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