The Global Warming Orthodoxy on Attack: Covering up the Absence of Scientific Consensus
by S. Fred Singer
Published in the Washington Times, October 4, 1999

Global warming has become an article of faith for many, with its own theology and orthodoxy. It even has its own "bible," Al Gore's confession of faith "Earth in the Balance." Its believers are quite fearful of any scientific dissent that threatens their deeply held beliefs. They therefore lash out at anything that even suggests lack of a scientific consensus about a cataclysmic climate change. "The end is near," they tell us, brought on by human folly, like driving cars and other such sinful behavior.

Non-believers of global-warming catastrophes are severely chastised. Academic scientists have had their research funds cut off for expressing skepticism. Government scientists have been ostracized or forced to resign; some have even been fired. Others have been harassed, demonized and libeled. The number of such cases is on the upswing.

One recent example is the visceral reaction to an op-ed by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, printed last November in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune. Coming in the midst of the Buenos Aires climate negotiations, Jacoby highlighted the lack of a consensus on the science underlying the Climate Treaty. He mentioned names of distinguished scientific skeptics and the fact that some 100 climate experts supported the so-called "Leipzig Declaration" and more than 17,000 scientists were signers of the "Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol."

Only one week later, there appeared a fierce response in the November 14 issue of the IHT, signed by ecologist George Woodwell and energy policy analyst John Holdren (whom Woodwell had co-opted as a signer). It included ill-tempered and slanderous attacks on scientists who signed the Declaration and Petition, and personal attacks on its sponsors, as well as on Jeff Jacoby for bringing the widespread scientific skepticism to public attention.

This op-ed, though signed by Woodwell and Holdren, was submitted to the IHT by Ozone Action, a Washington-based organization with a long record of attacking scientists and others who dare to question the accepted wisdom. A well-financed attack dog, Ozone Action manages to avoid libel suits by quoting other sources that dredge up half-truths and outright lies.

Brill's Content, a new journalistic venture concerned about media ethics, became involved in the matter by publishing and endorsing a letter to the editor, which mentioned that Ozone Action had submitted the IHT op-ed and perhaps even drafted it. Nothing wrong with that, Brill's added, except that the IHT should have made readers aware of it.

Now the fun begins. Angry complaints to Brill's from IHT's executive editor, who claims to know that Ozone Action did not draft the op-ed. Brill's ombudsman now swings into action. He is Bill Kovach, a well-regarded journalist and currently curator of Harvard's Niemann Foundation. The May 1999 issue of Brill's Content carries his two-page investigative report for all to read.

He confirms that the IHT ran the piece without mentioning that it was submitted by Ozone Action. He also quotes Woodwell as explaining, "We used Ozone Action to distribute the article because that is what they do, among other things."

We next learn that both Woodwell and Holdren "assured [Kovach] that they had jointly written the letter [sic] that appeared in the Tribune" and that Ozone Action admitted that it "helped Woodwell with research for the op-ed." [Emphasis added]

This flurry of words and explanations still leaves open the question of who drafted the op-ed - or perhaps, how much of it came from Ozone Action and how much came from the signers. A fine point perhaps, but the meaning of words can be important. If Ozone Action's "research" consisted of several well-chosen paragraphs, did this constitute a "draft"? If Woodwell/Holdren signed such a draft, making only minor changes, did they "write" the op-ed? These are obvious questions that any journalistic rookie would have pursued.

We do have an amazing list of eight (!) separate correspondences between the material, and even the language, of the Nov. 14 op-ed and a (Nov.12) Ozone Action propaganda flyer against the Leipzig Declaration. Just one example: Both claim in identical words that the Leipzig Declaration "dissolves under scrutiny." All of these correspondences had been communicated to ombudsman Bill Kovach, who dismissed them as "coincidences" and not "evidence." Circumstantial evidence, we agree; we don't have a copy of the actual material that Ozone Action sent to Woodwell and received back -- nor are we likely to get it from them.

Perhaps Brill's should stop apologizing and ask its ombudsman to get a copy of the "research" material that was put together by Ozone Action. He might also try to find out just why the IHT was so sure that the two signers had actually drafted the op-ed. We might then learn about the lengths that Ozone Action and its tame scientists go to in order to discredit scientific dissenters, and the contributory role played by the media.

An even crasser example is the long series of articles on global warming produced by reporter Bette Hileman in the widely read technical journal Chemical and Engineering News. The August 9 issue carries a particularly egregious piece, based on selective use of data and interviews with selected scientists. No balance was strived for, just advocacy. The fact that this kind of journalism" is not just tolerated but actively supported by the editor of C&EN makes it even worse. Before more senior members resign in disgust, the American Chemical Society, which publishes the journal, should exercise some adult supervision over its editorial policies.

If Green ideology is allowed to triumph over scientific truth, then the media, and the rest of us, are in real trouble.

S. Fred Singer, PhD
The Science & Environmental Policy Project
1600 South Eads Street, Suite #712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907
Tel/Fax 703-920-2744
Email: singer@sepp.org, WWW: http://www.sepp.org

[The Science & Environmental Policy Project was a sponsor of the Leipzig Declaration, which developed out of a scientific conference held there in Nov. 1995. SEPP chairman Dr. Frederick Seitz was a sponsor of the Oregon Petition in 1998.]