As NewsBusters reported, ABC's "World News" aired a disturbing global warming hit piece on Sunday that disrespectfully attacked an esteemed scientist and emeritus professor, referring to his work as "fraudulent nonsense" that is "going to cost lives, and cause us lost species, and cost major economic damage around the world."
The subject of the report, Dr. S. Fred Singer, has been receiving well wishes of support from across the globe since this segment aired, including at ABC News's website where virtually all of the currently 128 comments submitted have been highly critical of this story and the way Singer was treated.
With this in mind, Singer has formally asked ABC for an apology and a retraction (presented with permission):
LETTER TO ABC NEWS
TO: Felicia Biberica Fiona Conway
Producer Executive director ABC News
ABC News
W. 66th St.
New York City 10023
Dear Ms Biberica and Ms Conway March 25, 2008
I share the anger expressed in nearly 100 postings (so far) at the shoddy handling of my interview aired on March 23: It was an appalling display of bias, unfairness, journalistic misbehavior, and a breakdown of ethical standards. It used prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears. I urge you to read the postings; only one person offered any support to ABC, as far as I can see.
I put the following account on my website www.sepp.org:
1. Interviewer Dan Harris used a man from Greenpeace who spouted conspiracy theories about me, showing someone's diagram that 'connects' me to groups alleged to be financed by oil companies. The only purpose I can think of is to suggest to viewers that I am in the pay of oil companies and that therefore my science is somehow tainted and not credible. First, the suggestion is completely false. I am not financed or supported by oil companies or by any industry. Then, Harris tried to suggest that I misrepresented by denying oil company support but admitting receiving an unsolicited donation. I draw a distinction --as would any reasonable person -- between being 'supported' and between a single charitable donation (constituting a tiny fraction of 1%) of all donations received. Finally, the word 'connected' is imprecise, and can mean anything from being on a mailing list to holding a position and receiving a salary. In my case it is definitely the former.
2. Dan Harris also referred to unnamed scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced what I do as 'fraudulent nonsense.' [The ABC website changed it to 'fabricated' nonsense - perhaps on advice of ABC's lawyers.] They are easily identified as the well-known Global Warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and Steve Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. [I suspect they'll chicken out. They surely know that the facts support my position -- so they resort to anonymous slurs.] Hansen is no longer the careful scientist he was but has turned into an ideologue willing to publish junk 'research'. Oppenheimer, who may still be on the payroll of Environmental Defense, an activist lobbying group, has negligible credentials. Schneider has not published significant research in years. Both Hansen and Oppenheimer could be labeled as ‘Contrarians’ since they disagree with important conclusions of the UN-IPCC.
3. Dan Harris did mention my doubts about the lung-cancer effects of Second-Hand Smoke, about the danger of toxic waste (spent nuclear fuel), and about 'Nuclear Winter.' All true -- Dan did his research but withheld the full story. On SHS, I simply quoted from the experts (see attached review article from a noted medical doctor, specializing in lung disease). Nuclear fuel presents no technical problems, only political ones. France and Britain handle its disposal; why don't we? 'Nuclear Winter' (which burst onto the scene in 1983 -- and disappeared quickly) was basically a fraud, invented to shore up an ideological position. We disposed of it in a debate moderated by Ted Koppel on ABC-Nightline. But Harris left the audience with the impression that I am a ‘career skeptic’, and therefore my skepticism about manmade GW should be ignored.
4. Yours is supposed to be a news program not an opinion journal. Dan Harris completely ignored the new scientific evidence against anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) and the fact that 100 other scientists presented papers that support this view. The Heartland Conference in NY had an attendance of more than 500, practically all of them AGW skeptics. That’s news, but ABC ignored it.
Conclusion: ABC owes it to its audience and to me to make appropriate corrections -- an apology and retraction by Dan Harris on the World News program.
Sincerely,
S. Fred Singer, PhD (Physics, Princeton)
Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
Fellow, American Physical Society
Will ABC respond accordingly? Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This letter is great
March 28, 2008 - 10:57 ET by NCConservativeThank you for sharing this letter.
As a UVa alum, every time I see "University of Virginia" behind this man's name it just makes me happy.
There's no doubt in my mind that ABC will respond accordingly, if "accordingly" means "by ignoring it entirely, or conversely practicing character assassination."
Dr. Singer does have excellent credentials
March 28, 2008 - 14:59 ET by PopularTech- S. Fred Singer, B.E.E. Electrical Engineering, A.M. Ph.D. Physics; Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Interesting how Dr. Singer is just as qualified to debate climatology as those who called his claims "nonsense"...
- James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics
- Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
- Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Wait the scientists arguing in favor of AGW do not have degrees in Climatology? *gasp* How can this be? Will the MSM report this?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nobody who has taken a
March 28, 2008 - 15:06 ET by NL207Nobody who has taken a doctorate before 1980 has a Phd. in Climate Science. It really did not exist as a field before then.
That's interesting.
March 28, 2008 - 16:53 ET by Indiana JoeWould "Environmental Sciences" qualify in some respects? And that's almost 30 years ago, I would think anyone under their late-50s would have had a shot at it.
So, the guys predicting the "Coming Ice Age" in the '70s were really unqualified in the field? Didn't know what they were talking about?
The hell you say! ;^)
In the "old days",
March 30, 2008 - 00:40 ET by NL207In the "old days", Meteorology and Physics would be the fields. That's one of the reasons I laugh clowns like Giles Winterbourne out of here on that point. He and his ilk are always attacking Realists whose credentials are Meteorology, [sneeringly refers to them as TV Weathermen] as if that were some unrelated discipline.
It doesn't exist today either, it is rather, Climate Politics
March 28, 2008 - 17:02 ET by Britcom---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
"Interesting how Dr. Singer
March 29, 2008 - 00:48 ET by meteor79"Interesting how Dr. Singer is just as qualified to debate climatology as those who called his claims 'nonsense'..."
Not if you consider the number of peer-reviewed articles Singer has published related to climate science. That number would be ZERO. Hansen, Oppenheimer, and Schneider are all actively conducting research in climate science while Singer is not. I would bet that, combined, the three scientists you mention have authored or co-authored hundreds of peer-reviewed articles related to climate, while Singer has none. And don't even try to argue that the anything the Heartland Institute puts out is peer-reviewed.
Now you are lying about Dr. Singer
March 29, 2008 - 01:30 ET by PopularTechApparently these papers do not exist...
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
You should stop reading your propaganda left-wing smear sites.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Oh sorry, I should have
March 29, 2008 - 02:10 ET by meteor79Oh sorry, I should have said relevant papers. Also, notice that Singer has no lead author credits for original scientific work. The short work Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable is simply a commentary.
Ya Know, it's funny to me...
March 29, 2008 - 05:14 ET by Britcomthat all of these so called "climate experts" have spent so much time and ink and breath attempting to convince people that 1. Global Warming exists, 2. Humans cause it through carbon dioxide "pollution", 3. that it is an emergency, and 4. that a tax which benefits the UN will cure it. And all this time I sit in my little house (in Florida) nearly at sea level, surrounded by water on three sides, and wonder why, if the global sea level is rising because the ice caps are melting, why isn't my house full of water, and why is the beach still exactly where it has always been? Then I thought, how could such smart people be mistaken? Then it suddenly struck me, they are not mistaken at all, they are lying and they know it. It is about funding for research on a bogus subject, not saving the Earth. Because funding means salaries for these same people. If they don't get funding, they are going starve because they don't know how to do anything else.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
The 'Deciderer' of Relevant Papers
March 29, 2008 - 07:54 ET by PopularTechFirst you lie and say he has no papers published in decades, then you lie and say he has had no papers published on climate related issues, then you lie and say he has no papers published in the last two years. After you were proven wrong all three times you, the 'deciderer' claim they are not "relevant", how "convenient".
People can make up their own minds.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nothing to
March 29, 2008 - 10:39 ET by danboNothing to really relevant to say?
"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
publication history
March 29, 2008 - 16:02 ET by Giles WinterbourneSinger does have a history of publication: hop over to your local public library site and search the databases. An author search in ProQuest shows 15 articles since 1984; mostly WSJ, Consumers' Research, Insight on the News, and a short letter to the editor in Nature.
Searching just his name pulls up a couple more LttE and, of course, some articles where he is mentioned.
Given his short science publication list compared to the above; it would seem he'd rather argue it as a political issue rather than a scientific one. Or as Troop says "...S. Fred Singer knows how to make himself a hot prospect." _A Warm Acceptance_ The Chronicle of Higher Education Apr 29 2005 (about Singer's acceptance of the 'Flat Earth' award)
Who is Fred Singer? 1989-
March 29, 2008 - 17:48 ET by danboWho is Fred Singer? Fred Singer the flat earther???
1989- Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project. Foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
1989-1994 Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL. Principal investigator, Cosmic Dust/Orbital Debris Project.
1987-1989 Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation. Also: Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration; Chairman, Navigation Council (GPS applications). Technical advisor on Air Traffic Control System procurement.
1971-1994 Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Planetary science; global environmental issues (acid rain, greenhouse warming, ozone depletion); cost-benefit analysis; oil and energy(economics and public policy); economic and environmental impacts of population growth.
1970-1971 Deputy Assistant Administrator (Policy), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Also, chaired Interagency Work Group on Environmental Impacts of the Supersonic Transport.
1967-1970 Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior. Also, integrated atmospheric/oceanographic activities within the Department.
1964-1967 (First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Expanded the oceanographic institute and added departments of atmospheric sciences and geophysics.
1962-1964 (First) Director, National Weather Satellite Center (now part of NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Established operational systems for remote sensing and for management of atmosphere, ocean, and land surface data.
1953-1962 Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Experiments, theory, and publications on rocket and satellite technology, remote sensing, cosmic rays, radiation belts, magnetosphere, the Moon, meteorites, general relativity.
1950-1953 Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research, London. Reported on research in nuclear physics, astrophysics, and geophysics in European universities and laboratories.
1946-1950 Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD. Cosmic ray, ozone, and ionosphere research with instrumented V-2 and Aerobee rockets, launched from White Sands, NM and shipboard.
MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
First measurements, with V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space (with James A. Van Allen, 1947-1950) and upper-atmospheric ozone (with J.J.Hopfield and H. Clearman, 1948).
Discovery, with rocket-borne magnetometer, of equatorial electrojet current in the ionosphere (1949).
Calculation of cosmic ray effects on meteorites, followed by first measurements of their ages (1952).
Design of Minimum Orbital Unmanned Satellite (MOUSE), (1952-1954). Design of sensing instruments for MOUSE, including the first instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone (1956), now used in satellites.
First publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation in the earth's magnetic field (radiation belts, later discovered by Van Allen) to explain the magnetic-storm ring current (1956).
Design of the high-altitude FARSIDE rocket, to search for geomagnetically trapped radiation (1956).
Capture theory for the origin of the Moon and of the Martian satellites, Phobos and Deimos (1966).
Design study of Martian exploration by way of a manned base on Phobos/Deimos (Ph-D Project) (1977-78)
First calculation of methane increase due to population growth, and its effects on the stratosphere (1971). The theory serves as a paradigm for CFC-stratosphere effects. While developed in connection with the SST controversy, it is now of importance for both greenhouse warming and ozone depletion theories.
Theory for the behavior of world oil prices, and prediction in 1980 of the price collapse of 1983.
Discovery of orbiting debris clouds, using instruments on the LDEF satellite (1990).
Books and Monographs(Partial List)
Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Reidel, 1970) Manned Laboratories in Space (Reidel, 1970) Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971) The Changing Global Environment (Reidel, 1975) Arid Zone Development (Ballinger, 1977) Economic Effects of Demographic Changes (Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 1977) Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decisionmaking (Mitre Corp, 1979) Energy (W.H. Freeman, 1979) The Price of World Oil (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 8, 1983) Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984) Oil Policy in a Changing Market (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 12, 1987) The Ocean in Human Affairs (Paragon House, 1989) The Universe and Its Origin: From Ancient Myths to Present Reality and Future Fantasy (Paragon House, 1990) Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences (Paragon House, 1989) The Greenhouse Debate Continued (ICS Press, 1992) The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty (SEPP, 1997) Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, (The Independent Institute, 1997)
Articles
More than 400 technical publications in scientific, economics, and public policy journals.
More than 200 articles and editorials in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Newsweek, New Republic, National Review,, Readers' Digest, and other publications.
Source
Among the articles was "What to Do About Greenhouse: Look before you leap" which he co authored with Al Gore mentor Roger Revelle. Which lead legal action when he was slandered for refusing to take Dr Revelle's name off the research as requested by friends of Al Gore. Which Singer won.
The man who has been involved in science on many levels for over 60 years obviously knows nothing. And Giles. Please remind us what Al Gore credentials are?
"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
missed a couple of his publications
March 29, 2008 - 22:19 ET by Giles WinterbourneEpa and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke
http://tobaccodocume...
SCIENCE, ECONOMICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY:
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION
http://tobaccodocume...
and another place his resume is posted:
http://tobaccodocume...
Giles more far-left sites?
March 30, 2008 - 00:19 ET by PopularTechTobaccodocuments.org
$$$ Funded by Smokescreen Corporation
- Michael Tacelosky, Smokescreen Corporation - Donated $3000 to the DNC
- Keith Ivey, Smokescreen Corporation - Donated $600 to John Kerry, $300 to Barrack Obama
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Scanned documents for court
March 30, 2008 - 04:37 ET by Giles WinterbourneBut, obviously, the scanning machines must be liberally biased then.
The Second Hand Smoke Myth and the Nanny State
March 30, 2008 - 08:47 ET by PopularTechExaggerating the health risks of second hand smoke just to scare the public into accepting reduced freedoms in exchange for Nanny state guidance is typical liberal propaganda. Smoking is legal, if people choose to smoke that is their problem. Owning an establishment that allows indoor smoking is up to the owner just as it is up to the customer to go to that establishment. Conservatives are grown-ups and can take responsibility for their own actions we don't need Nanny state guidance.
Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer (John Stossel, 20/20)
Study Says Danger of Secondhand Smoke Exaggerated (National Center for Policy Analysis)
The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke (The Washington Post)
The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment (CNSNews)
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade (CATO Institute)
Please Do Smoke, If You Like (CATO Institute)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT Isn't it
March 30, 2008 - 09:12 ET by danboPT Isn't it interesting to follow the links in places like the tobacco scare sites and exxon secrets?
"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
Very Interesting
March 31, 2008 - 09:58 ET by PopularTechDistortion and proganda is the only thing they have because they would lose having a real scientific debate.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Been out all day. See I
March 31, 2008 - 16:34 ET by danboBeen out all day. See I missed a lot more distortion.
And then he thinks he won.
I saw something really bizarre over at RealClimate before I left. I'll go make sure I saw what I think I saw.
Have fun.
"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
Found it. Realclimate's
March 31, 2008 - 17:10 ET by danboFound it. Realclimate's response to a question concerning cooling during the 1940's etc. Page
This is starting to look like the NERC debates. Seems they're already editing out posts. How long before thay close it and claim a victory?
"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
Interesting choice of non-science
March 30, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Giles WinterbourneInteresting choice of non-science sites/cites. FYI, they all seem to reference one study;arguing the interpretation of the data, not providing any counter evidence.
Still side stepping your
March 30, 2008 - 13:11 ET by danboStill side stepping your contention. Normally that means you lose?
"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
no
March 30, 2008 - 13:30 ET by Giles WinterbourneI've cited court docs, from the discovery phase.
The rebuttal is from opinion sites arguing the issue of second hand smoke -
My cites support the 'contention' that PT isn't citing a complete history of Singer's publications - so maybe asking him why would further the discussion.
Having been an
March 30, 2008 - 15:17 ET by danboHaving been an administrator. You can find my name on a several court documents. Including during the discovery phase. And I've had to take the stand. So???? It doesn't mean you did anything wrong. But apparently you don't understand that. It's your way to defame someone. Guilt by association. Until it's Al Gore's name. And his name is also in there. I saw it. (Remember you gave us the link.) (H--- I had to respond to those da--- discovery phase filings.)
You still sidestep the issue. Your contention was proven wrong. You lose. And running to another subject is what you're doing. Trying to defame a man. Because you were proven wrong. Sore loser.
In case you missed my citation of a court case. It wasn't in the discovery phase it was the outcome. There's a difference between the two. Or, do you understand the difference?
BTW I should warn you. In my long varied career I spent 9 years as an officer of the courts. I've seen courts in action from both sides. You're going to have to have something more than a guilt by association for me. (Heck if you look through some of my responses to discovery phases. You can find the poor retarded girl that swept the floor. (If she wasn't hiding.) And lots and lots of others. I gave everything. Relevant or not.)
"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
My cites support
March 30, 2008 - 19:06 ET by Giles WinterbourneMy cites support my 'contention' that PT isn't citing a complete
history of Singer's publications - so maybe asking him why would
further the discussion.
These are missing, publicly available, publications. Most specifically written for public reading and many written more recently than his scientific published work. It is interesting you'd want to claim I'm defaming the author - there is no false claim being put forth.
Do they project a different POV or provide an alternate slant to his character? Or just a more complete picture?
To clarify, PT's list of publications is a bit Weemsian.
Interesting that you bring up Al Gore after complaining that I was changing subject....
Your statement was. " . An
March 30, 2008 - 20:59 ET by danboYour statement was. " . An author search in ProQuest shows 15 articles since 1984; mostly WSJ, Consumers' Research, Insight on the News, and a short letter to the editor in Nature." Several of us showed Singer's vita. And you want to criticize someone for not showing a complete list....
That is absurd....
"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
posting an incomplete 'vita'
March 30, 2008 - 23:03 ET by Giles WinterbourneIn posting an incomplete 'vita', with not randomly chosen entries but selected ones, PT is presenting an incomplete and biased version of Singer's writings.
Fine, if you want a Weemsian version, but if one is studying a person's effect on policy formation it behooves one to know as much as possible about his thoughts and ideas and how they are expressed.
It is another version of the cherry-picking done to forward a case that needs tricks like that to best present it.
And the questions are still unanswered; Why not include them? Why specifically exclude them?
You're a mind reader
March 31, 2008 - 00:22 ET by danboYou're a mind reader now?You can divine what's in someones thoughts.
Gheese, you are the king of incomplete and cherry picked data. I've pointed out some of your obvious cherry picked data yet you don't seem to know enough to see your own cherry pick.
You ignore things presented and complain it isn't good enough then give us a highly scientific website from a cartoonist. Or a guilt by association hit group.
If you want to see the king of cherry picking incompetence, look in a mirror. Provided it doesn't break.
You shot your mouth off. Were proven wrong.
"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
'You're a mind reader now?'
March 31, 2008 - 01:12 ET by Giles WinterbourneI am going to assume that 'You're a mind reader now?' comes from: "...it behooves one to know as much as possible about his thoughts and ideas and how they are expressed."
Which doesn't take that much of a close read to understand that we're talking about learning his thought through reading his writing. Perhaps you're just trying to be obtuse to form an argument.
Perhaps it is from; '..PT is presenting an incomplete and biased version ..' but I'm not proposing a rationalization from his POV; He can certainly explain why the documents I listed weren't presented in his lists. As I've written; 'And the questions are still unanswered; Why not include them? Why specifically exclude them?'
I don't see where 'proven wrong ' comes from; I cited documents and discussed how to find writings that were not presented as evidence of Singer's standing in the halcyon ranks of the delayers. The reader can use those WSJ opinion writings and other pieces as they wish to expand the picture originally presented. I merely filled in gaps from two areas he missed or chose not to include.
Note to the audience - Who has tossed out the insults? Good debate technique....
Let's see. You made a
March 31, 2008 - 05:59 ET by danboLet's see. You made a contention, that the man had no relevant scientific expertise. Several of us pointed to much of his history.
You ignored that. Then changed the subject attempting a guilt by association, due to his name coming up in a legal proceeding in discovery filings. I didn't see where he was found guilty of falsifying anything. Last time I looked a discovery filing does not prove guilt of anything.
In the case of Dr Lancaster, when Dr Revelle died, Al Gore and Dr Lancaster requested of Singer that Dr Revelle's name be taken off a work he wrote with Singer and Star.
Al Gore at that point was running for VP. And it was embarassing that his mentor had participated in a work critical of AGW. And Al Gore's stance.
When Singer refused. (Dr Revelle's family did not request.) Dr Lancaster "at a memorial symposium for Dr. Revelle at Harvard in the fall of 1992 and in a lengthy footnote to his written remarks at that event, he suggested that Dr. Revelle had not really been a coauthor and made the ludicrous claim that I had put his same on the paper as a coauthor “over his objections.” He later added the charge that I had pressured an aging and sick colleague, suggesting that Dr. Revelle’s mental capacities were failing at the time.8 Subsequently, Dr. Anthony D. Socci, a member of Senator Gore’s staff, made similar outrageous accusations in a lengthy letter to the publishers of the Geyer volume, requesting that the Cosmos article be dropped.9 Neither the editors nor the publishers consented to the requests (near demands) of Lancaster and Socci."
Dr Lancaster later recanted.
Dr Singer has long been a critic of AGW. Co-wrote an article critical of AGW with Al Gores mentor Roger Revelle. And has been attacked for standing up.
Like Dr Lancaster and Al Gores office. There is an attempt at slandering a man who has given 60 years of his life to 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
Obtuseness
March 31, 2008 - 08:55 ET by Giles WinterbourneI have not said Singer 'had no relevant scientific expertise. '
Obviously, it was with some perception of his name that he was asked to write papers on the
secondhand tobacco smoke health hazards and provided access to the pages of Wall Street Journal .
I
have pointed out that PT did not present a full picture of Singer's
writings. First, he listed a few recent publications, then added a longer list of older stuff. If he can be bothered to cite work from 1950's, he could
have, in the interests of scholarly honesty and completeness, posted
the later stuff.as well.
I'm not sure what you're even talking about with the documents from http://tobaccodocume... . The case dealt with how the tobacco companies worked to obfuscate the research on health hazards.
That the items I cited don't allow as Weemsian a picture of the man as you wish is your problem.
More Giles Propaganda
March 31, 2008 - 09:55 ET by PopularTechGiles you directly implied that Dr. Singer has not published anything relevant to science but instead just some op-eds and then are trying to dishonestly smear him about Second Hand Smoke. I on the other hand have presented EXTENSIVE evidence of Dr. Singer's scientific publications which clearly shows he has both been involved in science relating to the planet and atmosphere from 1949-Today.
My Citations go from 1949-2007. Are you programmed to lie?
Dr. Singer has published over 400 scientific pubications! I said the list was "INCOMPLETE" - or did you miss that too? Only you and your delusional propagandist friends think the discussion of second hand smoke has ANY relevance to the science of the planet, climate change and global warming.
The items you cite you do to in an attempt to smear the honorable Dr. Singer who if you actually READ his work even on SHS clearly bases it on scientific findings. But to someone as mentally ill as yourself even having a scientific debate on SHS would only be performed by those who are dishonest and evil.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nope.
March 31, 2008 - 10:57 ET by Giles WinterbourneNope. Only posted links to the documents and where to find other writings you chose to not post. Other people may post on different issues.
You might want to discuss why you made that decision, rather than ascribe incorrect assumptions to my writing. Don't conflate the arguments.
And it certainly is nice having the discussion drop to insulting rather than proving your point.
Giles are you mentally insane?
March 31, 2008 - 12:22 ET by PopularTechYou posted to Dr. Singer's resume which was already posted! You then post to documents about SHS which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE! Maybe I should start linking to any traffic tickets Dr. Singer received and the court documents for them. Sorry I INTENTIONALLY did not do that too!
We might want to discuss why you are mentally insane but we already know why.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"Only you and your
March 31, 2008 - 23:45 ET by meteor79"Only you and your delusional propagandist friends think the discussion
of second hand smoke has ANY relevance to the science of the planet,
climate change and global warming."
The discussion of second hand smoke is relevant to climate science because the same tactics used to mislead the public on the dangers of tobacco are used to mislead the public on climate change science. Even some of the same scientists (Fred Seitz was an example) that led the mis-information campaigns for the tobacco companies are now doing the same thing with climate change science. Don't believe it? Here is a great article by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.or...
Notice that Fred Singer is affiliated with 11, yes 11, organizations that are funded by Exxon-Mobil. Oh, but I'm sure Union of Concerned Scientists are "far-left smear merchants" so we can't believe anything they say.... right PT?
And who does the funding of
April 1, 2008 - 06:25 ET by RESTLESS 1And who does the funding of the alarmist scientists, hmm?
Can't argure the science?
March 30, 2008 - 00:41 ET by NL207Can't argure the science? Hell! That's no problem! Just smear the impartiality of the researchers we don't like and then ignore the massive financial conflicts of interest our side has.
Has it ever occurred to you to ask if the massive government grants all the AGW alarmists receive might have any effects on their objectivity? Like, maybe reporting to the Congress there is no serious problem here is going to get these grants renewed or increased? Right? The Alarmists have a DIRECT FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to report an alarm.
Let me translate that for
March 30, 2008 - 07:23 ET by danboLet me translate that for you. You can't refute Dr Singers life of science, so you attack him. So you were less than correct with your earlier statements.
BTW You might want to talk to Justin Lancaster about slandering Dr Singer.
"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
The Dr. Singer Collection (Incomplete)
March 29, 2008 - 23:44 ET by PopularTechGiles and Meteor can lie and pretend Dr. Singer is not a 'relevant' scientist, has not published papers relating to the issue, has not published "enough" papers or is active in the scientific debate, the evidence speaks for itself...
Books:
Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (S. Fred Singer, 1970)
Arid Zone Development: Potentialities and Problems (S. Fred Singer, 1977)
The Ocean in Human Affairs (S. Fred Singer, 1989)
Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences (S. Fred Singer, 1989)
The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC (S. Fred Singer, 1992)
The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty (S. Fred Singer, 1997)
Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (S. Fred Singer, 1997)
Climate Policy--From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000--And Beyond (S. Fred Singer, 2000)
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (S. Fred Singer, 2007)
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years - Updated and Expanded Edition (S. Fred Singer, 2008)
Papers:
The Specific Ionization of the Cosmic Radiation above the Atmosphere
(Phys. Rev. 76, 701 - 702, Issue 5, September 1949)
- S. Fred Singer
Measurement of the Earth's Magnetic Field at High Altitudes at White Sands, New Mexico
(Phys. Rev. 77, 398 - 399, Issue 3, February 1950)
- S. Fred Singer, E. Maple, W. A. Bowen, Jr.
The Zenith Angle Dependence of the Cosmic Radiation above the Atmosphere at λ=41°N
(Phys. Rev. 77, 729 - 730, Issue 5, March 1950)
- S. Fred Singer
The Primary Specific Ionization and Intensity of the Cosmic Radiation above the Atmosphere at the Geomagnetic Equator
(Phys. Rev. 80, 47 - 51, Issue 1, October 1950)
- S. Fred Singer
On the Density Spectrum and Structure of Extensive Air Showers
(Phys. Rev. 81, 579 - 592, Issue 4, February 1951)
- S. Fred Singer
Dynamo Currents and Conductivities in the Earth's Upper Atmosphere
(Nature 170, 1093 - 1094, 27 December 1952)
- S. Fred Singer, E. Maples, W. A. Bowen Jr.
Cosmic Rays and the Sun's Magnetic Field: Diurnal Variation of Cosmic Rays and the Sun's Magnetic Field
(Nature 170, 63 - 64, 12 July 1952)
- S. Fred Singer
Meteorites as Cosmic-Ray Meters
(Phys. Rev. 90, 168 - 168, Issue 1, April 1953)
- S. Fred Singer
Research in the upper atmosphere with high altitude sounding rockets
(Vistas in Astronomy, vol. 2, Issue 1, pp.878-912, 1956)
- S. Fred Singer
A Method for the Determination of the Vertical Ozone Distribution from a Satellite
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 62, p.299, June 1957)
- S. Fred Singer, R.C. Wentworth
Lifetimes of Trapped Radiation Belt Particles Determined by Coulomb Scattering
(Phys. Fluids 2, 499, 1959)
- R. C. Wentworth, W. M. MacDonald, S. Fred Singer
Trapped radiation in the earth's magnetic field
(Ionization Phenomena in Gases, Volume II, p.1187, 1960)
- S. Fred Singer
Properties of the upper atmosphere and their relation to the radiation belts of the earth
(Planetary and Space Science, Vol. 2, p.165, 1960)
- S. Fred Singer
Structure of the Earth's Exosphere
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 65, p.2577, September 1960)
- S. Fred Singer
Distribution of Density in a Planetary Exosphere. II
(Phys. Fluids 4, 221, 1961)
- S. Fred Singer
Energy Dissipation of Spiraling Particles in the Polar Atmosphere
(Arkiv, Geophys. 3:531-538, 1961)
K. Maeda, S. Fred Singer
Interaction of West Ford Needles with Earth's Magnetosphere
(Nature 192, 303 - 306, 28 October 1961)
- S. Fred Singer
Geomagnetically Trapped Electrons from Cosmic-Ray Albedo Neutrons
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 66, p.4027, December 1961)
- A.M. Lenchek, S. Fred Singer, S. F.; R.C. Wentworth
Effects of Trapped Particles on the Geomagnetic Field
(Advances in Geophysics, Volume 9, p.132, 1962)
- John R. Apel, S. Fred Singer, Robert C. Wentworth
Effects of the Finite Gyroradii of Geomagnetically Trapped Protons
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 67, p.4073, September 1962)
- A.M. Lenchek, S. Fred Singer
Geomagnetically Trapped Protons from Cosmic-Ray Albedo Neutrons
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 67, p.1263, April, 1962)
- A.M. Lenchek, S. Fred Singer
Observing coronal emission and absorption by means of atomic oxygen in the high atmosphere
(NASA, Aug 1, 1963)
- S. Fred Singer
Distribution of Density in an Ion-Exosphere of a Nonrotating Planet
(Phys. Fluids 7, 1775, 1964)
- Aharon Eviatar, Allen M. Lenchek, S. Fred Singer
The research potential of manned earth orbiting spacecraft in the field of meteorology
(NASA, Jan 1, 1965)
- S. Fred Singer
Thermal escape of neutral hydrogen and its distribution in the Earth's thermosphere
(Planetary and Space Science, Vol. 14, p.541, 1966)
- Mordehai Liwshitz, S. Fred Singer
Research in atmospheric measurement techniques
(NASA, Nov 1, 1966)
- S. Fred Singer
Zodiacal Dust and Deep-Sea Sediments
(Science, Vol. 156. no. 3778, pp. 1080 - 1083, 26 May 1967)
- S. Fred Singer
Measurement of atmospheric surface pressure with a satellite-borne laser
(Applied Optics IP, vol. 7, Issue 6, p.1125, 1968)
- S. Fred Singer
Microwave Detection of Precipitation over the Surface of the Ocean
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, p.3324, May 1968)
- S. Fred Singer
Is There an Optimum Level of Population?
(Science, Vol. 166. no. 3902, pp. 270 - 271, 10 October 1969)
- S. Fred Singer
Reducing the Environmental Impact of Population Growth
(Science, Vol. 169. no. 3951, p. 1233, 18 September 1970)
- S. Fred Singer
Environmental pollution in relation to urban planning
(Urban Technology Conference; New York, NY; May 24-26, 1971)
- S. Fred Singer
Stratospheric Water Vapour Increase due to Human Activities
(Nature 233, 543 - 545, 22 October 1971)
- S. Fred Singer
Origin of the moon by tidal capture and some geophysical consequences
(The Moon, Volume 5, Issue 1-2, pp. 206-209, September 1972)
- S. Fred Singer
The possibilities and usefulness of defining optimum population levels.
(International Journal of Health Services 3(4): 617-622, 1973)
- S. Fred Singer
The early history of the earth-moon system
(Earth-Science Reviews, vol. 13, Sept. 1977, p. 171-189, September 1977)
- S. Fred Singer
Is the "nuclear winter" real?
(Nature 310, 625, 23 August 1984)
- S. Fred Singer
Advocacy puts AGU's credibility at risk
(American Geophysical Union, Volume 72, Issue 21, p. 234-234, 1991)
- S. Fred Singer
Warming theories need warning label
(Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol/Issue: 48:5, Jun 01 1992)
- S. Fred Singer
Ozone, skin cancer, and the SST
(Aerospace America. Vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 22-26. 1994)
- S. Fred Singer
Environmental hype and hoax
(Environmental Geology, Volume 23, Number 3, April, 1994)
- S. Fred Singer
Analyzing Ultraviolet-B Radiation: Is There a Trend?
(Science, Vol. 264. no. 5163, pp. 1341 - 1342, 27 May 1994)
- Patrick J. Michaels, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger
Earth Day 1970 recalled
(Environmental Geology, Volume 26, Number 4, December, 1995)
- S. Fred Singer
Ozone Assessment Found Wanting
(Science News, Vol. 149, No. 4, p. 51, Jan. 27, 1996)
- S. Fred Singer
Climate Change and Consensus
(Science, Vol. 271. no. 5249, pp. 581 - 582, 2 February 1996)
- S. Fred Singer
Climate debate
(Nature, Volume 382, Issue 6590, pp. 392, 1996)
- S. Fred Singer
Global climate controversy
(JAMA, Vol. 276, Issue 5, 373-374, August 7, 1996)
- S. Fred Singer
Call for emission limits heats debate on global warming
(Physics Today, Volume 50, Issue 8, August 1997, pp.84-85, August 1997)
- S. Fred Singer
Unknowns about climatic variability render treaty targets premature
(American Geophysical Union, Volume 78, Issue 50, p. 584-584, 1997)
- S. Fred Singer
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
Sea level rise and global warming
(AGU, Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U62A-01, 2000)
- S. Fred Singer
What is Causing the Shrinkage of Arctic Sea Ice?
(American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting, abstract A52B-05, 2000)
- S. Fred Singer
Has the Climate Warmed Since 1940?
(AGU, Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract GC32A-0213, 2001)
- S. Fred Singer
Difficulty in reconciling global-warming data
(Nature 409, 281, 18 January 2001)
- S. Fred Singer
Global Warming: An Insignificant Trend?
(Science, Vol. 292. no. 5519, pp. 1063 - 1064, 11 May 2001)
- S. Fred Singer, Donald Kennedy, James D. Johnston
The Puzzle of Global Sea Level Rise
(American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting, abstract U42A-16, 2002)
- S. Fred Singer
Science Editor Bias on Climate Change?
(Science , vol 301, p. 595, 1 August 2003)
- S. Fred Singer
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Climate Change and Our Energy Future
(Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 8, 11098, 2006)
- S. Fred Singer
Sea Surface Temperatures (SST): Significance and Measurement
(AGU, Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract A44A-01, 2006)
- S. Fred Singer
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT, LMAO-you call that list "incomplete?"
March 30, 2008 - 00:24 ET by R D HelmJust be sure and let us know when it is complete so I can add another gig or two of RAM. :-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
It will take a while
March 30, 2008 - 01:02 ET by PopularTechBut I will let you know. : )
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
from 2000
March 30, 2008 - 05:01 ET by Giles Winterbourne"There is some evidence that the observed shrinking trend has slowed down and may even be reversing during the past few
years, indicating that the ice cover has reached an equilibrium with the current higher temperatures." What is Causing the Shrinkage of Arctic Sea Ice?
http://nsidc.org/new...
http://nsidc.org/sot...
http://www.gfdl.noaa...
http://earthobservat...
The Wind
March 30, 2008 - 08:04 ET by PopularTechArctic - Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind (Science)
Arctic - Winds of Change Thinned The Arctic Ice (NewScientist)
Arctic - Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You forgot galactic cosmic
March 30, 2008 - 11:26 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou forgot galactic cosmic rays, that's the cause du jour. Or that volcano.
"Those silver-tongued global warming hoaxsters have conned a sheet of Antarctic ice the size of Ireland into going along with their climate change scam. " http://northstatesci...
Gile's nonsense and propaganda
March 31, 2008 - 08:51 ET by PopularTechCosmic Rays is only one of the theories explaining the obvious sun-climate link. As for volcanoes please link to where I mentioned one in the arctic ocean.
You then quote from some random blog that quotes from the DailyKos stating a lie about conservative's "denying global warming". Please try to stop constantly showing your far-left propagandist postions
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
didn't prove anything
March 31, 2008 - 10:27 ET by Giles WinterbourneActually, the cosmic ray theory is separate from the 'sun-climate link'.
Since your wind cites really didn't prove anything (see 'not really' below) I suggested that you pursue the cosmic ray theory or perhaps try shifting the blame from anthropogenic CO2 to volcanic activity. Jennifer covers the arctic and antarctic vulcanism well @ http://www.jenniferm...
You're right, there is an 'obvious sun-climate link', it accounts for, oh let's just let a scientist describe it: ""Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to
human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness,"" http://www.eurekaler... or "Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like
only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun." http://solar-center.... or "This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," and "IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures." http://news.bbc.co.u... (which also discusses cosmic rays).
I was also negligent in not mentioning water vapor as a cause celebre.
Think of the quote from the 'random blog' as an intermittent feature of my posts - just part of a sig no more biased than quoting Lindzen for example.
'..try to stop constantly showing your far-left propagandist postions (sic)'. So you'd rather stifle discussion only aimed to help you being embarrassed when it is discovered that: http://books.google....
"The sooner and the more decisively we act to usher in the
next generations of buildings, vehicles, fuels and energy,
the greater our chances will be of avoiding the most
dangerous effects of human-caused global warming and
preserving the West we know and love." Citing the report cited by the 'random blog' and DailyKos http://www.nrdc.org/...
The Sun Climate Connection is well Documented
March 31, 2008 - 12:13 ET by PopularTechNo the cosmic ray theory is directly related to the sun since it is based on the fluctuation of the Sun's magnetic field.
My sources cleary presented a much more obvious explanation for the Arctic summer ice loss = the wind. The arctic ocean and greenland are two different locations, please keep up.
You blog post that quotes from the Daily Kos is slightly different then a quote from Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT.
The sun-climate connection is well documented:
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]
...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Science Daily)
Basic physics supports solar activity as cause of global warming (The Guardian, UK)
Canadian Climatologist Says Sun Causing Global Warming (Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (Science Daily)
Cosmic Rays and Climate (The Danish National Space Center)
Cosmic Rays Blamed for Global Warming (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Cosmic Rays 'Linked to Clouds' (BBC)
Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming (Science Daily)
Cosmic rays may solve global warming problem (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Cosmoclimatology: A new theory of climate change (The Danish National Space Center)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (Science Daily)
Fluctuations in the Sun may be changing climate (The Times, UK)
Solar Variability and Climate Change (Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
Exploding Stars Influence Climate Of Earth (Space Daily)
Ice cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth's climate (Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics)
It's the Sun, Stupid (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (Science Daily)
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (NASA)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
New Experiment To Investigate Effect Of Galactic Cosmic Rays On Clouds And Climate (Science Daily)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (Science Daily)
Read the sunspots (Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (Science Daily)
Scientists blame sun for global warming (BBC)
Solar blow to low cloud could be warming planet (Nature News)
Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms (Space.com)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (Science Daily)
Sun's magnetic flip affects cosmic ray penetration (USA Today)
Sun more active than for a millennium (NewScientist)
Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says (CNSNews)
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming (Space.com)
Sun still main force in climate change (WorldNetDaily)
Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated' (BBC)
Sunspots: correlations with temperature (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
The Solar to Global Warming Connection (Jim Goodridge, Retired State Climatologist)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (Science Daily)
The Sun and Global Warming (NASA)
The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years (Science Daily)
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Viewpoint: The Sun and climate change (BBC)
Why So Hot? Don't Blame Man, Blame the Sun (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
GCR, sunspots established as not a significant factor
March 31, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Giles Winterbourne(yes, you are correct on one point - I meant to mention Milankovitch cycles as another alternative theory pursued by delayers rather than double up on GCR and sunspots)
However, while there is a 'sun-climate connection', it doesn't have the strength that you are attempting to ascribe to it. Estimates vary from a high of 25% the effect of anthropogenic CO2 to as low as ~5% or even negative.
"Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures." http://publishing.ro...
"During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV
irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular
trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have
another source." http://www.mps.mpg.d...
http://www.mps.mpg.d...
http://www.mps.mpg.d...
"Even with such an enhanced climate response to solar
forcing, most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to
have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases. Indeed
we estimate that increases in greenhouse gases
were likely to have caused more warming than observed,
with a significant cooling trend from the direct
and indirect effects of sulfate aerosols counterbalancing
the combined warming effects from greenhouse gases
and changes in solar irradiance. The best estimate of the
warming from solar forcing is estimated to be 16% or
36% of greenhouse warming depending on the solar
reconstruction." http://climate.envsc...
"Despite the significant sensitivity of the model to solar forcing, even large solar combined with realistic volcanic forcing could not explain the 20th Century warming without greenhouse gas effects. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, greenhouse gas effects have dominated the last century." http://www.aimes.uca...
"The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences
in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes." and chart on page 9 http://ipcc-wg1.ucar...
FYI, this is from one of your links, selected at random. Perhaps a closer reading of your sources might be in order.
"He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20
years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the
Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities
such as
the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate
"the natural factors involved in climate change", he said."
http://www.telegraph...
Other commentaries:
"Changes in solar activity do affect global
temperatures, but research shows that, over the last 50 years,
increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than
changes in the Sun's energy." http://www.metoffice...
http://tamino.wordpr...
http://www.realclima...
http://www.realclima...
http://www.treehugge...
http://news.bbc.co.u...
Peer Reviewed Evidence of the Sun-Climate Connection
March 31, 2008 - 15:15 ET by PopularTechGiles you are quick to link to the IPCC, Realclimate and Treehugger. I don't need to...
200-year variations in cosmic rays modulated by solar activity and their climatic response
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7 / July, 2007)
- O. M. Raspopov, V. A. Dergachev
A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee
A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940's
(Physical Review Letters 91, 2003)
- Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko
Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 107, No. A7, 1118, 2002)
- Fangqun Yu
Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
- Ján Veizer
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Volume 13, Issue 7, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer
Climate Change: The Sun's Role
(arXiv:0706.3621, 23 Jun 2007)
- Gerald E. Marsh
Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 23, Issue 4, p. 359-362, 02/1996)
- Crowley, Thomas J., Kim, Kwang-Yul
Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
(Space Science Review 93: 155-166, 2000)
- Henrik Svensmark
Cosmic rays and climate - The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 41 Issue 4 Page 4.18-4.22, August 2000)
- E Pallé Bagó, C J Butler
Cosmic rays and climate of the Earth: possible connection
(External Geophysics, Climate and Environment, 2007)
- Ilya G. Usoskina, Gennady A. Kovaltsovb
Cosmic rays and the biosphere over 4 billion years
(Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol. 327, Issue 9, Page 871, 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate
(Space Science Reviews, v. 94, Issue 1/2, p. 215-230, 2000)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48 Issue 1, Page 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark
Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds
(Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, Vol. 462, Issue 2068, 2006)
- R. Giles Harrison, David B. Stephenson
Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions
(Solar Physics, Volume 205, Number 2, Pages 403-417, February 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov , G.E. Kocharov, M. Lindholm, J. Meriläinen, M. Eronen, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn
Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Journal Advances in Space Research, February 2007)
- Charles A. Perrya
Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
(Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 2273-2283, 2004)
- F. Yu
Galactic Cosmic Rays and Insolation are the Main Drivers of Global Climate of the Earth
(arXiv:hep-ph/0506208, 22 Jun 2005)
- V.D. Rusov, I.V. Radin, A.V. Glushkov, V.N. Vaschenko, V.N.Pavlovich, T.N. Zelentsova, O.T. Mihalys, V.A.Tarasov, A. Kolos
Galactic Cosmic Rays - Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 1. Theory
(arXiv:0803.2765, 19 Mar 2008)
-V. Rusov, A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, O. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev
Galactic Cosmic Rays - Clouds Effect and Bifurcation Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 2. Comparison of Theory with Experiment
(arXiv:0803.2766, 19 Mar 2008)
-V. Rusov, A. Glushkov, V. Vaschenko, O. Mihalys, S. Kosenko, S. Mavrodiev, B. Vachev
Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
(PNAS, Vol. 97, No. 23, 12433-12438, November 7, 2000)
- Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu
Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1173-1180, 2007)
- Joan Feynmana
Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate
(Physical Review Letters - November 30, 1998 - Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030)
- Henrik Svensmark
Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung
Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
(Science, Vol. 254. no. 5032, pp. 698 - 700, November 1991)
- E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol 49 No 2, Pages 32–44, June 2007)
- W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse
Long-Period Cycles of the Sun's Activity Recorded in Direct Solar Data and Proxies
(Solar Physics, Volume 211, Numbers 1-2, December, 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn, G.E. Kocharov, H. Jungner
Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 484-490, 2005)
- S.V. Veretenenko, , V.A. Dergachev, P.B. Dmitriyev
Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays
(Phys. Rev. Lett., 85(23), 5004-5007, 2000)
- Nigel D Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv
On the possible contribution of solar-cosmic factors to the global warming of XX century
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July, 2007)
- M. G. Ogurtsov
On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd
Orbital Controls on the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the Tropical Climate
(Paleoceanogrpahy Vol. 14, No. 4, Pages 441–456, 1999)
- A. C. Clement, R. Seager, M. A. Cane
Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science
(Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 23, No. 2, 181-204, 1999)
- Frank M. Chambers, Michael I. Ogle, Jeffrey J. Blackford
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 - 2136, 7 December 2001)
-
Gerard Bond, Bernd Kromer, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Michael N.
Evans, William Showers, Sharon Hoffmann, Rusty Lotti-Bond, Irka Hajdas,
Georges Bonani
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West
Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L17718, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West
Possible solar forcing of century-scale drought frequency in the northern Great Plains
(Geology, Vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 263-266, Mar 1999)
-Zicheng Yu, Emi Ito
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing
(Danish National Space Center Scientific Report, 3/2007)
- H. Svensmark, E.Friis-Christensen
Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1167-1172, 2007)
- O.M. Raspopov, V.A. Dergachev, A.V. Kuzmin, O.V. Kozyreva, M.G. Ogurtsov, T. Kolström and E. Lopatin
Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate
(Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007)
- Richard Mackey
Solar activity variations and global temperature
(Energy (Oxford), Vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993)
- Friis-Christensen, Eigil
Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994)
(Planetary and Space Science, Volume 55, Issues 1-2, Pages 158-164, January 2007)
- Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa, Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann, Heitor Evangelista da Silva, Mariza Pereira de Souza Echer, Ezequiel Echer
Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 8 , Pages 901 - 915, 27 May 2002)
- Ronald E. Thresher
Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
(Science, Vol. 284. no. 5412, pp. 305 - 308, 9 April 1999)
- Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan
Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands
(Science, Vol. 292. no. 5520, pp. 1367 - 1370, 18 May 2001)
- David A. Hodell, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, Thomas Guilderson
Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2, Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid
Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 7, p. 1035-1038, 1998)
- E.W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman
Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, Friday, December 22, 2006)
- J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler
Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood
Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L14703, 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
(physics/0612145v1, 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark
The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate
(Russian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 5, October 2004)
- V. A. Dergachev, P. B. Dmitriev, O. M. Raspopov, B. Van Geel
The link between the solar dynamo and climate - The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland
(Irish Astronomical Journal, vol. 21, no. 3-4, p. 251-254, 09/1994)
- C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston
The Sun–Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries
(Space Science Reviews, v. 95, Issue 1/2, p. 625-637, 2001)
- T.I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P.J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood
Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie W.-H. Soon
Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate
(Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Volume 57, Issue 8, Pages 835-845, July 1995)
- K. Lassen, E. Friis-Christensen
Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 66, p.273, 01/1961)
- Stuiver, M.
Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Vol. 194. no. 4270, pp. 1121 - 1132, 10 December 1976)
- J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton
Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59, 1225-1232, 1997)
- Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
- Reply to comments on ``Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage - a missing link in solar-climate relationships
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 62, Issue 1, p. 79-80, 2000)
- Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth's climate?
(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, Pages 563-579, January 2000)
- W. Soon, S. Baliunas, E. S. Posmentier, P. Okeke
What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, p. 913-921, 1997)
- Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark
Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?
(Geomagnetism i Aeronomia, Vol. 43, pp. 124-127, 2003)
- V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
We just did this
March 31, 2008 - 16:33 ET by Giles WinterbourneYes, there is a 'sun-climate connection' But the overwhelming bulk of the research comes back that that 'connection' has been overwhelmed by the increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2; depending on the study, for the last 40 to 60 years.
Which many of your links above acknowledge, or at least don't try to refute.
The Sun is the main driver of Climate
March 31, 2008 - 17:03 ET by PopularTechNo various studies using bogus climate models show man-made CO2 is the cause because they are programmed to show that. On a computer you can get whatever results you want.
My links do refute this:
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]
...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
It's the Sun that's to blame...
March 31, 2008 - 15:26 ET by PopularTechThe truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [...]
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.
He ... believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate [...]
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. [...]
The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Daily Telegraph - "The
April 1, 2008 - 13:17 ET by meteor79The Daily Telegraph - "The truth about global warming - its the sun that is to blame"
PT: How convenient that you left out the part that notes: 'Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse
gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater
impact.'
This is pretty irresponsible journalism given the first line of the article: Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
past 1,000 years, according to new research. This totally contradicts the findings of the study!
The Sun is to Blame as the study "suggests"
April 1, 2008 - 13:48 ET by PopularTech"A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes."
Just because Solanki cannot put two and two together does not mean the rest of us cannot he even states this is possible:
"He ... believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate"
The findings of the study are...
"The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
People can make up their own minds.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
not really
March 30, 2008 - 13:19 ET by Giles Winterbourne'Scary Arctic Ice Loss? Blame the Wind' study not cited in the 3+ year old link.
"Although this explanation of the thinning does not involve the
greenhouse effect it is, of course, possible that the change in the
wind patterns is linked to global climatic change, say researchers"
from the 18 yr old link,'Winds of change thinned the arctic ice', cited
above.
""The Arctic Oscillation has been in a primarily moderate to high phase
during the last decade or more, and the only way to reproduce this
tendency in the oscillation using a numerical climate model is if you
include the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the model."" Ignatius Rigor quoted in article, 'Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures', cited above.
Wind is the cause of the recent reduction in Arctic Summer Ice
March 31, 2008 - 09:35 ET by PopularTechGiles I keep forgetting that only recent scientific findings are correct. I think we should throw out all science that is more then a couple of years old!
Winds of Change Thinned The Arctic Ice (NewScientist)
"Ice covering the sea north of Greenland thinned by about 80 centimetres between 1976 and 1987. But the thinning was not a result of ice melting as the greenhouse effect warmed the world, says Peter Wadhams, the director of the Scott Polar Research Institute. Instead, he links it to a change in wind patterns that pushed sea ice away from the northern shore of Greenland. [...]
The ice north of Greenland, in the affected region, is usually driven onshore by the prevailing winds and currents. This makes it pile up near the coast. The pattern in 1987 was different. Strong winds blew old ice away from the coastal region, leaving behind a thinner layer of young ice.
...this explanation of the thinning does not involve the greenhouse effect"
Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)
"Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s -- and not warmer temperatures of recent years -- are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.
It may have happened more than a decade ago, but the sea ice appears to still "remember" those Arctic Oscillation conditions, according to Ignatius Rigor, a mathematician with the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory and a presenter at the American Geophysical Union's annual fall meeting this week in San Francisco.
The Arctic Oscillation is a seesaw pattern in which atmospheric pressure at the polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between positive and negative phases. The wind patterns associated with the Arctic Oscillation affect the surface winds and temperature over North America and Eurasia, as well as the Arctic.
The Arctic Oscillation was in an extreme "high," or positive, phase in the early '90s and is generally in a moderate phase today. Rigor and John M. Wallace, UW professor of atmospheric sciences, say the extreme high caused winds at the surface to circulate in ways that blew most of the thicker, older ice out of the Arctic Ocean into the Atlantic.
"It was as if winds generated in response to the Arctic Oscillation in those years became a far bigger 'broom' sweeping ice out of the arctic," Rigor says.
At the same time, changes in surface winds started causing the already thin ice to re-circulate back to the Alaska coast more quickly, decreasing the time it had to thicken before another melt season started. Today the ice in places remains just too thin to last through the summer melt, he says.
The result is that 70 percent of the ice is 3 years old or younger, Rigor says. In the 1980s, some 80 percent of the ice was 20 to 30 years old or more. [...]
The melting in places was extensive even where local temperatures were colder than normal. This was the case in the summers of 2002 and 2003 for Alaskan coastal waters.
"The temperature itself doesn't explain it all," Rigor says, "but the age of sea ice explains more than half the variance in summer sea-ice extent in those coastal waters." [...]
The fluctuations in the Arctic Oscillation to its positive phase set the stage for the recent reductions in ice extent, and Rigor and Wallace think low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. It is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index Arctic Oscillation conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to levels characteristic of the 1980s, they say."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
from your cites
March 31, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Giles WinterbourneFrom the reports you are citing above - which you cited previously
"Although this explanation of the thinning does not involve the greenhouse effect it is, of course, possible that the change in thewind patterns is linked to global climatic change, say researchers" from the 18 yr old link,'Winds of change thinned the arctic ice', cited above.
""The Arctic Oscillation has been in a primarily moderate to high phase during the last decade or more, and the only way to reproduce this tendency in the oscillation using a numerical climate model is if you include the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the model.""
Ignatius Rigor quoted in article, 'Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures', cited above.
"OSWALD. [Sits motionless as before and says.] The sun.--The sun." 'Ghosts' Ibsen http://www.gutenberg...
I will quote it again...
March 31, 2008 - 12:15 ET by PopularTechWinds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)
"Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s -- and not warmer temperatures of recent years -- are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean..."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Also, as quoted before.
March 31, 2008 - 12:53 ET by Giles WinterbourneAlso, as quoted before. From your resource,
Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (Science Daily)
"...the only way to reproduce this tendency in the oscillation
using a numerical climate model is if you include the observed increase
in greenhouse gases in the model." (my bold)
"...the bill featured a little drawing along with the numbers: a smiling face on a below-average bill or a frowning face on an above-average bill. After that simple nudge, the heavy users made even bigger cuts in
consumption, while the light users remained frugal. " Two Simple Behavioral Solutions to Mitigate Climate Change
Climate Models are irrelevant
March 31, 2008 - 13:45 ET by PopularTechSo we have an observed coorelation between the Arctic Osciliation, Wind and the Arctic Sea ice loss and your evidence it is caused by man again comes from a climate model (not models) which are absolutely irrelevant. But I would not expect you to understand not being a computer scientist.
"First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."
Don't Believe the Hype - Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
ah, the 'irrelevant model' ploy
March 31, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Giles Winterbourne'...from a climate model (not models) which are absolutely irrelevant. But I would not expect you to understand not being a computer scientist.'
So, before this thread ventures further down the path of WA assumptions and for the edification of the rest of the readers, how about explaining why models are 'absolutely irrelevant'?
"A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate
essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability
observed across a range of time scales." Frequently Asked Question 8.1 How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change? http://ipcc-wg1.ucar...
"Climate simulations are consistent in showing that the global
mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced
when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings (Figure 9.5). This conclusion
holds despite a variety of different anthropogenic forcings and
processes being included in these models (e.g., Tett et al., 2002;
Broccoli et al., 2003; Meehl et al., 2004; Knutson et al., 2006).
In all cases, the response to forcing from well-mixed greenhouse
gases dominates the anthropogenic warming in the model. No climate model using natural forcings alone has reproduced the
observed global warming trend in the second half of the 20th
century. Therefore, modelling studies suggest that late 20thcentury
warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than
natural in origin, a fi nding which is confi rmed by studies relying
on formal detection and attribution methods."
page 685-6 http://www.ipcc.ch/p...
Ah the Computer Illiterate Ploy
March 31, 2008 - 15:21 ET by PopularTechGiles before you attempt to engage me in a discussion of computer models I will save you a lot of time and energy as computer science is what I do for a living.
Curve fitting proves nothing. Giles answer this question:
1. Can you program a computer to get any result you want? Yes or No.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, 1934
A Skeptical View of Climate Models (Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute)
Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (Science Daily)
Are Existing Large-scale Simulations Of Water Dynamics Wrong? (Science Daily)
Climate is too complex for accurate predictions (NewScientist)
Climate Model Problems in Representing Near-Surface Temperatures at Night (Climate Science)
Colorado
State Atmospheric Scientist Believes Number Of Influences Are
Overlooked In U.S. National And International Climate Assessments (Science Daily)
Computer Climate Models: Voodoo for Scientists (PDF) (EIR Science)
Computer Models for Weather Forecasting Are Ridden With Errors; No Evidence for Global Warming (Insight on the News)
Dunes, Climate Models Don't Match Up With Paleomagnetic Records (Science Daily)
Dyson: Climate models are rubbish (The Register, UK)
Error strikes 'BBC climate model' (BBC)
Fossils leaves reveal climate model errors (NewScientist)
Global Warming Computer Models Seriously Flawed, Studies Show (The Heartland Institute)
Global Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists (CNSNews)
Models simulating global climate don’t capture fine-scale ups and downs of temperature (PDF) (Nature)
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability (Science Daily)
Overconfidence Leads To Bias In Climate Change Estimations (Science Daily)
Satellite observations suggest climate models are wrong on rainfall (BioEd Online)
The Mathematical Reason Why Long-run Climatic prediction is Impossible (Science and Public Policy Institute)
Those Darn Computer Models (AccuWeather)
Widespread 'Twilight Zone' Detected Around Clouds, Not Included In Most Climate Change Models (Science Daily)
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], "Pray, Mr. Babbage," if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right "answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." - Charles Babbage, Computer Pioneer, 1864
Climate Modeling Errors:
- Clouds
- Convection
- Cosmic Rays
- Eastern Boundary Regions of the Oceans
- El Nino
- Evaporation
- Macroturbulence
- Mountain Range Circulation
- Multi-Decadal Variability
- Near-Surface Temperatures at Night
- Precipitation
- Regional Climate Change
- Seasonal Variability
- Spatial Variations in Geothermal Heat
- Stratosphere Climate Change
- Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere
- Tropical Troposphere Temperatures
- Upper Tropospheric Humidity
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Why? not answered
March 31, 2008 - 16:09 ET by Giles WinterbourneNope, the question was ' how about explaining why models are 'absolutely irrelevant'?'
Which it seems you are unwilling to do, and the last time you accused me of that, you said that made you the de facto winner.
Why word the question ' get any result you want', ?
Your question has the implication that the programs would be designed to falsify findings while the actuality is that 'want' is finding the most reliable, accurate, precise results. So the second question would be to explain why you feel the programmers or scientists would want to falsify those results.
And perhaps you could explain the testing that the models have gone though, the comparisons to observed data and how that has not made those models more reliable and accurate. You may choose to ignore IPCC work out of hand, but then we can choose to ignore your lists of links to research and opinion sites with the cherry-picked quotes.
You cannot answer the question
March 31, 2008 - 16:57 ET by PopularTechThe answer is YES computer's can be programmed to get whatever answer you want.
If the scientists are not doing this then why is 100% of the code for 100% of these models not released publicly?
ANY errors (and there are god knows how many in these massive models) invalidates the results.
These models include various theories that these scientists "think" is how something works and has not been empirically proven.
Unless computers simulate the planet 100% accurately with everything 100% understood their output is meaningless. Not only that they must simulate the Sun ect... There is no close enough on a computer model, it is either right or wrong. Computers cannot fill in the blanks for you like nature does when you do an experiment in the real world. Everything must be programmed into them and the current models are pathetic at even remotely approaching this level of accuracy.
Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. What this means is you are attempting to have your model's output match the existing historical output that has been recorded. For example matching the global mean temperature curve over 100 years. Even if you match this temperature curve with your model it is meaningless. Your model could be using some irrelevant calculation that simply matches the curve but does not relate to the real world. With a computer model there are an infinite number of ways to match the temperature curve but only one way that represents the real world. It is impossible for computer models to prove which combination of climate physics correctly matches the real world.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
We don't have a second Earth
March 31, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Giles WinterbourneWe don't have a second Earth to run experiments on; it seems we've decided to experiment upon ourselves. Models are the best secondary resource. Varified and fit to observations and what experiments that are available.
You aren't explaining '..models are pathetic at even remotely approaching this level of accuracy', just tossing out your opinions. However, IPCC does take the effort to explain how models are effective tools as I previously cited.
Computer Models are irrelevant
March 31, 2008 - 18:15 ET by PopularTechI am not tossing out my opinion, I am presenting the scientific reality of how computers work something that is obviously way over your head. Your computer illiteracy speaks for itself and the IPCC.
"Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases"
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
another denier argument
March 31, 2008 - 22:27 ET by Giles WinterbourneAh, and another denier argument ends by insult.
No explanation, no detail, just bombast. I guess you watch BoR as a role model.
Oh, well. It's a moot point. The real scientists, the politicians, the corp. execs all know what's up and what's in store.
You'll just be finding your little island of opinion getting less and less populated.
Giles is an ignorant Computer Illiterate
April 1, 2008 - 07:49 ET by PopularTechGiles do you have a degree in computer science? Do you work in the field? I do. Do you know anything about the following:
Software Engineering, GIGO, Defensive Programming, SQA, Code Audit, ISO 9000, Unit Testing, Code Coverage, Regression Testing, Errata, ICE, Logic analyzers, Source Code, Legacy Code, Compilers, Interpreters, Assemblers, Debugging, Input Validation Errors, Exception Handling, Logic Errors, Execution Handling, Divide by Zero, NULL Pointer, Run-Time Error, Race Condition, Infinite Loop, Memory Leak, Stack Overflow/Underflow, Buffer Overflow, Dangling Pointer, Deadlock, SQL Injection, Priviledge Escalation, Checksum, CRC, Code Libraries, APIs, OLE, ODBC, ASCII, Open-Source, Closed-Source, DOS, Windows, UNIX, Linux, COBOL, Pacal, Basic, Visual Basic, Java, .NET, PHP, C++, C#, Machine Code, Assembly Language, GCM, AGCM, SGCM, OGCM, AOGCM, Flux Correction, Spectral Models...
Well neither does the IPCC and most natural scientists.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for computer climate models to prove AGW nor can they be used to make policy decisions. They are theoretical and nothing more. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a computer illiterate.
Giles you never answered the question: Why is 100% of the computer code for 100% of the computer models not made publicly available?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT: That is great that you
April 1, 2008 - 13:39 ET by meteor79PT: That is great that you are a computer scientist. However, do you have any background in atmospheric science? How about in computational fluid dynamics? Do you know anything about the CFL criterion, or positive definite advective schemes, for example?
My point is that there is a big difference between being a computer scientist and a numerical modeler. Simply being a computer scientist DOES NOT give you any credibility to be able to comment on computation fluid dynamics issues. Anyway, the lack of credibility is obvious when you make ignorant statements claiming all computer models are irrelevant. Atmospheric science (and other sciences) have made incredible advances during the last 50 years using computer models. Here are just a few topics for you in which modeling has been very useful: atmospheric stability, convective storm mode, error growth/predictability limits, topographic flows, gravity waves, tropical cyclogenesis, etc. etc. etc.
By the way, I'm actually familiar with quite a number of the topics you listed.... so, I'm not particularly impressed.
The difference is one understands the limitations of Computers
April 1, 2008 - 14:00 ET by PopularTechThe other thinks they can overcome this with an excessive amount of math. CFDs are still approximations and yes as I deal with engineers who use CFD related software.
Being a computer scientist gives me COMPLETE credibility to comment on ANYTHING done on a computer system.
So why is 100% of the computer climate model code for 100% of the computer climate models not available to everyone? What are they hiding?
If you were actually familiar with the topics I listed and actually understood them then you would not have the faith you do in computer models.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
When you say that you
April 1, 2008 - 14:26 ET by meteor79When you say that you "understand the limitations of computer models", you automatically discredit yourself by saying that computer models are irrelevant. As I mentioned above, many advances in science have been made via modeling. Also, I can't help but laugh at the statement: "Being a computer scientist gives me COMPLETE credibility to comment on ANYTHING done on a computer system." What arrogance.... and obvious BS.
** I forgot to ask... When you speak with engineers regarding CFD software do you simply advise them not to use the software. I mean, if all computer models are irrelevant that should apply to other sciences too, right?
The limitations of computers
April 1, 2008 - 19:33 ET by PopularTechComputer Climate models are irrelevant for prediction. There are many practical applications of computer model, especially in engineering where they can build and test what they modeled. They will often find real world test results that do not match the model's output and thus need to make corrections to the model. The problem is making the corrections.
The only BS is you absolute lack of understanding relating to computer science. Software is software no matter what name you call it or what application it is used in. This is why engineers and scientists are often clueless about computers in a detailed sense. Oh sure they know how to use them but incorrectly put faith in something they do not properly comprehend.
I advise engineers on the limited accuracy of computer based results in that they are only as good as what they are programmed to do and thus everything should always be tested in the real world.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
March 31, 2008 - 22:44 ET by RESTLESS 1No, no, no, no. You have it all wrong. The models are perfect and the modelers are so trustworthy.
The Epistemology of Models
"The biggest problem with models is the fact that they are made by
humans who tend to shape or use their models in ways that mirror their
own notion of what a desirable outcome would be." (John Firor [1998],
Senior Research Associate and former Director of NCAR, Boulder, CO,
USA)
"In climate modeling, nearly everybody cheats a little." (Kerr, 1994)
Manmade GW hoax
March 28, 2008 - 10:59 ET by stonecutterGood luck getting an apology,I wouldn't hold my breath.The manmade global warming hype seems to be at a fevered pitch these days.Thanks to Dr. S. Fred Singer for his efforts to bring common sense back into the discussion.
Do I ever like this guy!
March 28, 2008 - 11:06 ET by bassndudeDo I ever like this guy! Great letter. Hope it gets out. Wonder if ABC will post it on their site? Maybe the NYT's will print it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
MAN BEAR PIG
March 28, 2008 - 11:33 ET by political mavenMaybe if Dr. Singer put on 100 lbs & warned of half man, half bear, half pig....
ABC loves bloated morons who warn of fairy tales!
Awesome letter
March 28, 2008 - 11:10 ET by LionKingWOW!!!
Dr. Singer zinged ABC like we would all like to do to the MSM. I hope this gets some traction...maybe Rush will get wind of this thanks to Noel.
Same MO
March 28, 2008 - 11:22 ET by mvfreemanAnyone who disagrees is publicly branded as a heretic.
"Do not cry havoc, where you should but hunt with modest warrant" William Shakespeare
Uhh....I suspect Ms. Felicia
March 28, 2008 - 11:22 ET by TruthMattersUhh....I suspect Ms. Felicia Biberica Fiona Conway will have to get a new cell phone number soon.
Apology? ha ha ha
March 28, 2008 - 11:27 ET by political mavenABC has no interest in being fair & conveying facts or news. They are just like the Chinese or official press of Arab countries.
Nothing but empty headed pretty boys & infobabes reading the teleprompter with the propaganda put there by their masters.
Does anyone have opinions as to why the press adores this global warming scam??
My opinion
March 28, 2008 - 12:04 ET by ArcherBIt pushes their agenda. More control of the people and their jobs.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Speak softly and carry a big...
March 28, 2008 - 11:34 ET by jpatchStick it to 'em Professor Singer!
That letter is so money and you don't even know it.
This is yet another perfect example of the "news"media today and their ideologically distorted, ends justify means M.O.
This letter needs to be stuck on Al Gore's front door with a knife. Come on out, Al. You have some visitors that wanna DEBATE SOME THINGS WITH YOU.
Show yourself, La Erog!!! Stop hiding in your Carbon mansion!!
More like nailed to the door
March 28, 2008 - 14:36 ET by LCT688More like nailed to the door of the Algore church of Global Cconforming as in Martin Luther.
"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."
Alexander Hamilton
The apology
March 28, 2008 - 11:55 ET by BacchusMr. Singer, I'm sincerely sorry that ABC News and their apprentice, Mr. Harris (AGW alarmist and editing room revisionist) sullied your good name. If it were up to me, it isn't, Mr. Harris would be reassigned to ABC's Siberia Bureau for his part in butchering your interview. It was the most blatantly one-sided news item I've ever witnessed. You were used, sir, disrespected by Harris.
Yeah right
March 28, 2008 - 12:52 ET by ammo johnABC (Always Bashing Conservatives) apologize or make corrections? That's a good one!!!
Thank you, Dr. Singer
March 28, 2008 - 13:56 ET by Cape Conservativefor continuing "the good fight" against those who are determined to end the "debate" before it ever begins! You are such a breath of fresh air I feel lightheaded just reading about or listening to you.
This program was so blatantly tainted by Dan Harris and his Greenpeace buddy that ABC should be made to repeat the entire episode only with YOU in the lead to point out the many falsehoods that were expressed by both parties! And you can bring along a few of those educated scientists who also believe the entire global warming stuff is a gigantic hoax!
I'll go out to their website now to see if I can add my two cents worth.
And to continue on in a slightly
March 28, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Cape Conservativedifferent vein, if the Democrats think that AG will magically appear as the knight in shining armor to rescue it after the two current candidates are left bleeding to death by a thousand cuts, they should think twice - no, think more than twice!
This man KNOWS his supposed "theory" is full of bunk and no way does he want to be put in a position of defending the indefensible! And if it ends up that he is in the picture, if the Republicans don't call him on it, I will have to question why I remain a member of the Republican Party!
I really don't think he'll leave the millions and millions of $$$ he is raking in with his "offset" companies though. It seems he has proven the old adage that a fool is born every minute. He's sitting there just waiting to cash in on one of the most stupid, deceitful con-games ever invented!
Yeah, but McCain believes in Global Warming too
March 28, 2008 - 14:54 ET by political mavenSo who , exactly, would debate cheeseburger Al on this issue?
LMFAO!
March 28, 2008 - 14:27 ET by SamABC apologize?!? LMFAO!
No doubt, they will NEVER
March 28, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Sick-n-TiredNo doubt, they will NEVER apologize. There are an extension of the liberal left and in as much as their mantra is "no self accountability" it will not happen. Bravo to the good Dr.---too bad it will fall on deaf ears.
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
apology scenario
March 28, 2008 - 17:21 ET by m1xramSo how would that work...
ABC: We're so sorry that you can't think like we do. We're sorry that credible scientists should be so blind as to let facts and data obscure the truth.
Am I close?
Great Move by Dr. Singer
March 28, 2008 - 14:48 ET by deerjerkydaveThis is a great move by Dr. Singer. It keeps the public debate alive and gives global warming realists a chance to be heard (in addition to attempting to defend his name). Like Algore, ABC may run away from the debate but the blogs will still be talking about it. Liberal big media don't have a monopoly on information anymore.
I look forward to the time when a publicly, nationally broadcast televised debate takes place on the matter between scientists (ABC this is your chance!). Debates have been had in the past and every time global warming alarmists wind up with their tails between their legs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966934/posts
And the point goes to Dr. Singer
March 28, 2008 - 16:52 ET by BritcomWell said.
ABC should be ashamed of its dishonest reporting and its zeal for the Cult of Warmingism. But, I don't suppose they can hear our protest while their heads remain firmly lodged in Al Gore's nether cavity.
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
everyone should post at ABC News
March 28, 2008 - 17:07 ET by wizardjrI just posted a polite thumb in the eye on their web site for what they did to this man (and many others). I encourage all the rest of you to follow the link and do the same. Keep it clean, but no mercy.
chuck in st paul
ABC will laugh at his demand
March 28, 2008 - 18:31 ET by chessplayerABC will laugh at his demand for an apology. The only thing they will understand is if Singer files a lawsuit against them.
"The only thing they will
March 29, 2008 - 10:22 ET by danbo"The only thing they will understand is if Singer files a lawsuit against them."
It's been known to happen.
"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
Speaking of GreenPeace,
March 28, 2008 - 19:03 ET by ckc1227Speaking of GreenPeace, where do they get their money? Completely unbiased sources no doubt.
Background on Greenpeace
March 28, 2008 - 23:08 ET by PopularTechGreenpeace (Discover the Networks)
"Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...]
In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]
Taking issue with Greenpeace's anti-biotech stance, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity."
According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]
An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.
Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018."
Here are some of Greenpeace's "expert" scientists:
- Charles Margulis, B.A. Peace and Conflict Studies and Professional Baker (Genetic Engineering Specialist)
- Mike Roselle, High-School Dropout (Forest Campaign Coordinator)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Just to be fair: Background on Singer...
March 29, 2008 - 01:00 ET by meteor79In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied
receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work
some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states
that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The
organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of
Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on
an annual basis. Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post
February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental
activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides
with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year
record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that consulted
for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years
ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil
during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution;
the Wesson money derives from salad oil. S. FRED SINGER Singer is
listed as a $500 plus contributer to the Center for Individual Rights.
Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global
Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's
Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the
Leipzig Delcaration.
Meteor you are good at quoting from far-left wing smear sites
March 29, 2008 - 01:23 ET by PopularTechwww.ExxonSecrets.org
$$$ Funded by Greenpeace
- Greenpeace (Activist Cash)
"Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical “Don’t Make a Wave Committee,” a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.
Here in the United States, however, Greenpeace is a relatively modest activist group, spending about $10 million per year. And the lion’s share of that budget in recent years has gone to outrageous attempts to smear agricultural biotech products and place doubts about the safety of genetically improved foods in the minds of American consumers. [...]
Patrick Moore was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of a Unitarian Church in Vancouver. Within 7 years, the organization had footholds in over two dozen countries and a $100 million budget. As eco-activists in general found themselves suddenly invited into the meeting-places of business and government, Greenpeace made the decision to take even more extreme positions, rather than being drawn in to collaboration with their former enemies.
Moore broke with his comrades during this period, and has emerged as an articulate critic of his former brainchild. Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”
Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
... and you never quote from
March 29, 2008 - 02:12 ET by meteor79... and you never quote from "smear sites". So, is what Exxonsecrets says about Singer wrong?
Greenpeace lying about Dr. Singer?
March 29, 2008 - 07:59 ET by PopularTechNever! They only tried that with the recent ABC interview.
What was the credentials of Greenpeace's "environmental expert" featured in the ABC smear piece? His credentials are not online and they will not respond to my emails. Like I said people can make up their own minds.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
This is a Clear Case of GW Skeptic Bashing by ABC
March 29, 2008 - 17:12 ET by BritcomLet's see ABC try to justify their intolerant actions now.
"ABC" and "intolerant" in the same sentence? Oh my!
---
Communist vs. Statist '08
Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"
Another Giles far-left smear site: Union of Concerned Scientists
April 1, 2008 - 08:29 ET by PopularTechGiles, when will you learn to stop linking to far left smear sites?
Union of Concerned Scientists (Discover the Networks)
"The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization with more than 100,000 members. Seeing its mission as building a "cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world," ... It opposes genetically engineered foods, condemns SUV vehicles, and proposes measures aimed at combating what it deems the imminent dangers of global warming. It also opposes the vast majority of American foreign policy decisions, and calls for a unilateral reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles. UCS disseminates to lawmakers and news outlets its opinions about each of these matters, with the intent of ultimately influencing public policy.
Students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology founded UCS in 1969. "Through its actions in Vietnam, our government has shaken our confidence in its ability to make wise and humane decisions," reads the UCS founding document. That sentiment continues to this day, with UCS condemning American efforts in the War on Terror and the 2003 War in Iraq.
UCS typically minimizes threats posed by foreign rogue regimes, and challenges U.S. assertions about the intentions and military capacities of those governments. In 1998, for instance, UCS assured the public that American analysts had exaggerated North Korea's ability to produce nuclear weapons, and that the Pyongyang regime was still many years away from being able to develop such an arsenal.
UCS vigorously opposes America's development of a missile defense system. It also calls for the "adoption of a U.S. nuclear no-first-use policy"; "a U.S. rejection of rapid-launch options, and a change in deployment practices to provide for the launch of U.S. nuclear forces in hours or days rather than minutes"; "the elimination of all U.S. 'tactical' nuclear weapons, intended for use on the battlefield"; "verified unilateral reductions to a total of 1,000 strategic warheads (including deployed and stored), accompanied by warhead dismantlement"; and "a commitment to further reductions in the number of nuclear weapons, on a negotiated and verified multilateral basis."
UCS admonishes American corporations such as McDonald's and Burger King, asserting that the presence of antibiotics in meat used by fast-food companies contributes to large-scale antibiotic resistance. In 2003, bills based on UCS research aimed at prohibiting the use of eight classes of antibiotics in livestock used by fast-food producers were introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate. Soon after, UCS admitted that the majority of its claims were speculative. UCS has also warned of the alleged dangers of genetically modified food.
Another issue of concern to UCS is that of global warming. The organization circulated a petition that drew the signatures of some 1,600 scientific experts demanding that the United States ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
A Union of Concerned Scientists declaration, entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making," charges that the Bush administration "has continued to distort and suppress science in pursuit of its political goals — despite a plea from top U.S. scientists to restore scientific integrity to the policy-making process." According to UCS President Kevin Knobloch, "We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush administration, and it crosses disciplines, whether it's global climate change or reproductive health or mercury in the food chain or forestry -- the list goes on and on." The signers of this document portrayed themselves as objective scientists with no political agenda. But in truth, over half of them were financial contributors to the Democratic Party, Democratic candidates, or a variety of leftist causes. [...]
UCS is a member of the Save Our Environment Action Center, a leftist coalition that describes itself as "a collaborative effort of the nation's most influential environmental advocacy organizations harnessing the power of the internet to increase public awareness and activism on today's most important environmental issues."
UCS has received funding from the Beldon Fund, the Compton Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Energy Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and Pew Charitable Trusts."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Or do you just not like them
April 1, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Giles WinterbourneInteresting that stopping nuclear war, or attempting to limit overreaction to it is such a left wing attribute.Or helping government make better informed decisions about policy involving science and technology.
Or do you just not like them because UCS is another sharp stick goading government to do its job - being 'of the
people, by the people, for the people' - jeesh, lines from a Republican. Yeah, they're bad; "UCS website offers visitors an online opportunity to register to vote." from your link @ DtN .
But, this thread is about Singer, remember? And part of the response was your posting of his 'vita'. But, you failed in your due diligence of presenting your research by missing some of his writings.Or, you wanted to portray him through a Weemsian lens.
If the former, I kindly linked to them for you. If the latter, I merely wiped some of the smudges off the lens.
Which caused you to attack me for attacking his good name; his good name that he not only willingly put on those tobacco and WSJ opinion pieces, but was instrumental in gaining access to those publications.
A short note on DtN's UCS article; Does it not bother you that they don't provide links to proof of their assertions? Virtually no documentation? How hard would it be? They actually do better discussing the DSA, which suggests that maybe there isn't much basis beyond ire.
Interesting also that PT paints with such a broad brush, he's arguing to two people without realizing it.
Keep Up With Science LOC
The merchants of smear
April 1, 2008 - 13:07 ET by PopularTechInteresting how the U.S. does not want nuclear war either but I do not want us to reduce our defensive stockpile of nuclear weapons. Propagandizing their position which is an anti-defensive one is typical of your tactics.
Dr. Singer's 'vita' was presented which is extensive and gives overwhelming proof of his scientific credentials. I provided overwhelming evidence of his published science credentials relating to the earth, the atmosphere, the environment and the climate. I specifically did not include any of his work in irrelevant scientific fields to these. You on the other hand dug up a SHS court case he was questioned in, in an attempt to smear his credibility without even realizing his position is based on scientific studies. Obviously any position (even when it is based on science) other than SHS will kill you in a matter of minutes discredits any scientist to you. You should be excited because the far-left brainwashing has done it's job.
You did nothing but make yourself look like the far left smear merchant that you are.
Correct the UCS post was by Meteor not you and thus you escape the emabarrassment this time.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
provide a less than full picture
April 2, 2008 - 03:28 ET by Giles WinterbourneMight want to review the documentation of the SHS paper and some of the critical analysis of the 'science' in it.
Not including the SHS documents and the Wall Street Journal opinion pieces smacks of attempting to provide a less than full picture of Singer's thoughts and positions. In trying to emphasize his position as a scientist, you're lessening his contrarianism.
I could have included his 1960 belief in Phobos being an artificial moon.
Or his claim there were only "...only about 100 climate
scientists..." (repeated here where he trots out most of the delayer memes) involved in the IPCC and " Most climatologists agree that these changes were of natural
origin..." (ibid) without any proof.
Or further evidence of his involvement with the denial movement to spread disinformation
Or his duplicity in the Leipzig Declaration .
And btw, using personal insults really only shows a weakness in your ability to defend your position.
Giles you are the most dishonest propagandist ever.
April 2, 2008 - 07:38 ET by PopularTechNot including many of Dr. Singer's publications is because they have nothing to do with the earth, the atmosphere or the climate. This is besides the fact that you are obviously illiterate as I clearly stated the list was INCOMPLETE! It could not be that I was only presenting scientific papers relevant to the discussion. No it must be a conspiracy! Which is why you linked to a conspiratorial website which is a bogus source for the information stated:
Jeff Rense (www.rense.com) is a Conspiracy Theorist (Popular Mechanics)
Dr. Singer's position on Phobus is documented here:
Origin of the Martian Satellites Phobos and Deimos (PDF)
(First International Workshop on the Exploration of Phobos and Deimos, 2007)
- Singer, S. F.
Early papers of his on the subject here:
Radiation Belts of Venus and of Mars (with Consideration of Sweeping Effect of Phobos)
(Space Age Astronomy, Proceedings of an international Symposium, p.444, 1962)
- Singer, S. F.
On the origin of the Martian satellites Phobos and Deimos
(Moon and Planets, A Session of the Seventh International Space Science Symposium, p.317, 1967)
- Singer, S. F.
Please get these for me and lets see what they have to say. Until you provide a relevant source you can keep your wikipedia "referenced" smears to yourself.
Dr. Singer clearly states: "There are, at best, only about 100 climate scientists in this IPCC (1997) listing of economists, political scientists, government functionaries, and public relations specialists."
MANY op-eds do not include detailed scientific supporting evidence. This does not make the statement untrue.
Giles you keep digging up the debunked Newsweek article over and over:
Greenhouse Simplicities (Newsweek)
Newsweek: Alarmed by Deniers (The American Spectator)
The current Leipzig Declaration contains 105 scientists and meteorologists.
Giles not only have I defended my position I have exposed you for the dishonest propagandist that you are.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Easy to see that
April 2, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Giles WinterbourneEasy to see that maintaining him as a cornerstone of the delayer movement is paramount.
To see what that movement is comprised of is part of the information useful in the decision making process politicians, public, and corporations are making.
Your arguments about not including some of his writings is disingenuous.Stating that the list is 'incomplete' hid the fact that there were numerous writings that were deliberately not presented. Writings that show a different picture of the man than what you wanted to present.
Yup, he changed his mind about Phobos; but to even have such a view originally makes you wonder about his use of the scientific method.
Yes, Op-Eds are opinion. And showing his opinion, stated publicly informs the reader with a fuller picture of his thinking. And there needs to be truth, even one-sided, in expressing that opinion. If there are factual inaccuracies, such as quoting made up numbers for scientists involved or size of consensus, or number of dissenters, that should be pointed out.
The Newsweek article you cite doesn't disavow any of the Newsweek article I cited; it is rehashing the delayer 'we can't do anything without ruining the economy ' meme.
The Leipzig Declaration signatories comments was as originally produced and cited by Singer and others. That they found they needed to revise it to match their claims only shows how putting out the truth helps.
People on the original list have been quoted as not knowing anything about the declaration or how their name got on the list, some were unable to be found to even ask.
Note that the current one still lists 'professor', no title, or note about position or qualifications for a large percentage.
Rense cite was only in lieu of availability of scan or original published work described in the article.
And '..clearly states..' doesn't make it necessarily a truthful statement. A simple list of those he considers in the "..about 100 climate scientists.." list would give the public, the politicians, and the corp. execs the evidence to back up the claim. That the Liepzig statement was soon found to be false adds doubt to the accuracy of the number of IPCC scientists statement.
Nope, Wikipedia wasn't used in the research for the post. And that you don't like the references doesn't make them part of a 'smear'.
And, as we've noted before, tossing out WA assumptions and insults only strains the credibility of your arguments.
"But done right, protecting the climate and securing the country's energy supply are not costly at all. In fact, they're profitable, since saving fuel costs less (–) than buying it." How to Fuel the Country While Saving the World Newsweek
Dr. Singers Editorials (Incomplete)
April 2, 2008 - 12:41 ET by PopularTechGiles please provide the original written piece by Singer for me then we can decide what was actually said.
Incomplete because I don't have time to finish this now as like last time which still would not include any work outside the field of the planet earth, it's atmosphere or the climate.
Fact and Fancy on Greenhouse Earth (S. Fred Singer, The Wall Street Journal, August 30, 1988)
No Scientific Consensus on Greenhouse Warming (S. Fred Singer, The Wall Street Journal, September 23, 1991)
Earth Summit Will Shackle the Planet, Not Save it (S. Fred Singer, The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 1992)
Will greenies ask for a phase out of cattle? (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, March 25, 1992)
Having energy controls will harm development (S. Fred Singer, New Straits Times (Malaysia), April 28, 1992)
When it's wiser to punt for a CO2 goal (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, September 30, 1993)
A More Sensible Approach to the Environment (S. Fred Singer, The Wall Street Journal Europe, January 28-29, 1994)
Cars: Let 's Go Electric! (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Post, February 12, 1994)
Peeking Into the Future: Electric Cars (S. Fred Singer, Samsung Quarterly, Spring 1994)
Clinton's Global Warming Action Plan : Just A Lot of Hot Air? (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, March 23, 1994)
The Earth Summit: Hidden conflicts (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, July 30, 1994)
The Earth Summit: Hidden conflicts (S. Fred Singer, Knight-Ridder News Service, October 1996)
Dirty Climate (S. Fred Singer, National Review, November 25, 1996)
Disinformation about global warming? (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, November 13, 1996)
Scrap the climate treaty (S. Fred Singer, Journal of Commerce, March 6, 1997)
Satellite weather data under siege (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, March 23, 1997)
Trick or treaty: An energy tax in disguise (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, July 1, 1997)
A Treaty Built on Hot Air, Not Scientific Consensus (S. Fred Singer, The Wall Street Journal, July 25, 1997)
Climate disaster bait and pitch (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, November 24, 1997)
Peering into a 'black hole' (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, November 25, 1997)
Global apocalypse fantasy (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, November 26, 1997)
Scientists Agree: Warming is Natural (S. Fred Singer, Letter to The Wall Street Journal, January 7, 1998)
Exploding the Environmental Myths of 1997 (S. Fred Singer, Waterbury Republican-American, January 7, 1998)
Ironies grown in Kyoto (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, January 23, 1998)
Differing Views of Global Warming (S. Fred Singer, Times Literary Supplement, March 13, 1998)
Kyoto accord protest quickening (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, April 22, 1998)
Scientists add to heat over global warming (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, May 5, 1998)
Letter to the Editor, Foreign Affairs (S. Fred Singer, Foreign Affairs, July 27, 1998)
Global warming lucency (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, October 15, 1998)
Serene climate control climb (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, October 30, 1998)
Parting Green Clouds (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, January 10, 1999)
Chronicles of Earthy Hyperbole (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, April 23, 1999)
Respite From the Regulators? (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, June 8, 1999)
Global Warming Scam (S. Fred Singer, Elko Daily Free Press (Elko, NV), February 3, 2000)
The Future of the Automobile: Electric Vehicles are on their Way (S. Fred Singer, The Independent Institute, March 13, 2000)
The Danger of Unstable Oil Prices (S. Fred Singer, The Independent Institute, March 16, 2000)
Warming up for Gore (S. Fred Singer, Republican-American (Waterbury, CT), April 1, 2000)
Global Warming Will Lower Sea Levels (S. Fred Singer, The Independent Institute, April 17, 2000)
Sure, the North Pole is Melting. So What? (S. Fred Singer, The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2000)
Hypothetical Damages (S. Fred Singer, The New York Sun, November 14, 2006)
Public misled (S. Fred Singer, Financial Post, Canada, November 22, 2006)
Not So Dire After All (S. Fred Singer, The New York Sun, February 2, 2007)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, San Francisco Examiner, May 22, 2007)
Inconveniently, Climate Alarmists Are Wrong (S. Fred Singer, St. Paul Pioneer Press, October 29, 2007)
Courts Confront Climate Change (S. Fred Singer, The Washington Times, January 24, 2008)
The case against man-made warming (S. Fred Singer, Financial Post, Canada, March 04, 2008)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
1970's Alarmist also spoke of "Delayers"
April 3, 2008 - 01:14 ET by PopularTechIt is easy to see the desperate need by the Alarmists to smear and try to discredit the honorable Dr. Singer since he is such a vocal part of debunking the hystera.
I clearly stated the list was "incomplete" because I have much to add to it still. Lying about my intent over and over does not make it true. Your idiotic notions that his work unrelated to the earth, the atmosphere and the climate have any relevance to the discussion of global warming is delusional.
Stating he changed his mind about something that I cannot find a real source on and you have not been about to provide for except to some conspiracy theorist website as evidence is propaganda. I have however provided a current document showing a very rational scientific position on Phobos from Dr. Singer and thus believe the other site to nonsense or some out of context misinterpretation. Your rense cite is worthless.
I provided an extensive collection of Dr. Singer's editorials above, again incomplete because I have more to add. Editorials almost never cite sources for their commentary, this does not mean it does not exist. Dr. Singer was arguing about the IPCC's position from 1997 not today.
The Leipzig statement was never found to be false. You have one editor who could not confirm all the signatories of a statement based on an overseas meeting. This does not mean they did not sign it or had since change their minds after signing it. The statement had since been revised and the original signatories asked to resign it, 33 chose not to - no doubt due to political pressure. The revised statement has 105 scientists and meteorologists as signatories and meets the original one's criteria.
People can read the articles for themselves and clearly see this one chastizing the other: Greenhouse Simplicities (Newsweek)
Newsweek also once believed in Global Cooling:
The Cooling World (Newsweek)
"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Look Giles the Alarmists were using your "delaying" language back in the 1970s about Global Cooling, how ironic.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
GW ooh if there were no guns, there be no gun crimes.
April 1, 2008 - 23:06 ET by upcountrywaterWAKE -UP HELLO ; GW
We live in an EVIL world, the bad guys has guns!
There are 2 kinds of men in this world, one with guns, the others who DIG!
oh yea dodger how about the SOOT issue?
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO