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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.

 

$28,000 has been budgeted for Memorial Field irrigation system

To The Daily Sun,

There has been a lot of conversation lately about Memorial Park and the condition it is in.
As with most things in the city, waiting for the money to be available is the reason some things take longer to get done than others. Prioritizing is always my guide to what we can spend and where we can spend it.
Memorial Park has been waiting for a long time to brought up to speed as was Wyatt Park and all our parks, and I am happy to be able to bring you up to date on what we have done this year and what we are doing this coming year.
This past budget we appropriated $14,000 for bleachers. They have been purchased and we recently signed an agreement to pour the concrete slab to hold same. We should see this taking place within weeks.
This past budge also approved $25,000 for repairing and resurfacing all five of the tennis courts at Memorial. This was done last Fall and completed with minor touch up work this Spring.
This coming week, the council will pass a budget that contains $28,000 for an irrigation system for the baseball field. This should go a long way to bringing the fields back.
All this is good and at the same time some of our other parks have needs similar to these, and we will be addressing them as quickly as possible.
The important thing to remember is: Laconia has 15 parks, 5 beaches, 4 site parks, a Riverwalk, WOW trail and other City owned properties, all needing attention, and in time when funds are available, they will be used to maintain and improve out great park system. The best way to get something done is to keep in touch with your city officials, your councilor. Don't give up. Keep pressing.
Brenda Baer

Ward 4, City Council

Laconia

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 476

Just 5 dissenters out of nearly 12,000 climate paper abstracts

To The Daily Sun,

Gene Danforth doesn't like the study that concluded 97 percent of climate paper abstracts saw AGW as legitimate. No anti-regulation alarmist who is a climate change denier does. It's political with deniers.

Out of 11,944 abstracts surveyed, Gene gives us five dissenters for starters. Five out of nearly 12,000. That is 1/24th of 1 percent which is clearly what climate deniers think is strength in numbers. First he mentions Craig Idso as an example of how Cook "doctored" the study. The Abstract of Idso's article stated:

"Since the early 1960s, the declining phase of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle has advanced by approximately seven days in northern temperate latitudes, possibly as a result of increasing temperatures that may be advancing the time of occurrence of what may be called 'climatological spring.' ...One of these factors may be the ongoing rise in the CO2 content of the air itself; for the aerial fertilization effect of this phenomenon may be significantly enhancing the growth of each new season's initial flush of vegetation, which would tend to stimulate the early drawdown of atmospheric CO2 and thereby advance the time of occurrence of what could be called 'biological spring.'"[1]

The abstract of Nick Scafetta's' paper did not make the 40-70 percent statement Gene claimed he did (pants on fire!). The abstract stated, "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50 percent of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35 percent of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."[2]

So what are the causes that the 65-75 percent not solar related? People? The "Anthropogenic-added climate forcing" he wrote of? Of course, his claim that the sun has that kind of impact presently is unlikely because the sun has been in a steady cooling phase since 1979. That cooling phase actually began in 1950 with an abrupt drop in activity for a decade before an upswing. All data say the Sun has been cooling steadily since 1979 while the temperatures are rising. It's not the sun, Soon. It's not as if John Cook didn't have reasons to include these abstracts as "no position" or "for AGW" but a few outliers, even 100, doesn't even dent the consensus.

Some dissenters claimed that their abstract didn't correctly reflect their paper. Then don't write a faulty abstract, ya dope! Cook also invited all the scientists to self-rate so errors could be fixed. As you can see by the statements of these two, they don't speak against AGW at all. But this is just like the Merchants of Doubt machine for Gene to cherry-pick five dissenters in a lame attempt to smear a powerful 11,944 abstract study.

By the way, Scafetta is not a climate scientist. He is a physicist just like Soon. Fake experts on climatology. Liars for hire. Danforth also forgets that there are many other studies which I mentioned in my previous letter.[3] Also included is a thorough debunking of the climate-gate hoax. No repeating myself today so I will move on to the biggest and most concentrated survey yet of abstracts on climate change and Global Warming. As I have been saying, the debate is over except on the internet and in main stream media outlets

James L. Powell is the director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium. Recently he reviewed 24,210 peer-reviewed papers by 69,406 authors on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Guess how many rejected the reality of AGW? Four! Not four percent but four people. Powell stated clearly, "It's now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology. It's 99.9 percent plus".[4][5] Five people out of 69,406! One denier per 17,352 authors. HELLO?

In my next letter rebutting Mr. Danforth's denier science, I will scrap all of the denier myths about CO2 always being so wonderful and beneficial. This will be a fun outing for all.

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098847299000544
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025539/full
[3] http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/opinion/letters/86940-james-veverka-6-12-990
[4] http://www.jamespowell.org/
[5] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong

James Veverka
Tilton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 284