Letters: Misleading publication

Letters: Misleading publication

There are 19 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Oct 1, 2009, titled Letters: Misleading publication. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

In response to a recent letter praising the book "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, your readers may not realize that this book is essentially dishonest.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

Red Apple

Las Cruces, NM

#1 Oct 1, 2009
Thanks for the letter, Zackary.
Las Crucen

Las Cruces, NM

#2 Oct 1, 2009
Zachery,

Projecting blame for the Mexican drug violence on America is like blaming pedophilia on school playgrounds. And just what is with the analogy to the lack of prohibition on alcohol? No bottle of tequila every jumped off a shelf to cause a DUI accident or pickle a liver. Where is the element of personal responsibility? Even if America did legalize marijuana and cocaine, how would that change the drug war in Mexico? The same demand would be there and the same criminals would be there to supply the demand and the same corrupt and inept Mexican politicians and public officials would still be there to profit from it. So, pull your head out and think for a minute or two. The only way to fix the problem in Mexico is for Mexico to get rid of all the corrupt officials.
Albert

Santa Fe, NM

#3 Oct 1, 2009
Alcohol is by far more lethal and addictive than marijuana. By legalizing drugs such as marijuana in America, you elminate the need for drugs to be smuggled in, plus it can be taxed like alcohol and tobacco. The drug trade then becomes less profitable and the criminals no longer have anything to fight over, since the supply will fulfill the demand. Basic economics.
Corrupt officials are in all governments, maybe there would be fewer in Mexico if drug smuggling wasn't such a money maker.
DickNasty

Albuquerque, NM

#4 Oct 2, 2009
Seems similiar to that other right-wing religious failed experiment called Prohibition also known as the 'Noble Experiment' that was supposed to reduce crime and solve social ills.

What did that get us? More crime, more corruption, more lawbreakers, made a huge contribution to organized crime and corrupted the politicians like they've never been corrupted before.

Thank you religious zealots!
William

Farmington, NM

#5 Oct 2, 2009
DickNasty wrote:
Seems similiar to that other right-wing religious failed experiment called Prohibition also known as the 'Noble Experiment' that was supposed to reduce crime and solve social ills.
What did that get us? More crime, more corruption, more lawbreakers, made a huge contribution to organized crime and corrupted the politicians like they've never been corrupted before.
Thank you religious zealots!
Contrary to popular belief, Prohibition was initiated by Progressives as a way to implement government control over perceived social problems. It was not a religious movement although some religious groups backed Prohibition.
Think about it

AOL

#6 Oct 2, 2009
Here's a look at the last 423,000 years of temperature reconstructions from the Vostok ice core data. Notice the temperatures for some of the prior interglacial exceed temperatures for our current interglacial.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SmDoh0w...

The 1500 year cycle the letter to the editor wrote about is not an interglacial cycle. It is a solar cycle and the solar cycles persists throughout the ice core records, both antarctic and greenland, irrespective of the earth's glacial or interglacial status.

Here's a closer look at the current interglacial, the holocene shown at the far left, and the prior interglacial, the eemian. The reason the holocene has lower temperatures than the eemian has to do with the milankovich cycles, the earth's orbital dynamics.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SmDoZBI...

Here's an illustration of the current interglacial with historic markers to show the time periods. Notice the earth has been in a cooling trend since about 9000 years ago. This is called the thermal max and the earth hits thermal max when it experiences maximum obliquity, tilt.

Also notice that our earth has weather, temps go up and down regularly throughout the entire holocene optimum. We are in a time period of increasing temps, but the graph should indicate to you that this is not unusual or unprecendented.

http://www.socialtext.net/data/workspaces/wir...

The cooling trend is also evidenced by the fact that the northern hemisphere experienced the largest extent of glaciation since the end of the Younger Dryas 12,000 years ago. The glaciers we see 'melting' were not there 4000 years ago, or 6000 years ago.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/...

We are in a cooling trend, our interglacial will end sometime in the near future. Most interglacials last about 10,000 to 20,000 years. This interglacial emerged from the glacial period about 14,700 years ago when the earth hit max eccentricity. At max eccentricity, the earth passes closest to the sun in it's 100,000 (varies) year eccentric orbit.
Think about it

AOL

#7 Oct 2, 2009
The 1500 year cycle is not an "interglacial" cycle as stated in the letter to the editor. It is a solar cycle and is evident in both the greenland and antarctic ice core data.

The greenland data shows the best correlation to the 1432 year solar cycle. The cycle was first discovered in the greenland ice core data. The pattern was discovered, called D-O cycles, but the cause of the pattern remained unknown for quite some time. The solar cycle persists through both interglacials and glacial periods.

The cause of the solar pattern has been linked to the barycentric orbit of our sun around the center of our solar system.

The codification of the solar cycle has produced some astounding results. The derived mathmatical equations can be regressed to show the Dalton and Maunder Minimums. The equations have also be progressed and correctly predicted the low activity of cycle 24, the end of the Sahalian drought in Africa, the last three El Ninos, the low magnetic activity found by Ulsyses in 2006, and the cooling of earth temperatures since 2002.

The solar pattern, if it persists, will cause our earth to experience cooler temperatures for the next two to three decades. It was predicted that cooling would be evident by 2010 to 2012, with the coolest period in the 2030 time frame.

Good news we will not have to wait long to see if this new science can be relied upon.
Woody

Las Cruces, NM

#8 Oct 2, 2009
Richman: <<The fact is that virtually every serious and respected climatologist believes that man-made global warming is occurring and is a real danger.>>

Not a fact. There are hundreds of climatologists who question man-made global warming.
See for example: http://www.chrissander.com/congress-chairman/...

So what else do you want us to believe is fact?
Atmospheric Scientist

Las Cruces, NM

#9 Oct 2, 2009
To date, 31478 scientists including 9029 with PhDs have publically signed a petition voicing their professional and scientifically based disagreement with the man-made climate change theory.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Please note, these are REAL scientists, not academic degree holders masquerading as scientists or experts in a scientific field as is the case with Dr. Michael L. Hays.
Zackary Kershaw

Albuquerque, NM

#10 Oct 2, 2009
Las Crucen wrote:
Zachery,
Projecting blame for the Mexican drug violence on America is like blaming pedophilia on school playgrounds. And just what is with the analogy to the lack of prohibition on alcohol? No bottle of tequila every jumped off a shelf to cause a DUI accident or pickle a liver. Where is the element of personal responsibility? Even if America did legalize marijuana and cocaine, how would that change the drug war in Mexico? The same demand would be there and the same criminals would be there to supply the demand and the same corrupt and inept Mexican politicians and public officials would still be there to profit from it. So, pull your head out and think for a minute or two. The only way to fix the problem in Mexico is for Mexico to get rid of all the corrupt officials.
My point in comparing the way we criminalize certain drugs to the more liberal way we treat alcohol was to draw attention to the fact that while alcohol is a highly dangerous drug, not only to those who choose to use it, but also to bystanders who are subject to the impaired actions of its users, we give people the choice to exercise their sense of personal responsibility, rather than assuming that they'll be unable to handle it. Legalizing marijuana, cocaine, and the other big moneymakers, would stop the drug war dead in its tracks, so long as it included a legitimate route for people who choose to use drugs to get them. If you created an above-ground supply chain, you would cut off the flow of money to the black market that's run by these criminal organizations. You would potentially be able to divert the tens of billions of dollars that currently go right into the pockets of criminals to a fund dedicated to educating the public honestly about the dangers of drugs, and paying for addiction treatment on demand. It's just an idea.
Atmospheric Scientist

Las Cruces, NM

#11 Oct 2, 2009
This is just more rhetoric from the doom & gloomers that put politics and personalities above science. If you can't argue the science then attack the messenger and try to make them look evil. When all else fails, toss an ad hominem attack or two.

There is no solid evidence that CO2 is to blame for the warming experienced between 1979 and 1998. And if it were to blame, why did temperatures DECREASE after 1998 while CO2 levels kept climbing?

And what Kaufman, et al. failed to articulate was that we ARE in a cooling period and this minor warming spell is just an insignificant blip.

There is solid scientific evidence that proves that CO2 CANNOT be responsible for the warming observed. There is also solid scientific evidence that CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past without run-away warming. In fact, there is solid evidence that all creatures on the face of the earth benefited greatly from increased CO2 levels.

That brings me to the assertion that millions will be condemned to suffering, disease and death. Where is your solid evidence of this? There is none; it is merely conjecture formed by irrational thinking. Stop and think for a moment; where do the majority of people live (and thrive)? The tropical and sub-tropical lower latitudes, that is where. It was modern technology and fossil fuels that enabled humans to colonize the colder latitudes. Humankind will do quite well whether or not we warm or cool a bit.
Aggie Fan

Las Cruces, NM

#12 Oct 2, 2009
Global Warning will surely lead to what? We all just watched the "Jimmy Swaggert of the Environment" spread CO2 all over the Atlantic for a five hour face-to-face sermon on the wonders of Chi-Town for the Olympic Site Selection Committee when he could have done a green tele-conference. Or put the Orwellian way (in Animal Farm), when it comes to evils of energy consumption, "All Pigs Are Equal, But Some Pigs Are More Equal Than Others." It would be wiser to base our fears of the impact of wasteful carbon footprints on the energy consumption patterns of Obama and Gore not their nauseating sermons. The only difference between Swaggert and these two is there are never any quivering-lipped apologies coming from either enviromental apostle as they are caught "violating" their own little environmental principles. I guess the carbon consumption restrictions are meant only for all the little meaningless people....like us.
Del

Rio Rancho, NM

#13 Oct 2, 2009
Trying to find a consensus on the Web, I have decided to use the following numbers. Please use your own findings before betting any money:

1 pound of marijuana on the market is $1,000

22,000,000 pounds of marijuana grown yearly in the U.S.A. times $1,000 =$22 Billion

34,760,000 pounds of marijuana From Mexico yearly. times $1,000 =$34.76 Billion

$22 Billion plus $34.76 Billion =$56.76 Billion a year spent annually on Marijuana

Lettuce in the grocery store costs $2 a pound? A pound of home grown marijuana might cost $5 a pound? The cost for total yearly marijuana if home grown would cost $283.8 Million, a savings of $56.476 Billion. This $56 Billion could go into the economy, possibly a lot of it for legitimate purposes and help the country. At least it would not go into the pockets of the extortionist peddlers. It would be a huge dent in the profits of those that take advantage of our drug war to make usurious profits.

Where else might there be savings? Do we spend $1/2/3 Billion a year prosecuting our war on drugs? Apprehending, prosecuting, incarcerating a person for growing a marijuana plant in their backyard? Up rooting 900,000 thousand plants each year when it amounts to 2-3% of the total crop, and incurring the cost of doing so to no avail?

What is the resulting cost to Mexico and every other country whose crooks benefit from our war? How many dollars and how many lives? When will this ever end?

A lot of questions eh!
DickNasty

Albuquerque, NM

#14 Oct 2, 2009
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to popular belief, Prohibition was initiated by Progressives as a way to implement government control over perceived social problems. It was not a religious movement although some religious groups backed Prohibition.
You're wrong.

Religious groups had a great deal to do with. They were the primary impetus behind it.

You're seem to be suggesting that because some felt that the government could solve some social ills that would make it a Progressive movement.

Wrong again.

Conservatives have no problem letting the government take control (or trying to take control) on many social issues.

Try studying history.
William

Farmington, NM

#16 Oct 2, 2009
DickNasty wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong.
Religious groups had a great deal to do with. They were the primary impetus behind it.
You're seem to be suggesting that because some felt that the government could solve some social ills that would make it a Progressive movement.
Wrong again.
Conservatives have no problem letting the government take control (or trying to take control) on many social issues.
Try studying history.
Better dig into those history books a little deeper. The prohibition movement during the 19th century was primarily religion based. However, the Progressives picked it up as there own cause after the turn of the century. Progressives were behind many changes during those years. Some good. Some not.
DickNasty

Albuquerque, NM

#17 Oct 3, 2009
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Better dig into those history books a little deeper. The prohibition movement during the 19th century was primarily religion based. However, the Progressives picked it up as there own cause after the turn of the century. Progressives were behind many changes during those years. Some good. Some not.
And you need to go back an reread my previous post.
Border Native-American

Florissant, CO

#18 Oct 3, 2009
DickNasty wrote:
Seems similiar to that other right-wing religious failed experiment called Prohibition also known as the 'Noble Experiment' that was supposed to reduce crime and solve social ills.
What did that get us? More crime, more corruption, more lawbreakers, made a huge contribution to organized crime and corrupted the politicians like they've never been corrupted before.
Thank you religious zealots!
You are an idio-t, and I do believe you got served by a previous poster. Liberal lying retard.
DickNasty

Las Cruces, NM

#19 Oct 4, 2009
Border Native-American wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idio-t, and I do believe you got served by a previous poster. Liberal lying retard.
You are an idiot and why are you even commenting?

Conservative lying retard.

You're such a loser you have to go around looking for fights.

You are pathetic.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#20 Oct 4, 2009
DickNasty wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong.
Religious groups had a great deal to do with. They were the primary impetus behind it.
You're seem to be suggesting that because some felt that the government could solve some social ills that would make it a Progressive movement.
Wrong again.
Conservatives have no problem letting the government take control (or trying to take control) on many social issues.
Try studying history.
You left out Rockefeller's major funding of the movement. Many of the early autos ran well on alcohol.

I would change your comment to "Conservatives have no problem using social issues to encourage letting the government take control if they will create wedge issues to divert the voters attention from important issues." Remember abortion didn't become a political issue until race was tossed into the mix:

Paul Weyrich admitted: "I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation." AUDIO CLIP: http://tinyurl.com/WeyrichAudio -

On the Racist Origins of the Anti-Abortion Movement http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mesilla Park Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News E. Shirley Baca takes position with New Mexico ... (Jul '09) Oct 11 me from new mexico 3
News Advocates call for passage of 'clean' immigrati... Oct 5 spytheweb 1
News Telles verdict expected today (May '08) Oct 1 son 59
lcpd no confidence vote Sep 19 Bloodonhishands 3
News Convicted stalker running for Pearce's seat as ... Sep '17 Marie 6
News DEA conducts raid at Phat Glass in Las Cruces Sep '17 grateful for DEA ... 1
News Burn Lake sexual activities targeted by authori... (Sep '10) Sep '17 Jimmy Aid 145

Mesilla Park Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mesilla Park Mortgages