Warming consensus isn't total

Professor Dudley Chelton (Letters, May 7, "The cause of warming") has over-generalized scientific opinion by implying that all but a tiny minority embrace the widely proclaimed global warming theory in its entirety.

It is quite true that carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases and that its concentration has risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Few doubt that mankind's use of fossil fuels is responsible for much of it. Most also believe that increased greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet as a whole, although there is far less consensus on the warming of specific regions and still less on observed or predicted changes in rainfall or storms.

The scientific community is also divided on the proportion of greenhouse gas-caused warming as compared to that caused by natural variation, for it is a fact that the temperature trend has not been in "lock step" with that of carbon dioxide concentration, at times even falling while the concentration was rising and sometimes rising far more rapidly than greenhouse theory would predict.

Most scientists believe that the planet has been warming and glaciers have been melting since the end of the last Ice Age, but that this overall warming has included temporary retreats to a colder climate. There is no scientific "consensus" that the medieval warm period included no decades as warm as our present one.

To consign the scientists who point out such contrary indications to the lunatic fringe does the community a disservice. Also, let us recognize that scientific truth is unrelated to consensus.

David S.Twining, Corvallis

No car? It's quite practical

Last Sunday's letters (May 28) included Paul deLespinasse claiming that bicycle commuting does not save as much money as the bicyclist calculated in the "Pedal power" article (May 21). I'm no economics or political science professor, but deLespinasse obviously omits part of bicycling's savings.

Well-exercised, bicycle commuters don't have to spend money on gym memberships to avoid getting fat, and spend less on doctors. Bicycling also saves society the costs of road construction, noise and air pollution, and oil wars. (Economists add doctor bills, "defense" spending, etc., to GNP, so driving's costs are positive in their absurd reality.)

DeLespinasse's most ludicrous assertion, however, was "except for people who live in large cities with good mass transportation, it is usually not practical to go completely car-less." A typical academic, he makes this assertion without experience. After 12 years experience car-less life in Corvallis, I guarantee deLespinasse is wrong. (Several friends have the same experience.)

Saving automobile expenses, I work only two days per week, which, rest assured, feels quite practical.

Wil D. Hormann, Corvallis

Allegation and prejudice

The May 28 Sunday paper reported that prosecutors suggested Shawn Wesley Field killed Karly Sheehan "because he feared she would expose his secret homosexual life, which he dearly wanted to keep hidden."

The alleged blackmail motive for murder is prejudicial and offensive.

Historically, homosexuals were thought to be security risks due to the possibility of blackmail, which led President Eisenhower to order their firing in 1953. Sen. Joe McCarthy and attorney Roy Cohn, who died of AIDS in 1986, exploited this prejudice to destroy innocent people.

It is true that many bisexual married men with children hide in the closet to avoid condemnation. Former N.J. Governor James McGreevy's autobiography says he had anonymous liaisons because he feared that being openly gay would ruin his political career.

However, it is incredible that the prosecution is alleging that the father of a 9-year-old daughter would murder a toddler merely to avoid being outed. Field may be guilty, but the judge should suppress this prejudicial theory.

Thomas Kraemer, Corvallis

Visitors? So What?

The article "A toddler's last days" by Tony Lystra was appalling for many reasons.

While it is interesting to note prosecutors would not tell what information it would use in the case because that would be "inappropriate,"they have no problem telling the press and prejudicing a jury. I am not shocked, by that.

I am, however, disturbed they revealed documents entailing the accused having visited Web sites which "cater to exclusively homosexual interests..." and had "chat buddies" on Gay.com "which is frequently used to 'facilitate sexual encounters'"..."and he was known to have male visitors during the day..."

So what?

They claim this is relevant to the case because of the theory that the accused killed a child to conceal his sexual orientation. As this has not yet been proven, listing these details in the article is not in any way relevant.

Or am I to understand that the district attorney finds visiting gay Web sites and having male visitors evidence of killing a child?

Do they find homosexuality to be indicative of criminal behavior, like abusing an animal? Or is this just sensational writing that caters to the bigotry and fear in our local populace?

Ajai Tripathi, Corvallis

Quit paying CEOs, oil nations

I found it interesting that when the recent visit from China's president - with all its hype - ended, he flew directly to Saudi Arabia to secure oil for China's growing economy. Then you see the amazing compensation packages the CEOs of oil companies receive for the work they do for their companies - millions and millions of dollars.

The two oilmen running this country are really doing a great job of running us on empty. This trend will not go away any day soon.

You and I have only one choice when it comes to energy: use less and pay more. I enjoy a smaller car, and my next step will be a smaller house. Fold-up bicycles are easy to ride, and you can take them with you easily.

I hate paying high gasoline prices, paying for greedy CEOs' salaries, paying to enrich terrorist-harboring countries that supply the oil and contributing to all of the environmental problems caused by burning fossil fuels.

So the only thing I can is vote out the schmucks and use less energy.

Ray Chesbrough, Corvallis

Demand fosters more 'credentials'

The case of Sgt. Jack Burright draws attention to an old problem that will increase as more employers expect college degrees from job applicants. The state of Oregon has been a leader in its efforts to combat this problem but has already faced a legal challenge from one "university."

During my own career, I have heard of several examples of such behavior.

While working in public health, I heard that a local Atlanta trickster had used his diploma mill Ph.D. to acquire and manage a private hospital. He acquired the quick fortune by sharp practice and at the expense of his licensed professional staff.

While teaching, I heard of at least two professors who used such credentials for getting employment or advancement. One actually succeeded for a while. An author of books concerning the psychology of men and women has the title "Ph.D." printed prominently after his name. His alma mater is a nonaccredited correspondence school.

Some of us have obtained advanced degrees by attending classes and defending a thesis before professional critics. We feel confident enough to sign our names in the following unadorned manner:

William M. McKinney, Corvallis

The lands we took from Mexico

Let me attempt to put the discussion about immigration into a historical context instead of the often-hysterical debate:

The United States, even before the Louisiana Purchase, believed that it was our "Manifest Destiny" to expand from sea to sea. (Note: Manifest Destiny invokes a God-given right.)

Many U.S. citizens migrated into western lands that were not owned by the United States. Some of these immigrants were invited by the government of Mexico to settle in the Province of Texas. By 1835, these immigrants became dissatisfied with the Mexican government, and they revolted.

The revolt ended in the formation of the Lone Star Republic of Texas. In 1835, the United States offered Mexico $5 million for its northern lands. Mexico refused. In 1845, the U.S. government offered $25 million. Mexico again refused.

On July 4, 1845, the United States annexed Texas. On April 25, 1846, the United States invaded Mexico and by the war's end in 1848, it had taken by force what Mexico had refused to sell.

This included California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Oh, yes ... let me not forget Texas.

Invoking our God-given right to expand and our overwhelming military might ("Might is Right"), the United States, through a "just war," created Mexican immigrants where Mexican citizens had been.

The moral: If they refuse to sell, take it from them and then ask God to bless America. Then build a big fence.

Roger Paul, Corvallis

Consider the enemy we're facing

A recent letter writer in the Democrat-Herald quoted, from a national magazine, some casualty numbers of our forces in Iraq who are fighting the war against worldwide terrorism. We do not question the numbers. But we noticed no mention of the reasons we are there, or the fact that we have never faced a group calling to destroy all those not adhering to their beliefs.

Never before has this nation fought a war without using their offensive weapons. Had we recognized the threat soon enough we would have realized that our efforts to develop a huge offensive capability that we could not, in good conscience, use against a civilian population was useless.

Our enemy is unlike any we have seen before. They terrorize their own into suicide against their own and anyone trying to stop them. This nation has been one that emphasized a great military offensive to be the best defense.

In retrospect, it would have been better, maybe, had we used our resources to enlighten ourselves and humanity, to the common goal of responsibility, freedom and independence of all individuals to provide for themselves. But not at the expense of the well being of others.

Those that believe we can negotiate with or ignore this enemy need to enumerate the times that approach has been successful. To emphasize the extent and horror of casualties and ignore the actuality of present circumstance does little for humanity.

Merle and Ruth Egan, Albany