Fossil Fool Flunkies Need Basic Science Education.

Global warming opinion proves more science education needed

By: GARY M. WAAYERS - For the North County Times

As a community college science teacher, I found the article by Ronald Hettinger ('Science behind global-warming theory far from settled,' Perspective, Jan. 2) and his lack of scientific insight concerning global warming, the geological history of our planet, and the evolutionary process a bold signpost on the state of science and independent thought among the people of our community. Mr. Hettinger has apparently accepted the global warming dogma of the fossil fuel energy industry without much independent thought.

The fossil fuels we will exhaust in less than a thousand years of use took nature tens of millions of years to sequester. The energy we get from burning fossil fuels comes from breaking carbon bonds and generating new ones using oxygen, thus creating carbon dioxide. This is a fact, not conjecture.

Our use of fossil fuels is putting large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mr. Hettinger hangs on to the hope that the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are due to whatever caused the high levels during the Eocene. Due to plate tectonics and the relatively recent recovery of the biosphere from the cataclysmic ending of the Mesozoic Era, the Earth of the Eocene was much different than it is today. Science knows that carbon dioxide captures more energy than either oxygen or nitrogen, the two gases that make up 99 percent of our atmosphere. The energy captured by carbon dioxide is stored in the form of molecular motion that our thermometers register as heat. The increase in the heat of the atmosphere is showing up at the poles. The Arctic ice pack is getting smaller each year, and the permafrost is defrosting. Villages that line the shore of the Arctic are losing their coastline at an extremely rapid rate from wave action because they have lost their traditional protection provided by the ice pack. Within the coming decades, polar bears will have difficulty swimming the distance from their birthing dens on land to the ice where their food is found. They will be threatened with extinction. Mr. Hettinger is misinformed about the current rate of species extinction. This extinction rate is not natural because species are not being replaced in the ecosystem by better-adapted species. In nature it's normally at least a one-for-one swap. What we see with species extinction today is equivalent to a cataclysmic event. The brown bear on California's flag was not replaced, it was exterminated. The sad part is, the dinosaurs of the fossil fuel industry are holding power over our nation. With fear and misinformation they prevent the conversion to power sources like wind and solar. These new power sources can create many jobs, retain wealth in the U.S.A. instead of sending it to OPEC, and significantly decrease global warming. The biggest hurdle in bringing about change is getting people to see the truth and to understand it. We need to significantly increase the level of overall science education and teaching of independent thought in our K-12 schools or we may end up following the fossil fuel behemoths to their graves. Gary M. Waayers is adjunct professor of biology at Palomar College.

The rest of this is at:

What would be the negative impacts of reducing CO2 emissions?

I always find statements like this interesting. It's always I am right and anybody else is wrong so we must do the right thing and shove the young to our way of thinking even though we may be wrong in the long run. This is liberalism at it's best.

'I always ... ' 'It's always ... ' 'we must ... shove the young ...'

'This is liberalism at it's best.'

It is neither a political philosophy nor a best. This is actually James at his worst.

Dang, Roger, why do you say 'the rest of it'? You appear to have provided every word of the article already. I recall you recently expressing opinion about another poster's 'disrespect for copyright' or some such, for posting the full text of an article. What's the difference between the behavior you decried then and the behavior you exhibit now?

Prof. Waayers does sound like a kindred spirit of yours, at-the-ready with insult and condescension, but not so good on following-up. I note that Hettinger's first scientific topic was where he discussed solar influence on temperature, referring specifically to findings by Lonnie G. Thompson of Ohio State, and by researchers at Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. Other than by applying Waayers insults, one must conclude that Waayers ignores this reasonable argument by Hettinger.

Waayers does choose to discuss the golden bear on California's state flag. I'm not sure what relevance this has to global warming, since the last one in the state was shot in 1922.

Anyway, hope all's as well as can be with you today and many years to come, very truly,

Steve Schulin

...

...

But ... isn't the elimination of choices and alternative thinking *conservatism* at it's best? Like, for instance, pro-choice liberals have no interest in forcing abortions on people who don't want them ... but pro-life conservatives strongly advocate forcing babies on people who don't want them, yes?

RPD / Cambridge Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

Bush and his fossil fuel industry cabal would gouge a few billion less. The rest of us would enjoy a economic boom has we worked to replace the carbon based fuel infrastructure. It might also mean that we wouldn't have the reason for stupid wars in oil-rich lands anymore.

No one has done more unbiased research on this than the Pew Center: http://www.pewclimate.org/ For just one example, see: 'Induced Technological Change and Climate Policy'

There is also:

Yet another error in a basic fact from lying Steve! The last California Golden Bear died in 1987. It's skin was mounted and is now displayed in a popular sports bar here in San Diego.

Well, it would serve me right for relying upon Wikipedia, I guess. But the same Tulare County 1922 story I saw there is described elsewhere, while I don't see anything except pages looking like college sports news stuff when googling for _'golden bear' california 1987_.

Here's the story as told on a page hosted by a CSU-Northridge professor who founded a group named Consortium of Aquariums, Universities and Zoos

'The grizzly bear has special meaning for us Californians: the 'golden bear' is our state mammal and appears on our state flag. But this bear may have additional meaning for those of us who are concerned about wildlife conservation. You see, our state mammal is extinct in California. But rather than mourning the loss of this magnificent creature, I have read that most Californians celebrated when the last California grizzly was shot! This is what was written about our state animal in the July-August 1997 Outdoor California [Vol. 58, No. 4, page 16]:

'Before becoming extinct in California, the largest and most powerful of carnivores - the California grizzly bear - thrived in the great valleys and low mountains of the state, probably in greater numbers than anywhere else in the United States. As humans began to populate California, the grizzly stood its ground, refusing to retreat in the face of an advancing civilization. It killed livestock and interfered with settlers. Less than 75 years after the discovery of gold, every grizzly bear in California had been tracked down and killed. The last one was killed in Tulare County in August 1922 ...'

Here's the URL: http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/cauzbear.htm

I assure the group that I did not intend to present false info, if in fact I did. I also urge folks not to let some personal failing of mine in that regard undermine the point that the article being discussed in this thread used an extinction event that has no significant ecological connection with global warming.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin

Talk to people like planned parenthood. They won't force an abortion but will encourage it as the only practical solution to being pregnant.

The conservative approach seems to be that a life was conceived and that life should be let alone. Live and let live.

Both may be a little hard to take but that's another argument.

To answer your question though in the context I mentioned, it would appear that indoctrination of the young is the choice of liberals on agendas they know nothing about regardless of how the parents feel about current problems facing the world. Schools are not for indoctrination.

Not having read the original article I cannot compare it to this one. However this one is barely at the Mr. Wizard level.

For what it says that is correct.

The point rather is life did not end back then.

And they will be replaced by other bears moving north. So?

The rate of extinction is based solely on WAGs whose origin is the assholes of the usual media whores getting face time. Imagine how many species went extinct when the Shahara turned from savanah to desert 4000 years ago. If one wants a really significant cause of the die off the end of the worst effects of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago is a more likely cause simply by its magnitude. That the world would still be warming from that event it hardly surprising. Sea level has risen 100+ meters since that event. Half of 'Florida' vanished beneath the ocean. Look at a map of ocean depths, look at the 100 meter depth color and realize that was above water. Dinos did not vanish with the meteor. It took tens of thousands of years more. We have had at least one cooling period called the little ice age. The climate of Greece through Anatolia became warmer and drier 3000 years ago