Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Larry Weitzman and his lies

EDITOR:

“Lies, More Lies and Damn Lies” is, indeed, the perfect title for Larry Weitzman’s latest column on climate change. What is the tipping point for Larry to accept that the earth is round, that it is 13 billion years old, and that evolution, climate change, relativity and gravity are all “theories” backed by overwhelming science?

For starters, Larry invokes Swedish botanist Leif Kullman to support his position. I read Kullman’s article written in 2009, not “recently” as Weitzman maintains — five years is an eternity in science. Kullman’s expertise lies in the study of certain fossilized conifers found in northern Sweden. His findings? Temperatures have risen and fallen over the millenia. Nothing new there. No scientist denies that fact. The questions are why those variations exist, and how fast are they occurring now? Kullman’s article does not answer those questions.

Weitzman then mentions “Professor Mike Lockwood.” Professor of what? What are his credentials, his specialty? Perhaps Weitzman expects us to genuflect at the mention of the word “Professor” and not ask questions. The only “Mike Lockwood” I can find on the Web is a guitarist. Does “Professor of Musicology” qualify as “climate expert?”

Finally, Weitzman cites one Dr. Roy Spencer. Indeed, Spencer is an actual professor and his “study,” really a monograph barely one page long, includes enough weasel words to make him appear a skeptic while also allowing him to preserve a soupçon of academic legitimacy. However, and I couldn’t make this up, the monograph starts with a sentence praising British Petroleum, how BP is looking after “America’s and the Gulf’s welfare.”

There are about a dozen scientists like Spencer (the Dirty Dozen), with legitimate doctorates, though not necessarily in climatology, who are making millions conducting “quick and dirty” studies commissioned by oil, gas and coal interests: They’re “Big Oil Whores” who have sold out to the 40-plus “think tanks” financed by the Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers. The most virulently anti-science of these think tanks (with my apologies to thinkers) is the Heartland Institute, followed closely by the Heritage Foundation.

Obviously, Larry Weitzman does no independent research, no fact-checking on the people, or claims, he cites in his columns. He simply regurgitates what he reads in the Heartland Institute’s or other pro-Big Oil propaganda mailings. That’s what’s called a “useful idiot.”

JOHN GARON
Placerville

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 54 comments

  • In EldoradoJanuary 08, 2014 - 10:37 am

    I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Conservatives suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.... I fear something terrible has happened.....Oh, never mind, false alarm, just another Letter by John Garon, ..

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 08, 2014 - 10:50 am

    John, your LTE, LINK - The dumbing down of America has so far received 155 fan comments. Let our readers be the judge of substance. I predict that your Costco musings will win out over your Weitzman wonderings.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 08, 2014 - 11:14 am

    . . . also John . . . which is smaller - a soupçon of academic legitimacy or a smidgen of virgins?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JohnJanuary 14, 2014 - 11:30 am

    Phil: Are you a statistician who keeps track of other people's 'musings"? Get a life, man!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.January 08, 2014 - 11:00 am

    I disagree. An excellent letter pointing out who signs Larry's paycheck. But I understand Larry, you have to earn a living.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Vicci NolanJanuary 08, 2014 - 11:06 am

    Nice letter. Science and I are behind you, John.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CharleneJanuary 08, 2014 - 2:10 pm

    Thanks for another well-written, intelligent letter, John. I am beginning to wish, more and more, that there were still investigative reporters like Woodward and Bernstein, willing to risk careers to find and tell the truth and to ask questions that truly challenge the big-money-owned media and the big-money-bought politicians.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • AlanJanuary 09, 2014 - 8:01 am

    Denying the link between man-made activities and climate change reminds me of the Tobacco Industry (another polluter) and their successful disinformation campaign in the '50s and '60s to deny the link between smoking and cancer. Their mantra was "Well, there's a significant controversy about that."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Penny WiseJanuary 09, 2014 - 8:05 pm

    Alan remember when freon burned a hole in the ozone layer? When they outlawed refridgerant 12, to get your ac recharged at a dealer required a retrofit. The retrofit was A COMPLETE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT. Now it's two fill valves, a can of R134A and a sticker that says it has been retrofitted. You Used to need a license to hook up a guage to test the system, now soccor moms can go to walmart and pick up a retrofit in a can for about $12 and do it in their drive way. The original retrofit cost $2000. When was the last time you saw a news story about the "hole in the ozone layer"?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CharleneJanuary 09, 2014 - 9:41 pm

    Penny, the hole in the ozone layer was a real threat, You don't hear about it anymore because of the world's response in banning CFCs. From an article in National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/): "NASA's Newman agreed: "The consequences of unabated CFC growth were disastrous for life," he said. "So at some point you had to act, and fortunately they acted before it became a really severe problem. We never got to the level of an environmental catastrophe. "It really is a testament to the good science that went into [understanding] the ozone hole and the nerve of the politicians to act on that science."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 10, 2014 - 5:45 pm

    Charlene ~~~ LINK - GROWING THE OZONE HOLE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 13, 2014 - 5:11 am

    The charade they created over R-12 was a priceless example of political science. The R-134 they replaced it with was and is still a complete unknown. The first thing they discovered about it is it eats the old urethane O-rings that never had a problem with the R-12. So a retrofit requires replacing the O-rings with neoprene. Nothing exposes the successful dumbing down of Americans like the man-made global warming fraud. I am actually embarrassed for the people who buy into it. It is the religion of the atheist left. And like all religions it is all about M-O-N-E-Y.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 09, 2014 - 10:06 pm

    Charlene, the "ozone hole" today is nominally the same as 1979, 1989, 1999, 2009 . . . today. LINK - 2013 Antarctic OMI and MERRA Ozone CFC's were a fraud then and today. FACT - The "ozone hole" is a function of solar particles spiraling along the earth's magnetic lines of force converging on the N and S poles. It is the electrons and protons slamming into the Arctic and Antarctic ozone that destroy polar ozone. The annual variations are more a function of solar activity than anything else. See for yourself at the link I furnished. The holes are still there. The lie has gone off line.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 10, 2014 - 9:29 am

    Charlene ~~~ LINK - Solar wind (proton) destruction of OZONE ~~~ the ozone hole remains with us . . . and will . . . with or without CFCs

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CharleneJanuary 10, 2014 - 2:02 pm

    Phil, thanks for the link you provided. This is a quote from the very same site: “Increased levels of human-produced gases such as CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) have led to increased rates of ozone destruction, upsetting the natural balance of ozone and leading to reduced stratospheric ozone levels. These reduced ozone levels have increased the amount of harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. When scientists talk about the ozone hole, they are talking about the destruction of stratospheric, “good,” ozone.” (http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/ozone_SH.html). And, “Because of measures taken under the Montreal Protocol, emissions of ozone-depleting substances are already falling. Levels of total inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere peaked in 1997 and 1998. The good news is that the natural ozone production process will heal the ozone layer in about 50 years.” (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html). The ozone layer won’t be repaired overnight.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 13, 2014 - 9:40 am

    In 1974 Time magazine blamed a polar vortex event on global cooling, 40 years later, Time magazine blames a polar vortex event on global warming. Interestingly enough I read the article from 1974 when it was originally written. Interesting how the left defines lying. Kinda like being able to keep your healthcare policy. http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/07/time-magazine-swings-both-ways/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 13, 2014 - 9:49 am

    What was mother gooses' tipping point for believing the earth is 13 billion years old?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 13, 2014 - 9:58 am

    Factoid ~~~ The earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 13, 2014 - 10:58 am

    To me this issue is a simple one: Do I believe the conservative tax attorney/convicted felon from Placerville, or more than 95 percent of the worldwide scientific community? It's seriously hard to believe this is still an issue. Larry should go back to writing about Hyundais.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 13, 2014 - 11:44 am

    Harley, how about rather than "believing" anyone you do some reading and investigating on your own and come to some conclusions based on that? If you believe "more than 95 percent of the worldwide scientific community" supports the man-made global warming fraud then you are just believing what you are told to believe which makes you just another useful idiot. You take the same tactic as the other useful idiots though, make it about the person and not the point. You guys are just helpless. I am embarrassed for you.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 13, 2014 - 11:48 am

    Harley, here is a good place to start on your education. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=1

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 13, 2014 - 3:30 pm

    Here's the thing Cookie: I am not a scientist, nor do I pawn myself off as one like Larry does. How does trusting a majority of trained doctorates (and a big majority at that...95 percent!) make me a useful idiot? Sure I can find published research arguing both sides, but the bottom line is that most trained scientists are together on this issue. To me, it's no different than getting diagnosed with a brain tumor, and then, after three MD's tell me I have it, I decide to convince myself I don't by researching medical journals on my own. I'm not an oncologist and I trust the opinion of the professionals. I'll let the PhD's do the research and back their conclusions. I would argue that does not make me an idiot. Anyone agree?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 14, 2014 - 6:07 am

    Harley, do you know how Greenland got its name? The Vikings named it. They used to grow crops there. How much warming could we endure in order to grow crops there today? Show me even one so-called scientist who promotes man-made global warming who doesn't have money riding on it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 12:26 pm

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the settlers named Greenland Greenland and Iceland Iceland to trick explorers into thinking they were of the opposite climate. But maybe you can point me to the website that will prove otherwise and infect my PC with a virus.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Robert D NollJanuary 13, 2014 - 5:52 pm

    Harley,these posters are not attacking your views they just want you learn how to think for yourself like they do.WWW.//think outside the box.com.they offer many links so you won't think like sheeple.go to www,/gov.raise lambs without being fleeced.''//.com.you can trust the sites they tell you to use.After all they are free thinkers who don't need or use the internet to get their ideas.try wwwww.w don't read. smoke pot for new ideas.gov

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 14, 2014 - 6:12 am

    Or you could follow Robert's example and only expose yourself to the things you want to be told.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 14, 2014 - 6:23 am

    Harley, do you still believe Benghazi was caused by a video? Did you believe that if you liked your healthcare you would be able to keep your healthcare? Do you understand that you are being told to believe by the global warming fraud that we can control the weather? Maybe you can answer this for me since none of the other lemmings will touch it, how did the oceans of oil and mountains of coal get in the ground in the first place?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 9:40 am

    Cookie, the statistics show that the scientists driven to make money off global warming are in the minority and share your view. As Garon said, they work for the big oil companies. Wake up and smell the coffee Cooke (Larry?). The FACT is that 95 percent of the scientific community believes it's man-made. If you're not a scientist, there is absolutely no validity to your argument, because all you're doing is reading crud on the web. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists like yourself, you can convince yourself anything. Go do your research and read more news on Pat Robertson's website. :) With all due respect, I believe you have a mental illness.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 14, 2014 - 10:45 am

    The minority? How many trillions have changed hands over the global warming fraud? Is this twit your twin? http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/global-warming-skeptics-sick-treated-prof/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 14, 2014 - 10:53 am

    So your not going to answer my question either? How did the oceans of oil and mountains of coal get in the ground to begin with?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 12:10 pm

    I can't answer your question, because I'm not a scientist. I've said it before and I'll say it again, let's leave this to the trained experts. I'll put my money on the 95 percent majority, over the 5 percent minority and their weird propaganda websites you subscribe to. After 40 years as a prosecutor, I learned enough common sense to evaluate simple statistics. Once again, here are the facts: 95 percent of trained scientists agree that global warming is man-made. 5 percent of scientists (many of which have proven ties to big oil), are the naysayers. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Trust me, I'm not the kind of guy who takes everything at face value. Start talking about the JFK assassination or the numerous other government cover-ups, and you'll have my ears. But this my friend is a non-issue. There's no way to argue that 95 percent of a community of experts are corrupt. Go out and get your PhD in the natural sciences from an accredited university and then, if you still sling the same argument, I'll give you the time of day.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJanuary 13, 2014 - 11:11 am

    Harley, here some good science ~~~ LINK - It’s The Circumpolar Vortex Not The Polar Vortex And Other PR Deceptions

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rodJanuary 13, 2014 - 11:34 am

    garon the moron... Dr Spencer IS A CLIMATOLOGIST. who the he!! are you? may want to check out his website... and LEARN SOMETHING if the possibility exists, http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JohnJanuary 14, 2014 - 11:25 am

    Rod Let's both get down to the juvenile level which you seem to prefer: It takes one to know one, you jerk!. It seems to me my letter implied that Spencer had SOME credentials on the subject. But the fact that his one-page study was financed by BP makes him a science whore, denuding him of all credibility. Or maybe he's a pimp.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DarrinJanuary 14, 2014 - 7:12 am

    If Larry's letter was published on April 1st I would have had a good laugh... Unfortunately he seems to believe what he wrote. Very scary.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 14, 2014 - 9:04 am

    Scary is the number of idiots who believe the global warming fraud. You would think they would be happy about the unpredicted, unexplainable change of direction in temperatures and increases in the ice caps. But they aren't.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jon Peckham IIJanuary 14, 2014 - 9:12 am

    Let's not forget that Larry recently spent several years in prison for fraud . . . He's only recently been released . . .

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • R SmithJanuary 14, 2014 - 9:46 am

    Obviously John Garon does no independent research, no fact checking on the people or claims he cites in his letters. He simply regurgitates what he reads in Al Gores propaganda. That’s what’s called a “Useful Idiot”.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • R SmithJanuary 14, 2014 - 9:51 am

    Let’s not forget that Al Gore should spend time in prison for fraud and never be released.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 10:01 am

    The stupidity in some of these comments is incredibly amusing. Why doesn't Larry write a few columns about life on the inside? I'd love to hear the details.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65January 14, 2014 - 11:00 am

    You entered this debate very typical of all leftists. With a certain degree of makebelieve open mindedness and pretend thoughtfulness. Then in the blink of an eye you went directly into your religious dogma. You are regurgitating what you have been trained to believe and have never lifted a finger to expose yourself to any contrary views. I am fortunate enough to have followed this fraud since the first time they tried selling it to me in the mid 70's. Where are all the predictions they made? Why did they need to change the name from global warming to climate change? Because idiot the planet isn't warming like they predicted. I am embarrassed for you.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 12:18 pm

    And I am embarrassed for you. You're in the company of a minority of corrupt scientists and conspiracy theorists. Hopefully you'll be proven wrong in your lifetime. Most scientists are independent thinkers who go about their lives looking for answers. Are you really going to say that 95 percent of them are coming to their conclusions because of some kind of monetary gain? These experts spend years in school, conducting experiments and mastering the Scientific Method, all while you sit in front of a computer researching the dark side of the internet.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foaming at the MouthJanuary 14, 2014 - 3:03 pm

    Fortunately for us, cookie never displays make believe openmindedness or pretend thoughtfulness. We never have to be embarrassed for cookie!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • R SmithJanuary 14, 2014 - 10:21 am

    Martin Luther King along with Nelson Mandela spent time in prison are you willing to consign them to the ash heap of history?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Foaming at the MouthJanuary 14, 2014 - 3:11 pm

    Nelson, Martin, and Larry. Foaming smells a hit single!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • AlanJanuary 15, 2014 - 6:03 am

    Are you seriously comparing Larry Weitzman to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela; two political prisoners, Nobel Prize Winners and World Leaders who inspired generations with their thoughts and ideas and changed history? - That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? :)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Robert D NollJanuary 14, 2014 - 12:19 pm

    your points are valid Harley but they will mean nothing to the naysayers

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • T-RayJanuary 14, 2014 - 12:34 pm

    The history or energy utilization over the last 200 years has been from dirty to clean, expensive and labor intensive to cheap and easy. We have moved from wood to hydro to coal to oil to gas to nuclear. Only when politics gets involved does this progression get perturbed. For the last 35 years nuclear has been essentially banned. How long has it been since a new hydroelectric facility has been built in CA? Politics is also pushing (subsidizing) expensive forms of energy such as solar and wind. Yes these are clean but expensive and only partial solutions to our problems since they require rapid start backup conventional facilities. Oil and even natural gas, the cleanest of the hydrocarbon fuels, are being discouraged because they contribute to anthropogenic global warming. AGW is the theory of manmade warming by introducing excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. There is a difference between AGW and climate change. Climate change is a natural phenomenon that man cannot control nor does he contribute to. Most scientists will agree that the climate is changing as it always has, however, I suspect that the number of scientists who believe in AGW is well below the 95% quoted above. I and several of the scientists I know are skeptics. These facts are obvious: over the last 15 years the climate has not significantly changed despite increases in atmospheric CO2, the current weather patterns and storms are within statistical norms, the models used to predict the dooms day scenarios failed to predict the last 15 years and are therefore not validated, the technical section of the latest IPCC report predicted AGW warming for the 21st century was significantly than in the previous report; however, in the political section of the same report, the writers doubled down on the dooms day scenario, a contradiction. The models used to make the dire predictions are just theoretical mathematical constructs trying to predict a very complex equilibrium system. It is very difficult to develop well behaved, accurate models for such complex systems that converge to the correct answers. It is even more difficult to build models that predict equilibrium conditions especially if all the variables are not understood or if some are unknown. One can build a model that converges to an answer but that does not mean it is the correct answer. Over the last 15 years we have seen significant changes in solar sunspot activity. The fact that the models did not predict these changes correctly implies that they lack the necessary inputs thus making the models invalid. Unfortunately, the press and politicians continue to scare the public into believing that dooms day is coming. I challenge everyone to ask the press and these politicians what the ideal earth mean temperature is and what the idea CO2 level is. If we know neither, then control is not feasible and spending money to do so is futile.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 1:11 pm

    You're right T-Ray. I was wrong. It's actually 97 percent, who believe it's human caused. I respect your opinion as a scientist, but you're in the minority... http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • T-RayJanuary 14, 2014 - 1:28 pm

    Counting all the members of a scientific society as agreeing with the statements of the society is like saying that 97% of the US voters agree with Obama despite the fact that he only got 53% of the vote. I am a member of the ACS and several other societies. I do not agree. I also have a good friend that resigned from the AGU because of their rubber stamp. I have had discussions from a reviewer of the latest IPCC report who confirmed that fudge factors were introduced in the older thermometer data to accentuate current higher temperatures. He also stated that another reviewer drastically altered the input to one of the climate models and came out with the same answer thus concluding the model was rigged. Open your eyes, think for yourself. Don't be panicked by the "State of Fear" from the media and politicians. Fear sells papers and convinces you to cede more power over your life to the power hungry politicians.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • T-RayJanuary 14, 2014 - 1:34 pm

    I also would like to point out that the ACS never asked its members to vote on their AGW statement.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 2:57 pm

    I'm not panicking or buying into media reports. I'm just looking at the NASA statistics. And they overwhelmingly favor one side. Sure there are anomalies like yourself, but you don't swing the pendulum of mainstream scientific opinion.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • T-RayJanuary 14, 2014 - 3:16 pm

    NASA is a combination scientific and political organization. What gets ultimately posted on their website has gone through the political filters. For their statement that 97% of scientists agree, they have to be assuming that all the members of the societies that have published support for AGW are in agreement with the executive boards of those societies. 97% is a extremely high number. It would be difficult to get 97% of any group(s) to agree to such a complex topic. For NASA to publish that assumption as a legitimate statistic is a lie. If it is black has white stripes and smell like a skunk, it just might be a skunk. Think for yourself. I can supply you with many more inconsistencies in the AWG arguments. Remember from your elementary math and science classes, it only takes one counter example to disprove a theory. AGW is just a theory.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJanuary 14, 2014 - 3:40 pm

    I agree that there are politics with NASA, but if the figures were so far off, there would be more outcry in the scientific community. There's a margin of error with every statistic, but if the real numbers were much less, we'd hear about it from more scientists. Just like your example of Obama with 97 percent approval. If such stats were released, the outcry would be heard all over the airwaves. The numbers are simply not on your side. The consensus has been recorded whether you agree or not. Live with it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

 
Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 73 Comments | Gallery

Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

 
.

Opinion

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 24 Comments

 
Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

.

Letters

‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 23 Comments

 
Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 4 Comments

Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

 
Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 2 Comments

 
.

Sports

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8