Printed Letters: September 15, 2017

Vote yes on 3A and 3B to support D51 students

Every morning, the students at Fruita Middle School say the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms. On the last day of school every year, it is our tradition for the 600-plus students and staff to gather in our 1938 school gym to recite the pledge in unison.

I leave the gym inspired after observing the respect our future community leaders have for our country.

Looking around our school, and in our gym in particular, I often think of how teachers in our school were educating students as World War II was being fought by other great Americans preserving our freedoms around the globe. I think those who fought for our country would be proud of our students and glad to know that the freedoms of those students are being upheld in classrooms across our community.

I will be voting to support both the mill and the bond because I believe in our country and the freedoms we stand for. Students will be the ones to carry the torch of freedom and those students need to be well educated to carry the torch properly. Our teachers are doing a great job, and our facility managers have done well keeping our buildings in as good of shape as possible, and yet our building is in desperate need of repairs and our teachers need more school days to do our jobs properly. I also believe our community needs to have schools we are proud of. All of us have the privilege and duty to ensure our students have the right facilities in which to learn, and our great kids just need your help. The list of what we (and other schools) need is outlined at

Please vote yes with me, and vote for the children who would vote yes, but can’t yet, and are simply counting on you to pay it forward.

Principal, Fruita Middle School
Grand Junction

What caused the major storms before climate change?

In response to all of the letters and columns written to ascribe blame for the recent storms on global warming/climate change, I only have one question. What caused the major storms before climate change?

According to CSU meteorologist Philip Klotzbach, in the last 131 years there have been 24 major hurricanes in the U.S. Of those, only six have occurred in the last 30 years. The strongest, the Labor Day Storm, hit in 1935. The other 18 date from 1886 to 1969.

It’s easy to look for reasons and place blame, but in my opinion, to do it without actual proof is somewhat delusional, and unproductive. You don’t have to be a climate denier to question the conclusions of so many, based on so little actual causative data.

Grand Junction

We need to hold conversation between industry and citizens

Why can’t we move ahead from the same old industry assertions that “oil and gas industry is good for our economy,” “regulations restrict the industry to produce,” and “regulations restrict the industry to hire people,” and have a constructive conversation between industry and the citizens?

Western Colorado Congress is not aware of responsible citizens disagreeing with the first phrase — it is a no-brainer. As to the second, regulations are developed to protect someone or something. Speed limits on the streets of Grand Junction could be considered burdensome to drivers, but are necessary to protect public safety. Our legislators, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and WCC all have indicated that any regulations that are out of date, or are otherwise ineffective, should be considered for elimination. Industry, in this case, Ursa, needs to produce the list of specific ineffective regulations. Regarding the third, it is the tired old scare phrase used since the 1960s and still used by some in industry whenever they are facing something they don’t like. It is equivalent to environmentalists claiming that all industry impacts would be “baby killers.” These phrases are meant to evoke emotion and are rarely, if ever, true. WCC is aware that there are many responsible oil and gas companies in Colorado that do not make these assertions.

Although only implied in the Sept. 27 article, “Senate Prez: Technology is outpacing energy rules,” I assume Senate President Grantham was echoing Ursa’s complaints that are directed at environmental rules. No person or industry has a right to pollute more than the minimum necessary, nor to create an unhealthy environment, which is codified in our Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Polluting the minimum necessary in practice means operating with “best control technology” with the additional restriction that we cannot pollute beyond the national health standards. That means that our cars, wood-burning stoves, ATVs, the Craig and Hayden power plants, and oil and gas production equipment, etc. are required to have current-technology pollution controls installed and operated properly.

Clean air and water are a public right. Allowing cars, trucks, airplanes, industry, etc. to consume a small amount of our clean air is an allowance from the public in exchange for the product. Installation of current-technology and properly operating emission controls are built into our 1970s environmental laws, not some recent concoction of environmentalists.

Chairman, Western Colorado 
Congress Oil & Gas Committee
Steamboat Springs


Page 1 of 1

When some of us look at opinions of any type, some of us look very carefully to determine if the authorities cited really have the expertise necessary to be cited, and if the writer of the opinion has an interest in the outcome of any particular policy.  If the first is not met, or the latter is present, we discount them.  We then look at the opinion absent one, the other, or both.  Most times, what we find is that those opinions (although delivered with a semblance of authority) are either weak, or even totally without merit. 

Other things we look for is exaggeration or distortion of what others have said and/or if they form their opinion because they “just don’t like” the person who said it (personal feelings about an individual for whatever reason).  Those also, lead us to discount either part, or even an entire opinion, something particular true with the latter.

What we now have is something quite interesting, we have some so-called “scientists” afraid of science and wanting to stop progress beyond what it is they are familiar with or what they believe they know;  i.e. don’t go beyond this (or that) or stop advancement.  Would they think further into the matter they might come to the realization that their knowledge (although they may have advanced degrees) is also severely limited.

Mr. Laitres
  You do the same thing that you accuse others of.  Just because people disagree with someone does not mean that they are wrong or stupid as you imply.

Mr. Blosser,

If your doctor gave you a diagnosis you didn’t like, would you accept the opinion of your plumber instead?

  You normally do better then that.  What a stupid response.  Mr. Wirtz cited a CSU meteoroligst presenting facts!

Guess what, Mr. Blosser?

Meteorologists are not climatologists. And the facts he cited, even if accurate without omitting anything do not disprove climate change in any way. No one has ever said there were no storms at all before the last 30 years. So let me rephrase my question.

If a doctor gave you a diagnosis you didn’t like, would you get a second opinion from the nurse who checked you in?

Is that better?

Mr. Blosser, if you looked carefully at my post, nowhere did I refer to anyone of either being “wrong”, or (a favorite word make like to use, “stupid”.  All my post referred to are the limits of knowledge and how some (because they take the time and make a deliberate and conscious effort to do so) evaluate opinions, no matter their source.

Now, as to the word “stupid”, it was not used anywhere in my post, with reference to you or anyone else.  If you believe that it was applied to you, you are actually the one who (for whatever reason) applied it to yourself.  If that is what you did, then you are the one at fault, and have no basis to blame me (or anyone else) for it.


  There have been significant weather and climate events long before anyone thought of manmade climate change.  People just use the current ones to further their political agendas like carbon taxes.  Back in the 1970s these same people were predicting a coming ice age.

Mr Laitres
  I didn’t say you used the word “stupid”, I said you implied it along with the implication that people who disagree with your ideas are wrong, which I think is pretty clear in your comments.

Yes they were, Mr. Blosser. Because back then, with the limitations of the time, that’s what the evidence indicated was happening. We now have better information and it says something different. But rather than ignore the new data and dig in their heels against having to change their minds, scientists accepted they were wrong and integrated the new information. That’s how science works. You don’t simply say “they were wrong then, so they must be wrong now” without something backing that up, and hand-waving the new information away doesn’t cut it. Nor does taking the advice of a meteorologist over that of climatologists. You may be aware that the climate involves far more than just weather.

Perhaps Mr. Blosser, instead of resorting to your favorite word “implied”, you should first carefully read what others post and THEN, and only THEN, should you insert (which really what you do)resort to the words “implication”, imply, or implied. 

After reading your other posts (in reply to Mr. Isles) you may wish to move out of the 60’s, and pay attention to the progress in science over the last half century.  It really has advanced.

And instead of claiming that it is some type of “liberal” plot in this country, take note of the fact that these “climate warming” studies were not conducted only by U.S. scientists, but by scientists world-wide.

However, if you choose to believe otherwise, that is up to you.  Just don’t expect your opinions (founded more on some political ideology, I suspect) to be taken at all seriously.

Just in addressing the first sentence of Mr. Steen’s last paragraph, it is quite clear that there is something some (in fact far too many) don’t appear to either recognize, see, or accept.  Clean air and water are NOT only public rights (groups of faceless individuals), they are HUMAN RIGHTS.

  I guess we will just agree to disagree.  However I think that in this day and age the work and studies of meteorologists and climatologists overlap in many ways.  I also think that a meteorologist from CSU just might take offense at being compared to a nurse.

      Have a great weekend!

Mr Laitres
  I have a feeling that I am far more up to date on current science than you as I read many books on different areas just because of my background as a physicist.
  As far as reading your posts, most of them go on and on and are full of nothingness so you are probably right that I might miss something lost in your comments.

    Have a nice day

Mr. Blosser:  Perhaps you miss what I say because you are illiterate in those areas, with literacy being defined as knowing and understanding the subject area(s), not merely the ability to read words.

As far as “being a physicist” and reading many things, is that all you are, a physicist, and what authority or expertise does that give you in any other area, even in such things as “climate change”, which involves far more than just physics.

Sorry, Mr. Blosser, but “expertise” in one area does not translate into expertise in any other area, no matter what some may believe.

Mr Laitres
  That is sure true in your case!

They overlap in some ways, Mr. Blosser, in pretty much the same way a doctor and nurse’s expertise overlap. But your failure to answer my question tells me what your answer would be. You wouldn’t get a second opinion on a medical diagnosis from a nurse because that nurse hasn’t had the relevanr training. In the same way, a meteorologist doesn’t have the same training that a climatologist has, even though there is some overlap.

In any case, given the lies and fabrications I’ve seen from the deniers, I would recommend taking anything that comes from them with a grain of salt.

You have a nice weekend too.

Mr. Blosser:

That is a typical response “You, but never me”, no matter what the issue under discussion or what subject is brought up.

Mr. Blosser, Happy Sunday afternoon.  I saw a great comment about the people who claim those of us who do not believe all the foolish hype about Gorebull Warming—Climate Change—-whatever they are calling it today.  They claim we “deny science”, yet they try to tell us there are 57 genders!  You tell me who Denies Science.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy