Bill's Comments

I have been a member of the National Geographic Society for 53 years. I have been quite proud of this membership and maintained it when there were things the money could have as well gone for. So it is a very sad day that I am writing the following letter.

John M. Fahey, Jr., President
National Geographic Society
National Geographic Society
1145 17th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-4688

Dear Mr. Fahey,

It is with great regret that I am writing to inform you that after fifty-three years, I will no longer continue my membership in the National Geographic Society. During my membership, I have been proud to be part of the work that Jane Goodall and Jacques Cousteau did. I have enjoyed the many articles on the world around me. There have been numerous well-written articles in various areas of science. Your cartographic division is beyond any comparison. However, in February, 2004, the magazine published an article on “Missing Carbon.” It was prefaced with an editorial that apologized for printing an article that was scientifically oriented. The article, rather than discussing in a reasonable way the issues of unaccounted-for carbon in the carbon cycle, became a screed on global warming. In response, I wrote the following letter:

“In over fifty years of membership, this was the first time I was ashamed of an article. Your editorial lead should have apologized not for publishing a science article but one of such poor quality. Instead of simply educating us on the complexity of the carbon cycle, you published yet another advocacy piece saying that increasing carbon dioxide equals global warming. I have followed this issue for years, and much of the global warming theory is under strong, and reputable challenge. Within the last year there have been published challenges to the hockey stick curve and even to the idea that increasing carbon dioxide causes global warming--it may be the other way around. Methane is many times more potent a green-house gas than carbon dioxide, and it was only mentioned in passing and then ignored. Water vapor is also a green-house gas and it is in far greater concentration than carbon dioxide, and it was not even mentioned. To ignore these things is to oversimplify the global warming issue to an untruth. In addition, Mr. Appehnzeller can be validly accused of "cherry picking" his examples to support his cause. Global warming could fill an entire issue, if presented in its full political, scientific and geographic complexity. It should not have been presented under the guise of an article on the carbon cycle, and in such an unbalanced manner.”

The June, 2004, issue published a sample of the letters in response to the article. None of them expressed the issue of the quality, or lack thereof, of the science surrounding global warming. The conclusion I come to is that I am now supporting an organization that is more politically than scientifically or educationally motivated. You may continue programs in education and exploration, but the results of the research and the content of the educational programs will increasingly become ideological rather than impartial.

I will have no part in this.

Sincerely yours,


So once more ideology destroys a great institution.