Letters to the editor — The Courier-Gazette

Jan 09, 2014

CMCA thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced editorial regarding CMCA’s plans for our new gallery in Rockland [Dec. 26 edition]. We much appreciated the opportunity to have a preliminary discussion with the city's Planning Board about our building design and we welcome the conversations and feedback we are receiving.

CMCA is most fortunate to be working with the talented and experienced architect Toshiko Mori, who has a deep and long relationship with Rockland, fostered over 30 years. Working together, we are hopeful that we can achieve a design that is both responsive to the community and meets our needs as a contemporary art center.

Our goal remains the creation of a landmark building that reflects both our mission and Rockland's future as a vibrant cultural and commercial center for Midcoast Maine.

Suzette McAvoy

Director and CMCA Executive Committee

Refocus

In the space of a week we've lost the Rockland city manager and the regional school superintendent. Regardless of what we thought of their programs and approaches, (I for one had high hopes for the former man and had begun to despair of the latter) I suggest it is time we pause as a community and a region and consider the tone of our discourse, our obsession with conspiracy and perceived slights, our confusion of solitary opinion with global fact (if presented forcefully enough), and the elevation of our own narrow short-term interests.

Instead, let us refocus on the ultimate goal: building a prosperous community of opportunity that is at ease with itself. Any talk of officials being "not local enough" is a red herring. As a community we should be looking for talent, knowledge and empathy and then interact with whomever we hire from a basis of fundamental human decency. Then we might be able to keep them on the job, even when we disagree.

Dan Bookham

Rockland

Long-term vision needed

It would seem to be a good move to enact your decision before our RSU has become more disgraced in public.

I am simply an elementary teacher, and yet it is possible that I, and all of our teachers, care and know more about what our students need than the transient superintendents who have been hired in the past decade. I do want to clarify, almost without exception, that teachers and principals in our RSU put students first and so many are more educated and capable than I. Yet I believe we are of one mind. It has sickened many of us to see the parade of leaders who have seemingly come here to line their pockets for retirement or advance their own careers.

Prior to the last decade, we had superintendents who were invested in the community. We know that the position of superintendent is a lonely one and cannot escape criticism. However, before your 11-year reference, Donald Kanicki became a homeowner and vital member of our community. His wife is an exemplary teacher and supports Midcoast culture in significant ways. Mr. Kanicki, in addition to his own position, took on the jobs of business manager and assistant superintendent to compensate for the financial deficit he inherited. In addition, he managed to build us, through taxpayer support, a middle school that has served us well and will continue to do so.

Mr. Collins, we have always welcomed any changes that would move our students forward. Initially, we imagined a well-balanced approach under your leadership, but increasingly it seemed that you made personnel decisions that were self-preserving. Ultimately, we have been concerned for the welfare of children impacted by those changes.

In closing I know that all of us, who are directly involved with students, want desperately to support meaningful changes that back student success. We have dedicated our professional and much of our personal lives to this end. We need a leader, with a long term vision, to incorporate the best of what we have and move us into the future. We need someone whose only agenda is to work with us to advance the students in the communities of RSU 13.

Pam Walton

Rockland

Global cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its recent monthly temperature data, and we continue to observe a decrease in global warming; while carbon dioxide increases (Source: ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us).

For the last 15 years, the temperature trend for the USA is down. Global cooling in the order of minus 7.54 degrees per century is occurring. You can click around in the link above looking at different time spans and convince yourself that global warming is occurring; but you will not find the scientific explanation of how it is possible for carbon dioxide to increase, while temperature does not….for the last 15 years. Once you become aware that NOAA has manipulated the temperature data by revising the past numbers downward; that should invite further scrutiny. The manipulation is explained at this link: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/

The past temperatures used by the National Climate Data Center are lower than the past temperatures published years ago by the Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries. For example, the 1934 February monthly average for Arizona in the Monthly Weather Review is listed as 52.0 degrees Fahrenheit. The National Climate Data Center is using 48.9 degrees F. Check it out at the link provided above. They got caught in Texas too…..“Like with many other states, NOAA has turned a long-term Texas cooling trend into a warming trend – by cooling the past.” Source: stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/noaa-messing-with-texas/

You may have heard the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists believe global warming due to carbon dioxide is occurring. That is a false statement. When the author of the 97 percent plan decided to "conclude" the 97 percent support, his plan was to review the written works of "climate scientists"; rate them as supporting, neutral or opposed, and find 97 percent in support. The climate scientists were not interviewed; nobody asked them if they supported global warming. Their written scientific papers were reviewed and it was the reviewer that decided whether or not the author supported global warming. How do we know this? “In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums 'hacked' and the contents posted online.” In the introduction of the ‘plan’; before any studies were conducted, we find the goal as stated: “It's essential that the public understands that there's a scientific consensus on AGW.”

That "study" was a hoax. Here is what some of the scientists had to say when they discovered the plan misrepresented their position without their knowledge: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper”…..” I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense”…. "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading”…. "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, …as ‘explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize,’ nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” 9Source: populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html).

Once you get a good understanding that certain molecules (like carbon dioxide and water) reflect infrared rays back toward the earth; and once you understand that 95 percent of the molecules up there are water; and of the remaining 5 percent (dry gasses) only 0.04 percent are carbon dioxide, it seems logical to conclude that any effect of carbon dioxide on global warming is negligible. I so conclude.

Larry Grimard

Jefferson

For the record

To the National Rifle Association:

I do not support any human being owning an assault weapon of any kind and I do not support owning any weapon that can handle a magazine that can hold more than five rounds.

I am not against owning a pistol or a rifle, but I will say for the record, anyone who has more than four weapons in his or her house, home or apartment  has too many weapons period.

I have stated in the past that when I was active duty I handled many types of weapons from the M-14 through the M-60 and I operated the M-60 tanks, Abrams and Bradley, up until I retired in 1991 from the United States Army. The first tour of duty was in Vietnam from 1969-1972. In 1994, I went hunting with some friends of mine and came across individuals who were also hunting and at the same time they were hunting they were also drinking and did not take time to identify what they were shooting at and almost killed other hunters in the area.

Owning a weapon of any kind is like anything else, the person should know what they are doing with it. When it comes to owning a weapon it should be alike a vehicle, it should be a privilege to operate, not a right. You should be required to take a course on it and learn how to handle it before you are even allowed to own it.

I am aware of what the Constitution says on the Second Amendment, but I will say this, when the Constitution was drafted they had no idea what type of weapons would be created and the damage and destruction these modern day weapons can do.

My question on the issue is how many of our children must die in our schools and shopping malls before we as a society say enough is enough and put a stop to what we can purchase when it comes to a gun of any kind.

If you own a single shot pistol and a single shot rifle and know how to shoot them then you have enough, anything else is pure insanity.

Robert J. Robinson

Thomaston

Comments (1)
Posted by: Woody Emanuel | Jan 10, 2014 14:46

I have good news for Larry Grimard about the 97% consensus of climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real: the figure is no longer valid.

It is now much higher. In the latest study, released Jan. 9, 2014, 9,135 out of 9,136 scientists believe climate change is happening. See: http://bit.ly/1fjMcuM

This supplements the previous study showing that out of the 13,950 peer-reviewed science articles on climate between 1991 and 2012, only 24 rejected global warming.

Woody Emanuel

Camden



If you wish to comment, please login.