stvsngltn 1 week, 6 days ago on Westneat - Seattle and its pols hooked on the Arctic oil they protest

We're becoming a nation of protesters (at least that's the perception, thanks to media coverage). Whether it's the phoney Occupy Wall Street, stop anthropogenic global warming, "hands up, don't shoot" based on a lie, or this event. I think it's clearly a result of academia turning out a mass of students who for some reason are unable to employ analytical thinking to these issues. Could this possibly have anything to do with a report I came across that some 85% of academia are left-liberal Progressives? I wouldn't want them to be on the far-right either .... but having the majority in the non-partisan middle would certainly be a breath of fresh air.

0

stvsngltn 1 week, 6 days ago on Letter - We have created nation of whiners

Great letter and point, Mr. lesko. This is indeed a terrible trend. And watch out, TPeacock -- I once again find myself agreeing with your points as well. Good input. As for California, I don't often admit that I was born in LA ... lol. Parents owned a small house in Venice then ... but CA was a different place in the 40's. :)

0

stvsngltn 1 week, 6 days ago on Letter - Future climate can’t be known

Your HO is spot on, VampireNinja. And good point, GandC. So many of those calling for us to accept carbon dioxide taxes, eliminate major energy sources (coal and oil), and (per Obama) let our electricity costs "necessarily skyrocket" and no longer put our thermostats on 72" live in mansions with huge lawns, gardeners and landscapers, pools, and as you say, fly a LOT (not only to conferences but everywhere. I don't resent any of that -- I'm just fed up with "climate alarmist hypocrites".

0

stvsngltn 2 weeks ago on Letter - Future climate can’t be known

Speaking of the NIPCC, I have their four impressive books in my personal library beginning with the 2009 Climate Change Reconsidered (868 pages), the 2011 Interim Report (416 pages), the 2013 Climate Change Reconsidered II (Physical Science) (993 pages) and the 2014 CCR II (Biological Impacts) (1,062 pages). That is a lot of reading and tons of sources and papers to soak up. I cannot understand how anyone with access to this data can maintain the outright lie that the science is settled or that AGW is a fact. I regret missing the climate conference held in Las Vegas last year and will miss the upcoming one in Washington, D.C. Fortunately, a video of each of the speakers is available for free online through Heartland. Hope to make the next one on the left coast.

0

stvsngltn 2 weeks ago on Letter - Future climate can’t be known

I am so happy to see you join the discussion, Mr. Harris. I checked out your interesting website and found the excellent list of International scientists (Astrophysicists, Physics Professors and others of various disciplines including Climatology, Oceanography and Meteorology, Geophysics, Earth sciences, Paleoclimatology, Climate and Solar science, Physics and Math, Environmental Sciences and more ... each with a short description of background and peer-reviewed papers, etc. And each signed a register that reads, "We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming. I may have submitted a letter on this today in response to Lynn Goldfarb's missive.

0

stvsngltn 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Letter - More facts children should know about Vietnam

"Although Nixon did continue to decrease American troop strength in South Vietnam, the fighting continued. In 1972, the North Vietnamese launched a massive invasion of South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese forces reeled under the attack, but eventually prevailed with the help of U.S. airpower. After extensive negotiations and the bombing of North Vietnam in December 1972, the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973. Under the provisions of the Accords, U.S. forces were completely withdrawn." So it was Nixon who ended the Vietnam War, not Ford. And that was after we had won every major battle and had the North Vietnamese on the run. It was after that when our lack of resolve allowed the NVA to break the accords and invade the South ... taking it over. A national disgrace.

0

stvsngltn 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Letter - More facts children should know about Vietnam

That was a hundred bucks (or more), Igor....not just two cents. Salutes your way from another who put a little time in South Vietnam early in the war. Yes, the U.S. military did win the war in Vietnam -- by any measure one wishes to bring. Both the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam Army were on the run. Giap himself was shocked when we pulled out after having won all the battles -- including his failed Tet offensive in 1968. After the pullout when the armistice was signed, the NVA invaded -- and the South Vietnamese lost quickly since all support was blocked by Congress -- who wouldn't even give them one artillery round to help resist the invasion. I, too, know many F-4 and F-105 pilots who would have been very happy to stop that invasion -- which they easily could have done -- but weren't allowed to .... allowing hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese to be slaughtered or sent to "re-education camps". But I disagree re the Domino Theory, which was indeed a reality. (I'll probably respond to that in a letter put up for discussion....as I've done previously.) Yes, the war was initially a good idea and justifiable -- it went far to put a stop to the spreading Soviet and Chinese aggressive wars of national liberation ... despite the absurd "Noam Chomskyish" and "Ward Churchillish" claims of this writer .... who attempts to insult every name on the Vietnam memorial wall by inferring they were "dupes of colonialists." The U.S. involvement in the attempt to halt Soviet- and PRC-backed aggression in Southeast Asia was "colonialism"? That is unadulterated bull.

0

stvsngltn 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Letter - Environmental changes likely underway

I can list a dozen or more factors that affect climate change NATURALLY. As for a "majority of scientists" who say otherwise -- they are either just wrong ... or have some agenda to make such an absurd claim (grant monies, refusal to admit they have been wrong, whatever). It's absurd to think that scientific theories and hypotheses are determined by vote. They are either confirmed or disproven by testing and actual evidence -- neither of which have EVER led to proof that AGW is factual.

0