Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

Fred Singer was one of many scientists who spoke out at the international conference in New York about the scientific data that dispels the myth that CO2 drives Climate Change

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Climate
• Change
• Global
• warming
• Fred
• Singer
• IPCC
• NIPCC
• Heartland
• conference
• Sceptic
• Commentary
• Analysis
• Documentary
• News

[OvoidCranium]

@jerkazoid I have left such texts behind long ago and one thing you find out as you go along is that those texts are riddled with errors.

Now the actual temperature of the earth is actually crucial to it's climate and our ability to measure it accurately and correctly crucial to our understanding of it. I have been able to point out sufficiently in the 500 byte available why we can ignore that particular text book.

[OvoidCranium]

@jerkazoid more from 7.2

"Instead we should view it as an effective temperature for the (Earth + atmosphere) system as would be detected by an observer in space."

Actually an observer from space who knew something about remote sensing would take emissivity into account when measuring temperature. If the NASA scientists and engineers who put men on the moon did things the way suggested in the book they would have fried the astronauts on landing.

[indulis1]

@evenesteven Hey at least START with a real fact before you get into distorting it to suit your twisted view of the world. The IPCC and the UN do not have any scientists. The work from the IPCC is just a summary of thousands of independent pieces of work from scientists in many field who are employed by hundreds of different organisations, in many different countries. Who have often published despite governments trying to gag them to downplay the severity of the problem.

[simonneville777]

From the guy that also denied the science behind the hole in the ozone layer. The guy makes a living from denial

[evenesteven]

@charadester I'll team up with anyone who is out for truth, and ready to adapt his view to reality - which does not include lying scientists from the IPCC. Moreover, I was speaking of lung cancer, not all cancers, but again, the ill effects of smoking on the immune system can be couneterbalanced with vitamin C (though any addiction promises to be mortal in the long run).

[charadester]

@evensteven You and Fred should team up. You're both peddling the same partial, misleading stories. And since you're a data lover, try diving into the millions of data points recorded in more than a dozen climate models, all of which show that temperature increases cannot be adequately explained without the human-induced variables including carbon dioxide generation from fossil fuels. Lastly, light one up and enjoy that cancer-free life...if you dare to trust your claim.

[evenesteven]

@charadester hard science does show tobacco protects against lung cancer (thanks to MAOB). What it does do is increase needs in Vitamin C (0.5g a cigarette), which will in the long run lead to ill health. Lack of Vitamin C kills (only humans and guinea pigs do not create it internally), not tabacco. So much for charadester.

[charadester]

Fred Singer has made it a career to discredit any science that threatened private industry profits or involved the government. He championed what later became known as the "The Tobacco Strategy", working to sow doubt about not just the connection between smoking and health, but also the science on acid rain, DDT, and the ozone hole. He directed a program for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that funneled 45 million dollars to scientists paid to "defend the product". So much for Fred Singer.

[pseudotruth]

@OvoidCranium

The only thing true that I have detected in your comments is 'a load of over priced bovine excreta.' That sums-up nicely the Heartland Climate Conference.

[pseudotruth]

@cristop5

If the GHGs in the atmosphere aren't resulting in warming, not only do we need to explain what's causing the warming plus we need to establish what's stopping the GHGs causing the warming we expect.

Of course, such needless complexity is gibberish. Occam's razor applies. As you said: We know that the temperature increases are almost entirely accounted for by the increases in GHGs from industry and land-use, aerosols, black carbon, and feedbacks etc.