>IN THE PRESS: Climate Change Naysayers Hit the Press
>There's an old lawyers proverb that goes: "If the laws are
>against you, pound the facts; if the facts are against you,
>pound the law; when both are against you, pound the table."
>Well the most recent twist of the adage might read: "If the
>science is against you, pound the scientists."
>Beginning with articles in trade journals and sprouting into
>articles and op-ed pieces in the national press, news pieces
>by and about climate change naysayers may be coming to your
>local paper. Below are two examples.
>The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Frederick
>Seitz, PhD., chairman and co-founder of the right wing
>George C. Marshall Institute, entitled "A Major Deception on
>Global Warming." In it Dr. Seitz accuses the drafters of a
>crucial chapter in one of the three reports produced this
>year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of
>"corrupting the peer-review process." Dr. Seitz's factually
>incorrect piece was strongly refuted by scientists who
>participated in the IPCC process. It inaccurately describes
>the peer-review process agreed upon by the IPCC and attacks
>by name lead scientists involved in the process with little
>or no evidence of wrong doing.
>Dr. Seitz is neither an atmospheric scientist nor a
>participant in the IPCC's. Though he claims neither he nor
>his organization accepts industry funding, Dr. Seitz'
>diatribe bears a striking resemblance to statements made by
>the industry front group Global Climate Coalition. As one
>climatologists pointed out: "They can't attack the science,
>so they attack the scientists."
>In the New York Times, Science Times section was an article
>about the climate change doubter Richard S. Lindzen, PhD.
>The article traced Dr. Lindzen's career and explained the
>basis of his diversion from the greater part of scientific
>opinion on climate change. Essentially, Dr. Lindzen
>believes that the Earth's climatic system can respond to the
>expected exponential increase rise in CO2 in the atmosphere
>in the coming decades in a mild non-threatening manner. He
>argues against taking preventative steps at this time. The
>vast majority of Dr. Lindzen's colleagues believe that life
>on Earth is too precious for us to wait to find out if the
>climate can respond safely or not. While Dr. Lindzen's
>stance on the issue of global climate change is met with
>bewilderment by his more mainstream colleagues. Nobel
>Laureate Sherwood Rowland criticized his view by pointing
>out that while doubters like Dr. Lindzen agree that
>naturally occurring greenhouse gases make the Earth 60
>degrees warmer than it would be without them, they fail to
>explain why they do not agree that an increase in these
>gases would likely result in further warming of the Earth.
>Of Dr. Lindzen's avowed certainty, Dr. Stephen Schneider of
>Stanford University says, "I do not know what line from God
>We expect more press pieces from and about climate change
>naysayers in the main stream press. Since the vast majority
>of the world's scientists already agree that climate change
>is a dangerous predicament that human beings can and should
>avoid, naysayers, with the support of those industries which
>stand to benefit from inaction, are reaching beyond the
>scientific community to use the press to sway public policy.
>Respond to global warming science naysayers! If you would
>like to responded to an article you see in your local paper
>we can help! Fax, mail or email the article to us and we
>can help you write up a letter to the editor to use as a
>response. Contact Ellen McBarnette in the DC office at