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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Maybe Republicans don't think the poor deserve to be secure?

To The Daily Sun,

How do you explain the opposition of our House and Senate Republicans to Medicaid expansion? The program is working. Approximately, 40,000 New Hampshire residents signed up for it. According to the New Hampshire Hospital Association, it has resulted in a reduction in emergency room visits by uninsured patients by 22 percent in the first three months of 2015 compared to same time period in 2014. And, inpatient admissions of the uninsured fell by 27 percent.

Business is in favor of it. The N.H. Business and Industry Association recognized the connection between the health of a population and the state's economic prosperity. According to BIA President Jim Roche, "regular, preventive care costs less, will lead to less utilization of healthcare services and ultimately lower health insurance costs for businesses and individuals."

If you do the math, it's a no-brainer. The federal government pays for most of it, and by reducing the amount of uncompensated care hospitals provide, it ends the cost-shifting onto those already insured or paying out of pocket. We all benefit, not just those on Medicaid.

The program also reduces the financial and personal insecurity of those formerly without insurance. Could it be that that's what New Hampshire Republicans really object to? Maybe they think the poor don't deserve to feel less insecure? The Grinch would be proud of them.

Dave Pollak

Laconia

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 412

Earth's temp change over last 100 years was in normal range

To The Daily Sun,

Let's applaud, and reward with a red star, James Veverka's almost civil letter of May 20. It lacks both his customary name-calling and any success in debunking anything I said in previous letters about the myth of man-made climate-change.

Veverka complains that I did not address his climate change question of why the earth continued to warm despite the reduction in the sun's output in the 1950s. This is an amusing question since the 1950s began a 25 year period of global cooling resulting in climate alarmists telling us to fear another ice age (see: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html)

Alarmists like Veverka tell us that CO2 causes climate change, yet there were about 19 prior cycles of global cooling and warming in just the last 500 years without any CO2 increases including the warmest decade on record (the 1930s, unless you use manipulated data) prior to the 1950s. In the 1950s despite a significant increase of CO2 a period of global cooling began that lasted through about 1978.

That period was finally followed by a period of global warming concurrent with CO2 increases; this led to all sorts of wild predictions of climate doom: skyrocketing temperatures, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornados, vanishing polar ice caps, etc. that politicians used to try to generate fear and that "scientists" used to get more grant money. Almost everyone knows that these predictions didn't occur and, in fact, despite the alarmists' models and continued increase in CO2, the earth hasn't warmed since about 1998.

Interestingly, the U.N. 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report doesn't support the alarmists' claims either. Professor Roger Pielke testified to the U.S S.enate that the 2013 IPCC report indicates that it would be "misleading and incorrect" to claim that disasters such as tornadoes (since 1950 despite the CO2 buildup, hurricanes (since 1900), floods (since 1950) or droughts have increased on climate timescales in the U.S. or globally. Nor have weather related losses increased since 1990 as a percent of GDP. Based on research by Pielke and others it will be many decades, perhaps centuries, before human caused climate change can be detected statistically in hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, etc. (See: https://goo.gl/vl7QSp)

Bjorn Lomborg also points out that the 2013 IPCC report doesn't support the alarmists' claims of temperature or sea level rises. Nor does the IPCC offer solutions that reduce global temperatures significantly (models estimate only a 0.1 degree F reduction) despite spending $20 trillion to fight temperature rise over the rest of the century. (usat.ly/1apGKzN)

Veverka would like us to accept that the climate alarmists' models are accurate and provided one, of at least hundreds if not thousands of models, which he claims show the models accuracy by coming close to the measured values in all of three of 10 years. This model's timeframe was also carefully chosen to try to show a temperature increase, and the increase predicted was substantially lower than the typical alarmists' models. If he were on the other side, Veverka would ridicule anyone trying to use this evidence to try to prove anything. This example doesn't debunk my statements.

Veverka also provides another graph supposedly showing how another model, of many showing different predictions, seems to be consistent with measured data for that period of time assuming the data provided has not been manipulated. So little information is provided that I can't comment on this. The fact is that since the little ice age the world wide sea rise has been, and is likely to continue to rise about 7 inches per century based on some ice melt and some expansion of water as it warms. Local effects may cause different local results.

While I appreciate Veverka's attempt to educate me on the greenhouse effect and global warming, his article even indicates that the research and debate on this has been changing, and it is not over. The predicted 5 degree C global temperature did not result from a doubling of CO2.

In his paper titled: "An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures" (http://goo.gl/rO7h7F), former U.N. IPCC lead author Dr. Philip Lloyd indicated that the earth's temperature change over the last 100 years is well within the earth's natural variability per century over the last 8000 years.

Michael Crichton said he found it interesting that the man-made climate "deniers" are typically retired scientists while most "alarmists" seem to be scientists who need money from politicians to further their careers, research, and to stay employed.

Like witch doctors and pagan priests of old who used solar eclipses they knew would happen to increase their power over the people, current day politicians, who couldn't substantially influence man-made climate change even it if it were occurring, use the man-made climate-change hoax to increase their power and wealth, reward their friends and supporters, and fleece people of their money and freedom through regulations, taxation and increasing cost of living.

Veverka seems to think that fervor, nastiness, and faulty "evidence" are adequate substitutes for real evidence, they are not. Veverka has disproved none of my assertions that man-made global climate-change is an issue driven by politicians intent in increasing their own wealth and power at the expense citizens.

Don Ewing

Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 458