In a speech last year, Vice President Al Gore belittled scientific critics of the global warming hypothesis.

He accused a "tiny minority of dissident scientists" of treating greenhouse warming as the "empirical equivalent of the Easter Bunny." One can almost feel his frustration: Why don't they just go away and stop upsetting the scientific "consensus"?

Much to his chagrin, I imagine, the "dwindling band of skeptics" has grown to more than 100 European and American climate scientists, most of whom have signed the Leipzig Declaration (based on a conference held in Leipzig Germany, in November, 1995). The declaration critiques the scientific basis of global warming theory and warns against hasty and ill-considered policies to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide by controlling the burning of coal, oil and gas.

As new scientific data turn global warming into a nonproblem, one really can't blame the global warming enthusiasts for becoming somewhat paranoid. Even their credibility is taking a heavy blow: When the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its report in May 1996, it was quickly discovered that some very pertinent information had disappeared between final approval and printing-clauses that the scientists who worked on the report had put in there for a good reason.

After Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, exposed these unannounced and possibly unauthorized text changes in a Wall Street Journal article, paranoia reached a new high. Dr. Seitz, one of the nation's most respected scientists, was attacked for factually reporting the revisions made by the IPCC leadership, which clearly affected the sense of the report!

One can expect, of course, to hear vilification from environmental extremist groups and their hangers-on. It is ominous, however, when mainline technical publications, evidently staffed by journalists with ideological hang-ups get into the act and participate in character assassination.

A recent example is the weekly Chemical & Engineering News, the house organ of the American Chemical Society, one of the largest American professional organizations. In the Aug. 19 issue, reporter Bette Hileman accuses scientific dissenters- whose rapidly growing number includes also scientists listed as contributors to the IPCC report - of waging a "systematic campaign of disinformation." Since "disinformation" implies a deliberate use of false information, the American Chemical Society may well be courting one or more libel suits.

C&EN complains about attacks on the scientific integrity of the process used by the IPCC. No wonder: The IPCC report uses scientific articles that have not even been published to shore up its main conclusion, the rather ambiguous and largely meaningless statement: "The balance of scientific evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." It is left to the reader to interpret this Delphic phrase. Politicians have chosen to misinterpret it to mean that there will be a catastrophic warming in the coming century. But this is a non sequitur, directly contradicted in the report itself-though not in the IPCC's Summary for Policy-makers.

No word yet as to whether the IPCC leadership plans to straighten out the politicians before they rush out and saddle the hapless consumer with energy taxes-or worse, with energy rationing. No word from the White House either on just how they plan to reduce fuel burning; we'll just have to wait now that the election is over to find out.

The C&EN story also complains that some of these dissident scientists are attacking a research article that underlies the main conclusion. How dare they attack the science! Ms. Hileman does not mention that several of these critiques have been accepted for publication by peer reviewed scientific journals. She seems to be unaware also that scientific debate is the life blood and real purpose of science.

Ms. Hileman is upset that scientific critics keep referring to atmospheric temperature data taken by remote sensing from Earth satellites. One can understand her complaint and utter frustration: After all, the satellite data, the only complete global data-set available, have shown a cooling over the last 20 years, instead of the warming predicted by the theoretical models on which the global warming scare is based. Perhaps that is why the summary of the IPCC report, the only part likely to be read by policy-makers doesn't even mention the existence of satellite data.

The crux of the whole matter is perhaps best expressed in an angry letter by Joseph Jacobs, a distinguished chemical engineer, chairman of the internationally known Jacobs Engineering Group, and a former C&EN advisory editor. After C&EN refused to print his letter responding to Ms. Hileman's screed, he wrote the editor:

"It is not so much that Ms. Hileman took a position in support of questionable science. The thing I objected to was the blatant editorializing. In Chemical & Engineering News one expects more scientific judgment and objectivity. We [readers] are quite capable of deciding whether the political activists of the IPCC have fudged the scientific data or not. The integrity of our profession and the respectability of Chemical & Engineering News are at stake. Both of them are precious."

The American Chemical Society should take note-and so should all who are concerned about an open and free exchange of science.