Enough of public debate between the two Steves

Advertisement

Dan R. Clark’s letter on the Jan. 9 Viewpoints page clarifies what I, and a number of people I know, have wanted to say for quite some time.

Steve’s letters are spot-on. The other Steve’s letters are, to be blunt, ridiculous. (I leave it to each reader to decide which Steve is which.)

But the point that Dan makes is absolutely correct, which is usually the case with him. The U-B has given these fellows a public forum far too long. It’s time for them to disagree without this wider audience.

Take it to the coffee table, or to the mat, but no longer in the U-B.

Ted Cox

Walla Walla

Advertisement

Comments

stvsngltn says...

Rest assured there will be a response to this schoolyard attempt to censure my opinion. Meanwhile, if Clark or Cox doesn't wish to read letters from me or Luck stead I have a suggestion -- dont. Otherwise STHU (shut the heck up).

Posted 20 January 2014, 12:11 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Steve - "Never say whoa in a mudhole". There are only certain people that think they can enjoy free speech and everybody else should table there comments. This letter is truly remarkable as to the respect it is written and what it is written about. Unbelieveable. The wisdom of the know-it-all minority Liberals in failure. Maybe this letter should have been rejected?

Great post Igor - Hope everybody has a great day.

Posted 21 January 2014, 6:38 a.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

When I read stuff like this it just makes by blood boil! The Union Bulletin is trying to provide a limited public forum for people to express their thoughts and views! It should be commended, not disparaged! What are we? The USSR? Cuba?

I just cannot believe that anyone, regardless of their political biases, would want to censor debate on any political topic!! (I say political because that's what "Climate Change" has become, primarily because those on the left are no longer willing to examine and debate the facts.)

Yeah, yeah, I know 97% of all scientists agree, etc., etc. Those on the left, I you opened your eyes and your minds and read what the other 97% of all scientists believe then you might be inclined to question your CGW (Church of Global Warming) dogma. But, of course, that's too much for any of you "True Believers" on the left to handle.

Yeah, that's it! CENSORSHIP! Censor anyone that might think differently from you or feel like debating a timely topic. It's people like you, Mr. Cox, that gave us N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, the USSR and Vietnam, where I spent a whole year of my life dodging bullets, rockets and mortars. I wasn't fighting for censorship! What's wrong with you, anyway??

There's a reason for the First Amendment and it's people like you!! Sorry if this offends your sensibilities but that's how I feel! If we're gonna have censorship then who's gonna be the censor? You and your cronies! Think about it!!! What if I had the job?

Posted 20 January 2014, 8:33 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

For some reason, I always enjoy your comments, Igor. A salute your way for your service in Vietnam. Best regards to you and yours.

Posted 20 January 2014, 11:03 p.m. Suggest removal

wa2wiccan says...

i've noticed over the years that certain 'constant' contributors get to have their opinions posted more often than every 30 days and also get to exceed 400 words...just an observation

Posted 21 January 2014, 9:49 a.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

The maximum is one per week and 15 per year. Can only speak for myself but all my letters are 400 words or less ... using Word Perfect's word count tool. The U-B should be applauded for its letter to editor policy ... have never seen another newspaper that allows 400 words and tries to print all letters received. W2 is fortunate to have the U-B.

Posted 27 January 2014, 10:50 a.m. Suggest removal

blueskies says...

I vote in favor of non-censorship. Discussions are important although I have to say that I tire of the same things mentioned over and over.

Mr. Singleton, you've mentioned your Climate Change library a few times. Would you give me the top 3 books you think I should read?

Posted 21 January 2014, 10:18 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Sorry for delay Blue skies ... will have those for you asap. Appreciate your interest.

Posted 27 January 2014, 10:36 a.m. Suggest removal

GeneandCassie says...

Here is a link to an IPCC site with links to publications:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_d...

Peruse their publications. After doing so, one conclusion I personally came to is that 'the science is not quite yet settled on the subject....' as the reports mention a continuing debate on several items......

Posted 22 January 2014, 6:14 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

For some very good and reliable info on this issue and the IPCC Google NIPCC and their latest online report Climate Change Reconsidered I I ... physical science. Serious researchers won't be dissapointed. I have the book but unfortunately it's very costly at around $140.

Posted 27 January 2014, 10:40 a.m. Suggest removal

GeneandCassie says...

Here is another IPCC link regarding Climate Modeling:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_d...

Posted 22 January 2014, 6:17 p.m. Suggest removal

GeneandCassie says...

Here is one quote found at a previous IPCC Link I provided:

Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change.

Contemplating quotes such as this one from an IPCC report, is the science settled????

Posted 22 January 2014, 6:27 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Interesting links, geneandcassie. Thanks!

Posted 27 January 2014, 10:43 a.m. Suggest removal

MDJ says...

I'm not promoting censorship, I'm just tired of the bickering. It's like a bad family reunion with opposing political views shouting across the table. No thanks! I'll skip those holiday dinners and I'll skip those letters to the editor.

Posted 27 January 2014, 6:22 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

It isn't bickering, MDJ. It's a debate or discussion. But by all means do not read them. It's very easy to tell by the subject line that Rick Eskil assigns each letter, or skip down to the name of the writer .... and just don't skip them. Now, was that so difficult?

Posted 4 February 2014, 10:06 a.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

What is amusing is:

a) notice which of the "steves" has responded - profusely, and
b) the continued assumption that *anyone* really gives a tinkers darn what the loquacious, garrulous local gadflys have to say.

Please, keep publishing the letters. It only goes to reinforce the local knowledge who the extraordinarily biased, pompous, self-absorbed egomaniacal town clowns are.

Without "singling" anyone out, keep up the good, er, work.

Posted 28 January 2014, 1:40 p.m. Suggest removal

GeneandCassie says...

Here is a link to the report Climate Change Reconsidered:

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/cc...

Posted 28 January 2014, 6:18 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Thanks for the link, G&C. I believe I also had it in one of my letters. The books (I believe) are somewhat more comprehensive and list all the 50 or so international scientists who compile these reports and their papers ... but unfortunately are cost-prohibitive for mose. The last one -- a huge tome -- was $140. So I'm happy they are putting this information out online.

Posted 4 February 2014, 10:03 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment