You know that "Global Warming" (warming of the earth caused primarily by mankind's emission of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels) is one of my pet peeves. The evidence shows we have warmed-about 0.7 degrees C the last century. This is significant, but not cause for alarm. In the past, long before humans were burning large amounts of fossil fuels, there were even more dramatic rises in temperature. The main point I want to get across is that just because the earth has warmed, doesn't mean humans were the primary cause of that warming. Don't be duped. Melting ice caps, milder winters and polar bears swimming in open water are not evidence of human-induced global warming.
For me, this issue has gone beyond a background irritation. There is legislation before the U.S. Congress that would fight "climate change (the term used to cover any effect that doesn't appear to be due to warming)" that would impose a "cap and trade" scheme on industries and businesses that emit carbon dioxide (CO2). This means virtually every business and industry would have to participate-they all use energy and most energy in this country is carbon-based. Businesses would have to buy these credits for the right to emit CO2. Guess who will pay for it? Me and you-the consumer, and that's why this has gone beyond annoyance for me.
I have written Congressman Bart Stupak about my concerns on this proposed legislation:
I would like to commend you on your efforts to protect Lake Superior. You are a champion of one of the nation's most precious resources. That being said, I urge you to reject a bill that's being touted as a piece of legislation that will help protect our environment for future generations--the Waxman-Markey Energy and Climate Bill.
For years as a broadcast meteorologist, I kept silent about the issue of "global warming." Declaring skepticism labeled you (and still does) as an anti-environmentalist. After former VP Gore's movie hit the big screen, I could remain silent no more. "An Inconvenient Truth" was filled with so many gross distortions and outright scientific misrepresentations; I felt it was my obligation to speak out.
My school presentations now center on global warming and climate change. In them, I first state a fact--that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but a life-giving, naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. I then show how small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 really is compared to ocean out-gassing, etc. On the theme of small contribution, I then explain how water vapor is by far (>95%) the most dominant greenhouse gas. The bottom line is that the burning of fossil fuels contributes around 4% to a gas that is just 3% of the total volume of greenhouse gases.
I also show how the modest warming we've experienced over the past century is NOT alarming or out of the ordinary and how the cycles of warming and cooling oceans (which are relatively recent discoveries) correlate quite well with the ups and downs of global temperature over the last century. Another element I focus on is the sun. The IPCC report states that solar fluctuations in the climate system are not as important as rising levels of the trace gas CO2. The graphs and charts I show, prepared by eminent meteorologists and astrophysicists, call that assertion into question.
The fact is these natural fluctuations are all pointing toward global cooling over the next few decades. The Pacific Ocean has entered its cool phase (and global temperatures have leveled off and even declined some), while the Atlantic is beginning to cool after reaching its warm-cycle peak around 2005. The sun is in a deep slumber that has confounded most astronomers. These big atmospheric players are all pointing toward sustained cooling despite rising CO2 levels.
CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not a problem. The problem is rent-seeking corporations looking to cash in on cap and trade and low-output, high-cost alternative energy. As your Michigan House colleague Congressman Dingell says "cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one." This is not the time to raise energy prices, which is what this bill will surely do. I believe the majority of your constituents will suffer adversely if this legislation is passed.
There are serious environmental problems that we can do something about. From what I understand, there are hundreds of Super Fund toxic dumps that are not being cleaned up. These dumps represent a real threat to human well-being. Carbon Dioxide is an environmental "boogey man."
Please do the right thing and vote "no" on this bill.
Chief Meteorologist, WLUC-TV
Click source link to read further letter and reply to Congressman Stupak with supporting links and charts