Theory On Thin Ice
Environment: Global warming alarmists have made a big deal out of North Pole ice melting and polar bears suffering due to climate change. Before they mouth off again, they should look at a new NASA study.
From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.
But listening to the ecozealots and Al Gore acolytes, one would think the North Pole was melting because too many conservatives drive too many SUVs and don't have enough social responsibility to tame their wicked fossil-fuel burning ways.
This isn't the first time that real science has exposed hyperbole concerning melting ice at the North Pole. In August 2000, the New York Times ran an apocalyptic story that said the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years.
"It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer,"writes environmental scientist Pat Michaels.
"Further, it's common knowledge in the scientific community that there has been no net change in Arctic temperatures in the last 70 years."
Apparently unwilling to learn its lesson, the Times published a fretful story Oct. 2 about Arctic ice loss. Good for shipping across the pole, and fishing and oil exploration in the region. But not so good, the article said, for polar bears that could be in for a "particularly harsh jolt."
The alarmists like to scare the public with harrowing stories of bears drowning when they get trapped on melting ice and can't swim the long distances needed to reach safety. The specter of their extinction has been raised.
So how to explain the increase in the polar bear population from 5,000 in 1950 to 25,000 today, as documented by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? The alarmists are noticeably quiet. Could it be that the facts don't fit with their campaign of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies?