Allen Dorfman’s and Tucker Selko’s predictable Jan. 16 responses to Ken Moore’s recent letter on global warming were disappointing.

Dorfman’s letter countered Moore by asserting his recollection of unanimity among 900 publications on global warming, stating “If there are scientists who believe a serious scientific controversy exists about human-caused global warming, they need to publish articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals to back their viewpoint. As far as I can tell, there are none.” Selko called for Moore’s sources and impugned his reasoning power.

To Mr. Dorfman and Mr. Selko, I say get thee to a library (Oregon State University’s will do) and find this article in Environmental Geology (2006, v. 50, pp. 899-910): “On global forces in nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?”

The introduction states: “Logical and quantitative comparison analyses presented in the publications of Robinson et al. (1998), Soon et al. (2001), Bluemle et al. (2001), Baliunas (2002), Sorokhtin (2001), Sorokhtin and Ushakov (2002), Gerhard (2004), and Khilyuk and Chilingar (2003, 2004) showed that the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide (and the other greenhouse gasses) emission is a myth.” Apparently there’s less unanimity than Mr. Dorfman would hope for.

The conclusion states: “The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere.” Solar activity affects global warming? Who’d have thought?

Beware of consensus; it’s often no different than group-think.

John D. Jones

Philomath

Take action now; stop global warming

We are facing a climate emergency, and it must be treated as such! Our best scientists are trying to get it through our heads that we may be close to a “tipping point” when global warming reaches a point where the processes set in motion have a reinforcing effect on warming.

We already are seeing more extreme weather, and it’s likely that the future will bring widespread crop failures, resulting in hunger and famine and coastal flooding, resulting in homelessness and worldwide population upheavals.

The longer we wait to act, the more extreme climate change will be, and the more terrible the consequences. Is this the kind of world we want to leave to our grandchildren?

President Bush’s belated solution is investment in alternative energy research, with only a ridiculously small push for greater auto fuel efficiency standards. Right now, we need a crash program of emergency measures, spelled C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N. It may not be popular, but it is relatively effective and easy to do. Europe has paved the way.

It is unconscionable that our leaders have not asked us to conserve since Jimmy Carter did. We cannot afford to continue our current selfish, energy-wasting lifestyles. We need a crash conservation program!

Physically able people will ride mass transit when there are incentives for doing so, and disincentives for driving individual cars.

Rachel Ozretich

Corvallis

Hate the war, but not the warriors

While in the counseling office of a local high school, I had the privilege of conversing with a Marine recruiter. During our conversation, a student interrupted us and asked the Marine if he was in the military.

Upon receiving an answer in the affirmative, the student rudely voiced his opinion about the war in Iraq, then turned and walked away. I would like to say this to the student:

You may not agree with the war, young man, but do not unleash your disrespectful invective against the warrior who risks and too often sacrifices his life to ensure the continuation of your freedom to speak your mind. You did not even manifest the courage or courtesy to wait for his response. I honor the Marine, who maintained his dignity throughout your diatribe.

Lisa J. Aldrich

Shedd

‘Eco-friendly’ cars still are deadly

Proud owners of gas-electric hybrids, biodiesels and “zero” emission fuel cell automobiles should humbly step back to earth. Fossil fuel represents only the iceberg tip of the automobile’s problems. Regardless of fuel types, all autos waste money and kill communities, families and individuals. Consider:

• Every year, auto accidents cause 43,00-plus deaths and 2 million debilitating injuries. It’s the number one killer of teens and the number one cause of death and disability in children ages 4 to 8.

• Mining ore used in manufacture of automobiles and the auto manufacturing process itself both are significant causes of air pollution.

• Maintaining existing U.S. roads would cost $25 billion-plus a year. Instead, the United States is spending $60 million to build and widen roads and parking lots.

• We pay a significant portion of our property taxes to finance traffic law enforcement and accident response.

• More urban land is dedicated to vehicles than to housing.

• Since 1970, more than

45 million acres of farmland has been paved.

• Driving disconnects people from their neighbors and from the natural world.

• Despite the fact that we’re paying billions for new roads, the time we spend stuck in traffic tripled between 1982 and 2003.

• On average, 20 percent of our household income goes to maintaining and operating automobiles.

• Additional ecological impacts of automobiles include the problems of disposing/recycling mountains of old tires, used motor oil, parts and auto bodies.

Worshipping any manifestation of the automobile juggernaut is unsustainable, murderous, suicidal, inane and insane.

Drew Fulano

Corvallis

It’s madness to stay on our losing course

George Bush announced a new plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more troops into civil war, a situation in which experts agree needs a political solution.

The United States cannot succeed in war-making to a political solution, and Iraq will not change until the United States does remove troops from their land.

The Bush administration’s plan again ignores the American people.

In recent months, generals, an independent panel and almost everyone actively involved Iraq democracy-making have indicated that increasing the number of troops will not help. Why, then, would the administration go against these recommendations? Because more American lives must be lost before the Bush administration will become self-actualized and truly change their plans in Iraq. The American people made their voice heard, and if the president isn’t going to listen, restored democracy and the Democratic Congress will force the administration into stopping the madness.

Randy K. Rannow

Albany