Suscribe to Weekly RiverCitiesReader.com Updates
* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

Latest Comments

Lack of Investment in Military Has Undermined Safety PDF Print E-mail
Commentary/Politics - Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, 03 October 2006 22:42

Why are we not safe today?

(A) The U.S. Army was reduced in the 1990s by 500,000 active soldiers. Today we only have 417,186 active Army, 305,404 in the National Guard, and 154,047 in the Army Reserves. (These figures are from the September 15, 2006, Federal Executive magazine, page 38.)

(B) In the 1990s, the leadership of the Department of the Army reduced from 26 Army ammunition plants to only eight by 2006. (See History of Ammunition by George Nickolas, dated 2006.)

(C) The civilian production base for military ammunition and equipment reduced in the 1990s because of lack of requirements as reported to a congressional hearing in 2004. (See Federal Executive magazine pages 17 and 18 in the July 2004 issue.)

(D) The U.S. Army's combat vehicles, trucks, etc. are in need of repair because of extreme usage in Iraq and the Middle East. (See the September 15, 2006, Federal Executive magazine pages 33 to 42 by the chief of staff of the Army.)

Where are we now?

(A) We have 250,000 troops on duty in 120 countries around the world.

(B) The U.S. has troops in Bosnia and Kosovo that 10 years ago we were promised by the then president would only be there one year.

(C) Because we gave the equipment from Lake City Army Ammunition Plant to manufacture small-caliber ammunition to South Korea and Israel, we had to purchase 800 million rounds from Israel because we lacked capability in the Army ammunition plants and in the U.S. private sector to produce for a limited Middle-East war. (See Federal Executive magazine pages 17 and 18 in the July 2004 issue for commercial industry comments to Congress.)

What has been done to make us safer since 9/11?

(A) Congress voted to increase the U.S. Army's strength by 30,000 people (which leaves us short 470,000 of what the Army indicated in the early 1990s was needed for two and a half small wars).

(B) Terrorists openly admit that they are coming across the Mexican border with weapons, explosives, etc.

(C) Russia moved weapons of mass destruction from Iraq to Syria and Lebanon with their special forces before and during our invasion of Iraq. Who will use them and where?

 

George T. Nickolas

Davenport

 

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

In some court cases, particularly high-profile ones, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney hire so-called experts to help win their cases. Today, we have experts claiming that our earth is in peril because of "global warming." There also are many experts who refute this claim, but they get much less media attention.

From about 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D. we had the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1550 to 1850. Dr. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, stated, "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone." Go to (http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4185.shtml) for details.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated, "There is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them. ... Climate change is a complex issue where simplification tends to lead to confusion, and where understanding requires thought and effort."

Drs. Craig Idso and Keith Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Global Change at Tempe, Arizona, have conducted thousands of experiments. They have proved beyond any doubt that with more CO2 in the air, plants grow bigger and better in almost every way.

There is no solid scientific evidence to support global warming. Many distinguished scientists do not agree with global-warming predictions. It would be tragic for our nation if we had to cut CO2 emissions (like the Kyoto Accords Treaty demands) to cure a nonexisting problem.

 

Dominick Odorizzi

Northridge, California

Trackback(0)
Comments (2)Add Comment
0
Anti Global Warming arguments: science o
written by MDH, October 10, 2006
Dominick Odorizzi quotes Dr. Richard Lindzen without noting that Lindzen is a consultant to the Oil Industry.

According to a former Boston Globe reporter and author, Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen has accepted money from oil and coals interests for consulting services, expert testimony, and speech writing. In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Gelbsan asserted that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen


The Idso brothers (with their father Sherwood) started their Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxde and Global Change to promote a pro-oil agenda:

When the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change's web site debuted September 23,1998, The Western Fuels Association-funded Greening Earth Society issued the press release announcing The Center's new site. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, stated in the release, "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, but still regularly publishes articles on the Greening Earth Society website. The Center is run by Keith Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling. (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electric, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association. (The Center also came into being in January 1998, according to information provided by the Center). (Basin Electric Latest News no date given)

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
see also: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ht....php?id=15


Mr. Odorizzi, not content to support his ridiculous claims with the questionable evidence of some fringe scientists who shill for the oil industry, points to an article in The New American which quotes Dr. Phillip Stott. Apparently Dominick was unaware that Stott is not an expert in the science of global warming:

Although he presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', eg climate change or tropical ecology. His views are also generally at odds with the scientific consensus on such issues.

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=126


Believing that global warming warming is going to be good for the earth because it will mean bigger and better plants is sophomoric. Don't let writers like Dominick Odorizzi fool you. This is a serious issue that requires a serious solution.

MDH
0
Global warming: fact or fiction?
written by Dominick Odorizzi, October 13, 2006
Thank you for publishing my letter on global warming and the comments on it. Looks as if I stirred up a hornets nest.
Before I retired in 1989, I was an electronics engineer for 40 years. I designed electronic test equipment for testing missiles and radar systems. I had to obey various scientific laws such as Ohm’s law, Kirchhoff's laws, and others. Sometimes, if I did not correctly apply one of these laws, my design would not work properly.
I do not know of any scientific law involved with global warming that can show that our earth is in peril. Therefore, climate models and predictions are not based on solid scientific evidence.
I really enjoyed the comments, particularly those that disagreed with me. Some questioned the scientists that I quoted. They can go to www.oism.org/pproject/index/htm and click on “Global Warming Petition” to read the names of more than 17,000 who signed that global warming is not a problem.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy