IN ITS MAY 21 editorial "Warming trend," The Free Lance-Star contended that global warming is not a problem. It quoted Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Scientists, that "there has been no significant atmospheric temperature change over the last two or three decades." The editorial also charged that network TV is focusing on environmental issues as a way of criticizing President Bush.

Dr. Seitz is a respected physicist but is not a climatologist. In a Wall Street Journal story he accused senior climate scientists of "corrupt[ing] the peer-review process" and accused one scientist of altering a major climate report without authorization.

In response, leading climate scientists stated that not only did Seitz fail to attend any of the group's scientific meetings, he also neglected to contact anyone associated with the report to verify there were unauthorized changes made.

Unfortunately, Seitz's unfounded and repudiated charges (made in 1996) are still being repeated today. Why? Misguided (to be charitable) energy companies are spending millions of dollars on an information campaign to directly influence media outlets.

An example of this is the supposed support of thousands of scientists (referenced in the editorial) for Seitz's position. Reportedly, a "petition" was sent to virtually every scientist in the United States--and there are about 10 million people with science degrees in the United States.

Accompanying the petition was an article that appeared to have been published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This "article" stated that the release of more carbon dioxide would "help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people."

As it appeared to be a legitimate article, not surprisingly a few thousand scientists (again, not climate scientists) signed the "petition." The "article" was neither peer-reviewed nor published by the academy. The whole exercise was revealed by news organizations to have little, if any, validity.

It's worth noting that climate scientists have the training to interpret relevant data. Data is gathered from
a variety of sources including ships, buoys, satellites, balloons, and aircraft; and from a wide number of locations over a period of years. These extensive findings are analyzed and peer-reviewed by hundreds of qualified
scientists.