About Stossel's TV special on ABC, "Tampering With Nature," FAIR issued a press release saying, "Stossel's reporting relied on biased sources, twisted facts and the exclusion of information that might conflict with his thesis." FAIR tries to appear extremely concerned about honesty.

But how much does it really care? While FAIR complains about Stossel having "biased sources," it's FAIR itself that uses biased sources in denouncing him, such as the leftist Environmental News Service and the anti-corporate, George-W.-Bush-hating editorialist Molly Ivins.

Worse, FAIR obfuscates the issues. In response to Stossel saying, "Every major pollutant the government measures is decreasing [in America]," FAIR states, "Stossel's implication that EPA data shows environmental improvement across the board is clearly incorrect. In fact, the EPA's Web site states that 'total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions' -- which include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- have risen significantly over the last several years ... These emissions certainly qualify as 'major pollutants' in terms of their environmental impact."

The problem with FAIR's response is that it ignores context, which is typical of the organization. The major pollutants decreasing, which Stossel named, are nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead -- none of which FAIR mentioned in its press release. These chemicals are very toxic and impose a more direct threat to humans than the greenhouse gases FAIR listed.

Carbon dioxide is what people exhale. If someone blew in your face, you'd ingest carbon dioxide, and it wouldn't kill you.

Meanwhile, methane is what swamps naturally emit. The EPA worries about the chemicals FAIR listed, not primarily because they are as poisonous to humans as the ones Stossel discussed, but because they are said to contribute to global warming.

That's what FAIR meant by declaring that these chemicals "qualify as 'major pollutants' in terms of their environmental impact." But Stossel shows that global warming may not be as serious a health hazard as people have been led to believe, which is one of FAIR's main gripes about his program.

Stossel mentioned the news media focusing on the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS's) petition of 1,600 scientists warning of devastating consequences from global warming. Then he added that what few news sources noted was that a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) circulated a petition receiving 17,000 signatures from scientists, saying that there's no proof that global warming will have a dangerous effect.

FAIR states, "The first, smaller petition came from the Union of Concerned Scientists and its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. ..." Earlier, FAIR declared, "the second [OISM] petition has been famously discredited."

FAIR continues, "Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science."

Really? Contrary to FAIR's assertions about Stossel, it's FAIR itself that's guilty of "the exclusion of information that might conflict with [its] thesis." If FAIR were interested in divulging the whole truth, it would've given some other facts about both the UCS and OISM.

About the UCS, MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen noted, "In 1989 the group began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. "That was written back in 1992, but by then the UCS's petition already had about 44 percent of its signers.

Nor has the UCS gotten any more ethical over the years. In 1999, Lindzen said, "The UCS proceeds to then associate climate change with forest depletion, water scarcity, food security, and species destruction. It concludes that scientists must endorse a strong climate treaty at Kyoto. The implication is that the so-called IPCC [U.N. International Panel on Climate Change] consensus extends to these claims as well. This is clearly a misrepresentation of the IPCC."

Like the FAIR that cites it, the UCS isn't above misrepresentation. Yet FAIR expects people to perceive it as a credible source.

Story continues at: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b004b698-a038-4b45-a7ae-8bd0c67a88aa

Stuart K. Hayashi is the president of the Reason Club of Honolulu and an undergraduate in Entrepreneurial Studies at Hawaii Pacific University, though his opinions do not necessarily reflect that of either institution. He can be reached at radical_individualist@hotmail.com and an index of his past editorials for HawaiiReporter.com can be seen at http://reason_club.tripod.com/stuart_editorials.html

Guest Commentary...