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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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


Michelle Malkin - Holy hipocracy

Unlike Pope Francis, I believe that air-conditioning and the capitalists responsible for the technology are blessings to the world.

Perhaps the head of the Catholic Church, who condemned "the increasing use and power of air-conditioning" last week in a market-bashing encyclical, is unaware of the pioneering private company that has donated its time, energy and innovative heating, ventilating and air-conditioning equipment to the Vatican's most famous edifice for more than a decade.

That's right. While the pontiff sanctimoniously attacks "those who are obsessed with maximizing profits," Carrier Corporation — a $13 billion for-profit company with 43,000 employees worldwide (now a unit of U.S.-based United Technologies Corp.) — ensures that the air in the Vatican's Sistine Chapel stays clean and cool.

Last fall, Carrier unveiled a groundbreaking HVAC system for the Vatican to help preserve Michelangelo's masterpieces against pollution caused by the estimated six million visitors who descend on the Sistine Chapel every year to see its famous frescoes.

As the company described it, their new solution "uses two Carrier AquaForce(r) 30XWV water-cooled chillers with Greenspeed(r) intelligence, each with 580 kilowatts of capacity. It leverages specially designed software and components, as well as patented, energy-saving technologies to maintain optimal climate conditions for the protection of the paintings within the chapel." State-of-the-art intelligent controls "anticipate visitor levels and adjust its performance intuitively." It also "delivers twice the efficiency and three times the capacity of the former system, which was built and installed by Carrier in the early 1990s."

Here's the lesson about air-conditioning capitalists that Pope Francis fails to appreciate: Carrier's technological know-how and breakthroughs didn't just descend from the clouds. As I recount in my latest book, "Who Built That," every perfectly chilled home, office, movie theater, mall, factory, hospital, lab and museum owes its existence to the profit-seeking pioneers of manufactured weather: Willis Carrier and Irvine Lyle.

These early 20th-century inventive giants brought air-conditioning to the market and to the masses. Willis Carrier was the scientist-tinkerpreneur whose prolific stream of experiments and epiphanies, beginning in 1902, fueled historic technological advances in heating, refrigeration and air-conditioning.

Irvine Lyle was the mechanical engineer-turned-salesman who imagined countless new commercial applications for Carrier's work — and successfully turned those ideas into a multibillion-dollar business through relentless promotion, pitches, networking, advertising and outreach.
The scientists and their core team begged, borrowed and made stock sales to friends and neighbors. Carrier even enlisted his dentist for cash to get Carrier Engineering Corporation up and running in 1915. Carrier, Lyle and five founding engineers together pitched in $32,600 in start-up funds.

The Carrier capitalists risked it all in defiance of an economic depression and amid the tumult of world war. They couldn't afford their own factory and scrounged for made-to-order parts wherever they could find them. They dug into their own pockets to cover salary shortfalls. The wealth wasn't handed to them. Carrier and Lyle, farm boys who both graduated from Cornell, drove their men hard and themselves harder.

The Carrier team sold its products to businesses, large and small, that spanned the spectrum of human needs and wants. The pope should know that in addition to sparing countless lives from death by heat wave, Carrier designed a special system for Jonas Salk that helped maintain constant temperatures in the vats where Salk's poliovirus strains grew. The Salk vaccine saved thousands of lives and spearheaded the vaccine revolution.

From Hollywood to the pharmaceutical industry to textiles to the retail industry to the military to homeowners, there isn't a sector of the American economy that Carrier and Lyle didn't help transform. Their zealous focus on helping businesses provide better products at cheaper costs resulted in the invaluable byproducts of increased health, comfort and happiness.

While the pope blames commercial enterprises and the "global market economy" for causing "environmental degradation," it is a worldwide commercial enterprise made in America that solved the human-caused degradation of, and environmental damage to, the Vatican's most prized art and assets.

If the pontiff truly believes "excessive consumption" of modern conveniences is causing evil "climate change," will he be shutting down and returning the multimillion-dollar system Carrier generously gifted to the Vatican museums?

If not, I suggest, with all due respect, that Pope Francis do humanity a favor and refrain from blowing any more hot air unless he's willing to stew in his own.

(Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin is the daughter of Filipino Immigrants. She was born in Philadelphia, raised in southern New Jersey and now lives with her husband and daughter in Colorado. Her weekly column is carried by more than 100 newspapers.)

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 418

Defense document spells out climate change danger to U.S. security

To The Daily Sun,

Did Don Ewing say Climategate? Another fake scandal of course. Right-wingers hacked 1,079 of Michael Mann's e-mails and created a huge lie that would appeal to deniers and their industrialist pals. They claimed conspiracy, exaggeration, collusion, resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. It's a lie.

A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Some of the investigators were Pennsylvania State University, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others. [1]

Statements from these investigations included, "There is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann," "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt," "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community," "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit," "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

On the alleged "trick," a report stated, "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. The so-called "trick" was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the e-mails and found "no evidence in the CRU e-mails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data." In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed."[2]

The American Meteorologist Society (AMS) study that Mr. Ewing referenced does not say what he says it says. The survey was designed to test the Doran and Zimmerman study. It verified it. Here is what the study actually said: "Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93 percent of each group indicating their concurrence."[3] The AMS released this policy statement in 2012. "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."[4]. Oops.

Mr. Ewing doesn't like the president's position on climate change. In 2014 The Department of Defense released its Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR), which states: "Climate change will affect the DoD's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security." Must be a hoax! [5]

In 2011, among the American Geophysical Union, Farnsworth and Lichter found that 84 percent believed humans had a significant impact on climate while 5 percent said little or none. In 2010 The Anderegg study "used an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show, not only that 97–98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change, but also that the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." [6]

In 2009, Doran and Zimmerman found that 98 percent of the most widely published climatologists believed humans had a significant impact on climate. They also found that 90 percent of scientists publishing on the subject of climate change agreed. Eighty-eight percent of climatologists, regardless of publishing, agreed and 82 percent of earth science faculty and researchers agreed. Ewing misrepresented the Doran study by saying there were only 77 people. The team sent out 10,000 survey letters to the American Geological Institute's directory of geoscience. They received 3,146 responses and then publicized the results from two questions: (1) Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? (2) Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent percent with the second. The 97 percent was the count among the 79 widely publishing climatologists.

The Cook study looked at 11,944 abstracts of papers on the topics global climate change or global warming written over a 20 year period ending in 2011. Two-thirds expressed no position on anthropomorphic global warming (AGW). Of the rest, 97.1 percent -- or 3,822 papers -- endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming while 82 rejected it.[7]

I addressed the myth of global cooling alarmism in my last letter. Now Russ Wiles is jumping in and Don has for the third time mentioned it. It's a bogus mainstream media story. A NASA projection had said if we quadrupled our sulfate aerosols we could trigger rapid cooling. While a few papers were published about cooling, the vast majority of climate scientists were still predicting warming.[8]

Warming is what research pointed to. A law was passed which required scrubbers on smokestacks. The cost of not fixing the aerosol particulates problem would be far more expensive than the cost of the scrubbers. Fred Singer lost again. Scrubbers put the brakes on a lot of smog, acid rain and many serious health risks.

Don says that science shouldn't be so political. I suggest he read "Merchants of Doubt" by science historian Naomi Orestes. It's about how a handful of Cold War scientists with ties to big industry and phony cover groups obscured the dangers of cigarettes, acid rain, the ozone hole, pesticides, secondhand smoke and global climate change. These men tried to downplay the harm just as they are doing now. They actually lied about cigarettes and cancer for 50 years.


James Veverka


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 276