Page 3 of 19
Posted on March 7 at 5:45 p.m.
100% of reputable science organizations, 99% of peer-reviewed climate science articles, and 97% of climate scientists accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming, but you will never see any denier reference any of that; instead they refer only to people funded by the fossil fuel industry and to libertarian ideologues.
Why are these people so adamant about downplaying the extremely well documented threat of global warming and the obvious role of the massive incineration of fossil fuels? It is of course because of money and ideology, not the scientist's ethic of following the evidence wherever it goes and a concern for the truth. If free markets can solve every problem, then why are these people so desperate to deny that there is a problem?
You won't find the truth about AGW at libertarian and fossil fuel industry -funded blogs, but you will find it at
and numerous other *scientific* sources.
On Air Pollution Control District Hears from Climate Change Denier
Posted on February 13 at 11:16 p.m.
"she was a witness to the incident"
And you know this how?
"you think you have a better account of it than her??"
I didn't say anything about having an account ... but I know not to expect reading comprehension from you.
"I don't think this guy should be in jail for any more than 6 months."
What you think is, as always, irrelevant and detached from reality.
On Man to be Sentenced for Punching Elderly Victim
Posted on February 13 at 1:44 p.m.
gardengirl didn't even read the article and obviously knows nothing about the case. There is no 69 year old man ... there's a 71 year old man, and neither the defendant nor his brother claims that he threw punches.
As for Ted Stekkinger's "one punch" and “AA is supposed to be a place for serenity” ... BWAHAHAH! Some serenity, breaking a guy's face.
Posted on December 27 at 7:54 p.m.
Every reputable science organization on the face of the planet accepts the reality of AGW. Richardson is an anti-science denier and has no business being on that board. The denier talking points presented here by three or one or however many deniers have been repeatedly soundly refuted ... Skepticalscience.com is a good place to read such refutations ... read them yourself, don't take the word of ideologues who have no understanding of science.
Posted on November 23 at 1:09 p.m.
" the new book by Muhlhausen proving the across the board failure of federal social programs"
When a right winger says that something has been proved, what they mean is that it agrees with their preconceptions and ideological biases. Remarkably, throughout the entire history of humanity, no right winger has ever admitted to having a belief of theirs disproved.
In this case, even though Muhlhausen is a right wing ideologue funded by a right wing stink tank, what he actually told Congress flatly contradicts foofighter's claim: “Congress has no credible information on the performance of the overwhelming majority of federal social programs” -- if there's no credible information on performance, then one cannot possibly prove that they have failed. Muhlhausen has called for continuous, rigorous scientific experiments to determine whether programs are working ... there would be no need for that if the programs had already been proven to fail across the board. Muhlhausen at least attempts to sound reasonable; foofighter makes no such attempt, and clearly isn't.
The fact is, though, that Muhlhausen isn't a scientist, he's an ideologue, whose goal is to provide support for beliefs he already has (and is paid to have), not to seek truth. Since we know in every case what he will conclude, that he concludes them is not particularly interesting. Only by carefully weighing analyses from people with various positions and being *skeptical* of all claims can one reach the truth ... which, in broad outline, is that various programs have various levels of effectiveness, and that all can be improved. But the notion that, say, Social Security and Medicare are not effective is transparent hogwash.
On Roundabout or Stoplight at Cliff and Las Positas?
Posted on November 23 at 12:32 p.m.
"it really shouldn't need to cost more than $5k or $10k in my opinion"
loonpt's opinion is, as always, of no value.
Posted on November 23 at 12:30 p.m.
Of course foofighter's response to me is the sort of intellectually dishonest nonsense expected of right wingers.
Posted on November 23 at 12:26 p.m.
Republicans and sleaze. Nothing new to see here.
On Undersheriff Jim Peterson Retired Amid 'Sexting' Scandal
Posted on November 20 at 4:59 p.m.
How is calling something a good neighborhood a "slam"? It's your comment that is a slam against Murillo, a willful misrepresentation of her comment, which was about an equitable distribution of the city's limited resources. You might disagree with her, but it's dishonest to call her statement a "slam".
"This is what democracy looks like when you vote for pro-union city council members, election after election."
So you've already forgotten the Francisco/Hotchkiss/Rowse/Self majority?
The biggest problem in politics today is DISHONESTY, the vast majority of it coming from the right wing.
Posted on November 20 at 4:39 p.m.
"How could one be reasonably opposed to a traffic improvement that is "faster, quieter, more aesthetically pleasing, generate less congestion and exhaust, safer, and move cars through the intersection more efficiently." '
Because IT ISN'T FREE. It's remarkable that the same people who say "There's no money! We're broke!" whenever it's about spending money on something they don't want are happy to completely ignore that fact that things cost money when it's something they do want.