The truth can be so inconvenient!

Sometimes I just want to slap Deborah Saunders.

Then we have this masterpiece of reasoning:

Battling scientists

Editor -- True believers in human-caused global warming quickly attacked recent Debra J. Saunders' columns suggesting their beliefs might be more political and faith-based than scientific (Letters, "Murky science,'' June 13). One described her heretical view as being supported by "a lone scientist, or two.'' However, a more accurate count can be found by searching "The Petition Project,'' which lists more than 10,000 scientists questioning whether global warming is driven by human activity or natural climatic variation.

Prophets of Al Gore might have been unsettled by the June 1 Chronicle story concerning the Arctic Coring Expedition, whose samples indicate the Arctic Ocean's average temperature 55 million years ago was 74 degrees. Unfortunately for them, the report made no mention of the core samples containing fossilized remains of SUVs, factory smokestacks or Weber grills.

Now there's an inconvenient truth.

Well, guy, if you wanna talk about the Petition Project, here you go...

Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.