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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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


Unions were a necessity 100 years ago but not the case today

To The Daily Sun,

Aren't progressive-liberals just a barrel of laughs. Decade after decade they tell voters that conservatives are evil conspirators bent on depriving them of living the American dream then telling them if only you vote for we Democrats we'll make everything swell. Poverty will be gone, crime will go away, the world will live peace and harmony. Racism will be non existent as will hunger and illiteracy.

So after 60 or so years how is all that working out? Lets see, poverty is as prevalent as ever, crime, especially drug crimes with young blacks killing other young blacks and the odd innocent bystander, and the world is as far from peace and harmony as it has ever been. And racism is growing and the flames are being fanned by the Al Sharpton's of the world. Police are being scapegoated and assassinated while rioting, looting and burning is the current favorite acts of civil disobedience. (I remember when it was the sit-ins.) After all these decades the great social experiment of liberalism can truthfully be said to have failed. Our language has evolved into crude, rude and vulgar. Pornography is rampant, from children to grandparents, drugs are a billion-dollar business opportunity provided the dealers don't mind killing children. Then progressives have the nerve to claim conservatives are the radical ones. Go figure!

Now, lest some liberal Democrat might take offense at my position, I must say I am not saying all progressive Democrats support drugs, pornography, drug gangs, crime or the attacks on police. What I will say is I very much doubt you can find any drug dealer who would vote for a conservative. Likewise for pornographers, gangbangers, thugs and criminals. Funny how that seems to come together isn't it?

I know unions were a necessity about a hundred years ago, but that's not the case today. Socialism was a new and exciting concept a hundred years ago, but after every attempt to make it work for people over that time its failure is a clear and apparent fact. The promises are empty the effect is reduce the standards of living of the masses, take away freedoms and rights from the people and create an elite ruling aristocracy. Progressive? Hah, it is regressive.

Readers, if your children and grandchildren are important to you you should research the history of socialism and resist the temptations of the false promise they hold out.

Steve Earle


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 420

Climate not same as weather; models predict trends, not events

To The Daily Sun,

I guess Don Ewing is not up to the challenge. He would rather make excuses, like discarding my rebuttal of his claim the warming trend of 160 years ago is also responsible for the present warming as minutiae. An increase in the sun's output is responsible for our leaving the LIA behind but the sun's output dropped significantly, beginning in the 1950s.

If the sun caused the 19th Century warming, why is warming accelerating if the sun began to cool more than 60 years ago? Don? Because he can't answer, he goes back to the standard CATO-Koch Brothers parroting and cherry picking. Nice try, Don, but you didn't answer the question, and again in this last letter just went rambling off into the usual right-wing cloud of unsourced talking points. I debunked two other bits of minutiae in the same letter. Russ Wiles made false claims about the polar regions which were easily refuted with scientific data and the technology we use. Footnotes were provided from NASA and more. Minutiae!

It takes far fewer words to make a claim than to provide a rebuttal. So it's easy for Don to ramble off a lot of Exxon-supported, unsubstantiated claims in a short time. Rebuttals demand constructing faceted explanations so that is why I chose just three of the popular myths of the denial crowd. As you can see by his latest letter, Mr. Ewing strings together the same old right-wing propaganda. Complicated answers are required for simplistic claims, so he may consider it just troublesome minutiae to be found in error. "Saying it's so" is how Mr. Ewing rants, while never citing sources or references. Of course, his sources are corporate-funded, too. Everything he writes can be refuted, but it has to be done claim by claim. Science brings many lines of evidence together to make a case so counter claims have to be addressed in similar fashion.

So while we are at it, let me get to some more minutiae. Besides the fact that Mr. Ewing has no answers as to why the sun's output and temperatures are going in opposite directions now, Mr. Ewing states, "based on the failed predictions of the consensus of his "scientists" over the last 20-30 years, is unpredictable." Unfortunately for the purveyors of pseudoscience, the predictions have not failed. The IPCC predictions on sea level are right in line with satellite data and tide gauges over the last 25 years. [1] Tide gauges show that the sea level has been rising since 1970, when installed.

Furthermore, forecasts of global temperature rises have proved to be remarkably accurate according to a paper published by the journal Nature Geoscience. Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University accurately predicted the warming in the past decade 1999-2010, relative to the decade 1986-1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. [2] Predicting greenhouse gases will warm the planet isn't new. In 1861, chemist and physicist John Tyndale predicted eventual warming due to CO2. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist who claimed in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming.[3] He was also a physicist.

Climate models predict trends, not events. Climate is not the same as weather. If Russ Wiles had known the difference between weather and climate, he would not have cited the views of meteorologists as relevant on climate change consensus. Consensus among climate scientists is very strong. I will explain in my next letter. I hope I didn't waste any of Don's time with the minutiae of debunking his claim about predictions. Of course there are many more examples of accurate predictions but, hey, this isn't a thesis.

[1] http://greatecology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/GCM-IPCC-predition-graph.png

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

[3] http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm

James Veverka


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 322