It seems that Dr. Singer makes the perfect skeptic. He is ready to retire along with non-global warming theories. I wish him well, he might want to consider Venice, Fl. I understand they have the second oldest average resident age city in the US, and it is very nice. He would be close enough to me we might have some "warm" discussions. Thanks, Dave

Iam a firm believer that global warming is severely overhyped. Quite honestly, I truly think that we are simply in a natural cycle of warming and that it will yield to an about face in the next 10-15 yrs when we will all be in a panic about a coming ice age. This will be another case of overhype. Joe Bastardi puts it into perspective the best by noting that the weather repeats itself. We are in the 1940's now and it wont be long before we are re-living the 1970's scare of the coming ice age. Dr. William Gray also makes great points in regards to the political propaganda that exists today due to alleged global warming. We only have 140 yrs of solid weather record data so how can they be so sure its not just a natural cycle! Stay tuned! The drama has yet to begin..........Harold Olsen, Neponsit NY

I would like to add to Harold's comment of " 140 years of temperature data " that the data is flawed.
Both skeptics & believers admit this fact & the problem lies in the corrections applied to the data to " adjust " for data accuracy problems. The adjusting is sloppy ( see Hansen's last correction removing 1998 as the warmest US year ), the adjusting looks to be biased to make the recent past warmer & a last point would be the move in the 90's to acquiring electronic data resulted in the movement of the instruments to locations that aren't acceptable for acquiring representative data ( see Anthony Watts parking lot sites ) ... but even some of the less blatant sites were obviously compromised by the necessity of the more accurate electronic recorders needing a cable connection resulting in a move closer to buildings etc.
This debate is far too political now.
Rick.

'We only have 140 yrs of solid weather record data so how can they be so sure its not just a natural cycle! Stay tuned! The drama has yet to begin..........Harold Olsen, Neponsit NY'

Harold, I would beg to differ. The 140yrs of weather record data is far from solid when attempting to calculate the ambiguous 'global mean temperature'. This data set was never meant to do such a thing and is wrought with inhomogenities, error. The data set is then manipulated statistically which, in my opinion has done more harm than good.

If we don't have solid data, the rest of this exercise becomes nonsense...which it is.

So, Fred Singer has no answer for the lack of any trend in solar irradiance since the 1950's and is now trying to convince us that there is no warming either!

I guess being a skeptic does not mean one has to be reasonable.

Consider a few facts: The National Climatic Data Center has global climatic data showing that 2005 is the warmest year since record keeping began.
So, his claims about no trend since 1998 are false.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

Also, the NCDC states that for the January-October 2007 year-to-date period, the global land surface temperature was the warmest on record. And that is with an La Nina cooling event in progress!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/oct/oct07.html

Andrew (Fully expecting another record warm year with the next El Nino)

Andrew: (et al)
" trend in solar irradiance "

The link below is a 30 minute presentation on the Solar link to Global temperatures.
I would be interested in any comments from the Pro AGW people. (and anyone else)

The information presented seemed to me to be logical and convincing. So much so that I suspect the only real refutations will be to attack the authors as liers or shills.
This make so much more sense than standard AGW theory.

http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_detail.php?StreamID=718

In this interview, this particular denier (Dr. Fred Singer) claims there hasn't been any warming since 1975. He says "I think the best answer is [global temperatures] have not risen dramatically." I guess all those deniers who say they've risen, but it's natural, are all wrong. Or those who say temperatures have risen, but its because of changes in solar irradiance. In other words, Dr. Singer offers a canonical denier response: all those climatologists are wrong, all those temperature measurements are mistaken, it's all a massive conspiracy. That's one answer. Another is that Dr. Fred Singer is simply a denier and a shill.

Regarding second-hand smoke, I note that Dr. Singer repeats an incendiary charge. He says:
The scientific papers tell me that the EPA has doctored the data. They doctored the data. That's very serious. You shouldn't do that.

Yet he offers no specific references, he says "scientific papers". His most specific reference is an un-named publication of the "Congressional Research Service."

What papers? What CRS study? What judge?

Near the end of the interview, Dr. Singer says:
I believe CFC's DO cause ozone depletion...So I'm being incorrectly quoted.

August 1, 1996, the same Dr. Fred Singer offered Testimony in the U.S. House of Representatives, on Ozone Depletion. This testimony included statements such as the following:

First, I want to state clearly that there is no scientific consensus on ozone depletion or its consequences.

Currently available scientific evidence does not support a ban on the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs or freons), halons, and especially methyl bromide. There certainly is no justification for the accelerated phase-out of CFCs, which was instituted in 1992 on nothing more than a highly questionable NASA press conference.

The hypothesis that CFCs deplete ozone is still just that: a hypothesis. The theory did not predict the Antarctic ozone hole and cannot predict what will happen globally. There is no firm evidence as yet for a long-term depletion of global ozone.

In 2002, Dr. Singer offered Correct Lessons from Shrinking Ozone Hole, in which he wrote:

The size of the AOH has been controlled by changing weather patterns rather than by chlorine levels

In spite of theoretical predictions, there has been no direct observational evidence for a steady increase of ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface. Therefore all imagined impacts cited in the editorial -- skin cancers, cataracts, etc. -- are based on speculation.

In this current interview, Dr. Singer doesn't argue that he changed his mind, or that more evidence was discovered, or anything similar. Instead, he claims he's being "incorrectly quoted".

He says "This happens often. People do quote me incorrectly."

To paraphrase a famous defense attorney: Was Dr. Singer lying then or is he lying now?

Why anybody claiming to value objective scientific discussion offers ANY airtime to this lying shill is incomprehensible to me. The man brazenly lied, on camera, to Fehlinger when he claimed to be misquoted.

Why on earth does she and Accuweather continue to promote the lies of this guy?

BT,
"Why anybody claiming to value objective scientific discussion offers ANY airtime to this lying shill is incomprehensible to me. The man brazenly lied, on camera, to Fehlinger when he claimed to be misquoted.

Why on earth does she and Accuweather continue to promote the lies of this guy?"

Probably for the same reason an individual like Al Gore can repeatly lie and misrepresent the truth, then win the Nobel Peace Prize. As Al Gore would certainly fall into the "shill" category, it would seem fair that anyone who promotes these falsehoods would also fall into this category.

Dear Demagogues, please state your credentials as a political operative or whatever. Science is taking a bashing from the political foolishness of the man made warming schemes of the uninformed. We are now in a localized warming cycle within a period of global cooling. Here-to-fore all major ice ages were brought on by a period of global warming. Just look at the Silurian, Permian and Cretaceous events.

Also - - You of little faith - what are green house gasses? The most important is water vapor, CO2 is of no consequence in the scheme of things!

Incidentally, I am retired (1999) but I studied the science of Geology at the U of I and Mathematics at Carnegie Tech (now Carnegie Mellon).

I find no serious fault with Dr Singer! Why must you Demigods make such vicious personal attacks - you must have an agenda! Eh?

Whether you are a skeptic or believe, it would seem reasonable that with the lack of data we could be wrong in either direction -- natural cycle and everything will be all right or global warming catastrophy. Do we have time to wait for more information?
Another major concern are the skeptics who tell us that people like Al Gore are trying to scam us. This seems to indicate a political bent with an agenda. What about the current president? He been working overtime to silence scientists who suggest global warming is happening.
It seems to be a purely polictal agruement. The neo-Cons verses the Liberals. Considering that the neo-Cons are doing everything they can to eliminate the Middle Class, privatize Social Securiity, public saftey and education institutions and slacken laws the protect the environment- I find the skeptic to be untrustworthy and therefore unbelievable.

BT;

I assume that you just won a bet based on how many times you are able to use the word denier in a comment. Congrats.

Why on earth does she and Accuweather continue to promote the lies of this guy?

How most people would respond to the quote above: There is a difference between allowing someone to present their side of a story and promoting it.

How BT would respond to the quote above: Obviously--insert name--is too stupid to understand the difference between presenting an opinion and promoting an opinion.

I quoted (accurately, I think) Singer's response to the question about CFCs. I then cited readily available documentation of his own words that contradict his answer.

I'd like to ask iceman whether he agrees or disagrees that Singer's response to the question about his opposition to CFCs was a flagrant lie. I'd then like iceman to offer a link to a Fehlinger interview with Al Gore where he offers a similarly documented lie -- I must have missed that interview.

We are now in a localized warming cycle within a period of global cooling.
...
I find no serious fault with Dr Singer!

Apparently "T. J. Gilbert - Ciesielski" doesn't mind that Dr. Singer asserts in this interview that there has been no warming since 1975. I guess this is a special kind of "localized warming cycle" -- the kind that doesn't matter when it's convenient to not matter (such as when attempting to establish the credibility of the writer).

If, in fact, "we are now in a localized warming cycle within a period of global cooling", then Dr. Singer's assertion that there has been no warming since 1975 is rather seriously flawed.

Conversely, if Dr. Singer is correct, then we can only conclude that it is instead T. J. Gilbert - Ciesielski who offers a rather seriously flawed assertion.

I'm not sure I see how identifying the lies and distortions of a public personality is a "vicious personal attack". The "agenda" that I fully and openly assert is that participants in an exchange like this should be held to a reasonably rigorous standard of truth.

Andrew,

Most of Hansen's recent work has been centered around the idea that the oceans are absorbing a lot of latent heat and thus "hiding" it from the climate.

Your argument that the climate should react instantly to changes in incoming heat sources, is contradictory to the views of the AGW high priest.

BT:
Typical Cultist Rant.
Keller dances all around his questions and nothing is said.
Singer neglects to site specific papers and names when given seconds to answer complex questions and he is called a shill and lier.

Hmmmmm. Like Icemans response.
Try Defending Gore BT, that would make for entertaining fiction writing.

Gary,

I listened to a few minutes of the link, but grew tired of it especially after he said that it was a power point presentation without any power.

If you honestly feel there is logic behind it, then please share with us.

There has been no positive trend in solar irradiance since the 1950s and yet global temperatures have risen dramatically beginning in the mid 70s. Global Temperature over the last 3 years are the warmest 3 year average since instrumented measurements began.

The science behind warming from CO2 is actually very robust. The only real challenge is if there is anything economical that we can do about it.

Thanks.

Singer said: "I believe CFC's DO cause ozone depletion...So I'm being incorrectly quoted". In his own testimony to the Congress and an article for www.heartland.org, he wrote just the opposite.

I see no reason to believe that his statements about climate change are any more reliable than his long record of similarly demonstrated lies.

Andrew,

You point out that the Jan-Oct is the warmest yet recorded for air surface temperatures. I understand that that is powerful data. But I must question your assertion that it makes it even more exceptional that it is happening during a La Nina episode. Is not La Nina a water temperature phenomenon? Does it have any net effect on global land surface temps?

Andrew:
It was a 30 minute presentation, if you simply refuse to hear.... Well I guess that says all that needs to be said.
Thank you.
The science behind CO2 Warming is sketchy at best.
And are we really so desperate that we are siting 3 year averages now?
Good grief. Lood at the 200 year trends.
At the 1500 year trends.
What has happened in the last 30 years is irrelevent.
A minor blip. A non event.
But hay.... it will all be clear soon enough and we can get on with dealing with serious issues again forget this little silly period in history.

BT,
You said: "Why anybody claiming to value objective scientific discussion offers ANY airtime to this lying shill is incomprehensible to me. The man brazenly lied, on camera, to Fehlinger when he claimed to be misquoted."
I said: "Probably for the same reason an individual like Al Gore can repeatedly lie and misrepresent the truth, then win the Nobel Peace Prize."
I would hardly call this a ringing endorsement of Singer. In fact, I would agree with you that it seems pretty clear he's lying.
As for the Al Gore part:
You said: "Why anybody claiming to value objective scientific discussion offers ANY airtime to this lying shill is incomprehensible to me."
Perhaps I should have just used this quote when I responded. You are correct I can't "offer a link to a Fehlinger interview with Al Gore". I can, however, bring Al Gore into the discussion, fairly, in connection with your above quote
The point is that while Fred Singer is looked upon as a shill, liar, etc., perhaps fairly, no such claims are ever made of Al Gore. In his movie, Al Gore either lied or misrepresented the facts. Even with this, he went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. There have been no comments critical of him by any respected AGW scientists to my knowledge. No outrage by the media or anyone in the AGW community. He is, in fact, revered by the AGW crowd. How on earth did this guy win the Nobel Peace Prize BT? No matter what side you�re on shouldn�t we be critical of those who misrepresent facts. I ask you BT, is Al Gore any better than Fred Singer? While you see a conspiracy by the right to disprove AGW, I see a similar plan by the left to prove AGW, even if it means doing what Al Gore has done, even if it means manipulating data, etc. I believe that scientists have gotten themselves in so deep with this that admitting they have been wrong (if they are) will be very difficult. It seems to me BT that there are too many agendas and because of these agendas I find it difficult to believe almost anything I hear or read.

BT,

I'm curious why the Nobel Peace Prize committee would be eager to promote the misinformation being spread by Al Gore?

I've talked to several school children who expect to see New York and many other cities under water - after watching "An Inconvenient Truth."

Do you believe that Gore has been honest?

BT:

You crack me up. To read you gripe about the lies, disinformation, flip-flopping, and lack of references regarding a skeptic is priceless.

I think you need to look in the proverbial mirror regarding those who with you agree.

AGW is, simply put, a shell game.

GW may, or may not, be occurring. The idea that humans might be contributing some miniscule amount to the conditions is certainly possible but, the concept that we are driving it is bull.

iceman wrote:
I would hardly call this a ringing endorsement of Singer. In fact, I would agree with you that it seems pretty clear he's lying.

I'm glad that we agree on at least this, it's a good start.

I can, however, bring Al Gore into the discussion, fairly, in connection with your above quote. The point is that while Fred Singer is looked upon as a shill, liar, etc., perhaps fairly, no such claims are ever made of Al Gore.

Actually, the contrarian/denialist community makes these allegations about Al Gore at every opportunity. A quick perusal of the commentary on this thread is a simple case-in-point. I invite iceman to offer an example of Al Gore lying that is comparable to the example I offered for Singer. I want to see the evidence that Gore made the alleged lie and I then want to see the evidence that Gore knew he was lying.

Patrick Henry asks:
Do you believe that Gore has been honest?

Yes, I do. When specific errors and omissions in his public statements are pointed out, he acknowledges and corrects them.

I note that our local contrarians are quick to bluster and, like Singer, relentlessly repeat unsubstantiated allegations.

I also note that they are equally short on substance to support those allegations.

I presented two specific lies of Singer, and offered documentation to show that they were lies. I see no analogous offering from Singer's defenders.

Could it be that this is because Dr. Fred Singer is a liar and Al Gore is not?

Wow, I thought Dr. Singer was a _____ before hearing this interview -- now this interview confirms it.

Dr. Singer and Dr. Gray make great poster boys for having a mandatory retirement age. Not even remembering what you told Congress is quite the sign of cognitive decline.