I would like to thank one of my readers who sent me a copy of Will Steger's "Globalwarming 101 - A Letter of Concern" along with a link to his charitable foundation site. The letter simply regurgitates all of the common misunderstandings about the global climate change phenomenon. And it is rather unusual for a distinguished explorer such as Steger to buy into this nonsense. I could not help but notice that National Geographic, Shaklee, Gander Mountain and others were sponsors of his activities. But then again, Will Steger is a noted explorer whose work would be supported and featured by such organizations. And it is reasonable to expect that he attracts other mutually beneficial endorsements.

"A Letter of Concern" 

"Global warming is a reality."

Cyclical global climate change appears to be a reality and is apparently a normal part of nature.

"It threatens both our society and life, as we know it on earth."

While man has always sought shelter from the elements, this statement should be considered hyperbole when factored against the time-scale needed to impact man's functioning. Those who were born into or choose to live in harsh climates seem to be adapting over time. But that is the way of man: adapt to nature rather than yell at the wind.

"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community for the past decade has been that the planetary warming we are now experiencing, and the resulting climate change, is largely a human induced phenomenon. "

Whoops -- there is that "science by consensus thing -- which is not true. There are two issues here: one, the natural phenomenon of global climate change and two, man's responsibility for events which occur naturally. (See the reference to the Senate report near the end of this blog entry.)

"This is brought on mainly by the release of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels, which blankets our atmosphere raising the earth’s surface temperature."

The is not true as rises in CO2 concentration lag temperature rises by 800- 1000 years and it sort of rules out the "cause and effect" as being directly related to global temperature change. Truth-be-told, which is the goal of science, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas -- being far overshadowed by at least a ten-to-one ratio by water vapor. Yes, the same water vapor that makes up clouds.

You may want to visit  http://www.colo-earthfriends.org to discover the  Milankovitch Cycle and why the relationship between CO2 and temperature rise is bogus.

"Environmentally, we see dramatic signs of global warming in our polar regions."

Again, there is the matter of cause and effect. It is certainly more probable that there are other more significant reasons for what we are seeing in this region than allowing the inference to man's actions on this planet to stand. Any scientist will tell you the output of the sun is the most significant factor, followed by the thermal properties of the oceans and the landmass.

"Yet, because these regions are remote and go unseen by most people, it’s easy to ignore the potent warnings."

One man's natural and cyclic phenomenon is another man's warning signs. It depends whether or not you are trying to match the visible evidence with a pre-ordained conclusion to support your agenda or do science as it is meant to be done.

"I have been to both poles; and I’ve seen catastrophic consequences of the climate change. I crossed both the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in the Arctic and Larson A and B Ice Shelves on Antarctica."

Were we having fun or was there a scientific purpose for intruding into the pristine wilderness? And, respectfully, categorizing a natural event as "catastrophic," especially one that is linked to a natural phenomenon seems slightly hysterical if you ask me.

"All of which, to the astonishment of scientists, abruptly collapsed into the sea in the last decade as a result of climate changes."

I find it hard to believe that the scientists were all that surprised after observing the situation over the past decade. Oh, did you forget to mention the underlying water in interstitial spaces hastening the process in the light (pun intended) of increased solar activity.

"I experienced firsthand the melting of the sea ice on the Arctic Ocean."

And I watch ice melt in my soda glass all of the time. And much for the same reason.

"The polar sea has lost one fourth of both its thickness and area in the last two decades."

This is nonsensical -- perhaps you meant something else, but the sea does not have a dimension known as "thickness" and if you are talking about polar ice -- it all depends where your measurements are made and how they are mathematically manipulated to determine growth and melt rates. Yes, the ice in many areas is shrinking, in others it is growing. 

"Its once reflective surface is now exposing the darker ocean surfaces; because darker surfaces absorb more energy than lighter ones, warmth is accelerated."

How about the pollution and ash in the air as a contributing factor? While this reflectance issue may seem intuitively obvious, the ocean is so massive and deep, that actual temperature rise is extremely limited -- and mostly confined to surface areas. I would respectfully point to low moisture situations and cloud cover (water vapor) as being a large part of the overall picture.

"The summer sea ice is predicted to virtually disappear during the second half of this century, dooming animals like the polar bear and walrus to probable extinction."

Predicted by what, linear trend analysis by computer? We have all seen these models which are not exactly programmed with enough variables to make the conclusion scientifically verifiable. As for the polar bears and walrus populations, this has been somewhat discredited. Great for scaring little children and providing that warm fuzzy touch to help adults open their purse-strings -- but scientific, I think not.

Like much of what consists of "cherry-picked" information to support one's agenda, the real answer is we just don't know the answer. From NewScientist.com...

"Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive."

"Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing."

"The two populations that are increasing, both in north-eastern Canada, were severely reduced by hunting in the past and are recovering thanks to the protection they and their prey now enjoy."

The over-hunting of a species or its prey is certainly more plausible, as well as correctable, than attributing the observations to global warming. More study is certainly indicated.

"In 1990, I testified before Congress about the danger of global warming thawing the northern permafrost releasing methane gas, a dangerous greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere."

First, famous people, accomplished people and almost any moron -- even movie stars -- can testify before congress. For those who really know the process of arranging such testimony, it carries little or no weight as to verifiable facts or lends little to one's credibility since Congress will accept anything that is said at face value without immediate refutation.

"This process is now in motion."

Congratulations, you have discovered nature as a continuous process.

"The record warm summers in the Arctic are advancing the thawing of the high elevations of the Greenland icecap. The loss of ice that we are now experiencing worldwide is the fingerprint of global warming."

"Data from a comprehensive survey of the ice cap suggest that although the high elevation portions of the ice sheet are unchanged, the outlet glaciers are changing. Radar and lidar measurements indicate many glaciers reaching tidewater are moving faster and thinning. Information on the NASA Greenland mapping project can be found at: http://aol.wff.nasa.gov/aoltm.htm"

Do you even read the scientific literature? As for the loss of ice being the fingerprint of global warming, you are making silly assertions. First, your assertion that the loss of ice is problematical rather than a natural cyclical phenomenon and second, that this is an indicator of something bigger and more important. 

"Morally, we see very real impacts on the human race. The Inuit hunting culture depends on Arctic ice. The melting sea threatens to obliterate this culture. With melting, low lying island nations sink. Intense hurricanes and other global warming related disruptions bankrupt economies and threaten to end the march of civilization, as we know it."

Morality has nothing to do with science or scientific observation -- so the sentence means nothing. Read your history, over time cultures have always adapted to changing conditions. Disruptions in economies are more a factor of governmental interference in lives rather than caused by global climate change. Example: the over-fishing of the seas where one government sanctions maximizing their fishing operations and another denies access to even sportsmen.

Again, with the ending of the march of civilization, as we know it. Now you sound like the shrill, hysterical Al Gore as he spouts this nonsense. Your assertion is a conclusion based on the outlier results of deeply-flawed computer models. NOT SCIENCE!

"The Arctic and the Antarctic regions have been my home for over 40 years. To survive in these lands, I have become intimately familiar with their vast lands, wildlife, and climates."

Your choice.

"The changes I see deeply affect me in a way neither a scientific study nor a satellite image could. "

Your opinion.

"Without action, life in the Arctic faces extinction. With action, we can address the root causes and limit the impact."

Your conclusion.

"How can we act to avert the worst consequences? Throughout the next ten years, we must significantly reduce our emissions from today’s levels. By the year 2050, we must have cut those emissions by 60 to 80 percent." 

This is not based on any scientific proof that man can alter the environment. And such proof, assuming we started today, would not be forthcoming for over 800 - 1000 years. Even if the results could be measured and separated from the systemic noise; not to mention deducing the natural cyclic periodicity that would be needed to prove that the results are attributable to man and not to nature.

"Action begins with education. Global warming must be an essential topic in the K-12 educational agenda. This agenda begins with a sound educational curriculum based on best practices in educational research and pedagogy and continues with teacher education and professional development."

This is a very dangerous action. Indoctrinating young children based on the conclusions drawn from computer models instead of teaching science and critical thinking. This is political propaganda NOT science.

And while I respect teachers, I cannot help but note that many of those, especially those who are funded with grants or charitable donations, seem to be leading a jet-set lifestyle while producing little more than handouts and websites with spectacular, and often stock, photos. And, of course, engaging in self-promoting politically correct rhetoric while speechifying to attract media attention.

"Because we are dealing with an immediate threat, we must launch a public education campaign to engage everyone. "

Another ridiculous assertion. It is not a immediate threat when climate change has been occurring, with far more dramatic changes, since the dawn of time... and when the core assertions involving CO2 are measured in hundreds of years. Of course, those who want to over-dramaticize the situation usually pick hand-chosen time periods or make other adjustments to the data to fit their agendas.  Even the far-left scientists agree that we are unlikely to see Greenland ice disappear before a millennia (1000 years).

"Congregations, environmental groups, youth organizations, campuses, clubs of all kinds will play a pivotal role informing and engaging their members and moving them towards action."

It appears, at least to me, that the movement is directed more towards acceptance of the inevitable political changes rather than a movement to become more personally responsible for the trash left on this planet.

"We must expect that our leaders in government, industry, congregations, and schools, are well informed about global warming and its consequences."

Well informed, surely you jest. Our political leaders were just handed a secretly-crafted (by the democrats) bill which ran over 3,500 pages one day before the vote. There was no discussion, no debate -- and they signed off on a $500 BILLION dollar package because the bill was deliberately held until its passing was critical to the continuity of the government. And you think these are the people who actually want to learn about the subject matter of a bill before imposing restraints on the citizens of the United States? Government is all for pursuing global warming: it would allow for bigger government, more discovery trips to exotic locations, increased taxes and a host of other benefits. A gravy train of inestimable proportions. 

Schools have their own left-leaning agenda based on information provided by Marxists, socialists and communists who have co-opted the environmental movement and whose fundamental belief is: man is evil and his efforts must be constrained to save our ecosystem and, by extension, our entire planet. Industry simply does what is expedient, profitable or what minimizes costs. Most corporations are run for the benefit of the major stockholders and the senior management.

"To this end, we need to develop and offer an interactive forum-based program to those in leadership positions that would consist of a panel of authorities, such as scientists and other experts, who would discuss global warming and solutions at all levels of society."

You mean the type of Al Gore "interactive" education where he speaks and then refuses to engage with skeptical scientists or limits his media access in order to duck pertinent questions? The type of education where he who shouts loudest must be right?

"Action continues by exploring diverse energy sources, continuing our search for increased fuel efficiency, and increasing our domestic production of transportation fuels."

If energy independence is so important, why is the environmental so against proven nuclear technology which can provide safe, clean energy.

"Significantly increasing the use of domestic produced bio-fuels offers both immediate and potential long-term solutions to national security, economic competitiveness of the United States, and price and supply vulnerabilities for families and businesses."

This is political garbage, unrelated to science. First, one must consider the trade-off of the production of bio-fuels (which is not easily scalable0 with the production of food to feed the projected masses.

"Domestically produced bio-fuels and energy also benefit the United States by creating jobs, keeping dollars in the country, and lowering the environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel production and use."

This is political hype. These an unproven assertions and the real results will not be known until the United States endorses full-scale production instead of using heavily-subsidized pilot plants.

"We can reduce global warming pollution through: conservation, existing technologies that make power plants and factories more efficient, and cleaner technologies (e.g., hybrid automobiles, wind power, and solar power)."

This is an unproven assertion that has no basis in scientific fact.

"Global warming, an environment and moral issue is also a unifying issue. It affects all of us; therefore, the solution requires all of us. Individual action leads to collective action. Soon we are unified in this fight. But individual action alone will not solve the problem. We need to demand that our elected officials act to solve the global warming problem."

Legislated morality? This is the type of political tripe that leads to bigger government bureaucracies, increased taxation, loss of personal freedom and liberties to live life on your own terms. It is downright socialistic: the good of the masses trumps the rights of  individuals.

"Cities, states, and individuals are adopting solutions that reduce our dependence on oil. These solutions, in turn, reduce air pollution and protect our pristine environments from oil drilling and mining."

This is crap. Waivers, variances and emission trading schemes allow the gross polluters to continue to pollute and pass the costs along to the rate-payers and citizens.

"State and local initiatives are proving that answers exist."

Answers do not exist. Political actions to support those special interests that contribute money, support and votes are the impetus for action.

"To reinforce and expand these efforts, we need federal action that triggers solutions on a national scale. U.S. businesses can and should lead the world in developing new energy technologies, but many of these businesses will not lead without the guidance of mandatory limits."

I cannot believe such a stupid statement. If something reduces costs as well as pollution, industry would be the first to adopt it -- without government mandate or any other form of intervention. The thought that government always legislates for the good of the people is a canard which can easily be disproven by simply following the money.

"In 2005 the U.S. Senate recognized that global warming is real and that the time has come for strong federal policy. The effects of global warming are pervasive. We humans continue to burn fossil fuels. The burning creates a blanket, and the blanket forms a greenhouse over our earth. We cannot delay in slowing and reversing this trend.. Our economy, security, health, and the environment demand it."

This month ( Dec. 2007), the United States Senate released a report showing that there was not a "consensus" among scientists who believe that the phenomenon of global climate change is anthropogenic  (man made). Try reading the report listing the work of 400 distinguished scientists at: Report on Diversity of Opinions|U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Now what? The inescapable conclusion is that we need to fully fund scientific inquiry in such a fashion to separate out the political influence of those funding the projects. We need to curb the hidden agendas of organizations whose very existence demands increasing government subsidies and charitable donations.

Feel good trips for the wealthy and photo-op trips to gather media attention do not make for good science or rational policy-making.

People running around the world on behalf of their tax-exempt charities should not be allowed to engage in political debate unless their funding sources, salaries and other pertinent information is fully and completely disclosed.

What can YOU do?

Common sense tells us not to panic and cede political control to those who would enlarge government, increase taxes, curtail individual freedoms and enable those who pollute to continue their disgusting ways after paying the appropriate "toll" (purchase emissions credits)  to the politicians and their friends.

Lean more about the subject. Just visit the links included on this page to get a decent background in the phenomenon of global climate change.

Disagree with me and point out the error of my ways. I am willing to play dueling experts and delve further into the known science and formulate questions about what remains unknown.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Globalwarming101 - A Letter of Concern

The relationship between temperature and CO2

An explanation of global warming science