Letters to the editor for March 31

No climate consensus

I was wondering where Mark Suppelsa got his unscientifically high percentage of scientists supporting human caused climate change (letter to the editor, March 4).   

Some searching on the internet yielded the answer:The Guardian appears to be the source. Others just blindly followed suit repeating the falsified data. The Guardian touts itself as the "world's leading liberal voice."No surprise there!   

The common take on this is "repeat an untruth (lie) often enough and it becomes fact" or put another way "if an untruth (lie) is repeated enough, people eventually confuse familiarity with fact."  

This is apparently the trademark of the Gardian's reporting. The basic underlying theme here is 'consensus' which has slowly changed its meaning from general agreement on a subject to mean the subject's description is fact, although without overwhelming scientific proof. 

All of Mr. Suppelsa's statements lack supporting facts: "Evidence is plentiful worldwide if you watch and read." 

I do watch and read, and find no evidence to support his contentions, Suppelsa resorts to attacking the Inter Lake, essentially asking it to censure those with opinions other than his. Typical liberal tactics.

There are thousands of legitimate climate scientists who have publicly debunked the scenario of rising carbon dioxide levels due to human activity causing climate change. The climate is constantly changing; taking a very small wedge of data and time out of the last few hundreds of years showing warming, or cooling, is an insufficient sample to predict future catastrophic global climate change.  

Just check the weather predictions for the next few days; there is possibly some accuracy, but not nearly enough to warrant bankrupting the country with wild predictions of calamity and the supposed cures.

I'm not a climate scientist; I just watch and read as Mr. Suppelsa suggested.  Maybe he should do the same.

— Gary Goers, Kalispell

Can't back Tester

The decision of who to vote for in the upcoming U.S. Senate race will be the most critical of the 2024 election cycle. I can never vote to reelect Sen. Jon Tester. To reelect him would be a disaster for Montanans. His voting record in the U.S. Senate over the last 16 years tells me all I need to know.

Jon Tester puts the interests of Back East lobbyists and ideologies ahead of the interests of Montanans. As a senior member of the U.S. Senate he votes in lockstep with the progressive agendas of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and does nothing to alter its radical directives. As examples, the green/climate change initiatives have cost Montanans jobs in our oil patch and mining industries, resulting in significant lost revenues in many dependent Montana communities and a huge loss of excise tax revenue to the coffers of our state. 

The cumulative effects of out-of-control spending advocated by Sen. Tester is a key factor in the cumulative 19% inflation rate of the last three years, costing the average Montana family $11,500 over the same time period to maintain a standard of living. 

The southern border situation is thanks to progressive policies. Montana may soon join other states and cities whose citizens have to bear the huge costs of this madness. The Covid policies under Tester’s Senate leadership ignored the science, put peoples lives and livelihoods at risk and resulted in stunting the growth and development of a generation of Montana children.  

— Gary Votapka, Kalispell