Sunday, January 3rd 2010, 2:15 AM EST

Dear Mr. Baum:Your editorial on "Climategate " concludes: "What more is there to say?". The simple answer is "lots more", and here it is.The last time C & E News made as big a fool of itself as it has recently with your editorials supporting the theory of human-caused global warming, was when it took seriously the claims that cold fusion had been achieved in an electrochemical cell. Every knowledgeable physicist knew that those claims were absurd, and in a short period of time, scientists all over the world showed that the electrochemists who made those claims had gotten their energy balances wrong. Out of ignorance and chauvinism, C & E News managed to morph an honest error of judgment by the electrochemists into a political turf battle between chemists and physicists. You are making the same mistake now in your totally misinformed and ignorant position supporting the theory that human emission of CO2 is causing global warming in the face of the overwhelming amount of data that proves that the theory is false. Attached are copies of my articles that summarize the available data. One of the articles also analyzes the motivations of the several groups that support the theory.So let me ask you a simple question: when was the last time you analyzed a weather map and prepared a useful weather forecast based on that analysis? Or, when was the last time you analyzed the climatological evidence for the world-wide existence of the Medieval Warm Period that the IPCC wiped out of existence on the basis of a phony computer program and a biased selection of data that gave them the infamous and fraudulent "hockey stick" temperature curve that we now know "hid the decline" as revealed by the "climategate" e-mails? Any objective scientist comparing his tree ring results that showed a declining temperature in the most recent decades with direct measurements that showed an increasing temperature over the same period, would have questioned the validity of the tree ring results. Instead, he and the other "climategaters", conspired to "hide the decline". After reading your recent editorials on the subject, it is clear that you are completely unqualified in meteorology, climatology, or in scientific judgment, to have a credible opinion on the issue of human caused global warming/climate change, and that you owe it to your readers to honestly admit that.There is a simple way to tell the difference between a scientist and a propagandist. If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might actually contradict his theory so that he can test its validity or modify it as necessary. The propagandist, on the other hand, carefully selects only that data that might agree with his theory and dutifully ignores any data that disagrees with it. Regretfully, I conclude that you are in the camp of the propagandists, and as such, your editorials on the subject are a disservice to the American Chemical Society.Your argument based on the authority of "The national science academies of every major developed and developing country" are worthless in the face of the data. Need I remind you that until his dying day, Joseph Priestley himself, and all the major science authorities of his day, were firm believers in the "phlogiston" theory of combustion. It took only a few of Lavoisier's careful experiments to prove that the theory held by all the science authorities of his day, was false (and look what happened to Lavoisier!).Your complete refusal to recognize the appalling lack of scientific integrity displayed by those involved in the "climategate" scandal clearly shows your own lack of scientific integrity on this issue.The simple 1909 experiment of Wood showed clearly that the so-called "greenhouse effect" was devoid of physical reality. Most of the earth's infrared radiation passes through the atmosphere and is lost to the void of free space whose temperature is near absolute zero. What little is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is reradiated to that same void. The notion that the colder atmosphere aloft can reradiate that energy to heat the warmer regions of the earth below via the "greenhouse effect", is a direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.So what is it about the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics that you do not understand?Sincerely,Dr. Martin HertzbergP. O. Box 3012Copper Mountain, CO 80443Dr Hertzberg has a Ph D in Physical Chemistry from Stanford, earned his B A degree, cum laude, from the Heights Campus of New York University, and was trained as a meteorologist at the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School. His honors include membership in Phi Beta Kappa, a Meritorious Service Award, a Foreign Visiting Scholar at CNRS in Orleans, France, and a Fulbright Professorship. He has traveled extensively in France, England, China, Israel, Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, and Mexico; is fluent in French and understands German.