As any trial lawyer will attest, when push comes to shove in the courtroom, it is not truth and reality that carry the day. It is instead perceived reality that determines the future life and fortunes of his client. It is this fact that has made so many principled citizens - people to whom truth and justice matter - into cynics regarding the law. It is not truth, but instead what the judge or jury perceives to be the truth that determines the outcome. Moreover, to far too great an extent, our courts have become mired in procedures that make truth difficult to determine and justice unaffordable to many people.

The court room is, however, a Sunday school picnic when compared to politics. Each day brings word of further atrocities. (Today, for example, we were treated to word that Bob Dole is now soliciting money from companies that compete with Microsoft in exchange for his help in influencing the Clinton Administration to expand their so-called "antitrust'' attack on Microsoft - an attack that has been bought and paid for by political contributions to the Clinton Administration from other Microsoft competitors. (See The Wall Street Journal, December 23, p A16 and Conservative Chronicle, December 24, p 16.) The same Conservative Chronicle carries on page 14 an editorial by William F. Buckley praising the Kyoto global warming treaty and implying that it will be good for the nuclear power industry. My dilemma - a friend gave me a book by Buckley as a Christmas present. Do I read this book, or recycle it as carbon dioxide?

It is in the world of perceived reality that the global warming contest will be decided - a world in which honest scientists are very poorly equipped to compete. Yet, this contest is the most important scientific issue of the 20th and 21st Centuries. If such a massive scientific fraud with so many terrible consequences for human progress can be politically implemented when overwhelming data, that is understandable by the simplest of logic, exists to disprove it, then virtually any lie can be implemented in the future.

If this treaty passes, not only are a lot of people going to die, but honest science also, in so far as it affects public affairs, will die with them - and the credibility of science will be crippled for generations.

Today, the perceived reality - a reality that very well-financed en-viro, government, and self-interested corporate propagandists are drilling daily into the public mind - is as follows: "A consensus of scientists (2,600 scientists in some incarnations) agrees that human-caused release of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases is causing major heating of the Earth's atmosphere, which will soon lead to global flooding, disastrous disruptions of weather, and catastrophic climate changes. The only scientist opponents of this consensus view are a few unpatriotic 'crazy people' and 'crackpots' and a small number of dishonest scientists who have been paid by greedy capitalists in the oil and coal industries.'' Opponents in the United States Senate who have noticed that the treaty will not cut carbon dioxide emissions - just shift them along with American industry and jobs to countries like China, India, and Mexico that have refused to sign the treaty - are being marginalized as shills for industrial polluters.

The game plan is simple: The treaty is now in place, but needs ratification by the United States Senate. Therefore, the propaganda campaign will continue and accelerate, while public opinion polls measure its progress. When those polls show that a large enough percentage of Americans favors the treaty, the polling figures will be used to roll the Senate. An old maxim is ascendant: "If a lie is preached long enough, the public will believe it.'' The remarkable fact is that there is no scientific consensus at all. Moreover, the 2,600 IPCC "scientists'' did not agree to any document that supports the claims of the global warmers. Further, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the global warming hypothesis is false (see Access to Energy 25-3). This is reality, but it is not perceived reality. Perceived reality is the opposite.

For the enviros, this treaty has it all. Not only is technological progress debilitated by rationing energy, but forest provisions of the treaty are the ultimate spotted owl. Trees, being carbon dioxide absorbers, are sacred resources to be counted positively for a nation's carbon dioxide allotment. The unauthorized cutting of a tree on private property becomes a crime against global weather. Cows, since they emit methane, become a greenhouse warming menace. Each cow will be counted against a nation's carbon dioxide allotment.

Forget spotted owls and claims of logging impact on mountain streams; logging will be damned in any location. Forget claims that grazing is harmful to public lands; the very existence of cows will become an environmental atrocity. Forget claims of national sovereignty; greenhouse gases affect the whole world, so national interests become subservient to the whims of international bureaucrats.

Make no mistake about it. The implementation and subsequent logical evolution of this treaty will kill and debilitate far more people than World Wars I and II combined - and will leave humanity in the political position of having lost both wars.

If this treaty is implemented, history will record all of the other political issues of our day as mere distractions that helped divert principled, decent, and productive people from the primary issue and thereby helped set the stage for their overwhelming defeat.

The backs of the American people are already against the wall -and they do not even realize what is happening to them. Their only hope is that, by some miracle, the currently perceived reality about global warming can be changed to correspond to actual reality. It must become common knowledge that the global warming claim is wearing no scientific clothes - that it is an outright lie.

Yet, this lie is being vigorously promoted by a very large and very well-financed propaganda machine.

The present public debate boils down to the global warmers on their white horses fighting to save the world vs. greedy capitalists and their paid shills willing to destroy the world for profit. We may be certain that the greedy capitalists will lose this debate.

It is imperative that the truth be known. We must convince the American people that these people are not on white horses of truth and benevolence. They are instead on black horses of political power and death. They are riding a monstrous lie into the 21st Century. We must make sure that they ride this lie alone.

Enclosed with this Access to Energy is a copy of "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth'' by Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson, The Wall Street Journal, p A22, December 1997, published during the Kyoto global energy rationing treaty meeting.

We were very fortunate to have this opportunity.

It is instructive to review the way in which this editorial was written. First, for the past several years and as a part of our monthly work on Access to Energy, we have extracted much information about the relevant science from various referenced publications. These publications were written by dedicated scientists in many organizations who have been working to gather and disseminate the truth about this issue.

Then, for our November 1997 issue, we selected 16 figures and other data from previous issues that summarized the global warming facts and arguments and explained them as simply as possible. That November issue was recommended to The Wall Street Journal by an especially prominent man who is a reader of Access to Energy. This led the Journal to ask that we condense these arguments to two figures and 1200 words. Zachary and I, with the help of an outstanding scientist in this field, carried out this condensation and provided the best text of which we were capable. Then professional editors at the Journal enhanced our text and figures, producing a much improved article for publication as the lead editorial feature of December 4th.

The point is that an editorial like this does not just happen. It is not the product of a couple of guys with talented pens. It stands instead upon the shoulders of the work of many remarkable people, and, for December 4th, it made a portion of the truth into world-wide news.

Perhaps it did some damage to our enemies. Appearing as it did at the pivotal point of the Kyoto meeting, we would like to believe that it was a part of the considerations of those more than 100 nations that refused to sign the treaty. We would like to believe that, at least briefly, it rattled Al Gore's cage. Maybe it did neither, but we like to believe.

Another point, however, is that on December 5th it was yesterday's news. Quoted for a few more days by various publications and journalists, it then drifted into the background of words with which the world is inundated. Proudly ensconced in a frame in Zachary's room (and soon to be similarly ensconced in my room as well), it ceased to be a factor in the global warming debate. What do we do for an encore? We cannot state the truth more plainly. How do we convince people to keep reading it?

As regards this editorial itself, we hope that the readers of Access to Energy will decide to perpetuate and extend its effect. It would be helpful if copies of this editorial were to pile up in the offices of Congressmen, Senators, and newspaper editors - in sufficient numbers that they cannot ignore it.

To this end, The Wall Street Journal has given permission for us to send a copy to every reader of Access to Energy and, more importantly, has given permission for every reader of Access to Energy to make all of the copies they wish for further distribution. The Journal requires only that all copies include the copyright and permission notice printed at the bottom of the enclosed copy.

Since the editorial is an odd size and is most readable if it is not reduced, we have printed a large number of extras and will send them without cost to every reader who requests them. Simply send us a note saying how many you wish to distribute. Return postage will be appreciated but is not required.

We do not represent that this is an earthshaking shot at our mutual enemies. It is, however, the best shot that we have managed so far, and we respectfully ask your help in extending its effects.

Sometimes, as we write about the logical effects of the global warming fraud and the obvious motives of its perpetrators, I begin to wonder how this could all be true. A background in science is not well suited to this. Like a civilized man in the street faced with a goblin (we are indebted to Jeff Cooper for the metaphor) who is about to take his life, the reaction is, "No! This cannot really be happening!'' - a deadly reaction that robs him of the chance to save himself.

Read, therefore the words of Jack Kemp in "Global Warming comes to Capitol Hill,'' published December 10 in The Washington Times. Mr. Kemp did not become the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 1996 by taking extreme positions unjustified by events: "As the world's only remaining super power, the United States has a special moral, political and economic obligation to demonstrate decisive international leadership. One area that commands America's immediate, clear-headed leadership is the environment in general and the so-called global warming issue in particular.

"Many of us who believe deeply in a balanced and market-oriented approach to preserving our environment are profoundly concerned that the Clinton administration is abrogating America's leadership responsibility by ceding authority and control over economic policy to the United Nation's conference on global climate change, now taking place in Kyoto, Japan. We should not be misled by the administration's rhetoric that "we will not be pushed around in the negotiations.'' The fact that we are negotiating at all is evidence of a clear misunderstanding of purpose and lack of resolve. The question is no longer whether we will react out of fear and submit ourselves to the control of energy and environmental bureaucrats but only how much and how quickly we will submit to their rationing of hydrocarbons and economic growth.

"Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson succinctly summed up the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. Up to 50 years ago, atmospheric temperatures had been rising from a 300-year low point, probably as a result of the solar magnetic cycle. Then, for about 30 years, there was no significant increase in global temperatures. For the past 20 years, precisely the same 20 years during which carbon dioxide levels have increased the most, the earth has actually cooled. So, which is it? Global warming or global cooling? Scientists cannot even agree.

"As the authors pointed out, 'there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.' But one thing is for sure, increased carbon dioxide emissions have greatly benefited mankind and the environment. The industrial and technological revolutions, which have alleviated poverty and raised living standards world wide, would not have been possible without fossil fuels and their attendant CO2 waste products. And, far from harming the environment, the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels has actually made the planet more hospitable to plant and animal life.

"How can we even contemplate, much less negotiate, energy rationing, new energy taxes and more economic regulation, all directed by some amorphous U.N. bureaucracy, when 1) scientists cannot even agree on whether the climate is warming or cooling; 2) there is persuasive evidence that if the climate is warming, it is unrelated to man's carbon dioxide emissions and unconvincing evidence to the contrary; 3) there is widespread scientific opinion that absent any harmful climatic effects, increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere are beneficial to plants, to animals, and even to the environment; and 4) it is understood that the tax increases, energy rationing and regulations now being negotiated will slow economic growth and retard the increase in living standards all over the world? A recent Heritage Foundation study of the Clinton administration's proposal to hold emissions to 1990 levels found that by 2020, energy prices would rise between 50 and 200 percent; average households would pay $1,620 additional taxes a year (about a 14.5% percent tax hike); and the economy would contract by a total of $3.3 trillion.

"One can only conclude that the U.N. negotiations in which the president has gotten himself ensnared are not necessarily about the environment. Rather, the Kyoto negotiations are the rear-guard effort of latter-day Malthusians and international central planners who want to control the workings of free markets and restrict the actions of free people.

"How else can one explain the extreme position taken by Vice President Gore that global warming results, in part, from too many babies being born? He suggests that third-world countries can help reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by eliminating the births of 2 to 5 billion babies during the next 20 years. Employing the code words of the so-called 'pro-choice' lobby 'the empowerment of women to participate in decisions about childbearing' the vice president implies that strict family planning techniques as well as abortion are acceptable tools of choice to prevent global warming. Frightening. It is clear that the real intent of many participants at the conference is to establish a global regulatory apparatus with real power over the economic and reproductive decisions of everyone in the world. Make no mistake about it, this conference is not so much about the natural environment, about which we all care, but about political and economic power. Who will be in control, free people acting alone and in concert through their democratic institutions or regulators acting at a distance through international bureaucracies?

"There is no need to rush to judgment on the global climate question. There is no scientific consensus that the world is careening toward a man-made global warming crisis. To the contrary, the empirical evidence suggests just the opposite. The only basis for the fear that carbon dioxide levels might induce a global warming crisis comes out of theoretical computer models which cannot even successfully capture the climatic effects of clouds or forecast short-term weather patterns.

"The president is being misled by ecoextremists and neo-Malthusians who claim to have a monopoly on concern for the environment. These same extremists are doing their best to confuse and manipulate the American people as well. Therefore, I do not criticize the president lightly, nor do I find fault with the 65 percent of those Americans recently polled by the New York Times who said the United States should take steps now to cut its own carbon dioxide emissions. But I feel I must speak out when I perceive that the Clinton administration is making fundamental mistakes and itself misleading the public in a way that will harm mankind . . . . ''

Mr. Kemp then goes on to express confidence that the House of Representatives and Senate will do the right thing and stop this rush to error. This is wishful thinking. Notice that the percentage is 65% and rising. How large a percentage will the Congress resist?

Public understanding of the truth about global warming has been made considerably more difficult by the publication of graphs showing temperatures rising rapidly over the past decade along with statements that we are now enduring the hottest years and most extreme weather patterns on record. (Actually, the United States National Climate Data Center lists 1996 as the 47th coolest year since 1880.) Weather fluctuates, of course, so one can always point to a local extreme somewhere. Graphs of rising global temperature are, however, more convincing. Why is it that the temperature curves shown, for example, in Access to Energy 25-03 are not making new highs of temperature, while those shown by the global warmers display ever greater temperatures?

One difference is that Access to Energy has shown primarily graphs of temperatures in the lower troposphere as measured by weather balloons and satellites. These records are in excellent agreement; can be very accurately measured; and are a fair test of the global warming hypothesis, which actually predicts higher tropospheric temperature increases than surface temperature increases.

Global surface temperature trends are difficult to determine because many factors of local climate complicate the records. Also, human influences having nothing to do with global warming affect the surface records. These complications, however, make surface records ideal for the global warmers, who can make their graphs go up as steeply as they like by appropriate selections of data.

Figures 1 and 2 are cited in the new book Hot Talk - Cold Science by S. Fred Singer. They are taken from Christy, J. R. and Goodridge, J. D. (1995) Atmospheric Environment 29, 1957-61 and Goodridge, J. D. (1996) Bulletin of the American Meteorlogical Society 77, 3-4. These figures illustrate the urban heat island effect at 120 temperature measuring stations in California.

The top graph in figure 1 is an average of stations in counties with current populations over 1 million. The middle graph is for counties with populations between 1 million and 100,000. The bottom graph is for counties with populations under 100,000. Notice that the trends for the 20th century in figure 1 depend upon how many people live near the thermometers - people who produce heat by their activities.

In figure 2, the trends for all 120 stations are shown separately and in order of increasing trend. The lowest 22 measuring stations actually show negative trends (even though overall California temperatures since 1909 have increased). The six arrows designate the six measuring stations in California selected for inclusion in national and global averages by the NASA GISS, which is funded by the U. S. government. This is the same group that brought word about the mythical ozone hole opening over President Bush's home in Maine and thereby speeded up the ban of CFCs.

The NASA GISS graph is widely circulated by global warmers. While it is clear that selection of stations in California is not a trivial matter, a ten-year-old child can see that the chosen six points will give an artificial and inappropriately high California contribution to the trend - and be highly satisfactory to the Clinton-Gore Administration, which funds NASA GISS. If the politically correct path to the taxpayers' pocket books were global cooling, NASA GISS would doubtless show a greater interest in the cooler trends on this graph.

It has been reported that environmentalist publicists planned a dramatic display for the global warming meeting in Kyoto, Japan.. They set up two large sculptured ice penguins - which were expected to gradually melt during the progress of the days of meetings. Unfortunately, the weather turned cold and snowed, so the penguins ungraciously refused to melt.

The global warmers have effectively spread the falsehood that a consensus of scientists agrees that global warming is a fact and menace. The nations of the world, however, continue to act in accordance with their own economic self-interests.

When the dust settled in Kyoto, 39 nations with a total population of 1.136 billion had agreed to limits on their carbon dioxide production, while 152 nations with a total population of 4.614 billion had not agreed to such limits.. Therefore, only 20.4% of the world's nations with 19.8% of the world's population have agreed to the limits.

Notice the nature of the debate. The enviros are the strongest proponents of the treaty, since they want to stop and roll back economic and technological progress. Europeans are the next strongest promoters of the treaty, since their economies are mired in socialism and not making much progress anyway. (Europeans would benefit temporarily from the controls which would preferentially hurt their competitors - who are racing forward with higher productivity and, therefore, higher energy needs.) Americans are, at best, neutral to the treaty, but are being dragged in by socialists and socialist propaganda. The developing world - which is engaged in the great undertaking of lifting 4 billion people from poverty and providing them with the benefits of the technological revolution - will not agree to CO 2 limits at all, except in so far as they are imposed only on their competitors and thereby provide themselves with an economic advantage.

Support for the treaty is inversely proportional to interest in increasing productivity. The governments of rapidly developing peoples need more hydrocarbons. The governments of nations that are stagnating prefer to limit hydrocarbons, so that the distance between themselves and the increasingly productive will not widen so rapidly. Americans are in the middle. If the Senate agrees to this treaty, however, they will join the ranks of the less productive.

Reading Scientific American is distressing for one who remembers the remarkably good and politically unbiased issues published decades ago, but how could we pass up the March 1997 issue on the dangers of sea level rise due to global warming - with its lavish cover giving the readers a perspective view from entirely under water?

The table of contents sets the stage with the inclusion of a small map showing most of Florida covered by the Atlantic Ocean. This map is reproduced in larger format in the article, which begins with a disaster story about 1953 floods in Holland during severe storms. So, after gurgling past the cover, reliving the Dutch floods, and saying good-by twice to Florida, the reader enters the world of "science'' where, too late, he learns a little about sea level changes.

Our favorite part was the numerical estimate of sea level rise of 60 centimeters - about two feet. When asked about this potential calamity, a Dutch official estimated that adjusting the dikes to allow for this rise would cost about the same amount of money that Holland now spends for the maintenance of bicycle paths.

We recently participated in a debate with a global warmer on a call-in talk radio show in New York. During the show, the warmer, who billed himself as a "physicist,'' warned a caller who lived 100 feet above sea level in Florida that he would be flooded by global warming.

For over 24 years, Access to Energy has been proudly printed on unrecycled paper. We now have a very serious problem. With only a three month supply remaining, we have been unable to find unrecycled pink paper anywhere in the United States.

Please help! If you can find a source for unrecycled pink paper, let us know immediately. We do not want to participate in this interactive propaganda, and besides, the recycled stuff is disgustingly limp as a result of the shorter lengths of wood fiber it contains.

• "Welcome to Section 4507'' in The Wall Street Journal of January 5, 1998, p A22, reports that Section 4507 of the new Medicare law makes it illegal for an American doctor to accept payment for services from any American over the age of 65 unless the doctor has signed an affidavit that he will see no Medicare patients for two years. Only 4% of American physicians do not see Medicare patients.
  
  This effectively makes it illegal for most Americans over the age of 65 to receive any medical care at all except for that which the government decides to give them.
  
  
• "Auto Makers, New York Collide on Electric Cars'' by Rebecca Blumenstein in The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 1997, p B1 reports that auto makers are required by law to sell 8,000 electric cars in New York during this model year or else to cease doing business in that state. So far, they have managed to sell only 300 such cars in Cali-fornia and Arizona despite already having reduced prices by 20%.
  
  These cars barely perform in warm climates. In New York, they will be virtually useless. The solution may be for auto makers to give electric cars away and then add their cost to the prices for ordinary cars. Thus, this law becomes another tax on the citizens of New York.

• Hot Talk - Cold Science (1997) by S. Fred Singer, published by The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428. This book is an excellent source of ammunition about global warming.
  
  
• A Scientific Discussion of Climate Change (1997), published by the George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K Street, NW, Suite 905, Washington, DC 20006-3868. More excellent ammunition.
  
  
• CO2 and the Biosphere: The Incredible Legacy of the Industrial Revolution by Sherwood. B. Idso (1995), published by the Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108. With 361 research references, this is an outstanding booklet about the wonderful biological effects of increased atmospheric CO2.
  
  
• The Energy Advocate, December 1997 and earlier issues, written by Howard Hayden. This is a newsletter in the Access to Energy format with a great many informative articles. It is available from P. O. Box 542, Storrs, CT 06268-0542.
  
  
• "Kyoto's Fantasyland'' in The Wall Street Journal, December 10, 1997, p A22. Also,"The Worst Part Is, Al Gore Really Believes It'' by Paul A. Gigot in The Wall Street Journal, December 12, 1997, p A18. Mark Twain said, "Never get in an argument with people who buy their ink by the barrel.'' This is at least one publication that buys its ink by the barrel and is helping to defend science and technology.
  
  
• "Carbon Dioxide and Vegetation'' by Graham D. Farquhar, Science 278 (1997), p 1411. It is a good sign that carbon dioxide fertilization of plants is becoming a more frequent topic of popular articles.
  
  
• "Carol Browner, Master of Mission Creep'' by Pranay Gupte and Bonner R. Cohen, Forbes, October 20, 1997, pp 170-177. An introductory journey through the Environmental Protection Agency - an agency, with very little regard for scientific truth, which manipulates environmental issues primarily for the purposes of political power. The New American, December 8, 1997, p 6, reports that the EPA operates a fleet of luxury cars averaging 6.9 miles per gallon, 75% below EPA standards for the American people.