For those that aren't familiar, S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
He is also one of the world's leading anthropogenic global warming skeptics.
With that in mind, he gave a lecture concerning climate change at Hillsdale College on June 30 which has been adapted as an article at the Hillsdale Imprimis (h/t Marc Morano).
What follows are some of the key highlights, although I highly recommend reading the entire piece (emphasis added throughout):
In the past few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way.
[...]
Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations.
[...]
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called "scientific consensus." There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers."
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the "consensus statement" on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
Some consensus, huh?
The second reason not to rely on a "scientific consensus" in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view-or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren't glaciers melting? Isn't sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that's not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.
Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that such a conclusion lacks logic. But I digress:
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That's an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
Don't you hate it when facts are brought into the discussion, especially when the debate is over because the science is settled?
With that in mind, after explaining the flaws in current climate models which are key to advancing global warming hysteria, Singer discussed the more natural and logical explanations for historical climate change:
Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience-a scale of decades, let's say-solar variability may be the most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth's atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).
[...]
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable.
And they have been since the dawn of time.
Do yourself a favor, and read the whole thing.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
A great read
August 28, 2007 - 14:55 ET by smitty031but the liberals will dismiss him because he wears a bolo tie...they dont take anyone serious in "southern style garb" unless of course it was Robin Byrd
I would like to offer my opinion:
If growing CO2 levels indicate a cooling trend as stated above wouldnt it be interesting if the reverse were true...That lower CO2 levels are indicative of global warming?
That maybe we are causing the warming because of our conservation practices???
I want a No Bell Peach Prize for this!!
Bolo Tie
August 28, 2007 - 17:18 ET by brewski01Please ban me because I cannot comprehend that pro-global warming people also are funded by industry.
I also am incapable of expressing myself cogently and politely disagreeing with others.
Thanks!
Editors' translation of this reply
WOW Brewski01!!
August 28, 2007 - 17:35 ET by Mica the MagnificentBrewski01-
Please display the cancel checks that Noel cashed from BIG OIL, or other proof you have, and we'll all condemn him.
Otherwise, you are a troll and therefore, suck.
It was that free pen with
August 28, 2007 - 20:25 ET by danboIt was that free pen with fill up a number of years ago. And the free car wash with fill up.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Noel, you BIG OIL slut,
August 28, 2007 - 20:37 ET by drillanwrNoel, you BIG OIL slut, you! ;^ >
Serendepity
August 29, 2007 - 03:02 ET by nofatedanbo, I believe it was you who first put me onto Fred Singer about a year ago in the comments on one of Noel's blogs, and that led to an interesting discussion regarding the MSM attempts to shut down the AGW skeptics. There is a good article on American Thinker, "NASA's Hansen Reaches Escape Velocity", that addresses the way politically motivated scientists unscientifically attack their skeptical brethren, by James Lewis. If I remember correctly, someone tried at one time to pull a "Hansen" type smear on Singer, and got trounced for the effort. I have lost that link.
As for Richard S. Lindzen, I ran across a mention of him in a comment by Popular Tech, last week I think, and did a lookup of him, as I was not familiar with the name. One of the articles was a Wiki bio that mentioned that Mr. Lindzen had at one point taken on the "environmental smoke" issue, i.e. "second hand smoke", from the skeptics viewpoint. They mentioned a WHO study that I have been trying to find for a long time now, and although they didn't give a link, the gave a cite to a journal that carried the article, "Multicenter Case–Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe", Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October 7, 1998.
Here is the link. This is the study that was supposedly suppressed by the U.N., depending on which side you believe, because it did not meet their preconceived notions of what second hand smoke does to "the wittle childwen".
Just a little off topic wandering.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Singer is an interesting
August 29, 2007 - 09:57 ET by danboSinger is an interesting guy. He was of the people who brought Gore's followers to court when they tried to slander him. And won.
I believe he's one of the guys to set up our system ow weather satellites. So he doen't know anything.
A while back one of the trolls posted this link. To use the tobacco boogey man to get at Fred Setz. I'm one of those people who chases down a lot of links. And like you I found a lot to question in the second hand smoke BS. It's about as bad a science as the ban on DDT. And I don't smoke.
Great link. I have to agree. My cat tells me to butt out also when I claim stewardship over him.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Seitz-Singer conspiracy
August 29, 2007 - 12:47 ET by nofateI found this to be an interesting turn of phrase:
While I am not a lawyer by any stretch, that sounded odd. At any rate, it is not accidental that the tobacco nazis in that document detail the "evil corporations" and anyone with any ties to them in any manner whatsoever, as being tainted. The same type of emotionalist tactic, used so easily on a gullible public by the environmentalists, and now the AGW crowd. They have been in the ascendancy for a long time now, since at least FDR, but it appears that it may be starting to turn, ever so slowly. The song is finally (maybe) getting old and worn out. And people think elections don't matter. They absolutely matter, right down to the local school, college and fire boards, etc. Think of the lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who sit on those bodies. How many of them are conservative? Many of them dutifully have Republicans supported by the incumbent power structures, but too many of those are rino's. When the university boards and faculty in this country start turning toward a more evenly balanced ratio, then I'll truly believe we may be headed back in the right direction.
Climbing down off soapbox now :-)>
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
The tobacco lawsuit
August 29, 2007 - 12:55 ET by sarcasmoWas a tax-increase in disguise, crossed with a big payoff to some VERY politcally-connected trial lawyers from BOTH major parties. (Yes, telling the ugly truth like this constitutes evidence of residual Libertarian-honesty in this newly-minted Republican. I'll try to do better and ignore the facts eventually, but it's SO obvious and the media did SUCH a crappy job covering what should be a scandal but somehow-isn't!!)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
[Liberal] Debate Tactic
August 28, 2007 - 17:48 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love[Liberal] Debate Tactic Number Two: Bomb-Throwing
This one is not used as much, as it tends to get offensive, but when it is used, it can lead a liberal to victory in a debate through nothing more than sheer shock-value. It is called “bomb-throwing,” and essentially it is the use of name calling, accusations, and vicious attacks to shut down the opposition. These attacks are usually not even true, but this does not matter- for the attacks are only designed to do three things:
Shock the audience and perhaps paint you out to be evil and wrong
Time and time again, liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are simply not ready for it. Conservatives are also generally more classy, relaxed, and well-mannered than their liberal counterparts, so they often do not know how to respond to such viciousness. This trend it starting to change as conservatives have “rebuilt their defenses,” but many still fall for this liberal trap of bomb-throwing.
"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps
So anyone recieving grants
August 28, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Dan The Man 2So anyone recieving grants from Exxon is a shill for them? Or more to the point we are all shills for those who give us money and we have no thoughts or ideas other than those placed there by our benefactors?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Minor Point
August 28, 2007 - 18:33 ET by Challenger GrimBut the source of information does not ipso facto make that information true or false. BIAS in and of itself DOES NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING.
Now it might give you reason to be suspicious of info and cause you to investigate it more, but in no way does that invalidate or refute anything mentioned in the information. (Otherwise, all math classes would have to be discontinued because of the teacher's bias towards euclidian geometry.)
In other words, post a rebuttal, because otherwise people like me can say "well [pro-AGW scientist] is untruthful because he gets his funding from radical environmental groups and other invested interests of AGW".
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
"BIAS in and of itself DOES
August 28, 2007 - 21:54 ET by Sonny Lykos"BIAS in and of itself DOES NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING."
Sorry, but IMO that's baloney.
Bias proves the author has eliminated or manipulated any contradicting opinions, evidence and/or proof, in order to push his/her agenda regarding the issue at hand.
And as Dr. Sowell has taught me, question any "study."
Brewski
August 28, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Now that's more like it. In fact, that's the sagest comment you've made since becoming a member here. I guess we have finally worn off on you.
Don't be a stranger. :-) ns
I♥NB
August 28, 2007 - 21:41 ET by Free StinkerLOL!
Is that all you have?
August 29, 2007 - 08:44 ET by smitty031because I thought my post was vaild and yes comical but also pretty true of what libs think...
What?!?!?
August 28, 2007 - 14:48 ET by UphillAre you telling us that this guy knows more about climate change than the soon to be Dr. You Know Who? The nerve!!
Somewhat OT
August 28, 2007 - 14:54 ET by UphillHillsdale College does not accept state and federal money!!!
http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-2/118770519392870.xml&coll=3
It's truly
August 28, 2007 - 17:41 ET by sarcasmoA beautiful thing. Hillsdale's policy should be emulated much more widely.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Yes, it is a beautiful thing.
August 28, 2007 - 20:37 ET by UphillHowever, I would not want to have to pay the tuition rates at this place.
It costs you $0.00 in taxes, though.
August 28, 2007 - 20:49 ET by sarcasmoAnd the fact that costing $0 is a distinction is sad. I think it's odd that education is so expensive, but then I recall just how lazy & overpaid my college professors were! :) I wonder if I'd have wanted to go to Hillsdale if I'd known then what I know now? Probably not, UF was a party, I must admit.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
actually...
August 29, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Rob84As a recent Hillsdale College grad, I can say that Hillsdale is actually a lot more affordable when compared to other private colleges and universities.
He did co author an article
August 28, 2007 - 20:13 ET by danboHe did co author an article with "D" student Al Gore's professor and mentor. Roger Revelle. I believe the name was. "What to Do About Greenhouse: Look before you leap".
The story.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
This guy makes no sense
August 28, 2007 - 14:52 ET by ckc1227This guy makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly he works for Exxon. How else can you explain his crazy talk?
Trust me!
August 28, 2007 - 15:03 ET by HelenSI'm not a shill for Amazon.com, really I'm not! but I just wanted to point out that Mr. Singer is the co-author for the incredibly good book called "Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1500 years"
If you read only one book about global warming, this should be it.
Along with "Kicking the Sacred Cow", and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" (or "...to Global Warming", both are good). OK, there are a few good books out there but really, "Unstoppable Global Warming..." is the best in my opinion.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
An optimist !
August 28, 2007 - 15:13 ET by rbchaffeI loved the concluding paragraph, beginning with:
What unabashed optimism.
Al Bore and Professor Galen McKinley
August 28, 2007 - 15:46 ET by Lame CherryOne wonders when the Wisconsin climatologist a month ago declared the same things exposing the wacko science of Al Gore when Congress is going to start demanding that huckster tag along professors like Galen McKinley out of Wisconsin "studying the effects of the Great Lakes on global warming" will have their funding pulled.
Daily more evidence comes out refuting Al Bore's nonsense and how these piglet professors are up to the Murtha money hog trough chowing down billions that should be going to help advance humanity.
Great work Professor Singer.......gee George Mason again, home of that great economists and thinker Walt Williams.
Maybe all colleges .......or maybe one college in America actually does employ teachers who are not political whores spewing liberal spin.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Singer's sanity - a relief for David Corn?
August 28, 2007 - 15:50 ET by Gary HallLeftie alarmist David Corn is so far out there in left field that he recently shrilled while comparing protecting New Orleans to what the Dutch did in Holland to keep the sea out, saying that: "..and they're [Dutch Dikes] probably not strong or tall enough to deal with rising sea levels caused by global warming."
How can people like this sleep at night. Reading Singer's bit of sanity could serve as a anodyne.
Oh, the piece was here: As the Dutch Do - scroll down to his Aug. 20th entry.
Great article and post, ns. (;~>
Gary -
August 28, 2007 - 20:55 ET by drillanwrYeah, wishful thinking ...
Building dikes in New Orleans, the likes of which are in Holland, is near impossible. I have seen two very good post-Katrina programs regarding the N.O. levees, and why they fialed ... and why they WILL fail and fail again and again.
The soil in N.O. is too soft, as opposed to that in Holland. The waters spilling over the levees actually washed away the soil from the base of the levee walls, causing the pressure from the water behond it to simply just push them over. They cannot go down deep enough where the soil is more compact, and less what it really is ... originally sediments from having BEEN under water many moons ago. There's just very little, if any, strength to the earth there to hold back such volume, weight and pressure all at once, as seen with Katrina. Any attempt to ship in, say Georgia clay or other heavy landfill dirts from other regions MIGHT do the trick, but at enormously prohibitive costs. Their only real option (that might somewhat mirror the Dutchies), much to the chagrin of environmentalists and affected property owners is designating areas and preparing them as flood basins to accept such flooding waters in the event they came again. But NOOOOO ... Won't hear of that. Makes too much sense, I guess.
Anyhow, the one program I had seen a year ago was on Discovery or History Channel, and it focused on the New Orleans levee quagmire that it is. The other program highlighted the levee failures, in addition to the failures in the governmental chain of command (beginning with primarily the idiot mayor and governor), and was just on this past weekend on the Science Channel. The levee part was most interesting. They showed the storm surge's path on its way to destroying the city.
drillingdeeper
August 28, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Gary HallWell actually, I rather well understand the technical problems in protecting New Orleans. You know, while it's true that many parts of the city is 6-10 feet below sea level - that pales in the true comparison of the relationship to reality. Sea level in New Orleans is many feet below the normal water surface of the lake and the Mississippi River. I was looking at a picture, from the lower (very much lower) 9th Ward -- looking up towards the industrial canal a few feet away. It had to be twenty (vertical) feet above where they were standing.
Of course, my larger point was David Corn's alarmist and nutsy view that the dikes in Holland were not tall enough to prevent disaster from rising seas from man made global warming.
Oh, dear ... Well, nothing
August 28, 2007 - 21:06 ET by drillanwrOh, dear ... Well, nothing can save us from that ... We're all gonna die, you know. Is it burn up or drown this week in GW TV?
Calling Ogre Al, are you
August 28, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Senior ChiefCalling Ogre Al, are you there? You heared the real Doctor, there is no consensus amongst the scientists...
Speaking of scientific consensus, why Darwin's evolution theory is still being taught at public schools as part of the science curriculum. I will submit to you, that not ALL scientists believed on this THEORY. So, I propose to teach evolution side by side with Intelligent design.
Darwin's theory is fully embraced by communists, liberals, progressives, socialists, academia and of course the democracks...That shows.
Under the caption "create the contra argument & win the debate"
August 29, 2007 - 01:30 ET by seekerMr. Singer says "To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic."
I don't know any credible climatologist who would say that.
Mr. Singer, get real.
Isn't that the same as saying....
August 29, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Winger55that the birth rate is dropping in Europe, as is the stork population. Therefore, storks deliver babies. (I forget where I read that recently, but it hits the nail on the head.)
Seriously folks
August 29, 2007 - 02:20 ET by seekerSeriously, why is the theory of CO2 induced climate change a liberal conspiracy? Is is because Al Gore has an interest in it? Or because this is obviously an environmentalist cause and all enviros are Gaia worshiping Liberal pagans? Is is because conservative republicans are religious and believe that God would never allow global warming to decimate the earth? Is it because the global warming alarmists see this as a chance to expand government regulation, so by definition they are liberals and stupid? Is it because conservatives are in fact the weathly elite who suport the idea that the US is the largest per capita CO2 producer in the world, so to see a link between CO2 and global warming will force an expensive and useless attempt reduce CO2 and lower standards of living for the same elite conservatives? Is it because wealth is generated by a high rate of economic activity and if it can be shown that a high rate of economic activity also produces increasingly larger amounts of CO2 so if CO2 is causing global warming then the economy will necessarily suffer to fix the problem? Or is it all of the above.
Please feel free to add other reasons why CO2 driven climate change is an evil myth that must be stopped at all costs.
Here's one
August 29, 2007 - 04:48 ET by Cool ArrowBecause it's premise is a show of hands (consensus) rather than the scientific method.
Nothing wrong with "show me". It can be demonstrated that Chluorofluorocarbons (CFC) are severely destructive to Ozone, so it's not a hard sell to limit their use.
The elimination of plant nutrients (CO2) is a different debate entirely.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Your unoriginal "ideas"
August 29, 2007 - 08:12 ET by Jack BauerYour unoriginal "ideas" have been falsified here regulary for the past three years.
Frankly, you and your ilk are boring trolls. It ain't our job to educate you.
So instead of us trying to open your closed mind, how about YOU proving to all us conservatives, how mankind can possibly cause so-called "global warming."
Oh.. and this has to be one of the dumbest, ill-educated and pathetic "thoughts" ever expressed by a Logic Denier such as your bad self...
Stupid to the power of ten. Both theologically and scientifically.
stupid to the power of 10?
August 29, 2007 - 10:15 ET by seekerI was just repeating what I read and hear from the right. It's not your job to educate me? How about educating youself?
Did you see my earlier post. No credible scientist would claim that melting glaciers was proof of anthromorphic global warming. Nor would such a scientist claim that corelation is causation. You are reading the right spin machine to generate your arguments against climate change theory. Try reading peer review scientific papers.
Fred Singer is not an economist or climate scientist, but
August 29, 2007 - 08:06 ET by TokyoTomyou tout his views on the subject.
For balance, why don't you tell us what Exxon - which is certainly expert on energy, economics, the environment and even climate science (having scientists involved in the IPCC for decades) has to say, Noel?
Here's a link to get you started: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Campaign/climate.asp
Is real expertise simply not relevant to the agenda of Newsbusters here?
TT
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
Huh? ExxonMobile, the
August 29, 2007 - 08:44 ET by zfHuh? ExxonMobile, the company that Global Warming fanatics are convinced is spending billions to discredit GW, funds every "denier" and it's business motives compels it to twist the facts to make money?
So, which is it? Evil GW denier company or unbiased, trustworthy champions of the enviroment?
You need to get together with your fellow GW pushers and decide which version of the mythology you're going to preach. But I can guess the "evilness" of Exxon will change depending on what their viewpoint is, regardless of what else stays the same.
You're right. His
August 29, 2007 - 08:59 ET by danboYou're right. His credentials...
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
As opposed to the
August 29, 2007 - 10:13 ET by danboAs opposed to the RealScientist at RealClimate.
Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate...He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London...
He's a mathamatician.
Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute ... Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University
A mathmatician/Physicist/Geology.
Caspar Ammann is a climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research ... Dr. Ammann got his B.S. from Gymnasium Koeniz (Switzerland), his M.S. from the University of Bern (Switzerland), and a Ph.D. from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts
He doesn't say what his degrees are in, I assume geology.
Rasmus E. Benestad...I am a physicist by training .. I have a D.Phil in physics
Another physist.
Ray Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences...he received a Doctor of Science (D.Sc) degree from Southampton University (U.K.) for his contributions to the field of paleoclimatology.
Finally Somone with training in Climatology.
William M. Connolley...
A climate modeller who doesn't say what his training and education is in.
Stefan Rahmstorf...A physicist and oceanographer by training...
Though he does say he did recieve "Rahmstorf was awarded the $ 1 million Centennial Fellowship Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation." and is "Since 2000 he teaches physics of the oceans as a professor at Potsdam University". He doesn't give his education and training. I assume it's physics.
Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle...He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington...
Geology.
Dr. Thibault de Garidel-Thoron is currently a post-doctoral associate at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University...Dr. de Garidel received his Bachelor’s degree in Earth Sciences from the Université Lyon I, France, completed a Master in the Université Bordeaux I, France and a Ph.D. in Geosciences at CEREGE
Geology?
David Archer is a computational ocean chemist at the University of Chicago
Chemistry.
I only see one person with training in climatonogy.
Source
I did notice. Either these people used old photos or they're all relatively young. Singer has been dealing with science for a lot longer than these guys. There was science prior to 1980...
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
what are you saying?
August 29, 2007 - 10:51 ET by seekerAre you saying these people don't belong in the climate science debate?
Are you saying Singer
August 29, 2007 - 10:59 ET by danboAre you saying Singer doesn't belong in Climate Science? His credentials are as good as there's.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Oh sure
August 29, 2007 - 10:49 ET by seekerYea, but what has he done for me lately?
By all means. We have to
August 29, 2007 - 11:07 ET by danboBy all means. We have to listen to a man who took 2 science sourses in his life. Getting a D in one and a C in the other. Yet someone with 50 years experience in science and climate science....
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
ns ... it is just so
August 29, 2007 - 08:19 ET by Jack Bauerns ... it is just so amusing to watch crazy liberals at worship -- even as their faith is tested to beyond breaking point...
More triumphs in the UNIFIED THEORY THAT "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING" CAUSES EVERYTHING...
Is this one great bleepin' theory or what?
On June 29, 2005, Live Science magazine breathlessly announces:
"Global warming makes North Atlantic less salty"
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html
Fast forward to last week, 23 August 2007, The New Scientist breathlessly announces:
"Global warming makes North Atlantic more salty"!
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12528&feedId=online-news_rss20
Jack, you forgot the
August 29, 2007 - 12:40 ET by Senior ChiefJack, you forgot the latest: George Bush is the cause of Global Warming that makes North Atlantic more or less salty. That way its all covered...
For crying out loud, leftoids doesn't have a concensus of what the difference between moderate, left and right, much more knowing how to write correctly. They just have to blame GWB for their becoming ineptitude.
}}---> Prof. Singer
August 29, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Cool ArrowThe article was a great read. Refuting the idealogues with science.
Simply beautiful.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Predictions
August 29, 2007 - 09:09 ET by aka HondoGreetings all...my first post.
Here's a prediction. I know, this is an easy one. Sometime in the near future, someone will claim that this year is one of the hottest if not THE hottest on record. This will be done without any evidence or highly suspectible evidence. No surprise there.
Now, when (not if) the earth's temps begin to show signs of cooling, and we are still burning oil and coal at the present rate, what will the libs and the climate change alarmists blame it on?
You got it!... Burning fossil fuels.
A graph they never show
August 29, 2007 - 10:10 ET by danboA graph they never show you. Comparing temps to the number of stations. Produced by McIntyre. Here
To keep things in perspective.
It did get cooler after WWII, just as our love affair with the auto took off. And seems to have been cooling to sideways since 98. Though some peopl claim 2005 was cooler than 98. But most people accept 98. But either way there was little difference. It's been either sideways or down since 98. With how much extra CO2?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Welcome home Hondo
August 29, 2007 - 10:53 ET by seekerYou'll find a lot of sympathy here!
Thanks Seeker
August 29, 2007 - 13:38 ET by aka HondoBut I don't need sympathy. Libs just need common sense.