Here is the essence of an email discussion I had with a gentleman who was urging me to reconsider my position on global warming. The discussion was respectful, and should be helpful in showing some of the differences of opinion that are out there, including some of the misunderstandings that have developed. In the interest of preserving his privacy, I have removed his name and paraphrased his comments. For clarity, I have also edited my final response for this page.

First Email:

I do not agree with what you wrote concerning global warming and carbon dioxide emissions. The burning of fossil fuels has thrown the carbon cycle completely out of whack. Stop opposing things simply because you don't like the results, or because large contributions to Republican Party come from large energy companies. Check out the Union of Concerned Scientists and their website. Understand why cap and trade legislation is a good start to curing the problem we face. Americans should do their part in preserving our planet.

(he then printed what is apparently a quote, so I print it in its entirety)

"A new peer-reviewed study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 'Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy,' shows that combining energy and transportation policies with a strong cap on emissions--set at 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030--would save the average U.S. household $900 on electricity, heating, and transportation costs in 2030. Businesses would benefit from collective net energy savings of $130 billion in that same year. Every region of the nation would see significant savings under such a comprehensive approach."

My Response:

Dear Mr. ___,

Thank you for your letter.

For clarification, my position on anthropogenic CO2 is not because of any special interest group. It is borne out of studying the merits of the arguments.

Kevin Lundberg

His Answer:

The facts all support anthropogenic warming, similar to the evolution/creationism debate, or the discussions about tobacco. Companies find their own "experts" to dispute the science, then use enough resources to make people think there is another side to the discussion. Because they think it will be better for their businesses, big energy and Chambers of Commerce are trying this with global warming. But they should realize that the issue is too important and they are doing great harm. Listen to the real experts. Don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or Sen. Inhofe of OK. They, and the limited number of scientists bought off by Big Energy have no merit. Evolution is a fact, and tobacco is not good for your health, and man is causing global climate change.

My Response:

I will not take much of our time here, but I have been studying this for several years because the stakes are so high. Your blaming any skepticism on popular radio hosts or big energy companies tells me you have not seriously looked at the arguments. I have and I am more convinced than ever that the planetary effects of anthropogenic CO2 is misunderstood and over rated.

His Response:

As a biologist, I have taught students for over 30 years how anthropogenic CO2 affects the carbon cycle, and other related cycles. I am in agreement with the majority of atmospheric scientists. We know that global warming is not a natural event, it is because of man made changes to these cycles. Republicans appear to only do what is good for business, but this is bigger than business. As is discussed in the current Scientific American, fossil fuel industries are destroying our environment, our health and our climate. They make us dependent on foreign suppliers and prevent us from making our country cleaner. We must work together and not stand in the way of this progress. Big health-care corporations have bought off members of the U.S. House and Senate to stand in the way of health-care reform. The same thing is happening with the global warming issue.

My Final Response:

(his first name),

I do not base my opinions on who thinks what, but, to the best of my ability, on what the facts say. In the case of determining if global warming is occurring, and if so, what is causing it, it is not a biological, political, or an economic question, it is a meteorological question. For answering this question I have considered the long-term history of climate cycles, the current degree of accuracy for climate modeling, the records of global temperature changes in the recent past (the past 80 years), and the correlations of climate changes to influences completely out of our control (sunspots, volcanic activity, etc.). In addition there is the evidence that continues to accumulate that, while in the last decade CO2 has continued to increase (by a fraction of one percent of the atmosphere), the global temperatures for this climate cycle peaked eleven years ago and, if anything, those temperatures are now dropping.

These are the primary facts I have used to reach my conclusions relative to the anthropomorphic global warming debate. Only after this methodology has been applied to this discussion do I consider it appropriate to examine the ramifications this issue has on other disciplines, such as biology, economics, and politics.

I am fairly certain that we will only agree to disagree on the interpretation of the particulars I mentioned above, but you would do your scientific training an injustice if you attribute my opinions to the influence of a a talk show host or the energy industry.

-Kevin