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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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

 

The great climate change debate is overflowing with guesses

To The Daily Sun,

Let's be honest, Jim Veverka creates more warming than he prevents when he begins channeling weather scientists declaring himself "king of truth" on global warming. It is a well known CO2 from BS whether from Jim or the 250 million water buffalo in Asia are major polluters of the atmosphere.
Begin with the basics.
Fact 1. There are few, if any scientists who deny global warming is likely happening. An observation made public more than 50 years ago.
Fact 2. Both sides in the debate have been caught lying while exaggerating data to further their beliefs.
Fact 3. Barack Obama has turned climate discussions into a "political farce" to grab a voting advantage in two western swing states soaked with tree huggers.
Beyond those facts there is literally agreement on NOTHING. The reason why there is no agreement is simple. The great climate change debate involves the minimalist of science while overflowing with GUESSES sufficient to fill a universe. Climate modeling (the operative word is MODELING) involves thousands of interlocked guesses producing conclusions believers (usually Democrats) peddle as truth based SCIENCE when the real truth is the conclusions are founded 99 percent on GUESSES. "Science" is as absent in global warming conclusions as Democrats are at a Republican summer picnic. Most damaging of all for believers the first 15 years of their modeling GUESSES were 100 percent dead wrong as they possibly could have been. Most perplexing of all, scientists have no idea why they were wrong. Credibility has become a major issue which has only turned up the volume and temperature of the rhetoric.
What specifically is causing warming? How much is natural? How much is sourced from humans? How high could warming go, and when might it go there are questions no human knows the answers to. But guesses to those questions disguised in 1 percent science is epidemic. When anyone, including Obama suggest they know the answers to those most complex scientific questions they are lying through their teeth. The more violent, frequent storms thesis Obama bandies about has been totally debunked by even the believing scientists. Such thinking is pure conjecture.
Jim refuses to use his noggin. Don't let that stop you from using yours. My weather man says beyond 10 days my guess about the weather is as good as his. This most basic fact sums up all you need to know about the debate. The democratic formula to create paranoia, followed by hysteria for political advantage originates from a mix 1 percent science, and 99 percent guessing what the weather will be. Not 10 days out, but 10,000 years out, dead nuts WRONG the first 15 of those 10,000 years.
To counter this insanity, flip a coin. Democrats can borrow one, or get one on a subsidy plan. Your guess on what the temperature will be in the year 12,015 is as good as Jim's. Even better than any PhD scientist, paid by government ( Obama) to declare global warming is certain to make you "fried chicken" so the scientist can keep his high, six figure job while Democrats improve their chances to win elections in green-soaked Colorado. Beyond that there are few truths to be found in what passes for "scientific" debate about climate change. A discussion that should more accurately be called the greatest GUESSING CON GAME in history.
Tony Boutin
Gilford

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 257

Evidence of God is not admissible in court of Jim's understanding

To The Daily Sun,

James Veverka says, "There is no evidence" for the supernatural realm in the natural, "because the natural world evidences itself, nothing more." God says, through the apostle Paul, the natural world is itself enough evidence of His existence that by it we should know that He exists. (Romans 1:20-22) Who should I believe, Jim or God? Let's see. I read a lot of Jim's letters and have caught him misleading his readers often. Please, I would not say this if on at least two occasions I had not uncovered Jim's error. God's word has always proven to be faithful and true. So who should I trust? I'll chose God, thank you.
It's interesting that Jim doesn't know how life happened. He also doesn't know that Jesus is an actual historic figure. Of God speaking through dreams and visions, Jim says, "There isn't any evidence that any of these experiences occurred for any other reason than neurologic ones." We do have physical bodies, this is true. We also have a spirit which is just as obviously true. Otherwise how do we know anything at all. Trying to find something that he could say was unquestionably true, Rene Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." That is not physical. That's spiritual. That God speaks to men and women also through dreams and visions is not with without evidence. He has been doing it for generations, to people all around the world. If He hasn't spoken to you in this manner you probably know someone to whom He has. It's not that it's not in evidence, but that the evidence is not admissible in the court of Jim's understanding. Jim says only physical evidence please. He attempts to create a catch 22. He accepts only physical evidence, then concludes there is no evidence of the supernatural realm.

This brings us back to Jim's denial that Jesus is an actual historical character. Jesus is the physical evidence. Jesus life is where the supernatural world and the physical world come together, in the deity and the manhood of Christ. And even though by all objective standards of judging history, Jesus lived. (Christians know He still does but that's another discussion.) Jim, against all reason, can't bring himself to admit it. It threatens his fragile world view — which the Rock made without hands will crush along with the coming world government. (Daniel 2:34-45). Which reminds me dreams and visions that are from God are usually predictive in nature. This makes for one of the ways that you can tell that they are from God. Do they come to pass?
Yes, Jim, your side is in control and increasing for now. But if you're a sportsman you know how fast things can change.
As to evidence, I think I have used the term quite correctly. Yet I think that you really don't understand faith. Firstly: the God kind of faith you can't even have unless God gives it. He will give it if you sincerely ask. If He gives it it opens up a door for you to have a relationship with Him. That relationship becomes a real and concrete thing even more so than the stuff of this world. Think about it Jim. Which is stronger, God who created everything or the stuff He created?
Jim are you humble enough to admit that those living generations before you, though they did not have the advantage of the increase in knowledge of this world that our generation has inherited, may have had a better understanding of revelatory knowledge of the supernatural realm than our generation.
Jim says, "The history of knowledge is a story of an ever-shrinking space within which to say something is an act of God." How does that make sense; except that it is the thought from an ego puffed up from an arrogant pride of someone who has come into possession of some knowledge of the world and because he has learned how some things work, he thinks that somehow evidences that there is no God, or that He does not perform acts in the physical world? It is not a logical thought process. It only evidences arrogance.

John Demakowski

Franklin

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 237