Disqus - Latest Comments for CPeters

Re: Post Office in Silverdale, WA - USPS Hours and Location

CPeters — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:33:22 -0000

I've been trying for a few weeks to set up a passport appointment. No one ever answers the phone and the voicemail inbox is full. This is true of their other extensions as well.

Re: Clouds Are the Last Hope of the Climate Deniers

CPeters — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:40:21 -0000

The issue has already been studied:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/cro...

Re: Budget shortfall is 'certainly bracing' - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 23:17:17 -0000

How do you arrive at the 40 billion figure?

Re: Ghost story lent too much credence to paranormal - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 12:01:38 -0000

The letter writer correctly points out that there is no empirical evidence for the supernatural and promoting the issue without any skepticism hardly helps Herald readers. Anecdotes are not evidence given that the human brain is quite good at seeing what it wants to, overestimating causality, and being unable to distinguish patters from randomness. And the fact that previous cultures have supernatural tales has more to do with their inability to explain their everyday experiences prior to the scientific revolution.

Re: Letter was misunderstood - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:23:09 -0000

Joan Gorner confuses my criticism with a lack of understanding. It's not that I missed her point, it's that I don't agree. It's also worth noting that she avoided addressing my main criticisms.
Mrs. Gorner continues to insist that the Greece crisis originates from government spending on social programs (which she provided no evidence for). In that case, she must answer several questions for it to be a legitimate claim:
1) How can a loss of 30% GDP to tax evasion, corruption, graft (the so-called shadow economy) not impact the governments ability to pay for those programs?
2) How can the losses to Greece's two major industries (tourism and maritime mercantilism) not affect their economy in a significant way?
(Incidentally, Greece has the largest merchant maritime fleet in the world).
3) How does she explain the 13 European countries who spend a greater percentage of GDP on government programs (in some cases 5% or more), yet have their deficits (and overall economy) under control? Think Denmark and Sweden.
The other problem with Mrs. Gorner's argument is the comparison of Greece to the US. They are apples and oranges. Our problems (and future) are not the same. Instead of concentrating on Greece, she might look at Japan.
Finally, her insistence on our own health care law bankrupting us. Again, she provides no evidence. She throws out a number, 311 billion, while erring in its source and meaning. That figure came not from the CBO, as she claimed, but the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. And it does not deal with the federal budget (as the CBO does) but National Health Expenditures.

To see the report where the number is discussed, see here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.co......
For an informative report on the overall impact of ACA, see here:
http://www.americanprogress......

There are legitimate arguments to be had regarding what services the government should provide and how they should pay for them. But we should strive to be factual and thoughtful about them, not reactionary and misleading.

Re: Career politician should be voted out - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:29:51 -0000

Mrs. Smith's letter betrays many of the misconceptions surrounding global warming, climate change, and science in general. I'll take her paragraphs in turn.

1) ..."I asked him why the energy committee rejected scientific review reports and accepted only consensus review reports, the latter being vulnerable to distortions." Mrs. Smith doesn't seem to understand the difference between the reports. Consensus reports are meta-reviews of the scientific literature. They are composed of peer-reviewed studies (thousands of them) which are in turn peer-reviewed, commented on and go through several drafts before being finalized. The IPCC reports are the most notable example, and represent the best understanding of the subject at that time (they are now three years old and there have been updates). Since Mrs. Smith doesn't elaborate as to what distortions she is referring to or what scientific reports were rejected, I won't comment.

2) "They use consensus review reports which are manipulated by omitting entire warming periods, deliberately altering the outcome. Hence, La Ogre’s hockey stick graft, for an example. Inslee assured us the consensus review reports were unanimous. " Several problems here. First, charging that the IPCC reports are deliberately manipulated to omit periods of warming is serious and unsubstantiated. In fact, the majority of criticisms of the reports have proven to be wrong. What outcome is Mrs. Smith referring to? The reports simply represent the best understanding of our climate system and what explanations there are for the rising CO2 and global mean temperature. They were also very clear as to what uncertainties exist, and are in general pretty conservative in their conclusions. The last three years have demonstrated that many of the fears of scientists (rate of warming, ocean acidification, rise of greenhouse gasses, loss of ice sheets etc....) are happening at a rate faster that is expected.

3) "I was shocked when seeing him on C-SPAN treating Lord Christopher Monkton of Great Britain with open disdain even questioning his title, belittling him for not being a scientist and therefore having no credibility on the issue of climate change." There is nothing shocking about this. Monkton is a fraud and charlatan, who is not an expert in climate change (or any branch of science) and not even an actual Lord (although that is not particularly relevant, other than it shows propensity towards distortions). In fact, it is notable that Republican congressmen did not invite any actual scientists to participate in the hearing Mrs. Smith refers to, only Chris Monkton, who has been shown time and again to distort, mislead, and misrepresent both the science of climate change and the scientists themselves. See here for a thorough take-down by Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas:

http://www.stthomas.edu/eng...

In summary, Mr. Inslee is taking his lead from the experts, not pundits or ideologues who's agendas are for the most part financially or politically motivated. More importantly, Mrs. Smith's letter demonstrates why it is important that one first make an attempt to educate themselves on the basics of the science first, so that they are not so easily misled by the likes of a Monkton. A number of excellent websites (run by scientists) exist to meet this need.

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.skepticalscience...
http://climateprogress.org/

Re: Vaccines can be harmful - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:19:45 -0000

This letter is filled with misinformation and poor medical advice. No relationship exists between autism and vaccines. This is a myth. No medical treatment is without risk (or 100% effective, but vaccines are responsible for saving millions of lives and preventing tens of millions of infections.

Unfortunately,many people are easily convinced by the likes of Jenny McCarthy and Generation Rescue, rather than listening the experts, i.e. doctors. I suggest anyone interested in this issue read Dr. Paul Offit's "Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure".

Re: Global warming data not supported by observation - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:00:52 -0000

Unfortunately, despite claiming the previous letters information is not supported by the evidence, Mr, Day himself a makes several assertions that are simply false. In no particular order:

1) Global warming did stop in 1998. Besides the statistical problems associated with making a trend based off a single year, 2005 is in fact the warmest year, followed by a tie between 1998 and 2007. 2009 is forecast to be warmer than both of those years.

http://www.skepticalscience...

2) The West Antarictic has long observed to be melting. The East Antarctic ice sheet was thought to be more stable. However, after a multi-year study, the EAIS was found to be losing mass at a rate greater than expected.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/...
http://www.seattlepi.com/na...

3) Arctic sea ice had it's lowest extext in 2007. The ice that has regrown, however, is young and thin, which makes it more vulnerable to further melt. In addition, while the sea ice extent has temporarily recovered, sea ice area is a million square kilometers less than it was 30 years ago. Contrary to Mr. Day's claim, the situation in the Arctic is not improving.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.ed...

4) Mr. Day claims the oceans have stopped warming or even cooled. This is in direct contradiction to information reported by NOAA. In fact, ocean sea surface temperatures in June were the warmest on record (temps have been recorded since 1880).

http://www.noaanews.noaa.go...

The less said about Mr. Day's one-world government conspiracy theories, the better.

Re: Storm clouds facing President Obama - Covington Reporter

CPeters — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:09:57 -0000

While one could argue with many points in this article, the paragraph concerning cap-and-trade is especially erroneous. Every single sentence is wrong.

1) "The Cap and Trade bill that is designed to reduce global warming is now faltering." Which bill? The house passed a bill in June and the Senate has a bill under consideration that will pass, if not before Copenhagen, then in the early part of 2010. Mr. Carlson provides no evidence to support his assertion.

2) "The whole concept of the bill is to raise the cost of energy in people’s homes, cars and places of business." This is a truly ignorant statement and Mr. Carlson should be embarrassed to have included it, since he probably knows better. The purpose of the bill is to move our country towards a clean energy society, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and spur investments towards renewable energies and jobs.

3) "Opposition stems partly from its price tag – between $1,500 to $2,900 per family...." I'm assuming that Mr. Carlson obtained these numbers from a flawed Heritage Foundation study from several months ago that was roundly panned. The actually costs to most families per years will be between $80-180, and for the lowest income families they will see a net benefit of around $40 (as determined by CBO and EPA economic analysis). In addition, the overall cost to our economy is modest, 1-2% of GDP, also determined by numerous economic studies, both governmental and non-partisan.

4) "The warmest year on record was 11 years ago." This is only true if you use British temperature data sets. NASA accords 2005 as the hottest year. Even if they were both in agreement, you cannot choose a single year and develop a statistically significant trend. Warming is still occurring.

5) "Despite rising carbon output, global temperatures have leveled off and gotten cooler." No, the warming trend continues. This has been the hottest decade on record. There will still be yearly variations away from the mean, but these should not be confused as trends in-and-of themselves.

Mr. Carlson is simply parroting common global warming denier talking points that have been refuted many times over. The worst part is (other than misleading his readers) that accurate information is easy to find, if you're willing to look for it. To save him the time, I'll provide several links so that he could produce a more accurate post in the future.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asse...
http://www.realclimate.org/...
http://www.pewclimate.org/d...
http://www.pewclimate.org/d...
http://www.skepticalscience...

Given how poorly executed that single paragraph was, one has to wonder about the accuracy of the rest of his article.

Re: Letters to the Editor, May 1 - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:45:37 -0000

Grace, you seem to confirm what I wrote, which is that our rights as citizens stem from the Constitution. Thus far, I haven't seen any of our rights eliminated.

Re: Letters to the Editor, May 1 - North Kitsap Herald

CPeters — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:17:45 -0000

Regarding the Shardelman's:

-Our rights as citizens come from the Constitution, not the Creator nor the Declaration of Independence.
-How are the 9th and 10th amendments being infringed?
-The stimulus spending has a purpose (to help the economy recover) and seems to be working. Short term debt will lead to long-term prosperity
-Has Obama been legislating?
-The Supreme Court decided decades ago that Congress has the power to create a federal bank (whether or not it is a good idea is another issue).
-Uprising of Americans? Where? The Teabag Parties represented a few thousand people.
-Who has advocated for a one-world currency or a one-world government? Not Obama or the Democrats.

On the whole, a letter lecturing a President who was a Constitutional law professor is fairly absurd, especially using the shaky logic and history presented here.