Letters to the Editor: Jan. 4, 2019

Crimes of opportunity?

According to surveillance footage, a man and woman trespassed onto property carrying an empty gas can, with the intent to siphon gas from a car. That’s not opportunity, it’s malice aforethought.

A man is in his apartment when two men break a window and enter with the intent to steal what they can. The police arrive, but there are no arrests. What’s that called?

By a school, I saw three policemen in two squad cars ticketing a woman in an SUV. She was probably doing 27 at a school with no children present.
She was an easy target — white woman, middle aged, nice SUV. She can afford to pay the fine.

Next thing you know we’ll be kicking Blacks out of hotels just because they’re there.

Sheila Hunter



Odd way of saying thanks

I recently read a news article about a teacher in Texas losing her job for refusing to sign a loyalty oath. Not to the U.S. or the state of Texas, but to Israel (theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/).

Reading further, it turns out 26 states now have laws requiring anyone under government contract to sign the oath, and 13 more may well be joining them.
The Israeli lobby behind this measure, AIPAC, also approaches Republican congressmen to sign the oath. Those who refuse may face very well financed primary challenges recruited by AIPAC. But only one has refused so far — Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina.

I have nothing against Israel, but this loyalty oath is outrageous. American citizens are free to support or oppose what they choose without being bullied by a foreign power.

As the recipient of billions in U.S. aid, Israel has a strange way of saying thanks when it attacks our First Amendment rights. That ought to stop.

Fred Fawcett



Chicken Little syndrome

It’s apparent that the News Register is part of the campaign to support the fantasy of Kate Brown’s cap-and-trade carbon tax fiasco.

The last three or four Viewpoints’ guest opinions have all featured writers buying into the climate change Chicken Little syndrome. The climate may be changing, but sound evidence pointing to humans as the cause is sketchy at best.

A climate computer model is not hard evidence. To think that man is capable of altering the course of the climate is akin to adding a box of baking soda to the ocean to change its acidity. 

The climate change dialog has been all over the map the last 50 years, starting as global cooling, then global warming and finally morphing into the catch-all “climate change,” which helps to cover all climate phenomena.

It all boils down to money. And climate change is now a billion dollar industry all on its own.

If the New-Register is dedicated to journalism at its best, the least it could do is offer the Viewpoints soapbox to those who have a different opinion on climate change and allow them to present their evidence for public scrutiny. 

Steve Sommerfeld




Mr Sommerfeld. You are a wonderful optimist. You discounting the capacity of we 8 billion humans to soil our earth is refreshing. Your ability to discount the evidence available today is encouraging. I wish I had your view of our destructive abilities. It's reassuring. And I hope you're right and our great grand children will thank you for your optimism.

Don Dix

Steve Sommerfeld -- Well said ... facts always overwhelm hype.

Rumor has it Brown will possibly use the $$$,$$$,$$$ to shade the area around the capitol during lunch break (she fancies her 'whiter shade of pale') -- or expand government to please her union benefactors.

Hey, Mike


Don. You have a kindred spirit in Sommerfeld. I really like his opinion we humans are incapable of crapping in our own nest and killing ourselves with our own garbage. I think we are very capable of destroying our planet. We have nuclear weapons pointed every which way. Those could do it fast and easy. You think we won't use them? I hope we get to have a century or two of life as it is. You think we will have not problem if we can just would not believe the government. I hope we'll get 100 years of the good times. The recent reports about the climate are all a government scam. Yes I know it's all about the money. You all are focused on local Ms Brown. Good. The single party rule is dangerous, for authoritarian regimes and for democracies. I'm a pessimist. It's really too late. At least you and Mr. Sommerfeld are fight the good fight.

Don Dix

Mike -- Garbage and pollution, yeah, clean 'em up. CO2 -- no reason.

Available evidence? Here is a sample you might have missed:

A new study published recently (2017) by three veteran researchers reveals that "EPA's basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false."

The authors - Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D'Aleo - stated there is "very, very little doubt but that EPA's claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world."

"At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures."

This report makes clear, concise, and confident statements ... 'the EPA's claim ... does not exist in the real world' -- 'no statistically valid proof (of CO2 increases causing record setting warming)'

The alarmists usually avoid making a definite decision or statement. They use hedge words such as -- 'likely', 'could', 'might', 'possibly', 'maybe', etc.

The level of confidence in opposing claims is glaring ... one is 'designed' to coerce and pressure (dreadful, alarming, unproven, predictions) ... and the other calls B.S. using the very science that led the EPA to label CO2 a pollutant (without hedging). Once again -- it's hype vs reality!


Don. I see it. The Dailycaller.com, rightwingnews.com, and prisonplanet.com all proclaim CO2 is not a pollutant. Of course C02 is not a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas which lasts for a very long time in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas traps heat and creates a blanket, nice cozy blanket, for the earth. I read the report you mention. They say they do not attempt to evaluate the Hot Spot using real world information. That darn empirical method is just too corrupt. They are looking at 2007 EPA data in 2017 using "appropriate mathematical methods" Very impressive report. It doesn't convince me our world wide exhausts of CO2, Methane, fluorocarbons, are not creating that cozy blanket,now, today, and tomorrow. And I really liked the rightwingnews equating the EPA as having power only Joseph Stalin would envy.

Don Dix

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike (love that camel):

Please assure me you are not politicizing the issue. It's about the science, not which party one belongs. I have no affiliation, period.

The left media reports the findings for catastrophes, and the right media reports the failings of the studies. Nobody gains from that.

The history of warm and cold climates is readily available. During the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, the civilization was more healthy and less prone to disease. During the Little Ice Age, a famine occurred and it is estimated 70 million (40 - 60% of Europe) died from disease (Black Plague).

During the LIA the Sun was in what is know as the Maunder Minimum twice (less solar radiation). Without the warmth, crops failed and the human immune system was weakened due to the low level of nourishment.

As recently as the 1800s, the Earth was cold, and it has warmed since -- the Sun recovered from it's low and the Earth has warmed up. There is no mention, even today, that CO2 had anything to do with the warm or cold periods, so why now?

By the way, one thing that both sides agree upon -- the Earth is greener than it was 100 years ago, which is a good thing, right?


Don. The politicization came from where my search for the article you mentioned took me. I found it no where else and it was used to show how dictatorial the government is. Seemed kinda political. We see the science differently. Scientists around the world monitor CO2 accumulation. The greenhouse gas is kept in balance by sinks like the rain forests and the oceans. There are 8 Billion of us exuding CO2 in its many forms. And we are also damaging the sinks, like cutting down or burning up the forests and corrupting the oceans. I guess we will disagree about CO2's role in moderating our climate. The Earth may be greener at the moment in some parts of the world, it is also drier and wetter in other parts of the world. The ice is melting at a nice pace. I do not think this far into our industrial civilization there is any chance of turning aside the build up of CO2, which also has the charming ability to diminish Oxygen. We'll drive our vehicles, burn coal and gas, release methane leaking from out wells, burn down or cut down our forests. There is no turning away, no slowing down. We'll reach the day when there will be terrible consequences. I'm happy for you. You seem to believe the science is a conspiracy, a government scam.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable