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?
Last Updated on Monday, 04 November 2013 10:11
To The Daily Sun,
In Friday's edition you ran the story on the sports pages as to high school teams in the playoffs. While the Sachems may not be appearing this year in the high school football playoffs of Division II, the Gilford Golden Eagles gridiron athletes have secured a Division III second seed in the playoff tournament and are expected to host Stevens of the Claremont region in the first round of those playoffs at home this Saturday. Too bad Gilford is so impoverished and over burdened with taxes that they cannot seem to find the money to furnish this team on their way to a third championship tournament, or a decent venue to play their home championship tournament games on.
Some of the town's sports fans, athlete's parents and family friends would like to be able to see some of these games from an appropriate seating/viewing arrangement instead of trying to peer through the rest of the team standing on the sidelines. The town has sponsored a field and field house site/building committee and fund. Contributions by any who care are appreciated.
Best of luck and congratulations to these fine young people who have been working so hard since the hot late summer season to have earned yet another spot in the NHIAA tournament in the few short years Gilford High has fielded a football team. We thank the fine dedicated coaching staff and mothers who do the laundry. Go Eagles!
Last Updated on Monday, 04 November 2013 10:07
To The Daily Sun,
I invite the residents of Ward 6 in Laconia to consider Tony Felch for City Council when they vote on November 5th.
We have many challenges and opportunities for our community to deal with, and I believe that it is time for new thinking to meet these challenges and take advantage of new opportunities for improving our community in the years ahead.
Last Updated on Monday, 04 November 2013 10:03
To The Daily Sun,
On Tuesday we will be electing the new City Council for the next two years. This your chance to make a difference in how the city will be run. We have three contested seats and will be electing a new mayor.
My priorities will be: attracting manufacturing, education to supply a qualified labor force to fit the needs of these employers, public safety/law enforcement, quality homes and rental housing and safe recreation facilities for young working families that are attracted to our city to live and work.
There has been a lot of talk about the completion of the WOW trail and River Walk, a casino at the Weirs to make it a 24/7 tourist attraction. Downtown Laconia needs help, Lakeport Square is a disaster, except for one brave entrepreneur who recently opened a new bistro in the old five & dime building and was not welcomed to our business community as yet. If I am elected, this will be my priority number one, making brave youngsters feel welcome when they become part of our community.
Two sub attentions should be given to public transportation, due to the aging population of the city and the State School properties to be used for recreation and education.
Tuesday November 5 the polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. get out and vote your city is depending on you to make your voices heard.
Richard B. Beaudoin
Candidate for Councilor, Ward 2
Last Updated on Monday, 04 November 2013 10:00
To The Daily Sun,
I find it interesting when someone responds to my letter with the intent of proving me wrong but actually makes my point. Thank you Kay Anderson of Laconia for repeating the facts about Obamacare that I stated in the letter I submitted. I am sorry that you didn't get the "tongue-in-cheek" reference that I made about the war on women. I was speaking just of Breast Cancer, which is the most common form of non-skin cancer attacking women. You mentioned the mammograms are available every two years and ignored the rest of my letter while stating all the talking points President Obama has declared about Obamacare. All of these talking points were available in insurance plans before Obamacare but I was only talking about the elimination of health care options under Obamacare.
Let me explain this to you so you might understand what I was saying. Kate claims that Republicans are waging a war on women because they believe that a religious organization or individual should not be forced by the government to violate their religious teaching, morals and beliefs. Instead Republicans believe that an individual should take personal responsibility for their reproductive rights and purchase contraceptive medicine that costs a mere $4 per month, with or without health insurance at any Wamart, Target or many other pharmacies, Kate believes that the federal government decides what religious doctrine is. If you follow Kate's reasoning to the logical conclusion a church would have to ask the government for permission to teach what the scriptures tell them.
I do believe, in fact I am quite certain that I mentioned the fact that under the recommendation of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which set the guidelines that were incorporated into the Obamacare regulations that Breast Cancer Screening is conducted EVERY TWO YEARS. This directly contradicts the recommendation of the Health Organization that directly deals with breast cancer, The American Cancer Society (ACS). I am saddened that you believe that repeating facts about Breast Cancer and the American Cancer Society recommendations is "Fear Mongering" and misleading. I guess you don't believe facts unless they support your view.
Let me see if I can repeat these facts without you becoming afraid. ACS recommends that women begin conducting Breast Self-Exams (BSE) in their 20s and recommends that health care professionals are provided to teach this technique to women. Insurance companies and the government accepted these recommendations and the insurance companies, Medicaid and Medicare paid this training. After the USPSTF issued their recommendations U.S. HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius turned them into regulations governing Obamacare. Under Obamacare, training for BSE by healthcare professionals is no longer provided.
Under the recommendations from the ACS that were accepted by insurance companies and the government, mammograms were made available to women every three years in their 20s and 30s and annually at 40 years old. Now women have to wait until they are 50 before getting their first mammogram and only get them EVERY TWO YEARS AFTER THAT. The ACS recommends that women at high risk for breast cancer receive an MRI screening to determine if they have cancer and under Obamacare this option is no longer available.
According to the CDC, over 200,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year and over 40,000 of these women DIE EACH YEAR. The American Cancer Society, the ultimate expert on CANCER, says that early detection of breast cancer saves lives and the best way to detect it early is by conducting ANNUAL MAMMOGRAMS; ANNUAL BREAST SELF-EXAMS and MRI SCREENING for women at HIGH RISK. This important preventive health care is NOT SUPPORTED by Obamacare.
Tongue-in-cheek, I mentioned that Kate is waging a War on Women because of her support for a program that denies women access to health care that actually saves lives. Now I ask, why do you support this program? Life is precious to me and I believe that eliminating preventive health care for cost savings is just wrong and immoral. In my opinion Obamacare is exactly taking this step.
Last Updated on Monday, 04 November 2013 09:55