Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 02:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: letters@thenation.com
Subject: Cockburn's rants

To the editors:

I am sure you'll receive lots of letters pointing out the numerous factual
errors and misleading statements in Alexanders Cockburn's latest rant [The
Greenhousers Strike Back, and Strike Out, Nation June 11, 2007, p 9].

My missive is therefore not addressed to Cockburn, but to the editors of The
Nation, regarding your columnists. Is it true that they have absolutely
unlimited license to say whatever they want - and keep their jobs forever?
Do you reserve any editorial judgment whatever to reject a column, or a
columnist, whose writings on science are categorically contradicted by
numerous publications* of the National Academy of Sciences?  Do you ever
decide that the pages of The Nation are a limited resource, and the
columnists you publish shouldn't be filling them with claptrap?

Assuming, as it appears, that editors answers are yes, no, and no, kindly
inform us beleaguered readers about what role you do intend to play. There
were indeed no typographical errors in Cockburn's column, but nowadays
spell-check programs pretty much have that base covered.

Mitch Golden

---------------

* Since Cockburn isn't persuaded by the IPCC, let's try this:

The National Academy of Sciences has published numerous reports for decades
on the subject of climate and human influences on it.  The first one to make
a claim that greenhouse warming was likely was way back to 1979:

Charney et al, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, A Scientific Assessment. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1979.
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

Over the years, the science has gotten better and the conclusions stronger,
and the National Academies have published lots of reports on every facet of
climate change.  At no time, by the way, has any of the various eminent
panels of scientists found reason to criticize the IPCC.

Here is a searchable page with 15 reports on the subject:

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

I think the first sentence from a 2003 report should be adequate to
summarize their point of view:

"The consensus view of scientists is that human activities are changing
Earth's climate and that this could have very important consequences for
human life and natural ecosystems."

From "Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks", National Academies Press,
2003, p 15.  http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10850&page=15