Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


His answer is that science doesn't lie & cannot be manipulated?

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun,
In response to Wes Golomb's rebuttal to my letter about the science of climate change being a fallacy, I would like to thank him for proving my point.

In reading both of his letters, I can only assume that his whole philosophy on this topic is that science doesn't lie and cannot be manipulated. He says that my "drivel" doesn't prove anything, but it proves exactly what my point was. In the 1970s, during the global-cooling scare, it was scientists and their theories that "proved" we were going to freeze to death. And through the 80s and 90s, it was those same scientists and their theories that "proved" we were going to burn. So the professor, while accusing me of cherry picking information to fit my view, is refuting the science of the 70s because it doesn't fit his.

Maybe he doesn't believe the science of the 70s because it wasn't a long enough time period, just like he doesn't believe the cooling trend of the last 13 years is long enough to disprove the "fact" of global warming in the 80s and 90s. He tries to prove his point by using NASA data over the past 120 years. As he states, they picked a period of 30 years as a base line, and then picked a period that shows an increase in temperature to fit the view of global warming alarmists. Does he think 120 years is long enough? I'd like to go back further, let's say 2,000 years. According to a news article at http://tinyurl.com/823h6hc, "A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today — despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then." Were these scientists wrong? They examined trees, a physical object that can be touched and examined. They didn't use computer models, plugged with data from a specific volcanic eruption or a specific period of time like the professor describes, to prove their point. You can enter or omit anything into a computer model to get the result you are looking for.

I'm interested to know if the professor now thinks that 2000 years isn't a long enough period. Does he want to go back to a major ice age when temperatures were colder than they are now so he can get his upward trend line again? I'll just have to go back to before that, when the temperatures were warmer, to refute his findings. The only way to know the true trend is by going back to when the earth was first formed and drawing a trend line based on the temperature from then to now. The only thing that will show us is, in the grand scheme of things, humans have no real impact on this great planet. She can take us out of existence at any time she likes and no action against "climate change" is going to stop that. If the professor is right and we are causing this "catastrophic" rising of temperatures, are we going to destroy the earth before the Sun turns into a red giant, engulfing the first three planets in the solar system and destroys it for us? More scientific theory...

To answer the professor's question, yes I am still laughing. His satirical example of the decline in pirates being the cause of the rise in temperature is a perfect example of the type of cherry picking that the global warming alarmists do. I want someone to do a computer model proving that the best hot dogs come from apples, but I want to see the results before we plug in the data that you have to feed the apples to the pig first. That would be scientific fraud.

The professor says that we need to take action and we need to do it now. There is a solution already in place. It's a renewable resource, low maintenance, converts carbon dioxide into oxygen and it doesn't take big government or the free market to do. The best part about it is it's free! It's called "THE TREE!" Or are we going to hear from the professor next that photosynthesis is scientific fraud because it doesn't fit with his computer models?

Scott Schoonmaker