cow at OUR detriment! Ever wonder what incredible inventions have been stifled BECAUSE of our oil addiction? Think about it: if we hadn’t been pouring dough into keep us addicted to oil (do you really think gas costs $2.79 a gallon? Really?), what innovations might have taken hold? Oh, and by the way OIL IS RUNNING OUT, or did you forget that part? We will be FORCED to go to alternative energy once it does. And don’t get me started on the miracle, lifesaving benefits of plastic crap! Plastics have been the dirge of the health of millions. But don’t take my word for it. Look around Do some research.

Wow Cee, you are hysterical, and I never said that they were not, however, the relative value that you get per joule of energy for oil is by far a lot more than is any of the “green technology”. Just ask T. Boone Pickens. I will not stoop to your level and call your opinions “idiotic”, just misinformed. But if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.

I do not support subsidies of any sort, whether oil or “green”.

Oil is running out?? Where did you hear that? Who’s misinformed? Brazil discovered oil and there and most areas that could provide oil are actually off limits (i.e. Alaska). But I wouldn’t expect someone as emotionally driven as you to allow facts to get in the way of your religious character.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm

Even if it were running low, it is normal that market conditions should allow use of alternative resources, not government coercion.

Plastic doesn’t do anything for humans? I will not even address that one, its too silly. Take off that fleece kid, oil has tainted your lifestyle.

I have another question for you CEE, since you are so brilliant. So the government subsidizes oil then turns around and taxes their profits? Then they tax the consumer on each gallon purchased?

Just wondering.

I do not know the extent of the tax code here for oil nor about the tax breaks they are granted and am confused. So they are heavily subsidized and heavily taxed?

Oh, where to begin, Damian. Regardless of the oil just found in Brazil, (it does not belong to the USA and) it is a FINITE resource because it will eventually run out. That’s the definition of finite. What are we talking here: another decade or so of oil? Two? Finite. The sun as an energy source, or wind, does not have a finite window. If an energy source will run out in our life time, it’s finite. If something runs out never (wind) or in millions of years (the sun), it’s not…

Second, as long as the USA is dependent on buying oil from other governments, our energy dependence will continue to dictate our political goals. As soon as we get OFF OIL, we can make decisions that are not dictated by our addiction/ dependence. After the oil embargo of the 70’s, Denmark remade it’s economy into an oil-independent economy, something WE could have done had we not been artificialy kept addicted to oil by our oil subsidies. And don’t even try to argue that it’s only because DK is small, they could do it. We put a man on the moon against all odds! With our Yankee ingenuity and innovation, we could have done so too, but too many Bushys/Cheneys wanted us to continue to fund their cash cow and so we stayed addicted to oil. Think about it: If we paid for gas what it really cost, we would curb our use of it, just like DK did…

Next, you may not support subsidies of any kind but they are there, ensuring our oil addiction continues and that alertnative energy is kept out of the market. You do NOT pay anywhere near what a gallon of gas really costs, regardless of the pennies the government taxes you to consume it. Travel to a country like France (who has no subsidies) and you will find that they pay about $5 for a liter. 1 liter = 0.264172052 US gallons. [What is that, over $20.00 a gallon?] IF we were paying that for gas here, the market could accomodate COMPETITION for other types of energy sources. Imagine that: an open market, with real competition, something the Right pretends we have but against which they contantly manouver. I can tell you that if I were paying $20 a gallon for gas, I’d sell my car and walk and use public transit a LOT more, but the car industry would also HATE that scenario. They’d be forced to market little tiny cars that get GREAT gas mileage. See how this works? Domino effect, anyone?

RE: Gas has more joules of energy than any alternative source. How do you know? I mean, back to my original arguement, how many technologies were stifled BECAUSE our government keeps us addicted to oil? We will never know but I wouldn’t count out american innovation. If we opened up the market to real competition, we would get incredible results but WE DON’T have that here… We have OIL ADDICTION.

Plastic is now being linked to more and more cancers and other diseases. It is WAY more dangerous than we have been lead to believe. Check it out. I won’t go into it in depth here but suffice it to say, if people knew just how dangerous it is, they would demand alternatives which would be more expensive which would potentially shift dollars away from plastic manufacturers, something they don’t want. So we continue to get sick and die from plastic toxicity. It’s a slow death, over decades or more, so it doesn’t matter so much to them…

I never said I was brilliant. I just look at what’s going on around me instead of wandering around asleep all the time. At least, I TRY not to sleep through life.

You Cee,

One does not have to be rude or malicious in their debate if they disagree. I can agree on your desire for alternative energy, but lets give it a free market level playing field for all.

So your issue is in government subsidies, as is mine, correct? This is a struggle for laissez-faire capitalism. And I will agree with you on that point, but we have to be fair on all sides, not just the ones that suit our interests. Agreed? I don’t mind if green technology, which may advance due to the recent focuses on nanotechnology, becomes what we primarily use in the future. Any individual would have to be a fool to attempt to fight it, just don’t use my money to attempt to support companies that sit on their asses and provide lobbyists for government handouts, which, like oil, is happening with the Obama administration. Let it compete fairly, the first company to provide this advanced technology will make billions—no regulation unless it actually “hurts” people as well, this does not include the fraud of “climate change”, the science is not sound.

I do disagree with your assessment on plastic. Just think about how much the use of plastic has benefited society. This is difficult to make a case otherwise. I am in polymer chemistry where we design medical devices that save lives(not that that should matter), but I can say that it consists of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and an occaisional few other elements. Way more often than not, it is harmless, unless of course you burn it , and inhale the fumes, but even natural smoke is harmful. You have to at least concede this point…seriously. Polymers help, not hurt people. Pointing to a few cases where they are harmful is a bit extreme as compared to what it has done for us.

Where in my December 9 missive was I malicious? I’m not sure if you are just overly sensitive or simply intend start a fight that obscures the debate. I don’t see one malicious statement in the above. Non were intended…

So the billions that continue to go into gas subsidies doesn’t bother you but you don’t want any future money to go into alternative technologies? How does that make sense? My observation is that technologies that get attention (money) flourish and those that are starved of attention (no funding), flounder. We KNOW oil will run out. We KNOW we don’t have enough to support our economy and that we must get it from other countries. So why NOT invest in alternatives that might possibly make us independent? I don’t understand your stance at all. I’m not talking about giving money to companies and lobbyists. I’m talking about an environment that allows Jo Nobody to develop innnovations in their backyard. Maybe it’s a simple as the patent office waiving fees on certain classes of energy inventions. I don’t know. I’m not a fan of lobbyists and huge corporations. Did Edison have a huge corporation behind him and huge lobbyists? Did AG Bell? Mabye I’m just railing about a system that stifles innovation instead of nurturing it. I don’t have all the answers, never claimed to, but I sure don’t appreciate MY money funding OIL, and Big Pharma, Big Agra, etc. without my consent or approval. That is the system we have now.

As for plastic, I’m thinking about all the soft plastic in bottles you get to consume, if you buy bottled water. Cancer causing, right? All the “safe” microwavable plastic that literally cooks into your food. Cancinogenic, right? Heck, we plasticize everything now and I’m seeing more and more studies that plastic is showing up embedded in the food, to detrimental effects when we eat it. I don’t know what medical devices you are working on but I can tell you that if I’m ever given the opportunity to place plastic inside my body, I will respectfully decline. My choice. I’m certainly not advocating that for everyone, just exercising my right to vote about what happens in my body. I suppose that if plastic wasn’t so firmly entrenched in our system, you might be working on finding “natural” substances to use in your work, instead. I don’t know. I’m not a scientist. I’m just a concerned citizen who wants full disclosure before making a decision. I think in our current climate/society, we don’t get that. I think that medical devices and pharmaceuticals are customarily rushed to market without the downside fully considered BECAUSE the way our system works, it’s cheaper for them to sell their wares NOW and make their BILLIONS now, then pay out the millions later to settle, regardless of the loss of human life in the bargain. So design yoru plastic medical devices but fully disclose the dangers before they are marketed. Not too much to ask, I don’t think, but that’s not what’s happening.

I was referring to Dec 8, but lets leave it at that.

Bell’s invention did lead to a large corporate entity, as do many of the large corporations, they start with novel inventions that make money and then that inventor must build a corporate entity for their survival in the economy. Although I have disgust for corporate welfare (as I work for one) by the government, its what they need to survive—it is sickening, and I blame government for putting them in that position. Government and the economy (or business) need to be separate for the same reasons as the separation of church and state. Let the market and personal choice, like your own about plastics, determine what is successful.

Just look at the most recent invention and what can be achieved without government coercion from Richard Branson.

This past Monday bore witness to the achievements possible to man when he is left free. In a hangar in the Mojave desert, Sir Richard Branson and his team at Virgin Galactic lifted the veil off Space Ship Two, the world’s first commercial spacecraft. Space Ship Two will take passengers to a height of 68 miles above Earth, well beyond the recognized border of space. It is one of a number of private spacecrafts being developed in the nascent space tourism industry, which will make it possible for private citizens to experience wonders previously reserved for government astronauts.

What kinds of restrictions are in place for space tourism? Compared to other industries, relatively few so far. The government considers space tourism distinct from airline travel, which leaves the companies developing these spacecraft free from many of the onerous federal taxes and regulations that have hampered the airline industry since the 1930s. The individuals driving space tourism have been able to pursue their dreams without excessive interference—and they’re beginning to achieve them.

That freedom may not last. The federal rules governing space tourism are up for review in 2012. Should the government stay out, the possibilities are limitless. Tickets that are now priced at the level of a small house may one day drop to the level of a month’s rent, and our children may experience space travel as we experience flying. Mr. Branson already has visions of suborbital transcontinental travel—on the order of Los Angeles to Australia, in two hours.

Mr. Branson is well aware of one major threat to his transforming that vision into reality. The man who built his own spaceship does not qualify his dreams for future development with “subject to advances in technology” or “subject to capital investment.” He qualifies them with, “subject to American government permission.”

You can expect the government to destroy this capability that you and I could potentially see in our lifetime…I mean, I may be a dreamer, but how awesome would that be???

This is the epitome of why I deteste government. They destroy progress, destroy innovation, destroy new ways of looking at things. I understand that you wholeheartedly believe that a free market on alternative energy will take off like that of Branson and his spaceship…lets work together to get the biggest obstacle out of the way, the Al Gore’s, the Cheney’s, and all those who intervene in the lives of the free capitalists. The achievers who bring their inventions to life without asking for a permission slip or competeing with companies that get political preferential treatment, like maybe you or your buddy or me, lets abolish regulation. If there is reasonable wrong-doing, there is punishment by our court system and a jury…not what a politician believes.

This is the solution.

We do not know every single danger. And it takes over 10 years of study, ridiculous amounts of it—trust me—until that device hits the market while people die in the meantime. The FDA doesn’t know shit to be honest. They have their supposed “experts” who put their two cents in regardless of consequences. We have lost millions in litigation, millions that lawyers and one indivdual gets…millions that could/ve been used for more research and development that saves lives.

What usually happens during a FDA recall is there is (or has been) a

….that’s weird.

…or has been a

not posting anymore website freakout

“This is the epitome of why I deteste government. They destroy progress, destroy innovation, destroy new ways of looking at things,” Damian ironically typed in a message to post on the Internet . . . a system developed 40 yrs ago at a publicly-funded university (UCLA) on a federal government grant (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency); then advanced into a more user-friendly format with the graphical interface called the World Wide Web, developed at the European (Agghhh!) government funded CERN laboratory.

Ironically using the example of aerospace technology. Who developed jet and rocket technology? Oh yeah, governments – Nazi Germany, then the good ol’ USA. Now, I grant that Branson is a very successful entrepreneur, but you aren’t seriously arguing that he has invented a completely new technology are you?

It’s also funny (but predictable) that you should bring up the FDA to complain about.

Ever heard of Thalidomide? Just one example of why we need the FDA.

Um, governments do not invent anything Lawrence, people do. Any single one of your examples would have been pursued (as most examples that you point out) for a selfish profit within the private sector. Governments, like Sandia, have small private firms that contract with the government, thats not to say that they couldn’t do it on their own. Nor does it say that most of the taxpayer money isn’t wasted on lame-duck contract companies. Look at the difference in Mr. Branson compared to NASA.

As your case for the internet, the technology is clouded by some of your claims and I think that you know that the private sector has had a very very large hand in this revolution. It is far far from what it was in the early stages at UCLA, and again more money is wasted on grants than is used on such helpful things. But I will say that your point is well taken, and a good one—although Al Gore claims that he also invented the internet ;0)

And your example of Thalidomide is a great eone. As a chemist, I really like it. Yes, if companies knowingly put something out on the market that harms humans then they should rightfully be taken to court—we don’t need an FDA for this at all. Let a court of peers decide, not biased bureaucrats in Washington. Let the company show that they did what they could in court to prevent any tragedy, as they do with Thalidomide. There will always be risk, but mice studies are a reasonable way to determine lethalities, and could be used to prove the efficacy of drugs. I do not believe in anarchy, as summerspeaker can attest to, but that government should protect individuals from harming one another, this is assessed by reason—like we are doing here.

But, as is the case for cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, etc. it should be up to the choice of the individual whether to take it, not the FDA. The FDA does much much more to hinder progress in medicine than does to help it. Actually the FDA is pretty much absent minded when it comes to audits, risk assessments, and down-right science. I could go on for days about the hoops that we have to jump through for little things like cortico-steroids in microgram quantities—If I showed you I guarantee you would laugh at the absurdity.

One more thing, Thalidomide, like sucrose, dextrose and Albuterol have non-beneficial and possibly lethal optical isomers. Optical Isomers are essentially the same chemical structure but mirror configurations (not always optical, but you get the idea). Did you know that albuterol (asthma medicine)has an isomer that is also potentially harmful? It is heavily regulated, but what if FDA wasn’t around? Well, the burden would be on companies to show that they give the correct dosage and/or isomer to patients…if not, they could be sued and shut down to protect individuals—the FDA isn’t needed, a judiciary and police force is. The FDA can also be used as an excuse by companies like mine to hide behind. We complied with the FDA, therefore we are not at fault…it happens all the time.

Oh please, Lawrence! Thalidomide? That was 1952! How about some of the FDA’s recent blunders:

The FDA’s Hall of Shame

Vioxx

What it is: Vioxx is a COX-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) painkiller related to drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen.

Why it was taken off the market: The result of a clinical study showed an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events such as heart attacks and strokes.

Expiration date: Merck withdrew Vioxx from the worldwide markets in 2004.

Bextra

What it is: Like Vioxx, Bextra is an NSAID painkiller.

Why it was taken off the market: Two short-term studies indicated potential increases in cardiovascular events such as heart attacks and strokes and increased risk of serious skin reactions. The FDA also concluded that Bextra had no unique advantages over other NSAIDs. FDA scientists decided that the known cardiovascular risks of other NSAIDs demonstrated in long-term trials justified a request for withdrawal.

Expiration date: Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the U.S. market in 2005.

Zelnorm

What it is: Zelnorm is a drug to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Why it was taken off the market: 29 studies showed that 13 of 11,614 patients taking the drug had heart problems. One of 7,031 patients on placebo experienced the problem. About 500,000 people were taking the drug at the time of its withdrawal. Novartis continues to market the drug in Europe, citing its belief that the trial results were a fluke.

Expiration date: Novartis withdrew Zelnorm from U.S. markets in March 2007. IBS patient groups objected to the withdrawal, arguing that the benefits outweighed the risks. The FDA responded to complaints from patients and physicians by creating a restricted-access program for patients that have no therapeutic alternatives or who had satisfactory outcomes on previous treatment with Zelnorm.

Tysabri

What it is: Tysabri is a drug that treats multiple sclerosis.

Why it was taken off the market: After three patients in a clinical study developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML, a serious brain infection), the FDA halted trials of the multiple sclerosis drug until the company could prove that no additional cases of PML had occurred.

Expiration date: Biogen-Idec withdrew Tysabri from the worldwide market in 2005. In 2006 it was allowed back on the market with a risk-minimization program with mandatory patient registration and follow-up.

NeutroSpec

What it is: NeutroSpec is an antibody labeled with a radioactive marker that was used to diagnose appendicitis in patients that show some but not all of the clinical signs of appendicitis.

Why it was taken off the market: While the agent was on the market, 17 patients who received NeutroSpec experienced life-threatening side effects soon after it was injected, including shortness of breath, low blood pressure, and cardiac and pulmonary arrest. Two patients died. About 11,000 patients received NeutroSpec while it was on the market.

Expiration date: Palatin Technologies withdrew NeutroSpec from the U.S. market in 2005.

Cylert

What it is: Cylert is a drug used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Why it was taken off the market: The FDA learned of 13 reports of liver failure leading to liver transplant or death. The number of cases reported was small, but patients taking the drug had a liver failure rate of 10-25 times the rate of liver failure in the general population.

Expiration date: Abbott withdrew Cylert from the U.S. market in 2005.

Permax

What it is: Permax is a drug used to treat Parkinson’s disease.

Why it was taken off the market: Two studies confirmed previous findings that Permax is associated with increased chance of blood backflow to aortic valves of the heart. Symptoms include shortness of breath, fatigue and heart palpitations. In 2006, about 12,000 patients received prescriptions in the US.

Expiration date: In 2007, Valeant Pharmaceuticals voluntarily withdrew Permax from the U.S. market. Two other companies, Par and Teva, withdrew generic versions.

Baycol

What it is: Baycol is a cholesterol-lowering drug.

Why it was taken off the market: Reports of sometimes fatal rhabdomyolysis—a severe muscle condition. All statins cause rare cases of rhabdomyolysis, but Baycol patients experienced it at a significantly higher rate than patients on other statins. The FDA received reports of 31 deaths related to Baycol.

Expiration date: Bayer withdrew Baycol from the U.S. market in 2001.

Palladone

What it is: Palladone is a narcotic painkiller in a slow-release capsule.

Why it was taken off the market: Severe side effects were reported when Palladone was taken with alcohol. Alcohol use caused high levels of the drug in the body, with potentially fatal effects such as the depression or halting of breathing and coma.

Expiration date: Purdue Pharma withdrew Palladone from the U.S. market in 2005.

TAKE THE FDA OUT OF BIG PHARMA’S POCKET, AND MAYBE WE NEED THEM. With the FDA firmly inserted up Big Pharma’s keester, they are a huge DANGER to us all! They are a failed agency as is and need to be either dismantled or removed from Big Pharma influence. No other solution!

Oh and Lawrence, here’s how the FDA’s done for the last 3 decases or so. Here’s that recall list (with how many lives lost?):

Safety-Based FDA Drug Medication Withdrawals
1980 – 2007
Drug Medication
Fenfluramine
Pemoline
Ticrinafen
Zomepirac
Benoxaprofen
Nomifensine
Suprofen
Seldane (terfenadine)
Etretinate
Encainide
Hismanal (astemizole)
Permax (pergolide)
Flosequinan
Temafloxacin
Propulsid (cisapride)
Levomethadyl
Redux (dexfenfluramine)
Duract (bromfenac)
Raxar (grepafloxin)
Posicor (mibefradil)
Baycol (cerivastatin)
Rezulin (troglitazone)
Raplon (rapacuronium)
(manufacturer only decision)
Rofecoxib
Lotronex (alosetron)
Phenylpropanolamine
Valdecoxib
Natalizumab
Technetium fanolesomab
Palladone (hydromorphone)
Zelnorm (tegaserod maleate)

Any more, if it says “these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA” I take that as a tacit approval the thing might actually work and not KILL someone.

DISMANTLE the FDA. STAT!

Oh and you should take a look at Scaled Composites website. Building a civilian spaceship is not easy science. Its actually pretty cool stuff to rocket geeks and polymer chemists alike.

http://www.scaled.com/

Why do you diminish accomplishments of people?? Are you that infatuated with proving some sort of pro-government point? Really, maybe try to get excited about some of this stuff, not jealous.

And finally, here’s WHY the FDA can’t be neutral and actually release a drug on its safety merits. Here’s how much Big Pharma makes:

Celebrex 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%

Claritin 10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%

Keflex 250 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%

Lipitor 20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%

Norvasec 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%

Paxil 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
Percent markup: 2,898%

Prevacid 30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%

Prilosec 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%

Prozac 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%

Tenormin 50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%

Vasotec 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%

Xanax 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%

Zestril 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
Percent markup: 2,809%

Zithromax 600 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
Percent markup: 7,892%

Zocor 40 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
Percent markup: 4,059%

Zoloft 50 mg
Consumer price: $206.87
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
Percent markup: 11,821%

I’d LOVE to sell something at an 11,000% mark up!

So the FDA should make illegal any drug that could potentially cause harm is your stance? What about marijuana, cigarettes, alcohol?? Might as well outlaw them all.

You are free to choose what to put in your body, not bureaucrats. Companies are obligated by risk of lawsuit and jailtime by a jury if they attempt to intentionally harm others.

I look forward to your response. What else should we outlaw? There are risks to everything, actually there are far greater risks to things like bungie jumping or skateboarding than are pharmaceuticals. It is wrong for companies to hide any findings though.

I really really look forward to your responses…

thanks for proving my point cee,

FDA takes things off of the market for minor things like skin irritations, shouldn’t we make the call as the consumer?

Who said anything about outlawing drugs? Ever missing the point, Damian, my objection is not that there is inherent danger to things but that the dangers are deliberately being HIDDEN from the consumer so they will buy the poison being peddled to the tune of BILLIONS of DOLLARS a year. AT 225,000 percent mark up? Now that’s worth murdering for!(Sarcasm)

How about the FDA simply do their job of protecting the american people by performing independent SAFETY tests and sharing the accurate and unadulterated results so the public (and their doctors) can decide? How about that? That of course is NOT what’s happening. The FDA is a rubber stamping arm for Big Pharma, nothing more. Oh, and they give Big Pharma some legitimacy with a large % of the population. (Not me, obviously.)

As for bungie jumping or skateboarding, if there was an industry that stood to make BILLIONS on you trying it, AND the regulatory agency over it was deliberately hiding the risks from you and telling you it was safe so that you would try it, and they were telling you you NEEDED it for your survival, then it MIGHT be a reasonable analogy. But it isn’t, as you well know. Do you always try to divert a discussion with such trivia rather than address it head on? Scared much?

The current scam system has Big Pharma doing research and if they don’t like the results (so a few people die, so what? You gotta break a few eggs…) they just withhold the offending results and the FDA releases the poison any way. I personally refuse to use ANY pharmaceuticals because the drug pushers will lie, cheat, steal and murder to get my dollars, but that’s just me… I’m kinda partial to voting with my pocketbook.

I WISH most of those drug offenses were only skin irritation but many people who took those drugs were hurt for life or DIED. And they NEVER would have if the good old FDA hadn’t put their stamp of approval on them, if the drug pusher hadn’t colluded to make the product look safe, etc. So, unfortunately the only point I made is MINE: THE FDA SHOULD BE DISBANDED OR GUTTED AND STARTED OVER.

Cigarettes and alcohol are LEGAL and I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t know the risk. MJ SHOULD be legalized. If people want to take the risk, fine. At least MJ is NOT pharmaceutical and the Big Pharma drug pushers can’t get their hands on that income. But what’s that have to do with big Pharma lying, killing and stealing and the the FDA rubber stamping thier actions?

“Companies are obligated by risk of lawsuit and jailtime by a jury if they attempt to intentionally harm others.” Really Damian? Ever hear of indemnification? Hmmm? Vaccines have been indemnified so that the Rx companies must be held harmless if you and your loved one DIE from using them. Meaning, you can’t sue them! And VACCINES ARE DEADLY! How much mercury is in your daily recommended requirement? Aluminum? How much embalming fluid do you take in daily? And, there’s not even one veritable study that proves the even work. At all. Gary Null recently testified before a court in DC that of the over 20,000 studys done, he couldn’t find ONE that verified their effectiveness. But, they sure make Big Pharma loads o’ cash while you have the pleasure of being sterilized, you children getting autism, etc. etc. etc.

Okay Damian,

“Um, governments do not invent anything Lawrence, people do.”

First, that’s an oversimplification of what I wrote. Second, people can hardly invent anything in the modern world without funding. The Internet was developed by and large through public funding: the U.S. military, government resdearch laboratories, and mostly state-funded universities formed the backbone of the whole system for decades. And the WWW interface and network address system was created by CERN, a European government lab, whether you believe it or not.

Your apples-and-oranges comparison is once again flawed: “…your examples would have been pursued (as most examples that you point out) for a selfish profit within the private sector.”

Thank you making my point. The Internet, assuming for the sake of argument that it could have been developed without state institutions and the government (highly improbable) would not exist if profit was the motive. Ask Google: they are billions in the red. YouTube has yet to make a profit. And this is after establishing its commercial venture on top of the international network created with public $ (this is the source of the infamous MISQUOTE of Gore; he pushed through legislation in the 1990s to allow the commercialization of the Internet).

As for your comment on Thalidomide: “Yes, if companies knowingly put something out on the market that harms humans then they should rightfully be taken to court—we don’t need an FDA for this at all.”

After I was born deformed? Ever seen a “thalidomide baby”? Gee thanks, but I would rather that the governmetn protect the public beforehand. And yes, that comes under “promote the general welfare” in the Constitution.

So, injuries to the public should be settled by lawsuiits after the fact rather than regulation? Very well – so I take it you are against the “tort reform” movement, which aims to limit company liability, right? Otherwise you would be inconsistent in your logic.

By the way, you apparently have taken chemistry and that is great, but might I suggest a course in logic or rhetoric? Your argumetns are filled with “straw man, slippery slope, ad hominem” and other fallacies.

Oh c’mon Lawrence.

This argument is decent. I did say that your point on the internet was well taken. I beleive that there was a lot of help from the private sector as well such as the mouse interface and much more. Von mises institute, a libertarian site, also makes some good points about this and concedes to your points on the internet.

Al Gore does not deserve your defense, he lies about the environment, attempts to regulate and build questionanle relationships all to fill his own investments. He reaps what he sows, but it was a boisterous point on my part and had little relevance.

The Thiomide baby argument is equivalent, in my view, to all the arguments that I have had with Philip on abortion—there are many things that lead to defects, it is the mother’s choice what to consume. Ignorant? Yes. Unlawful? no.

I do not care for the subjectivism of lawyers, I know that you know this and are trying to find inconsistency. Most lawsuits are thrown out of court because they are frivilous (sp?). Anyhow, that is different from a lawsuit when the injured rightfully punish the malicious intent.

Let me know where you disagree. And it was not “ad hominem”.

Cee,

Until you learn that government is the problem and not the solution, as you have shown through virtually all of your points, we are pretty much done. I agree that the FDA helps corporate interests by regulating the heck out of competition, actually the Sunshine Act, a piece of legislation that empowers corporations with large pockets, is a good example. But I do not disagree with your assessment of the FDA and Big Pharma.

My only solution for you is if you do not like drugs, don’t take them. Find a doctor that can help you choose what to do with your life. You have no obligation to my life nor any of the other American lives out there.. You, nor I, know what is best for others…to believe so is completely arrogant.

And marijuana is now classified a pharmaceutical in many states including New Mexico.

If you are to survive, you have no right to pharmaceuticals, you have to pay for them and assess the risk yourself—thats how it works.

There are risks with pharmaceuticals, like vaccines, if you don’t want to take the risk, don’t consume them. Life is never risk-free, its a naive point of view to assume that you should never have to make any hard decisions about these things.

How interesting this discussion has swerved from Sturm’s claiming “we found out that an idiot conservative thinks there is more money in pretending there is a climate crisis than there is in creating it.” to medical science and the FDA. Sadly Damian is spot on about the FDA and other govt regulation. The Wright brothers, Lindburg could not fly today, could not live their dreams, follow their heart at risk to themselves, because of the government. Jonas Salk tested his polo vaccine on himself, a gross violation of regulations and protocol; the FDA would have spanked him.

Back to Sturm…. my thought about trusting anybody, about climate change:
We were lied to; now the truth is revealed! Man caused Global Warming is a lie as the letters and documents of the perpetrators prove. The leading liars are Britain’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) headed by PhD Phil Jones who just resigned after 62 megabytes of their emails and data were published, including this gem sent by Jones to co-conspirators: “Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm (they created the hockey stick), Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temp[erature]s to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline [of temperatures]… Cheers, Phil”

In testimony given to the U.S. Senate in 2006 by University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming he indicated that Jonathan Overpeck, a lead author of the report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” sent an email telling him of the need to remove data regarding the Medieval Warm Period.” This would support the lies.

PhD. James Hanson is part of this cabal to create and support the lie of global warming and suppress evidence that proves man caused global warming isn’t happening, but climate change is naturally occurring.

The outgoing director of Green Peace Gerd Leipold, admits to errors regarding the truth of global warming in this exchange with BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the Hardtalk program saying the July 2009 claim the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 “was a mistake, was wrong. I don’t think it will be melting by 2030.”

The “Hockey Stick” graph created by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98) and touted by Al Gore was proven to be a lie in 2000.

It is time for the hysteria promoted by PhD’s who have created a tale of fright Stephen King couldn’t cook up, to be tossed out with the garbage they offer as science, and we must stop worshiping Al Gore as the planet’s savior.

Is Congress interested in truth? Their failure to call for hearings answers that question! We must call our members of congress and ask “when are you holding hearing to uncover the truth?” The CAP & TRADE bill is founded on a lie, defeat it.

Fred, bamboozled is not limited to those who do not have science degrees. The fools are those who are ignoring the facts of this scandal for they hold to a belief rather than questioning the hard truth and what we know: the climate of this planet has always been in flux.

Gee Damian, What an arrogant narrow minded idiot you’ve turned out to be! “Until you learn that government is the problem and not the solution, as you have shown through virtually all of your points, we are pretty much done.” When I have I argued for big government? I just love laughable rhetoric that objectifies the opposition and then disregards them as unable to be dealt with/reasoned with, etc. Getting rid of the FDA, a dangerous rubber stamping arm of goverment that provides Big Pharma the entree of a host of poisons into innocent, unsuspecting people’s lives, does NOT sound like I’m arguing for big government. Wouldn’t government be smaller if the FDA was disbanded? Too logical for you? Oh, I forgot, you don’t need to apply logic to your arguements, just misrepresentations that in your little pea brain support your points. Ever read, Damian? And of course, by that I mean BOOKS? How about: “The big fix : How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers by Katharine Greider? Well, there are a lot of books out there on the subject. Maybe you should read one. If you can only handle reading the internet, there’s an interesting Bloomberg report on the subject. Maybe it’s short enough for you to get through. Search: Big Pharma’s Shameful Secret. Interesting reading but it doesn’t make your point so I’m sure you’ll skip it.

You’re right WE ARE DONE! You are not worth wasting time on. You will stay stuck in your narrow, uninformed view while the world pick’s your pocket and you eventually die from the fourth largest cause of death in the USA: pharmaceuticals. Bye bye!

I’m curious Phillip, how have we been lied to about global warming? I mean, in my lifetime I’ve seen with my own eyes the snows of Kilimanjaro disappear, a huge percentage of the poles melt and the receeding of glaciers to unprecedented levels. I mean, unless there’s some photographic conspiracy, all one needs to do is put photos side by side, taken at different times over the last century. Doesn’t that indicate global warming? I mean, just using logic, doesn’t the melting of things mean the globe is heating up? I’ve been following the stolen email BS in the news, email over 10 years old if I’m not mistaken and quoted mostly out of context. So one set of email tehft proves there is no global warming? So arctic ice won’t disappear by 2030 but is it any better if the date is say 2050? Does that somehow prove we don’t have global warming when the poles mass appears to be steadily decreasing? We have been polluting our planet shamefully for decades (a century, maybe) and we shouldn’t stop because it will detrimentally affect commerce? I’m sorry, wouldn’t it create a whole new “clean up” industry if we actually assessed the real COST of commerce’s polluting the globe and wouldn’t that then increase commerce with those new jobs? What am I missing? Since I was a smll child, I never did understand why a factory would think that they get to throw deadly toxins into our rivers and not have to pay for that – or heck, maybe clean their mess up before it ever got to our rivers. Explain to me how it matters if we’ve been lied to about global warming when the fact is we need to assess the cost of doing dirty business and assess that cost onto a company as part of the cost of doing busines. Hell, if the globe cools as a result, great, but I don’t really get what the problem is….

Cee,

I wasn’t intending to be mean or demeaning. I was agreeing with you anyhow.

Oh well, I guess this pea-brain should get back to designing medical devices and how to crystallize pharmaceuticals onto them…regardless, I will continue to try to keep more people like you alive so that I can be insulted some more.

Yeah,

I read a lot of books buddy. I am involved in a globally trying to preserve lives of the “innocent”. Yeah, that’s right, I do it for a living. Your bullshit on “Big Pharma” being the enemy is disgusting and quite pathetic. You have no idea how much effort is put into Research and Development for things like drugs by good people only to be fought against by immoral and evil indviduals like you. You are an enemy to science and progress, how does that feel? …but go on child, continue with your emotional outbursts.

Petty little Damian,

Since I WORK in that industry, I KNOW very well the graft, misrepresentation and greed that goes into formulating poisonous drugs for human consumption AT HUGE PROFIT to Big Pharma and the FDA’s rubberstamping hand in the process. So you go ahead and defend your narrow position AND SAVE LIVES with your little plastic (I’m sure you beleive that. Its’ so laughable) and I will continue to try to shine the light on an issue I think most people assume is “safe and effective” but is deadly. Pharmaceuticals are the FOURTH largest cause of death in this country, behind cancer and heart disease, but you go ahead and take your drugs like a good little slave. Spend your money. You are making the legal drug pushers very happy.

Oh, and on what planet do you agree with me? You seem to just put positions and words in my mouth and then tell me I’m wrong without reading anything I say. You’ll have to excuse my emotional outburts, but the murder of millions of people a year while an industry becomes STINKING filthy rich-er, makes me emotional. And, a government agency that supposed to protect innocent people rubber stamping that poison IS emotional to me. To you it’s only, what was it, a few drugs pulled because of rash? I see the millions who die while you see rashes. We don’t even live on the same planet!

“I’m curious Phillip, how have we been lied to about global warming?”

Cee, ask Mr. Howell to verify his “proof,” with verifable, objective sources. I’ll wager that he cannot. He won’t admit it, but he gets just about all of his info from Fox “News.”

He either won’t respond at all – or if he does, give a source — but when you go and actually read it, find that he will have misinterpreted or misprepresented what the source actually says.

He has done this repeatedly on the discussion threads on abortion. I’ve been waiting for a month for him to produce the correct citation for a scientific article that alledgedly proves that a fetus can feel pain.

Cee

Actually it works with devices such as pacemakers, defibrillators, insulin pumps, pumps made to cure parkinson’s disease, to cure alzheimers and much more.

I highly recommend anyone else reading, who may even share an opinion with this individual, to witness the hate of good for being good, and to maybe revaluate their position based upon this sorry soul.

Cee, I feel sorry for someone as pathetic as you, must be lonely at the bottom, resenting everyone else who is happier, smarter, and has more than you. Keep up with your parasitic ways, you must make mommie and daddie proud. I’m saddened that it came to this but realize that there still are people as rotten as you are.

Damian, what a 2 year old! As far as I know, there is no CURE for Parkinson’s or any of the other things you list above, tho there are multi-million-dollar devices that are making somebody a TON of money. No cure for Alzheimer’s. No cure for heart disease. Heck, there’s no cure for the common cold! But bloated self righteous die hards like yourself who self-congratulate? There’s plenty of those blow hards!

WHY are there NO cures? Because it’s MUCH more healthy to Big Pharma’s bottom line if you buy their wares than if they actually come up with a cure. WHY? Because you pay $200 for the cure, you’re done, you go home. No, it’s MUCH better for you to suffer taking for example Insulin for decades, as it erodes your organs until you die because you are steadily purchasing a commodity from them before you go. You keep their bottom line healthy. It’s up to US to keep them moral and our arm for doing that, the FDA is firmly up their keester and incapable of doing that job for us!

And there, you did it again! Your “objectify” then “disregard” tactic. Where did I indicate HATE for anything or anyone above? [Okay, I’ve indicated my disguntled-ness with you but HATE? Grow up!] I don’t hate good. What a silly-assed statement of nonsensical garbage! As I’ve indicated EVERYWHERE in these posts is the EVIL Big Pharma does in the name of good that I object to. It’s the “you can trust me, I’m a LEGAL drug pusher” attitude, that gets me. You don’t have to agree but I believe if you were capable of opening your eyes, you might get some of what I’ve said instead of throwing around your objectification b.s. “he hates good.” Blah blah blah. There are scores of books and info from former Pharmaceutical employees confirming the underhanded practices I’ve mentioned here throughout. But don’t listen to me, let some of them tell you. Go find out for yourself. What I deplore is the evil that is being done in the name of good. And thank you, my parents are VERY proud to have raised an independent, educated, open-minded and compassionate person such as myself. Again, you’re the person worried about drugs being pulled from the market for rashes. I’m MUCH more concerned about the LOSS OF LIFE those drugs cause before they are pulled and a company that will market them, knowing they are dangerous, because they know the money they make will cover the lawsuits. And, and FDA that is rubber stamping that behavior. What about the loss of life?! Who is pathetic and at the bottom, eh? I think though dost protest too much.

I work in research and development and the drugs that we are working with are proprietary. I don’t expect you to believe me. Just remember when you are laying on your bed getting the device that you need, that I may have designed part of that device…you will essentially have a little piece of me in you.

Great, Damian, and if any of the things you are working on DO provide a cure, they will be stifled like the multitudes of others before them. Don’t you get it? Cure doesn’t make as much money as drug pushing does! Pushing drugs provides a steady cash flow. There’s just no upside to one-off cures. Somebody with loads of cash will buy them up and then sit on them. And if you don’t sell, you’ll never get them through the FDA. There will always be some deficiency or more expensive testing needed. It’s the FDA’s way!

As for your devices, I guarantee I will NEVER have a little piece of you in me. Yuck. What a thought!

Cee, you toss words about like mouth trash… “arrogant narrow minded idiot” to Damian, which begs the question can anyone have a rational conversation with you? Another of your utterances… “Petty little Damian.” Why is this necessary, what does it contribute to a discussion?

I will soon speak to your personal observation “I mean, in my lifetime I’ve seen with my own eyes the snows of Kilimanjaro disappear, a huge percentage of the poles melt and the receeding of glaciers to unprecedented levels” and the rhetorical questions you ask.

And Lawrence, you too will get your points answered. You say “Fox News” in the same tone as you would he is a child molester. Is there no truth in the news that Fox reports? Beck provides the charts, interviews with real people, long video segments so that it is not out of context without anyone showing point by point where he is wrong. Occasionally he explains an error he made that doesn’t change the tone or facts he has offered. However, the facts on the lies of global warming I quoted did not come from Fox, although they could have. They cannot come from MSNBC because they are unwilling to report anything that does not advance the agenda of the Progressive movement.

The fundamental question to both of you is this: Do you accept that the temperature on the planet has always been in a state of change, that ice fields come and go, sea levels change?

“mouth trash”. Do you just make up terms to suit you? What about the questions I posed above? You want to have a rational conversation. Answer the questions I posed above, which are without any name calling or “mouth trash”, btw. Perhaps you can’t (or won’t). [My beef with Damian is there for the reading. If you follow the entire trail you will see why I became so frustrated with him — or not. Whatever.]

You quote Beck! What a joke! Vindictive delivered with charts is still vindictive and I don’t believe a word out of Beck’s mouth. Sorry. Do you hava any original thoughts on the matter?

“The fundamental question to both of you is this: Do you accept that the temperature on the planet has always been in a state of change, that ice fields come and go, sea levels change?

As usual Howell, you avoid answering the question put to you. The above statement of yours is classic “Straw Man.” No one (not I anyway) is questioning naturally occurring climate change over the millenia.

You wrote a lot of allegations about the supposed “lies” of man-made global warming. Back them up, with accurate references to real sources; not cherry-picked portions or misinterpretations. And Glenn Beck as a source? Thanks, my back is killing me today and I needed a laugh.

Given your track record with posting misinformation in several of the abortion discussions, I feel it is incumbent upon you to document your alleged “proof.”

I challenge you (and your pal Damian) to produce one article, paper, or report, from a credible scientist at a recognized institution, who does not receive funding from polluting industries, that shows evidence using scientific evidence that human-caused climate change is a “fraud.” See if you can do it.

Oh, and an accurate citation to an actual document that can be looked up, please. Not like your fake medical papers that prove a fetus feels pain.

Thanks Lawrence, for being the voice of reason. I can’t seem to get either of these guys to answer a single question. Not one (that is their own idea)! It’s amazing what passes for “rational conversation”. I think they just write to hear themselves “speak” but they can’t take in a thought that is 1) one that doesn’t agree with them, or 2) that is rational. I thought dialoge/conversation was when you listen to the other person, consider their point of view and then respond to them, then they listen to you, consider your points and respond back. I just keep getting Ayn Rand and Fox News and Beck served up with no rational relation to the discussion. It’s been an amazing “anti-discussion”!

I just realized: I’m doing this all wrong. I shouldn’t read their replys at all and just spew vindictive over their non-sensical responses. Wow, how unfulfilling. I’d rather have a real discussion.

And Lawrence, I’m still waiting the proof that fetuses feel pain. How in the world would anyone be able to prove that?! And I’d like to get something other than Beck served up about global warming… Here’s hoping…

Yes, it is. Greenland used to actually be green. A good source of dissent, for one, is Richard Lindzen, professor of climatology at MIT. Now I am sure that you will google and find some way to protray him as having special interests, which is a way to dismiss his dissent. But he has something to say.

There are also thousands of scientists that also disagree with the man made global warming. And the solutions, like Kyoto, will do nothing, even its greatest advocates know that.

How do you feel about the fact that in Copenhagen they are having problems with all of the private jets, limosines have passed the 1,200 mark—all for a global climate conference. It is sick. If you did care about the environment, you would denounce this sort of behavior. These limosine liberals want everyone else to change, not themselves. The poor have the most to lose as well, they can’t afford higher energy bills, more cost to help alternative energy.

What question do you have?

There is also the Association of Climate Realists…MIT has joined this group, and FYI, MIT is probably the foremost university on science.

Global temperature changes are a fact, they have been rising and subsiding according to records. The rate of increase or decrease is an extremely long time compared to our reality, of the span of a human life. I support the clean up of environment, however the urgency is not convincing.

I am not a scientist, have no science background or training. I only know in any matter to seek out people who are knowledgeable about a given topic if I want to learn about it. Some issues that interest me, such as global warming, do so because they are important to me and my kids. This issue has puzzled me because we have people who we are supposed to trust, … because they have a title. And when they are called upon to explain them self and support their ideas, they attack the questioner, I get very suspicious. My mom taught me to be wary of those for whom the end justifies the means. Those telling us “it is settled science” appeared to not want to explain the facts that support their position, they were essentially saying SHUT UP and using bullying tactics to make that happen.

Now we have documents, some as fresh as November 2009, that appear to show their dishonesty, their lies, their manipulation of figures to support their positions. People with science backgrounds- backgrounds in earth sciences- have examined the documents of CRU and others, and explained in great detail the meaning of this material. Their statements are clear, are accompanied by historical data (they say) and charts, and their conclusions are supported by other scientist’s and researchers.

Those who down play these conclusions do not show the errors of detractors but say the emails quoted are old, the data cited is partial, the detractors lack scientific credibility and of course, the CRU material was stolen.

Stolen is irrelevant. If the emails and records reveal truth, how they became public matters not. The emails cover a long period of time, the conclusions regarding Global Warming were reached more than 10 years ago, therefore the dated documents and data used is relevant. PhD researchers of proven backgrounds do not have to be atmospheric scientist’s to have properly examined data, it’s collection methodology and computer models to write as experts.

Emails clearly show the CRU staff and others worked to keep their information secret, even pledging to destroy data if it was requested under England’s Freedom of Information Act. This is to hide their scheme. Sounds like Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme. Except, the result of these lies is to harm innocent people by imposing life restricting rules on each of us, our employers, our nation. These rules will bring harm to the American people- including my kids.

Much of the reporting of glacial shrinking is very selective. The polar bear population has increased by 600 percent in the last 15 years, the snow cap on great mountains is ever changing. And Albuquerque is experiencing another snow and very cold weather. Our government is uncertain if their satellite imaging of Arctic fields is correct and no one can measure the snow pack in the Himalayan Mountains because we have never seen them without snow, we do not know the extent of crevices, etc.

The following are some sources that provide very extensive articles regarding this issue. The only one I could find in a brief (30 page) google search that disagrees is the Christian Science Monitor. I excluded those of either side who had a candle to burn- I want honest reports. Read for yourself and decide based upon the work of people who have the credentials to publish findings on this matter.

American Enterprise Institute,,long report… http://www.aei.org/issue/100016

New paper story http://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/local_story_342034507.html

very lengthly article by noted Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Christian Science Monitor claims warming is real. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1125/p02s01-usgn.html

Article quoting respected enviro scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in this presentation delivered less than a year ago at Yale University, and not previously published, has outlined in technical detail the reasons for his skepticism regarding global warming hysteria. www.ecoworld.com/climate/is-there-a-basis-for-global-warming-alarm-climate-catastrophe.html

CEE, Lawrence, you both dismiss a man and his staff of researchers because you do not like him, not because his work has been proven wrong. How can you learn if your mind is closed? I do not care much for either of you, but I read what you write. Sometimes you make me do better research. Even if I disagree with your conclusions, I have better knowledge. Yes, I did just preach at you.

Lawrence, I am guessing your comments about my sources must have to do with a previous abortion discussion and fetal pain. I will read my notes and present those sources for you.

You wrote this, “No one (not I anyway) is questioning naturally occurring climate change over the millenia.” Not true. Phil Jones and his gang wrote on how to remove from discussion or hide the facts of the Midevil warming. They dismissed a know fact of climate change because it interfered with their conclusions. No researcher has been able to prove that man is responsible for changing the climate from the “Ice Age is Coming” scare of the 1970’s to today’s belief of “Global Warming.” This is hysteria that ignores scientific truth: Water changes to ice and back on nature’s schedule, has done so since the dawn of this planet, ignoring man.

Or, perhaps he is dismissed because his work is questionable? I don’t give a fig whether I LIKE someone or not. Is their opinion learned and well thought out? Intelligent or petulant?. Unbiased or totally biased? But do I LIKE them?! I don’t even KNOW Beck or any of these oft quoted bastions of the right. But even when they serve up the truth, I often feel like its somehow questionable. Why is that? If Ann Coulter swore the sky was blue, I’d HAVE TO run the the window and check. Same for Beck. Funny how they have that effect on so many thinking, reasonable and open-minded human beings. Why is that, do you suppose? I also put Sarah Palin firmly in that group, too.

How do you “not care for either one of us”? Do you KNOW us? I’ve never met you, so I can’t say as I dislike you or like you, I DO question what you say when that is the ONLY critieria on which to base my opinion of you. It doesn’t help if/when what you quote is not backed up by fact. (ex: Fetuses feeling pain.)

As for global warming, I say again: does it really matter? I’m all for cleaning up the poop soup we live in and making the clean up a part of the cost of doing business. Why? Because if it costs you to pollute, you WILL think about it before adding that cost to your business plan. AND, the clean up would create a whole new industry of JOBS, which are so sorely needed as more and more jobs migrate to India, etc. And these jobs CAN’T be sent abroad because the clean up would be location-based. AND, if this clean up doesn’t add to increased carbon dioxide pollution, then where’s the bad?

As for global warming, it appears likely to me, but I’m not a scientist, so I don’t “KNOW”. It also appears that a group of scientists had some 10 year old email stolen and somehow that’s supposed to mean global warming is a hoax. Well, the pollution isn’t and we need to clean it up, regardless. What’s that old addage: don’t poop where you eat? We’ve been doing that since the turn of the last century and that blatent disregard is coming home to roost.

How does cleaning up our planet affect your children adversely? I don’t get it.

Finally, I just heard a report yesterday, where a whole city is going to need to be moved due to rising ocean levels. (Wish I could recall where, etc. but I can’t. Sorry.) Something’s afoot and if you don’t believe in global warming BECAUSE Al Gore says so, well, stuff still seems to be a foot. How do you explain it?

As I work and my break is almost over, I don’t have time to address your prior post or check those cites. I don’t know when I will but I READ them. I’ll be back!

Cee, your referencing “right wing” people this way: “Funny how they have that effect on so many thinking, reasonable and open-minded human beings.” is an attack on the intelligence of those you disagree with. The inference is simple: If we listen to Beck, etc. or others of the right we are NOT what you claim for yourself. Reading your own words exposes your inability or unwillingness to accept what is truth if you do not like the source. Beck is able to defend himself; but educate me so I do not get mis-information, what has he said that is “questionable?” Offer facts, not opinion.

Your ‘How do you “not care for either one of us”? Leads to your word: ““petulant.” Calling people “stupid, moron, arrogant narrow minded idiot” and a basket full of others is petulant behavior not expected from an adult and it limits discussion. Time and energy should never be spent to address “petulant” behavior in an adult. You use as justification of your frustration with me this “It doesn’t help if/when what you quote is not backed up by fact. (ex: Fetuses feeling pain.)” without knowing what it is that Lawrence is referencing. AS I previously said, I will provide the facts to support my position on fetal pain.

The issue of this blog is Fred demanding we accept the pronouncements of people without question who have a degree in science regarding “Global warming.” It is not about pollution which is where you went in your last posting. You also dismiss the facts that have been made public regarding CRU’s PhD Jones and his cabal there and Hanson and others who have conspired to create a lie that is called “Global Warming” with this: “It also appears that a group of scientists had some 10 year old email stolen and somehow that’s supposed to mean global warming is a hoax. Well, the pollution isn’t and we need to clean it up, regardless.”

The “Hockey Stick” that Gore touted as proof was created 11 years ago. Are the data sets and emails defending it germane to then and now? This hoax has it’s birth in ideas exchanged by Jones and many others in work started 15-20 years ago. Are their emails relevant to any discussion? You did not read any of the references I provided, as you noted. How can you speak with authority or certainty if “Global Warming” is real or a hoax without reading the works of those who question the data, the methodology or research, the computer models and programming that lead to the alarms of Global Warming is a threat?

Because you had nothing other than a talking point of the Progressive movement- the far left- “10 year old emails” you could not challenge the works I referenced, so you changed the subject to pollution with a rant about unspecified pollutants- “poop soup”- and a reference to CO2 levels. The National Geographic, June 2009 provided this regarding CO2: “We really don’t know how high CO2 has been in the geologic past. Thus we don’t know how sensitive the surface temperature of the Earth is to CO2,” said Don DePaolo, head of the Earth Sciences Division at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory in California.” The article discusses the concerns of CO2, the best guess history of this gas and possible consequences of CO2 increases. Another reference is the 2004 article at Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/.

Cee, my point is no one knows if there is no risk or the stuff is in the fan. We do know that Jones and CRU’s friends have been caught in bold faced lies. We also know that solar and wind cannot provide the energy we need and solar panels are made with highly toxic chemicals. We also know the radicals of the left have blocked construction of the non-polluting (CO2, SO2) nuclear generating plants while demanding the use of electric cars over gas/diesel powered while 50 percent of our electricity comes from the CO2/SO2 emitting coal fired power plants. The foolishness of listening to only one point of view or group of people is evident to me: We become know-nothings!

China is the absolute worst polluter on the planet. Each year they fire up about 40 coal fired plants according to the New York Times; plants large enough to power Dallas, plants that have no effective pollution controls on their stacks as our must have. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html.

From that article: “China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.” And, “The increase in global-warming gases from China’s coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.”

We are not the polluter, China is. And they are followed by their friends of North Korea, Russia and India. We would pollute less if we had nuclear plants but that was stopped by the Progressives. The current talks in Copenhagen are a shell game that will do nothing to reduce world wide pollution. They may result in a loss of USA jobs and cash payments to many nations for gibberish reasons. Either result will just harm my kids and grand kids. I do not care if a bunch of Progressives have to move into caves because of Kyoto, walk to Santa Fe because gasoline is too limited or shiver in today’s cold -they will be getting the fruit of their foolishness. I DO care about my kids being harmed by this folly that is based upon lies.

My last four paragraphs went away from “Global Warming.” I apologize.

Oh, where to start. I find it interesting that you keep bringing up “petulance”, even tho that was a conversation I had with someone else, unless you are really DAMIAN? If not, I’d prefer NOT to keep flogging that dead old horse. If you seek an apology for a disagreement I had with someone else, you will be waiting a VERY LONG time.

Please note that I actually have a job and have huge demands on my time the rest of the day, so as I said above, you will need to excuse me if I haven’t had a chance to check all the info you referenced above. I will get to it. My work breaks are short, etc.

I quote: Time and energy should never be spent to address “petulant” behavior in an adult.” And yet you keep spending time on just that, bringing it up, tho the arguement was with someone eles…

For me, it’s always been about the environment and I don’t really care if Global Warming is a hoax or not. I can see the pollution problems all around me and the effects appear dire. If that dovetails with the Global Warming movement, I don’t care. Sorry. That’s the way I feel and always have and it won’t change just because you demand I come around to your pov about Global Warming (being a hoax). My concern and POV predates the whole Climate Change Hoax discussion. Do I expect my position to change the dialogue? Nah. If China is the biggest polluter, then they would be responsible for the biggest clean up (in my view) and could potentially create a HUGE clean up industry. I think my position still tracks…

Gee Phillip, we don’t agree on Beck, et al, AT ALL. So can we agree to disagree because I will likely never come around to your point of view on him for a host of reasons.

I’m still waiting for the cite on fetuses feeling pain, and since I followed the thread on DailyLobo.com as it unfolded, it seems rather odd that you would dismiss MY cuiosity about it, claiming I don’t know what Lawrence is referring to. How do you know? It’s kind of a public forum and I’m sure I’m not the only person who followed it. Why do you get to dismiss MY OPINION or thoughts on the subject?! Soley because I agree with Lawrence? How odd. I’m probably not the only person waiting breathlessesly for that cite. I can’t imagine how anyone could possibly set up a study with impecable research and impeachable parameters, etc. to prove such a thing. Now, maybe somebody did, and I’d love to see that, but I just can’t imagine, so I’m intested. Along with many others, I’m sure.

Not me, Phillip and I have had lengthy debates on abortion, I do not have the time to post for two people and create debates either.

Fetal pain is a valid topic, most of us agree that the fetus can interepret pain at around 18 weeks. We administer pain meds to premies for any procedure that causes pain as well. Some of these little rats are as young as 24 weeks. However, the truth is also that we just don’t know the entire picture or process about fetal pain, levels of neuro processing and so on.

http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/FetalPain091604.pdf

Cee, Damian is himself, not me. You used the word “petulance” in your posting. I simply used it once, in your context, to refer to your behavior. I know an apology is something you cannot give; therefore not expected.

Interesting that you will accept the Cap & Trade legislation, a very sweeping body of law that will have a great impact on your future income, even if it is based on lies. But you will not accept a Glen Beck truth. Definitely not Vulcan logic.

You questioned “Fetal Pain” once after Lawrence brought it into this blog. And he did it in his usual nasty way; how boring. I will shortly post an answer to the demand both of you have made.

This blog is about environmental science and Fred’s insistence that we accept the pronouncements of PhD’s without question. I notice after Fred tossed out his opinion he disappeared, never defending his position. Now many of the world’s environmental PhD’s have been exposed as liars in a conspiracy and charlatans, as is their messiah, Al Gore, who on the Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, while talking about geothermal energy claims “the Earth’s core, two kilometers down is several million degrees.” Want proof.. Go to You Tube, enter al gore degrees in search.

Pollution is a different matter. All life consumes something and exhausts something that is a pollutant to someone. Your breath is CO2, NOW a pollutant, but essential for plant life. Oil leaks into the environment through cracks in the rock; is it a pollutant when nature puts it in the water? You cannot possibly buy into the enviro nut mantra of “pristine” because there is no such thing. 20,000 years ago NYC had a 2000 foot ice cap. Was that pristine? Or was it pristine 12,000 years ago when NYC was marsh land? Both climate changes-global warming/global cooling- and the pollution that came from earthquake and volcanic activity and other natural effects occurred without my ancestors making a contribution.

I accept the nature of nature is constant flux. Man’s contribution is but a spit in the Rio Grande. Therefore I resent the demand of enviro nuts and the fools who are legislators and the useful idiots dragging us into the past of limited AC, cars that cannot protect us in minor crashes, the folly of demanding burn less coal in power plants but buy electric cars that need the electric power generated by coal fired plants. What fools believe yesterday is Saturday? Enviro nuts who deny truth, that is who.

Do you think China’s pollution is within their boundaries? The NYT’s describes the world wide drift of soot from their coal plants. This is not like the earth pollution that occurred during the occupation of Eastern Europe during the Communist occupation. China will create jobs– jobs for medical people to treat the harmed.

Cee, Lawrence. You have asked about proof of fetal pain. Before I give you sources, a point to your question Cee: How can we know what the unborn senses and feels, if anything? An unborn just like a new born cannot use words to tell us what he is feeling. An unborn, like a new born, reacts to stimuli: sound, light, physical sensations that produce comfort and pain. These are the observations of medical professionals documented in published papers and the statements made by staff at the NICU in UNMMC and neo-natal units in other hospitals.

I will provide some references for your reading and I will begin with a JAMA paper that says maybe yes. Maybe no. Anyone who has held a preme, has done medical procedures on them or has done surgery (other than abortions) in utero attests to the “pain” reaction of the baby to being cut for surgery, stuck with IV needles or sticks for blood sampling. Born or unborn react the same way to procedures that cause pain such as cutting or having your arm or leg ripped off your body. Sound stimuli is noted long before 20 weeks- the time of viability outside the womb. In utero testing of reaction is by observing the babies heart rate and it’s changes when pain is inflected and by observing the movements away from the source of the pain and the babies mouth opening as if she is screaming. Videos and ultrasounds are available on line if you are interested in seeing them.

Here are two sources…. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947 One statement from that study… “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” IS UNLIKELY, hmmmmm very scientific. Sort of like saying that a baby boy being circumcised is unlikely to feel pain while those performing that and other medical procedures observe typical reaction to pain. Does a pre-term (30 week, 210 days old) boy feel pain, respond the same as a boy 3 weeks after full term birth (270 days)? Yes according to MD’s who operate on the 30 week old baby.

At, http://www.mpomerle.com/NoAbort/Reagan_Fetal_Pain.shtml is a letter to President Reagan stating in part (you should read the entire letter), “As physicians, we, the undersigned, are pleased to associate ourselves with you in drawing the attention of people across the nation to the humanity and sensitivity of the human unborn” and signed by the following with the following references:
Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Dr. Vincent Collins, Professor of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, University of Illinois Medical Center
Dr. John G. Masterson, Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Northwestern University
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, F.A.C.O.G., Clinical Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Cornell University
Dr. Denis Cavanaugh, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of South Florida
Dr. Watson Bowes, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Material and Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina
Dr. Byron Oberst, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Nebraska
Dr. Eugene Diamond, Professor of Pediatrics, Strict School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
Dr. Thomas Potter, Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, New Jersey Medical College
Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Instructor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh
Dr. Melvin Thornton, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Texas (San Antonio)
Dr. Norman Vernig, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota (St. Paul)
Dr. Jerome Shen, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, St. Louis University
Dr. Fred Hofmeister, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)
Dr. Matthew Bulfin, F.A.C.O.G., Lauderdale by the Sea, FL
Dr. Jay Arena, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Duke University
Dr. Herbert Nakata, Assistant Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Hawaii
Dr. Robert Polley, Clinical Instructor of Pediatrics, University of Washington (Seattle)
Dr. David Foley, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)
Dr. Anne Bannon, F.A.A.P., Former Chief of Pediatrics, City Hospital (St. Louis)
Dr. John J. Brennan, Professor of Ob/Gyn, Medical College of Wisconsin, (Milwaukee)
Dr. Walter F. Watts, Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Strict School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
Dr. G. C. Tom Nabors, Assistant Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Southwestern Medical College, Dallas, TX
Dr. Konald Prem, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis)
Dr. Alfred Derby, F.A.C.O.G., Spokane, WA
Dr. Bernie Pisani, F.A.C.O.G., President, NY State Medical Society, Professor of Ob/Gyn, New York University,

But the unborn baby can´t tell us that he or she feels pain.

Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, “Medical Physiology,” St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 The first detectable brain activity in response to noxious (pain) stimuli occurs in the thalamus between the ninth and tenth weeks. Reinis & Goldman, “The Development of the Brain,” Thomas Publishers, 1980, pp. 223-235 “The sensory nerve of the face, the Trigeminal nerve, is already present in all of its three branches in a four week old human embryo . . . At seven weeks they twitch or turn their head away from a stimulus in the same defensive maneuver seen at all stages of life.” E. Blechschmidt & S. Wintrap,Nat´l RTL News, May 20, 1987 Cutaneous sensory receptors appear in the perioral area in the seventh week of gestation. et al., “Pain and Its Effects on the Human Fetus,” N. Eng. J. Med, vol. 317, no. 21, p. 1322, Nov. 19, 1987

But isn´t pain mostly psychological?

There is also organic, or physiological pain which elicits a neurological response to pain. P. Lubeskind, “Psychology & Physiology of Pain,” Amer. Review Psychology, vol. 28, 1977, p. 42

Some is reflex pain?

Yes. When you stick a baby with a diaper pin, she will object. Her initial reflex recoil is exactly what happens in the womb after eight weeks when the same child is painfully stimulated Changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, “What the Fetus Feels,” British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.

How have lawmakers reacted to this knowledge?

There have been bills introduced to require abortionists to anesthetize the unborn baby before killing him or her. M. Siljander, Congressional Record, E609, Feb. 23, 1984 One early dramatic account was by Dr. R. Selzer of Yale University. A needle had been inserted through the mother´s abdominal wall and into the four-month-old baby´s bag of waters when, suddenly, he related, “. . . the hub of the needle in the woman´s belly has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wiggles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish. It is the fetus that worries thus.” R. Selzer, “What I Saw in Abortion,” Esquire, pp. 66-67

Give some more specific quotes.

“. . . as soon as pain mechanism is present in the fetus — possibly as early as day 45 — the methods used will cause pain. The pain is more substantial and lasts longer the later the abortion is. It is most severe and lasts longest when the method is salt poisoning. . . . They are undergoing their death agony.” Noonan, “The Experience of Pain,” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion,Aletheia Books, 1981, p. 213

What of the “Nathanson” movie?

A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, “The Silent Scream,” narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby´s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600). Pro-abortionists have attempted to discredit this film. A well documented paper refuting their charges is available from National Right to Life, 419 7th St. NW, Washington, DC 20004, $2.00 p.p.A short, 10-minute video showing the testimony of the doctor who did the abortion in “Silent Scream” definitely debunks any criticism of “Silent Scream´s accuracy. “The Answer,” Bernadel, Inc., P.O. Box 1897, Old Chelsea Station, New York, NY, 10011.

Pain? What of just comfort?

“One of the most uncomfortable ledges that the unborn can encounter is his mother´s backbone. If he happens to be lying so that his own backbone is across hers [when the mother lies on her back], the unborn will wiggle around until he can get away from this highly disagreeable position.” M. Liley & B. Day, Modern Motherhood, Random House, 1969, p. 42

Give me more testimony verifying fetal pain.

“By 13 weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus. Thus, at that point, the fetal organic response to pain is more than a reflexive response. It is an integrated physiological attempt to avert the noxious stimuli.” Wm. Matviuw, M.D., Diplomate, Amer. College of OB & GYN “When doctors first began invading the sanctuary of the womb, they did not know that the unborn baby would react to pain in the same fashion as a child would. But they soon learned that he would.” Dr. A. Liley, Prof. of Fetology, University of Aukland, New Zealand “Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13.5 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain.” S. Reinis & J. Goldman,“The Development of the Brain” “The fetus needs to be heavily sedated. The changes in heart rate and increase in movement suggest that these stimuli are painful for the fetus. Certainly it cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache.” Valman & Pearson, “What the Fetus Feels,” British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980 “As early as eight to ten weeks gestation, and definitely by thirteen and a half weeks, the human fetus experiences organic pain.” (See letter to President Reagan above.) V. Collins, M.D., Diplomate and Fellow, Amer. Board of Anesthesiologists “Dilatation and evacuation, for example, where fetal tissue is progressively punctured, ripped, and crushed, and which is done after 13 weeks when the fetus certainly responds to noxious stimuli, would cause organic pain in the fetus. Saline amnioinfusion, where a highly concentrated salt solution burns away the outer skin of the fetus, also qualifies as a noxious stimulus.” T. Sullivan, M.D., FAAP,Amer. Academy of Neurosurgeons Last Updated : September 21, 2008

If this is not sufficient, let me know and I will give you more to read.

Phillip, why oh why WOULD I apologize to you for something I didn’t do or say to you? It has NOTHING to do with what I am or am not capable of: I simply owe you NOTHING on that score, hence my refusal to apologize to you. I’m glad you don’t expect it. That’s good. We understand each other a tiny bit…

Re: Petulance: You are the one who said one should never address an adult’s petulance as you addressed (in your opinion) and adult’s petulance. Funny argument, really. Thanks for the laugh!

I LOVE how you speak in absolutes, as if yours it THE ONLY VALID POV. I never advocated Cap & Trade legislation “even though it’s based on lies” but thanks for telling me I did. And I’m supposed to assume “it’s based on lies” because you SAY so. I need a little more than your say to sway my thinking. So far, your position just isn’t cutting it. Seems for every imminent scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming, there’s at least another one or two who does. Not being a scientist, I really don’t know how to sort that one out. But I do believe in environmental clean-up AND the jobs it could create. Not being an economist, I don’t really know if your doomsday scenario really will affect my future income. Maybe I’ll work in the clean up industry that doesn’t exist yet and I’ll have a whole new career and income? Who knows?

And “Glen Back truth” as if that’s not an oxymoron. Thanks for another big laugh!

You don’t speak for me. You don’t get to tell me what to believe. Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. You get to present you position. I get to present mine. Hopefully we make each other think a little about each other’s position, but nope, sorry, I make my own decisions about what I think/believe. I guess I don’t practice Vulcan logic, whatever that is. I mean, it’s based on a fictional sci-fi story, so no, I don’t practice that.

I questioned “fetal pain” after Lawrence brought it up “in his usual nasty way” so of course, I must somehow be painted with the same brush, so to speak? It was a legitimate question and I am curious in my own regard. If you are mad at him for the way he brought it up, take it up with him. I was just stating my interest to see impeachable research on the subject. I mean, if the fetal brain isn’t even developed yet, HOW can its pain centers feel pain? It’s a fascinating subject and I will look over that response, separately, but I think it is YOU who is being intentionally nasty. And no, I would never expect an apology from you, either.

Did Fred Sturm really say that we need to accept the pronouncements of PhDs without question in this blog? I didn’t read that. He said: Science articles should cite experts, not interest groups. And I further quote: “UNM actually has departments of science, with reasonably well-informed professors and students. Would it have been so much trouble to find a couple of them to comment on Pollack’s research? Then we might have actually learned something. Instead, we found out that an idiot conservative thinks there is more money in pretending there is a climate crisis than there is in creating it. (He obviously forgot that the amount of money made by oil, coal, auto and many other industries far outweighs any “green” industries.) Hence, logically, there must be no actual climate problem.” (He then goes on to say it’s obvious that nobody read the book under discussino. I haven’t read it either…) But there you go again, Phillip: Putting words in people’s mouths. You outta watch that. I think you owe Fred an apology…

Who exactly has been exposed as liars and charlatans? Are their careers ruined? Did they lose their jobs? What is the outcome of their actions? I mean, if you are an eminent scientist caught falsifying data, aren’t there codes of conduct in their professions that must be followed? Research misconduct hearings? Something?

I never mentioned “the enviro nut mantra of pristine.” Actually, I’d never heard of it until now. We exhale CO2, which would be okay if we weren’t killing off that plants that actually take it in and turn it into oxygen for us. What are the estimates of how fast the world’s rain forests (essentially, the earth’s lungs) are disappearing daily? Not too smart of us, is it? But, I’ve never railed against volcanic activity or earthquake. That must’ve been some other Nazi lefty commy pig… You are just too funny!

“Man’s contribution is but a spit in the Rio Grande.” Really? I guess I’ve observed a lot more damage than THAT done by man. But you say potato and I say patata. I guess you have decided I’m an enviro nut? Again, I decide what I think and believe. You don’t. Sorry. And if you are calling me that, isn’t that name-calling? I think you owe me an apology. Don’t worry. I won’t hold my breath.

No, I don’t think China’s pollution stays within their boundaries, hence my comment that they need to clean it up, create a new industry to do so, etc. Whether they will or not depends on things like the COP15 talks going on right now – which of course are futile since YOU have decided global warming is all a hoax – but do I really think China will change? Probably not, unfortunately. They don’t believe the pollution has any impact any more than it sounds like you do. I mean, it’s less than a spit in the Rio, right?

Cee,

You would be a little more enjoyable if you were not so high-strung with your posts. You may not be a scientist or an economist but you do have one golden quality—the ability to admit not knowing, and that goes very far.

Personally I’d like to see a little less hysteria and emotionalism. I see that you have some validity to a lot of your points, just lack a little structure.

And this is really not meant to be insulting.

Smoke a joint or something and chill a bit.

Damian, Thanks for the thought. Actually, I’m about as relaxed as can be as I hoot with laughter at this stuff. I couldn’t be less hysterical or emotional. I just don’t get how people can tell ME what I think and call that a discussion. It’s kinda amusing. I think Phillip needs the chill pill, but whatever. As for structure, I’m just following what’s flying, as best I can with my little breaks. As I said, I work for a living. What a hoot!

Cee, others can read your comments in the context you offered them and my opinion of them for their determination. I did not say your were or are an “enviro nut”; in general terms I was talking about those whose demands are beyond reality, E.G. more electric cars but no pollution CO2/SO2 from the coal plants required to provide the electricity to run them. You quoted Fred’s letter in which he said: “Science articles should cite experts, not interest groups.” That would leave out The Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, the Green Party and many others of that POV.

Some who have exposed the flaws in the documents published by CRU et al are math PhD’s. They seen the improbability of the data being offered. When they questioned it, rather than an explanation by the proponents with the supporting documents to support their conclusions, they were assaulted by the attack dogs. Fred stated “UNM actually has departments of science, with reasonably well-informed professors and students.” How well informed are they if the data they receive, and accept as truth, is false, a creation of CRU, not real temperature readings? And their professors reject challenge to that data and it’s conclusions? I have not seen a UNM professor write a letter in the Lobo questioning the idea of “Global Warming” and man caused temperature change. I remind you Fred tossed his bomb and has not been heard from since. He said, “we found out that an idiot conservative thinks…” Is Pollack a conservative because he is an idiot, or an idiot because he is a conservative Fred? Or are you unable to look with an open mind at the facts to see if you have been hoodwinked? Who is the idiot?

Here is a bit about Pollack, “Dr Henry Pollack, the author of A World Without Ice, is a geophysicist and an IPCC author. According to Al Gore, in the foreword, he is also “a scientist with the rare ability to engage ordinary people and to translate scientific ideas into everyday terms that are easy to understand”.” See, http://climatesight.org/2009/11/17/a-world-without-ice-2/ This man, according to Fred is an idiot.

I provided references to those who claim CRU has lied with their detailed explanation. Your response Cee: “ Seems for every imminent scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming, there’s at least another one or two who does.” implying the majority of PhD’s believe in “Global Warming”. The CRU people admitted they destroyed the baseline data, have refused to open their methodology, etc. to scrutiny. The PhD’s who support CRU have not done their independent research, they have used CRU’s data.

This is one of hundreds of statements found on (not my favorite source, another will follow) Wikipedia: “Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists stated: “models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”.¹⁴ He has also said, “It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it”¹⁵“

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine says a “flood of Scientists oppose what they describe as, “Global Warming Alarmism.” found at… http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june022008/global_warming_6-2-08.php This statement is from that report: “On May 19th 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, signed a petition that states, “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…”

Try to convenience you to change your mind, NO. I trust you will give an honest examination of the available facts and share your POV. My hope is those who are being mislead in the classrooms or by others who are lacking facts will examine the challenges to the “Global Warming” scare and demand real science, not a hoax.

Cee, to your question, “Who exactly has been exposed as liars and charlatans? Are their careers ruined?” I do not know the answer to “ruined.” They have been exposed, their work shown to be false by their own letters and the data sheets that were found in their computer files according to people who have the credentials to make pronouncements regarding that work. They should be shunned for the harm they have caused.

I would never call you a “Nazi lefty commy pig” it may insult those people. NO! You simply are a highly opinionated guy? I agree dumping stuff- pollution- is real. The question is what is the trade off. The pollution inherent in the manufacturing of solar panels relative to their output and how much other pollution they eliminate must be considered to determine which is the best approach. Oil, coal, natural gas are energy sources that contain very high BTU’s per measure. The cost-benefit of those “stored energy” sources is very positive. The pollution trade off is favorable. My friend who is a master level biology major very familiar with solar panel production questions the cost-benefit of solar. She consults on hazard materials handling, employee protection, EPA compliance for the solar industry.

I am aware of pollution levels that appear to kill whatever it touches. Rarely true. The Hudson River was thought to be dead in the 1950’s. Far from true. Sewerage treatment plants have resolved most of the problem. As my friend above notes, 95 percent of polluted cleanup needs about 70 percent of the money. To get another 3 percent requires 25 percent of the money, and getting back to pristine is cost prohibitive. The statements of dead rivers and lakes is not true.

You are too funny! “I would never call you a “Nazi lefty commy pig” it may insult those people. NO! You simply are a highly opinionated guy?” Well that was just plain uncalled for with no constructive opinion too it, but whatever. I guess I’ve come to expect that from you. Low blows. No class.

So what if I am opinionated. Isn’t everyone? I seem to be getting lambasted by you for NOT having an opinion, since I’m neither arguing for or against Global Warming. I can’t. There is just too much I/we don’t know about it yet, but I acknowlege that you have decided. What I believe is that we are living in a cesspool that needs to be cleaned up. How? Dunno? How expensive? Dunno… I’ve said that all before.

I checked your cite regarding all the scientists who are flocking to Oppose Global Warming Alarmism and this was the first post after that article, from a Fred B: WHAT GARBAGE !! THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS FULL OF FLUFF and DOES NOT NAME ANY OF THE SUPPOSED 31,000 SCIENTISTS [and WOW 9,000 have ph D’s big whoop since they are nameless] SHow me some studies from independent research teams, documentation like the side has ACTUALLY DONE. this smells of the Conservative spin machine.”

I guess I’m not the only person who is asking questions! After I read the article, I was wondering about more specifics myself when Fred beat me to it. But no matter, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a petition, just that there are so many questions still unanswered. I have no intention of vetting 9,000 people to see if they are really degreed scientists. I’ve got other things to do. Fred B. obviously thinks the conservative spin machine has a axe to grind. You obviously think that the Gores, et al do. I just don’t know enough. Glad you think you do. The whole thing seems to be a moving target at this point.

My observation that for every scientist who doesn’t believe in GW there seems to be one or two who do, is just an observation. I haven’t kept an accurate tally. The seesaw continues. Some believe. Some don’t. But again, I have NO INTENTION of vetting PhDs to see who is for or against. Not my gig. Sorry. I leave that to others…

I don’t know if Pollack is an idiot or a concervative idiot. I was only quoting the guy who started it all because you seemed to erroneously conclude that he said things it didn’t appear that he said. Don’t know Pollock. Haven’t read the book. I’ve said that before but I don’t care OBVIOUSLY if you think I’m an idiot. I haven’t weighed all the verifiable facts yet because THIS WHOLE GIG IS A SEASAW OF FACTS and I am NOT A SCIENTIST! Who could possible suss this out! Geeze man! This “my pHd is bigger than your PhD and he agrees it’s a hoax” is getting us nowhere! Don’t you see that? Neither of us are scientists and we just don’t KNOW. You don’t KNOW!

Cee, you used the phrase “Nazi….” in your posting 12/15. Sad that you did not hear the compliment that followed when I referred to it.

Regarding the news story Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine article that you dismissed this way…“WHAT GARBAGE !! THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS FULL OF FLUFF and DOES NOT NAME ANY OF THE SUPPOSED 31,000 SCIENTISTS [and WOW 9,000 have ph D’s big whoop since they are nameless] SHow me some studies from independent research teams, documentation like the side has ACTUALLY DONE. this smells of the Conservative spin machine.” in reference to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine article. This is from their web site:
“The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life.” I’m sure readers can decide if your opinion is sound. IF you actually went to the web site, you would have found a simple link to the petition and a list of the names of the 31,496 signers, including 9,029 PhD’s.

No matter. You can dismiss anyone you wish because you have decided they cannot be right for reasons that are know only to you.

Cee, Lawrence, Fetal pain, additional evidence to your request that the fetus feels pain.

I believe the scientific evidence is clear: The fetus does feel pain. I trust you will agree after reading the referenced from IASP and agree the unborn should be anesthetized before the abortion begins; that a death without pain is the obligation we have to the child. I suggest you also read slowhike’s posting of 12/14/09 in this blog.

First is background about the organization IASP from their web site: “The International Association for the Study of Pain began in May 1973 with an interdisciplinary meeting that brought together scientists and clinicians from 13 countries. University of Washington anesthesiology professor John J. Bonica invited 350 participants to the meeting, held in Issaquah, Washington, USA. The participants decided to found a multidisciplinary, professional organization dedicated to pain research and management and became the first members.”

Second: In June 2006 an article title FETAL PAIN? authored by K.S. Anand was published by IASP in their Journal. It can be found at:
http://www.iasp-pain.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Clinical_Updates Scroll down to June 2006 (Volume XIV, No. 2). The following are from this article:

Closer examination reveals three major flaws in the scientific rationale of recent reviews purporting to rule out the occurrence of fetal pain….

Conclusions:
The available scientific evidence makes it possible, even probable, that fetal pain perception occurs well before late gestation. Those attempting to deny or delay its occurrence must offer conclusive evidence for the absence of fetal pain at given levels of maturity.

Other resources: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/FetalPain091604.pdf And http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html a symposium attended by slowhike as noted in his posting of 12/14/09.

I apologize to readers finding this in a discussion of Global Warming. Cee and Lawrence brought in this topic, requesting a response.

PS: Lawrence, I believe I provided the IASP reference to you on 10/27/09 in a blog that discussed abortion.

Phillip,
What compliment did you follow my 12/15 Nazi comment with? I believe you said calling me a Nazi was an insult to Nazis. I don’t intrepret that as complimentary. I reread it and don’t think I misinterpreted your post.

I didn’t dismiss the petition. I clearly stated that Fred B dismissed it, that he beat me to the punch with some questions that occured to me as I read the article. I thought it funny that the very first quote after the article contained some of my own questions, perhaps not stated how I might have stated them, but still there. I included HIS quote (in quotation marks) followed by my comment that I am obviously not the only person with questions about this subject, petition, etc. How do you interpret that as my dismissing anything?!!

And you must agree, that 9000 people signing something as PhDs, doesn’t necessarily meant that 9,000 have been VETTED as actually BEING PhDs. Again, they could all be exactly what they say. I don’t know and have no desire to vet them… A bit too time consuming for me. Sorry. I thought about going to the petition, signing up as a PhD (which I’m not) to see how easy it would be to do that but again, nah, too much work (and a bit distasteful to me)…

So AGAIN, I haven’t decided anything even though you INSIST on attributing thoughts/decisions to me. How does anyone reason with you? I mean, I pose questions because this subject appears anything but settled and you keep saying I’ve “dismissed things for reasons only known to me”, or whatver. If you go on deciding both sides of the conversation, it’s not a debate but a diatribe. I can just step out and let you debate both sides, with your side always coming up the winner, of course!

I STATE AGAIN: I AM ANYTHING BUT DECIDED ON THIS TOPIC. THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH CONFLICTING INFORMATION TO MAKE A SOUND DECISION, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. And, too much partisan jockying for position on BOTH sides to be able to make an impartial decision. I’m glad YOU’VE decided and it’s all clear to YOU, but it isn’t for me. Sorry. And from other people’s questions, I’m obviously NOT alone…

Cee, Fred did not mention the petition by the Oregon Institute; you knew nothing about it—-based on your posts— until I brought it in to the discussion. BY inference you are questioning the integrity of the Oregon Institute by wondering if those, who when signing THEIR petition claiming to be PhD’s, actually are. You threw that out and then took it back; clever but well know tactic of spill the soup to soil the carpet and then apologize while rubbing it into the carpet with your napkin.

Fred criticized the Lobo reporter and Pollack, a man lauded by Al Gore. This is a bit about Pollack… “Dr Henry Pollack, the author of A World Without Ice, is a geophysicist and an IPCC author. According to Al Gore, in the foreword, he is also “a scientist with the rare ability to engage ordinary people and to translate scientific ideas into everyday terms that are easy to understand”.” From http://climatesight.org/2009/11/17/a-world-without-ice-2/

Cee, I attribute nothing to you; your statements are sufficient as we shall read… .

Said you, “And from other people’s questions, (in this blog?) I’m obviously NOT alone…” Since 12/8 only 4 posts have been by someone other than you, Damian, Lawrence and me. Not much of a dissenting crowd. Interesting the disinterest began shortly after the fabrication of Global Warming data by CRU was disclosed, and a poster on 12/8 began with this language: “Damian, you are an idiot!”, then, “Gee Damian, What an arrogant narrow minded idiot you’ve turned out to be!” and “Oh, I forgot, you don’t need to apply logic to your arguements, just misrepresentations that in your little pea brain support your points.” followed by “Petty little Damian,” and “Damian, what a 2 year old!” Another, “Sorry. Do you hava any original thoughts on the matter?”

YOUR statement: “And thank you, my parents are VERY proud to have raised an independent, educated, open-minded and compassionate person such as myself.” Followed by “You quote Beck! What a joke! Vindictive delivered with charts is still vindictive and I don’t believe a word out of Beck’s mouth.” Then “If Ann Coulter swore the sky was blue, I’d HAVE TO run the the window and check. Same for Beck. Funny how they have that effect on so many thinking, reasonable and open-minded human beings. Why is that, do you suppose? I also put Sarah Palin firmly in that group, too.”

You said on 12/10, “I mean, in my lifetime I’ve seen with my own eyes the snows of Kilimanjaro disappear, a huge percentage of the poles melt and the receeding of glaciers to unprecedented levels.” Cee, was there no snow on Kilimanjaro when you were there? What year was that? How about this: “A new study [published] in the March [2004] issue of International Journal of Climatology further debunked alarmist claims that global warming is causing a retreat of the famous alpine glacier atop Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro.” writes James M. Taylor managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
With your “seen with my own eyes (in what year) a huge percentage of the poles melt.” What percent of the poles have melted (huge is not a number)? You are aware some glaciers have receded-just as happened on North America about 11,000 years ago- and others are as great as they were 50,100, 500 years ago, yes/no?

Cee, You painted your portrait.

Then you wrote this: “I checked your cite [Phillip] regarding all the scientists who are flocking to Oppose Global Warming Alarmism and this was the first post after that article, from a Fred B: WHAT GARBAGE !! THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS FULL OF FLUFF and DOES NOT NAME ANY OF THE SUPPOSED 31,000 SCIENTISTS [and WOW 9,000 have ph D’s big whoop since they are nameless] SHow me some studies from independent research teams, documentation like the side has ACTUALLY DONE. this smells of the Conservative spin machine.” Do you question the integrity of the Oregon Institute?
Cee, as noted above, I brought the Oregon Institute into the discussion and in responding to your “DOES NOT NAME…” pointed out the links to the list of signers and the petition was on that page you call GARBAGE !! Why couldn’t you find those links?

“I’m still waiting for the cite on fetuses feeling pain, and since I followed the thread on DailyLobo.com as it unfolded, it seems rather odd that you would dismiss MY cuiosity about it, claiming I don’t know what Lawrence is referring to.” Cee, did I miss your posts in that discussion? And Cee, you have misstated what I said. Are the four references that I have provided in this blog sufficient that you can agree it is amply proven that fetuses’- unborn babies- do feel pain? Or have you doubts about the IASP and those MD’s who provide medical care to the unborn and born? You could visit the NICU at UNMMC, or whatever hospital is near your city, to talk with medical staff, the care providers who witness the pain reaction of those 22 week old babies if you still have doubts.

Phillip,
Anyone can apply that tired old “quoting out of context” ploy to make the opposition look bad AND support their puny point. Again, NO apology to YOU for an arguement I had in heat with Damian. You can forget that, tho you insist on going back to it ad nauseum as if it WAS addressed to you personlly. Must be difficult to be so sensitve to the suffering of other. (That was sarcasm.) Suffice it to say, you can go ahead and keep arguing with yourself, as reason never seems to pentrate with you. Too bad so sad. Enjoy your one-side life buddy! Good luck with that! To say that I am done with you, would be a great misunderstatement.

Cee, Are these words of yours out of context? “I mean, in my lifetime I’ve seen with my own eyes the snows of Kilimanjaro disappear, a huge percentage of the poles melt and the receeding of glaciers to unprecedented levels.” Cee, was there no snow on Kilimanjaro when you were there? What year was that? Is this a hard question to answer?

“I apologize to readers finding this in a discussion of Global Warming. Cee and Lawrence brought in this topic…”

What a bad boy I’ve been. Yet you have accused me of being “snide.”

No matter, Howell. No apology is warranted, as my request is quite germain to the topic of the thread, which is actually “science articles should cite experts, not interest groups.” The relevance will be quite clear momentarily.

“Lawrence, I believe I provided the IASP reference to you on 10/27/09 in a blog that discussed abortion.”

You posted an incorrect reference, with no Internet link, making it nearly impossible to verify the document. Here once again is EXACTLY what you posted on 10/27 (and several other times):

“In the journal of the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF PAIN, Volume XIV, No. 2, June 2006 is published an extensive article with 24 citations.”

This is an incomplete and innacurate reference. The journal of The International Association for the Study of Pain has the title “Pain.” You, Howell, Cee, or anyone out there can verify this at UNM’s Libraries journal finder (http://elibrary.unm.edu/) or in PubMed, the database of the National Library of Medicine(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed). The volume and issue numbers, etc. did not match. No author with that name in the 2006 issues.

The link that you have finally provided above (http://www.iasp-pain.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Clinical_Updates) is to the IASP’s “Clinical Update.” It’s NOT the society’s journal* and YES, it does make a difference. This clinical update is just a 4-page bulletin, not a peer-reviewed journal.

I’m sure in your reply you’ll scoff at my nit-picking. Well, if you included a sloppy or bogus citation in your thesis, it would matter. Or just a paper you’re submitting to a society. Or on a grant application form. On your resume. Perhaps you’ve never done any of things, Mr. Howell.

back to the issue at hand: I skimmed this article by K.S. Anand. A lot of was rather technical for my background, but he does argue in favor of the EVIDENCE of fetal pain before late gestation. Fine, but he is just ONE author. I have previously posted excerpts from articles by the many more scientists and doctors who think the evidence for fetal pain is weak, if not outright wrong.

You also wrote this about it: “… an extensive article with 24 citations.”

I looked at the citations — one of them was from Derbyshire. Remember him? He says flatly that a fetus does not feel pain, could not. (By the way, four pages is not “extensive” – I guess you don’t read scientific journals too often).

Most important, you left out one passage from his conclusion:

“Our current understanding of development provides the anatomical structures, the physiological mechanisms, and the functional evidence for pain perception developing in the second trimester, certainly not in the first trimester . . .”

Look at the last 6 words: NOT in the 1st trimester – when the vast majority of abortions occur. So what is your point here, Howell? You use the word “baby” interchangeably with “fetus,” but then you try to cite medical literature to bolster your argument. The very literature you cite says there are different stages of human development; a fetus is NOT an infant. Not only that, but the 1st trimester is very different from the 2nd or 3rd.

Of course the answer is that the issue of alleged fetal pain is one more way pro-lifers can annoy abortion providers in their futile quest to stop it.

So, in conclusion this issue is very relevant to the topic of scientific literatue and scientific evidence. Now, I bet you won’t answer this question, but was the incorrect reference purposeful misleading on your part, or just sloppy ineptitude? I’ll say it again: be careful when you get into an argument with a librarian.

Phillip, I suspected that when I wrote that, you might choose to take the LOW road and quote me out of context. You are SOOOOOO predictable and never fail to disappoint. You have become so boring and tedious. The very NEXT sentence after my “with my own eyes” statement, I clarified my PHOTOGRAPHIC “evidence as follows: “I mean, unless there’s some photographic conspiracy, all one needs to do is put photos side by side, taken at different times over the last century.” Perhaps that was way too subtle for a closed mind such as yours? So sorry if it was. I will try to remember to HIT YOU OVER THE HEAD with my point next time. Subtlety is so obviously lost on you. I don’t need to travel anywhere. I can just look at photos, as can millions of other human beings. Ever heard of National Geographic? www.fotosearch.com? God forbid, you could watch “An Inconvenient Truth”! There are a host of reputable places to get accurate historical and current photos, but of course that would mean you would: 1) have to be open enough to look and 2) not be so paranoid as to conclude all photos have been doctored to support some global warming conspiracy. But thanks for being so predicable and taking the low road. Again.

And by the way, my parents are still proud of me and love me, even if I lost my temper and said some things in the heat of frustration with Damian. The fact that I am all too human will never force my parents to believe I am anything but the good and moral person they raised. The FACT that I refuse to apologize to you for an arguement I had with Damian confirms to them my sanity.

Lawrence, thanks again for being the voice of reason, for the care you take in researching before laying out your position and for clearing putting forth your ideas without the tricks that Phillip appears so invested in. I read your posts with interest. You make me think. You make me want to investigate the subject more fuly and you are a breath of fresh air. I know to avoid Phillip’s posts from here on out, as they will contain misquotes, quotes out of context and vindictive, as much as he can serve up. I look forward to more of your posts with interest. Yay for librarians! I only wish I could be as eloquent as you with a pen.

Lawrence, Cee. I will respond to both of your posts. A few observations.
1. This post, Lawrence as you noted is about Fred’s statement: “science articles should cite experts, not interest groups.” The rest of his point was focused on the disagreement regarding Global Warming. Early posters wrote about this issue. They stopped posting when phrases such as “Stupid, moron, etc.”, became the staple. Abortion or fetal pain is not related to Global Warming. Bringing it in served to turn people away who are not interested in that issue. Intended or otherwise Lawrence and Cee you chased people away who do not wish to be in a food fight of words. I note most posters to the Lobo discuss issues without diatribe, sarcasm and “stupid.”

2. Lawrence, you are right about (a) I have not properly cited WITH THE LINK certain articles and (b) a news letter is not a journal; until it is incorporated into the journal of the organization. I have been clear I am not a scientist or trained as such. You said this, “Here once again is EXACTLY what you posted on 10/27 (and several other times): ‘In the journal of the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF PAIN, Volume XIV, No. 2, June 2006 is published an extensive article with 24 citations’.” You went on to suggest it is not possible to find the reference I gave- absent a www link. Google had no difficulty taking me to the association when I put in “International Association….” .Scrolling down on their publications page brought me to the listing for “FETAL PAIN” and the article I cited.

You are right that particular publication (and article) does not fit the description of a Journal, but a Clinical Update article. Here is what the Association states on it’s website: “Pain: Clinical Updates (P:CU) is designed to provide clinicians with accurate and timely information about pain therapy. Each issue of this copyrighted IASP publication covers one or two topics of wide medical interest not only to our members, but also for practitioners in a number of specialties.” I read this statement to mean these are scientific facts, not wild eye ideas.

The author of the article is credentialed thus: K.J.S. Anand, MBBS, D. Phil., FAAP, FCCM, FRCPCH. Division Chief of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine University of Tennessee at Memphis Department.
You appeared to dismiss the importance of Dr. Anand, “he is just ONE author,” while ignoring this which is included in his article: “ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, Comments and contributions from Barbara Clancy, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Central Arkansas (Conway), Dr. Elie D. Al-Chaer, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Neurobiology and Developmental Sciences, UAMS College of Medicine; Dr. Bjorn Merker, Professor of Psychology, Uppsala University (Sweden), and Dr. R. Whit Hall, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, UAMS College of Medicine, are gratefully acknowledged. This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NICHD: U10 HD50009-02; NCRR: P20 RR018765-02).” AND the 25 citations that accompany this article. Hardly ONE man’s opinion. Certainly an important medical publication.

3. You are right, there is disagreement regarding fetal pain; Dr. Anand did say 1st trimester unborn’s cannot feel pain. I offer this for clarity in this discussion: Medical science has established at the moment of fusion (conception, when the egg is fertilized by the sperm) a new unique human being exists; that human has it’s own DNA, it’s gender, hair and eye color, etc., are established. Medical terminology simply describes the stage or age of our development: zygote, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teen, adult, senior. These words do not change the humaneness of who we are beginning at fusion. This is settled medical science.

I cited a JAMA article that suggests the fetus cannot feel pain, then says it is possible. It flies in the face of Dr. Anand, the letter given to President Reagan with the names and positions of the signers and many medical articles that support their personal experience: the fetus does feel pain. If you ask care providers in any NICU about the reaction to pain of their patients (some as young as 22 weeks post fusion), their observation is they feel pain, confirming Dr. Anand’s article.

You are right, most abortions occur in the first 3 months; I have never said anything different. We also know the unborn’s heart is beating about day 25, providing blood to the fetus’s tissue and developing organs, including the brain and spinal cord. We also know from the photography done in utero beginning with fusion, and ultra sound observations, the 1st trimester fetus reacts to prodding, sudden loud sound and other stimuli. We also know the former executive director of the Bryan, TX. Planed Parenthood clinic resigned after witnessing an ultra sound during an abortion. She described watching the unborn moving away from the prodding of the abortionists’s instruments and the female fetus opening and closing her mouth as if screaming as the instruments grasped her and then dismembered her. She describes the fetus as going limp shortly after a limb was ripped off. You can find plenty of newspaper reports via google if you are interested in reading her words. Dr. Bernard Nathenson is a co-founder of NARAL, who states “I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions.” You can hear his commentary, made while he is observing an ultrasound of an abortion. You can listen to him and watch that ultrasound at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THS2zZ4m260.

Lawrence, the issue of abortion is different than the issue of fetal pain. ALL pro-aborts I have ever had discourse with vigorously fight against any acknowledgment of the truth: The aborted is a human being; the only purpose of an abortion is to end the life of that human being and remove his/her remains from the womb of the woman. That is settled medical science, hard fact.

We cannot ask the dead if they felt pain during the abortion. The observation of medical providers, the work of researchers tell us there is a great probability the pain sensing system is sufficiently developed to experience pain by the 84th day- beginning of the 2nd trimester. Why would you fight against anesthesia for that fetus? That sir, is the issue, not my failure to properly cite or your not finding something despite your self touted skills as a librarian. Why do you oppose mercy in the killing of a human being in the womb?

Cee, I have not forgot you. Hopefully you have gained new information that is useful regarding fetal pain.

Your response to my quoting you accurately was no surprise when you said: “you might choose to take the LOW road and quote me out of context. You are SOOOOOO predictable and never fail to disappoint. You have become so boring and tedious. The very NEXT sentence after my “with my own eyes” statement, I clarified my PHOTOGRAPHIC “evidence as follows: “I mean, unless there’s some photographic conspiracy, all one needs to do is put photos side by side, taken at different times over the last century.” Perhaps that was way too subtle for a closed mind such as yours?”

Cee you were caught flat footed in making a statement that is not supported by fact: You never “seen”, “ I mean, in my lifetime I’ve seen with my own eyes the snows of Kilimanjaro disappear, a huge percentage of the poles melt and the receeding of glaciers to unprecedented levels. (That Cee is an absolute statement, you claimed to have witnessed with your own eyes, not looking at a picture.) I mean, unless there’s some photographic conspiracy, all one needs to do is put photos side by side, taken at different times over the last century. Doesn’t that indicate global warming? I mean, just using logic, doesn’t the melting of things mean the globe is heating up? I’ve been following the stolen email BS in the news, email over 10 years old if I’m not mistaken and quoted mostly out of context.” Cee, I have previously responded to your …“stolen…”

The “BS” you refer to is whose? There was no subtly in your statement. When called to put up, you folded back to what you do: attack, disparage, deny, alter the meaning of what you said.

Progressives are predictable.

A word about your, “God forbid, you could watch “An Inconvenient Truth” Cee, are you aware the British High Court reviewed the scientific evidence surrounding Messiah Gore’s fiction? Here is a sample of the Court’s finding: “Two years ago [2007], British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore’s film as “alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.” The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was “one-sided” and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore’s attempt at “political indoctrination.”

The judge based his decision on nine inaccuracies in the movie. You can read the entire finding of the court, including an explanation of the 9 factual errors (some would say lies) at: http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/218-the-nine-lies-of-al-gore. Or you can google to find other news accounts of this action by the Court.

Cee, Lawrence, for me this blog is finished. We are the only participants. Lawrence for reason known only to your self, you appear to take the Planed Parenthood line on abortion, fetal pain. Cee, your quotes in context describe you well.

Phillip, thanks for taking the low road yet again. Thanks for the fibs, misrepresentations and vidictive. You never fail to disappoint.

Oh no! Oh my gosh! I’ve been caught flat footd by the premier obfuscator of all time! Oh no! Shame on me! And shame on you, Phillip, for your inability to recognize subtlety AND for flogging that dead horse ad nauseum. I will NEVER be subtle with you again, even on a short 15 minute break at work! If I cannot make it crystal clear in my 15 minute or less break, I will just NOT post. NOT! What do you think this is? Investigative journalism in the Wall Street Journal? This is a fun little school paper blog. I tried to be as clear as I could, time permitting. Just because you insist on acting like a horses rear, doesn’t change that. I could easily go through and misquote your pablum out of context but I just think too much of myself to stoop to your DISTASTEFUL tactics. Suffice it to say, I’ve had enough of you.

I’m so glad I got to see (oops, there’s another “eye” reference… Hope that’s not too subtle for ya)… I’m glad I GOT TO SEE WITH MY OWN EYES Lawrence’s discrediting your bungled fetal pain post, no matter WHERE it happened. Believe it or not, a lot of us can follow several different subjects in the same blog.

I’m gone! But at least I got to tune back in for Lawrence’s little taste of sanity beforE I BOLTED. Sure glad I GOT TO SEE THAT WITH MY OWN EYES! YAY!

I have not read Henry’sw book, however I do have a plausible explanation for why the USA has boundless opportunities for improvement in our knowledge of cosmology and more succintly the earths climate. Actually this is an explanation of why we are ill informed on a host of issues.

The reason is that we are a nation awash in a country run by half-adults. Over the last 60 years the adolescent stage has continually expanded, and adolescents typically disagree with their elders. This is natural, a kind of larval stage necessary for development. However, when the adolescents witness adults that are really half-adults attempting to regain their youth, it’s extremely confusing and stunts their growth. At Plymouth Colony a child was considered a young adult at the age of 10, they were asked to be aware of their surroundings and there was very little time for adolescense. An adult, for parctical purposes is one who is aware of and knows how to take care of themselves and community. Today’s adolescents wants his or her gratification immediately (all generally speaking of course) and notices that they are living in a world of debts, postponed pleasures, unwelcome work and responsibilities.

If we look to science the study of the apes will give us some insight into this societal dilemma. Adolescents are always in training and soon become oriented to their group and often feel an immature responsibillity for the others in their group. The story of the traveling baboons tells us of this adolescent responsibility. The troop of baboons, lead by older animals had a few younger ones going out ahead as scouts. One younger baboon came upon a tiger waiting in the tall grass, quietly waiting for the troop to arrive. The young baboon threw itself on the tiger with no chance of survival. An ethologist who witnessed the event surmised that the young baboon had sacrificed itself to save the troop.

Adolescents in the USA are being led by half-adults who have no clue about how to nurture and preserve what has nurtured them. There’s very little role-modeling by real adults who understand how to preserve the culture and society that has nurtured and raised them. When preservation takes a back seat to getting your name on the internet or being on TV, good hard science becomes more and more scarce. Today it’s not so much about being accurate, honest, loyal and trustworthy as it is about fame and recognition.

Unlike Cee and Lawrence, I am not one of the wicked witch’s (I’m melting, melting, help me I’m melting) monkeys who Chooses to Believe in the leftist radical global warming scheme. It’s still cold as hell where I come from, and yet I am supposed to believe now that the invisible gas that I exhale floats up into the atmosphere and causes global heating, even though there’s no proof and they’ve cooked the numbers.

All of nature ebbs and flows. It is strange that “Christians” who believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, have no interest in protecting and defending the creation. They arrogantly claim man has not despoiled the earth. The Automobile was the worst invention ever created. If a running car in a closed garage is deadly, why aren’t billions of cars? Republicans like Phil Howell and Sarah Palin are certifiable.

Chinese hackers linked to ‘Warmergate’ climate change leaked emails controversy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html#ixzz0augDnCV0
Emails that rocked Climate Change Campaign leaked from Siberian ‘closed city’ University built by the KGB