LETTERS: POLITICAL AGENDA IS TROUBLESOME

To the editor:

In the debate over global warming, there are two levels of opinion in the clique of deniers: the shallow level acknowledges global warming but denies that human activity may be responsible for it.

At a deeper and more troublesome level we find those who have a political agenda that forces them to deny even that global warming is occurring. Here, not surprisingly, we find Peter Kinder (Nov. 30), who manages to drag out yet again the same retired professor, Fred Singer, to support his argument that there is a "growing number of scientists" calling "global warming a hoax." How many times is the same individual going to be counted on this list? The quotes from Singer that Kinder offers us support less a political agenda among the rest of the scientific community than they reveal that Singer himself bases his minority scientific interpretation on his own political agenda.

On this issue, certainly we are not foolish enough to trust the expertise of a lawyer with a well-documented history of unsubstantiated opinions derived solely from the requirements of his political position. Rather, we should note that, following the studies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Climate Change, even many of the major oil companies and oil-producing nations have acknowledged the existence of a global warming problem -- and these folks have more to gain from continued denial even than Senator Kinder. This leaves Kinder and the small band of opponents in dismal isolation. We are fortunate for this. It is ironic, however, that the same folks who demand more research when the available data don't suit them will simply deny all the data when these pile up to confirm the unwanted interpretation. Those for whom political premises and opinions are more important than the evidence will frequently find themselves forced simply to deny the evidence. In response to Kinder's argument that satellite data show a cooling trend, I would ask: Didn't we just hear that 1997 was the warmest year on record, and shortly before that didn't we have the warmest five year period on record? Furthermore, had Kinder been reading the scientific literature in the 1970s, he would have read the first warnings about the possibility that human activities might induce global warming. It has taken the scientific community, itself inherently cautious, some 20 to 25 years to be convinced by the evidence. Now, most of the world has moved beyond the question of "if" with global warming to the question "can we do something to reduce the problem?" Even some of the letters that Kinder seems to think support his minority view also acknowledge the existence of a warming pattern. They merely question the human impact on this.

Maybe Kinder should read page 4A of his paper, where he will find a news item dealing with the international conference on global warming. Here we find the current scientific opinion summed up briefly as follows: "The underlying principle of climate change is undisputed." It remains unclear why the discussion of international agreements on this issue seems to constitute to Senator Kinder a loss of sovereignty or a national threat when international trade agreements do not.

Congratulations are in order to the Missourian, however, for printing an AP article that accurately, though briefly, reports currently held scientific views on the issue. It's a shame your own columnist hadn't read it.

Rather than resorting to his favorite debate technique of simply vilifying, this time as cowards and indoctrinators, scientists from colleges, universities and government agencies who have different opinions than his based on their interpretation of the evidence, if the senator genuinely wants a balanced debate of the evidence and issues, he could serve Southeast Missouri better by using his influence at the newspaper to obtain a serious and extensive discussion of the issues. The Southeast Missourian could easily offer us, on the one hand, the evidence and judgments of the scientific community and, on the other, those of his lonely voice in the wilderness, Fred Singer. Since he has the means to provide the debate he claims to want, the ball is most definitely in his court.

FRANK DIETIKER JR.

Cape Girardeau