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contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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


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

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 389

Pat Buchanan - Trump & Bernie speak for millions

In the 2016 race, June belonged to two outsiders who could not be more dissimilar.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist senator from Vermont and Donald Trump a celebrity capitalist and legendary entrepreneur and builder.

What do they have in common? Both have tapped into what the bases of their respective parties believe is wrong with America.

Bernie is the Willie Nelson of national politics, a leftist voice of a working class whose jobs and factories have been exported and whose wages have stagnated as banksters and the Davos-Doha crowd amass mammoth fortunes by playing games of three-dimensional Monopoly.

The 73-year-old Sanders may have no chance of beating Hillary. But the size of his crowds testifies that he speaks for millions.

Trump's success comes from the issues he has seized upon — illegal immigration and trade deals that de-industrialized America — and brazen defiance of Republican elites and a media establishment.

By now the whole world has heard Trump's declaration:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Politically incorrect? You betcha.

Yet, is Trump not raising a valid issue? Is there not truth in what he said? Is not illegal immigration, and criminals crossing our Southern border, an issue of national import, indeed, of national security?

Women and girls crossing Mexico on trains are raped by gangs. The "coyotes" leading people illegally across the U.S. border include robbers, rapists and killers, who often leave these people to die in the desert.

"State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America" by this writer in 2006 cited researcher Heather Mac Donald of Manhattan Institute. She reported that two-thirds of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles were for illegal immigrants, as were 95 percent of 1,200-1,500 outstanding warrants for homicide.

Of 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang operating across Southern California, 12,000 were illegal immigrants. One of the Beltway Snipers, who terrorized the D.C. area, shooting 13 and killing 10, was a 17-year-old illegal immigrant from Jamaica, John Lee Malvo.

The reaction to Trump's comments has been instructive. NBC and Univision dropped his Miss USA and Miss Universe contests. Macy's has dropped the Trump clothing line. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is talking of terminating city contracts with Trump.
The reaction of Trump's Republican rivals has been even more instructive. Initially, it was muted. But when major media began to demand that GOP candidates either denounce Trump or come under suspicion or racism themselves, the panic and pile-on began.

As The Washington Times relates, at a July 4 parade in New Hampshire, Jeb Bush said Trump "doesn't represent the Republican Party or its values. "I don't assume that he thinks that every Mexican crossing the border is a rapist. ... So he's doing this to inflame and to incite and to draw attention, which seems to be his organizing principle of his campaign."

Sen. Marco Rubio also found his voice. Trump's comments "were not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive." Imagine that, "divisive" politics.

Ex-Gov. Rick Perry said Trump's remarks were "offensive," as "Hispanics in America and Hispanics in Texas, from the Alamo to Afghanistan, have been extraordinary ... citizens of our country." But most of the Hispanics at the Alamo were in the Mexican army of Santa Anna, not under Col. Travis, and hardly "extraordinary citizens of our country" as Texas did not even belong to the USA then.

Sen. Ted Cruz on NBC's "Meet the Press" took a different stance: "I salute Donald Trump for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration." "The Washington cartel doesn't want to address that. The Washington cartel doesn't believe we need to secure the border. The Washington cartel supports amnesty, and I think amnesty's wrong."

Trump "has a colorful way of speaking," said Cruz, "It's not the way I speak. But I'm not going to engage in the media's game of throwing rocks and attacking other Republicans." Cruz might have added, "like Jeb and Rick and Marco are doing."

What Trump has done, and Cruz sees it, is to have elevated the illegal immigration issue, taken a tough line, and is now attacking GOP rivals who have dithered or done nothing to deal with it.

Trump intends to exploit the illegal immigration issue, and the trade issue, where majorities of middle-class Americans oppose the elites. And he is going to ride them as far as he can in the Republican primaries. In the coming debates, look for Trump to take the populist and popular side of them both. And for Cruz to stand by him on illegal immigration.

Americans are fed up with words; they want action. Trump is moving in the polls because, whatever else he may be, he is a man of action.

(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 766