Articles Tagged "Fred Singer"

I went into the Cliamate Realists Index recently and had a look at the Andrew Neil "tag" to see if any of the videos had been updated or deleted from the BBC or YouTube.

The YouTube that I had posted for MUST SEE: Climategate : UK MET office head gets a grilling and fails miserably had in fact been deleted some time back but I was glad to find the BBC link.....BBC News - Chief defends Met Office record



This is worth a look as it takes place at the very start of ClimateGate, the video has a fantastic debate between Andrew Neil, Fred Singer and Met Office chief John Hirst, without doubt this is one of the best videos at CR, enjoy!

If any of you come across a deleted video/YouTube let me know via the contact area. To locate the Climate Realists Index look at the left hand side of the screen marked "Articles by Climate Realists and Topics", just slide down the list of some 500 names and click on whatever grabs you.

The report of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC-NAS) claims that the climate is warming and the cause is human. The first claim of this federally funded $6 million exercise is meaningless and trivial; the second claim is almost surely wrong ("Tax dollars perpetuate global-warming fiction," Comment & Analysis, Wednesday).

The report's recommendation is for the United States to put a price on carbon to staunch emissions of carbon dioxide, which is pointless, counterproductive and very costly.

The climate certainly has warmed considerably in the past 10,000 years (when the last Ice Age ended), but much less since 1850 (the end of the Little Ice Age). No one disputes these facts. But the climate has not warmed during the past decade, in spite of the steady rise in human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. According to Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, there has been no warming trend since 1995.

The 2007 report of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) furnished no credible evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The NRC-NAS panel did not add any new relevant information - nor did it have the expertise to do so.

I have submitted a Comment (which I rarely do) to The HOOK-
Oh, Mann: Cuccinelli targets UVA papers in Climategate salvo

"There is a good chance that Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli will come up with the “smoking gun” -- where other so-called investigations have only produced one whitewash after another.

We know from the leaked e-mails of Climategate that Prof. Michael Mann was involved in the international conspiracy to “hide the decline” [in global temperatures], using what chief conspirator Dr Phil Jones refers to as “Mike [Mann]’s trick.” Now at last we may find out just how this was done.

A lot is at stake here. If the recent warming is based on faked data, then all attempts to influence the climate by controlling the emissions of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide are useless –and very costly. This includes the UN Climate Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade (Tax) bill, the EPA “Endangerment Finding” based on the UN’s IPCC conclusion, and the upcoming Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill in the US Senate.

There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UEA). A concerted whitewash campaign is in full swing to save the IPCC and its questionable conclusion that the warming of the last thirty years is anthropogenic. But ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real issue, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or a manufactured result by scientists in England and the United States who manipulated temperature data.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has repeatedly characterized anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a "hoax" -- and he may soon be vindicated. Certainly, the remedies invoked to "fight" AGW are a cruel hoax -- mainly a tax burden on low-income households who will pay more for electricity, food, transportation, and other necessities of life.

The UEA's "internal" investigation has largely absolved Dr. Philip Jones, the head of its Climate Research Unit (CRU) and author of most of the e-mails, of any misdeeds. (The UEA has also commissioned an "independent" investigation by Sir Robert Muir-Russell, due in August.) Pennsylvania State University (PSU) has merely slapped the wrists of Dr. Michael Mann for various ethical offenses but sees nothing wrong with the science. The United Nations, at the urging of the Royal Society and U.S. National Academy of Sciences, has launched a supposedly independent investigation of IPCC procedures to be conducted by the InterAcademyCouncil (IAC), a creature of the science academies. It is likely to backfire and lower further the public's opinion of the academies -- and indeed of science generally.

Editorial by S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

ClimateGate Whitewash

There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE). But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.

The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails. How can we tell that it’s a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:

To the Institute of Physics, United Kingdom:

I am an elected Fellow of the American Physical Society and a co-organizer of a Petition drive to the APS Council to modify or withdraw the published APS Statement on Climate Change [see Nature 460:457, 23 July 2009]. Some 250 members and Fellows of the APS have now joined in signing this Petition, including members of the US National Academy of Sciences, a Nobelist, and many other prize winners.

I urge you to ignore all of the insubstantial criticisms leveled against your submission to the House of Commons’ inquiry into ClimateGate. All scientists should applaud your call for openness and sharing of data – even without the legal requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, and regardless of one’s position on the causes of global warming. To echo Margaret Thatcher’s admonition to President George Bush: “Don’t go wobbly!”

It is strange that such fierce criticism of the IOP submission has come mainly from avowed promoters of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) myth, who have attacked the IOP as “misinformed and misguided.” (Some have even advocated breaking the law by ignoring the “Freedom of Information Act.”) But why should there be any connection between the sharing of scientific information and the cause of GW?

Your submission criticized the practices of the climate scientists at the center of the Parliamentary inquiry. These include primarily Dr Philip Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and Dr Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University. The submission of the Royal Society of Chemistry says “that a lack of willingness to disseminate scientific information may infer that the scientific results or methods used are not robust enough to face scrutiny.” So what are they trying to hide? We have yet to discover just how Jones et al managed to produce a substantial surface warming [between 1979 and 1997] when satellites showed practically no tropospheric warming – a disparity which is in conflict with every greenhouse climate model.

Almost daily, we learn about new problems with the formerly respected UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): In their 2001 report, they claimed that the 20th century was "unusual" and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. Their infamous temperature graph shown there, shaped like a hockey stick, did away with the well-established Medieval Warm Period (around 1000AD, when Vikings were able to settle in Southern Greenland and grow crops there) and the following Little Ice Age (around 1400 to 1800AD). Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis.

The most recent IPCC report of 2007 predicted the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers within 25 years; the imminent death of nearly half the Amazon rain forest; and major damage from stronger hurricanes -- all in contradiction to expert opinions offered by its appointed reviewers, but ignored by IPCC editors for mostly ideological reasons. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources -- not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards.

These events showed not only a general sloppiness of IPCC procedures but also an extreme bias -- quite inappropriate to a supposedly impartial scientific survey. By themselves, they do not invalidate the basic IPCC conclusion -- that a warming in the latter half of the 20th century was human-caused, presumably by the rise of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Yet all of these missteps pale in comparison to ClimateGate, which calls into question the very temperature data used by the IPCC's main policy result.

Two part YouTube


Professor S. Fred Singer speaking at the Institute of Economic Affairs Debate on Climate Change on 23 November 2009. Do science and economics support government action on climate change? Fred Singer

SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL #2-2010 (Jan 9, 2010)

By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

[Note: This is the fourth of a series of mini-editorials on the “junk science” influencing the global warming issue. Other topics will include the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4, the UN Environmental Program, and some individuals heavily involved in these matters.]

Junk Science #4: IPCC’s Third Assessment Report [IPCC-TAR, 2001]

In line with what seems to be an IPCC plan of claiming increasing confidence in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) with each successive report, the Summary of IPCC Third Assessment Report [IPCC-TAR, 2001] promised new information to support a conclusion of AGW. This new information turned out to be the “Hockeystick,” a dramatic graph that showed temperatures since 1000 AD steadily decreasing – until, suddenly, here was a huge warming in the 20th century. No trace of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA), so clearly shown in earlier IPCC reports and supported by both physical and historic data. [See figure in the pdf version]

Examiner: Does the International Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] have it all wrong?

Singer: The Panel was established by members of the United Nations with an assortment of political objectives in mind. Hundreds of scientists are doing commendable research and they have contributed to many of the Working Group reports, but they don't participate in writing the final "Summary for Policymakers" that gets all the attention of media and national leaders. The IPCC procedure actually requires the Working Group reports to conform with the political conclusions of the Summary, written and negotiated by a group of U.N. politicians.

No doubt, there are some scientists who want to collect large government grants for studying climate. The recent release of emails from the East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit suggests that some of them want to provide their employers with an unjustified political consensus that serves their purposes.

Thousands of competent scientists who have scrutinized the IPCC reports agree that many of the conclusions are unsupported by the scientific evidence. Many IPCC reviewers have publicly rejected the Summary's conclusions. In my opinion, every good scientist is a skeptic. Humans don't dictate facts to nature. As our knowledge of global climate improves, we may discover that all of the popular assumptions are wrong.