Examiner Interview: Part 3
S. Fred Singer is an American atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. He was a Special Advisor on space developments to President Eisenhower and the first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Center. He is President of the non-profit Science & Environmental Policy Project, author of Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, Unstoppable Global Warming (NY Times Bestseller), and editor of Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.
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.
Examiner: How did the anthropogenic theory get started and why has it been so popular?
Singer: There have always been people who recognized that pollution was a problem and adopted the perspective that the natural environment needed to be protected from human abuse. If I were to speculate, I suppose the Wicca religion created the seeds in Europe. Native American traditions and fables had an influence in the United States. But that's sociology, not science.
In the scientific community, the idea of human causation was probably started by David Keeling in 1958, when he observed that CO2 increases he was measuring at the South Pole seemed to match the increase in the combustion of fossil fuels during recent decades. Keeling devoted most of his life to measuring atmospheric CO2 and founded the modern research facility at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. His speculation wasn't improper and his surmise was certainly worthy of investigation, but many scientists adopted the proposition of anthropogenic causation as a matter of faith.
I don't like to speculate about people's motives, but there are many reasons that scientists, politicians, and businessmen latched on to the anthropogenic theory. For scientists, it was an interesting idea and may have been related to their field of study, usually meteorology. Twenty years ago, there were no "climate scientists", nor any PhD in "Climatology", so it was an enticing field, open for exploration.
The idea that humans might be responsible for a potentially damaging warming trend certainly appealed to politicians, particularly those with a strong "environmental" record and reputation. It was a chance to “save the world" and be a hero. I won't even mention the name of one politician who has made it a career.
Finally, when governments began adopting policies that embraced the anthropogenic theory, money started flowing. Businessmen saw an opportunity for profit and took advantage of financial incentives and government subsidies. The tempting promise of huge profits probably encouraged a transition from legitimate pollution control investments to energy opportunities. The speculative "sustainable" technology required equipment and servicing; the new "climate modeling" required huge supercomputers and programmers; and the proposed "carbon markets" needed traders, speculators, and investors. Beyond all that, businesses want to develop a good image and are anxious to be associated with popular trends. So, "BP" no longer stands for "British Petroleum", it means "Beyond Petroleum".
All of those trends feed back into the faith-driven scientists, who are expected to maintain the appearance of a consensus, suppress skepticism, and ensure that the published facts conform to the objectives of business and politics. It's the ultimate in bio-feedback loops.
Examiner: Whether you're right or wrong, do you think the Kyoto Protocol or energy taxes have any merit?
Singer: Let's assume that I'm stupid and crazy? If fossil fuel combustion were a problem, there is a vast array of scientific mitigation measures that could be effective. There is also plenty of speculation about relatively simple, but global-scale, interventions that might impede warming. I would be very reluctant to assume responsibility for a project that might very well move the globe, more quickly than nature otherwise would, into the next Ice Age. I suppose, if I were a crazed fanatic I would encourage people to burn as much fossil fuel as possible to forestall eventual global cooling. I wouldn't expect anyone to follow that advice, but it might make me a famous ... or infamous ... celebrity. But then, of course, higher levels of CO2 would benefit agriculture and save the lives of millions around the world, especially children, who now suffer from malnutrition
Kyoto is a strange blend of superficial government promises and artificial market incentives. It hasn't worked, even for the limited purposes and goals it had set for itself, primarily because of the absence of any enforcement measures. I would be the last person to propose some global government that actually had the power to impose strict limits on energy use or emissions worldwide. That's a huge amount of power, which would surely result in a huge amount of international corruption.
There are several energy tax schemes that have been proposed by warming advocates. They're taking the popular approach, politically: there are very few politicians who don't salivate at the thought of some new method of imposing taxes that they can spend. Saving the world from some despicable horror sells well; persuading people ... or forcing other people ... to make financial sacrifices for the "common good". I'm a scientist, not a politician, so my sole interest is in finding the truth. That requires evidence, based on data and verifiable facts. I don't think I could stomach the process of writing laws to force people to conform with my own sentiments, passions, and beliefs. To each his own.
Examiner: You've devoted a lot of time and energy to this debate. Are you optimistic or pessimistic?
Singer: I am really quite optimistic. I am sure that sound science must -- and will -- win out in the long run and convince not only scientists but also the public and politicians that climate change is almost all natural, and that a modest warming, should it occur, is good for humanity overall. The revelations of “ClimateGate” will be very helpful here and show how a gang of determined climatologists was able to con almost everyone by cooking the data and stifling any scientific criticism from 'skeptics.'
Of course, 'long run' may mean many more years -- during which the alarmists will try to impose policies that produce great economic hardships for no good reason. I fear especially those who have learned to game the system and are using global warming scares to enrich themselves at our expense. I won't mention names but you know who they are: Utopians who believe that global governance will lead to a better world; Luddites who oppose technological advance and economic growth; international bureaucrats and profiteers who want power and money. If they ever gain the upper hand, the world may have a difficult time recovering.
I hope I can be around when we can look back on past decades and say: "How could this climate insanity have fooled so many smart people?"
---
Part 1: Is the globe warming?
Part 2: Does carbon dioxide cause global warming?
---
Related
Climate Change 101: I can see Canada from my California spa!
Copenhagen warming conference enters Ice Age
---
Image Credits: SingerEarth
Editorial Composite (William Westmiller)
Original Photo (Jennifer Morahasy)
Earth Image (NASA Goddard/Reto Stöckli)
Comments
"How could this climate insanity have fooled so many smart people?"
On www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
The CRUs web site is a list of funders.
Including
British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, 'Food to Ethanol'
The United States Department of Energy, 'Nuclear'
Irish Electricity Supply Board. 'LNG, Nuclear'
UK Nirex Ltd. 'Nuclear'
Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
Tate and Lyle. 'Food to Ethanol'
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 'Nuclear'
KFA Germany, 'Nuclear'
This is all about making Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Food to Ethanol more cost competitive.
They have been paying for the research and getting the results that they have paid for.
The raw data, computer models and methods used by the CRU have not been released, only the results that support the cause.
Same as Merck, their 'researchers' and Vioxx, the government and 'thousands and thousands' of doctors believed them, as did a lot of people
Andrew30: Good to see you again. And, yes, all that you state is true. So many useful idiots abound, it is easy to see how the idiot box has manipulated humans to the extent that they cannot actually believe FACT over FICTION. It is amazing, and sickening.
Our 'us gov' is about the most corrupt gov on the planet, because they PRETEND to be on your side, while stabbing the citizens in the back--via the UN, Pharma, Military Industrial Complex, GMO (all designed and still a function of control/power/profit... nothing more). Any member of our gov invested in 'questionable' or 'conflicting' interests should be investigated fully--all emails, phone calls, payouts, trips, etc...
UN:
AGW = profit/control of resources/loss freedom
Food for OIL (yeah, they have F4O and AGW ;) = loss of food via dictator/rotting, control over populations.
SWINE FLU SCARE = Billions made/FEAR/Control over your body/loss freedoms...etc.
The UN gives US citizens NOTHING and we PAY. Destroy the UN..
Let us NOT forget about AGENDA 21 (Control of Land and would be attached to AGW), Codex Alimentarius (control of Nutrition and limiting your actual VITAMIN intake--like needing a prescription to get vitamins--corp profit/gov control... just in time for GOV 'health"care"'). They know when the cold comes back, the farmland that they want to make 'sustainable' fuels will no longer have food. Also, 'sustainable' reusable fuels actually have MORE pollution, says a recent study.. actual POLLUTION, not CO2.
There are conspiracies at work, and since the MSM calls everything a conspiracy theory other than what the corrupt 'gov' says--which is just theories--people are afraid to research.
If you research our gov 'officials' own writings... their docs, their statements, their advisor's statements, the UN docs that our supposed presidents have signed (without our knowledge but in black and white), you will find something VERY Different from the superficial BS propaganda... it is TRUTH
This SHOULD be enough to cause EVERYONE to stop and think; however, since the indoctrination centers are only social engineering facilities promoting homogenization of thought, purchases, likes/dislikes, beliefs, etc., it will be a little harder.
The UN is corrupt and if we investigate all UNs programs, we'll find the same thing.
From our gov that says "CO2 is a pollutant" and in the same breath says "we'll double the amount of mercury in vaccines to combat the swine flu"... well, idiot does as idiot says - or whatever you would like to say, but it is insanity. There ARE NOT too many more elements on EARTH more toxic than Mercury.
If you want to see CAUSATION vs CORRELATION check out AutoImmune disorders vs increase in vaccines--that is a causative correlation. Check out the FED vs Value of Dollar. Check out D.O. "edu"indoctrination vs Decline in mental functions/intelligence. EMF/RF vs *many things*...
There ARE Correlations between the above.. Unlike agw/co2
Thank you for this article, William. The global carbon tax is a scam to rob us of TRILLIONS very quickly. This is on top of war lies, torture, destruction of habeas corpus for American citizens, bailing out banks for TRILLIONS, and a prostitute corporate media to spin this all forward.
The data is slight global cooling since 1998 while CO2 has continued to rise. This blows their explanation justifying the immediate tax. When we have so many lies in so many areas of trillions of our dollars while are economy is shredded in a controlled demolition, this demands public response to reject lies with as much strength as we can generate.
I suggest a Truth and Reconciliation process to peel-away those on the inside who still have a soul to tell the truth so we can figure out what's really happening.
We can prove all these lies. That's relatively easy. We need to discover the political agenda driving them. That's a real challenge.
Again, thank you, William.
I appreciate reading this because it is a respected professional speaking about the science of man-made C02 heating the atmosphere and changing climate. The science doesn't make sense for lots of professionals and the argument exists because academia of the world is literally blind to temperature.
Can you imagine the entire building industry from the national to municipal level is designed with temperature but signed off as compliant with building codes?
Building code provides climate data for areas and we insulate for those temperature extremes. Building Codes tell us to watch out for solar radiation because radiated buildings would generate heat that exceeds Building Code. We just couldn't see it in the calculator.
We did several years to see the cause of urban heat islands and why they used so much energy. Using absorbent paints or materials on the exterior of buildings allows the building to be "radiated" The link shows infrared time-lapsed.
www.thermoguy.com/urbanheat
In citing Keeling as the first scientific proponent of human caused global warming Singer is off by about sixty years... Svante Arrhenius first suggested that rising human CO2 emissions would cause global warming back at the end of the 19th century. It was a regularly discussed and debated issue thereafter. Callendar was the first to show (~1940) strong evidence that CO2 levels were increasing and Keeling later confirmed that. Singer then suggests that attributing this increase to humans is a matter of 'religious faith'. It isn't.
While linking the huge increase in atmospheric CO2 levels with the huge increase in human CO2 emissions generally falls under the category of 'duh', there also IS direct proof from carbon isotope analysis. Basically, CO2 from fossil fuels has a different mix of carbon isotopes than CO2 from natural sources and the fossil fuel sourced isotopes have increased in the atmosphere (and oceans) in line with the increase in overall CO2 concentration.
CBD: Ummm. Yes, the planet was getting warmer since 1850, and yes, humans CO2 output has also been rising. Yes. Good. However, the causative correlation does NOT exist in reality. CO2 is essential to life and a very small part of the 'atmospheric gasses' that this planet needs.
Stop quoting the promoters nonsense and admit you've been scammed. A 2 - 3C rise would not cause the Antarctic to melt... the avg temp on the plains of Ant is ~ -45C and the perimeter is ~ -10C (the point closest to the equator.. it CAN and does rise above freezing for a brief period).
Also, the polar bears don't need or eat ice... but people do drink fresh water; People won't die with a great increase of CO2 (~1000ppm would be great for the planet) but PLANT LIFE would thrive and more food equals less starvation--especially in areas having a hard time growing food.
Why would you fear a warmer planet? It has been warmer, you know and life thrived. Colder = death. Cap/Trade = profit/control
KDK, actually we CAN see a causative correlation.
The upper troposphere warming previously discussed is one example. Water vapor occurs mostly near the surface while CO2 spreads throughout the atmosphere. Hence warming in the upper troposphere is a 'fingerprint' of CO2 causation. Similarly the measured cooling in the stratosphere is another indicator of CO2 causation because it shows that less of the heat radiating from the surface is getting up that high. Night time temperatures have increased more quickly than those during the day... because when the Sun goes down the heat of the surface quickly dissipates into space, but an increase in greenhouse gases slows that process - resulting in higher temps at night. Et cetera.
Each potential source of warming (e.g. solar, cosmic rays, decreased clouds, et cetera) would have similar identifying characteristics... but the observed warming matches all 'fingerprints' of CO2/GHGs and contradicts all other known sources.
As to the rest of your post; No, a global 3 C increase would not melt all of Antarctica (even though warming at the poles would be roughly double that)... but it would melt enough to raise global sea levels several meters over time and thereby flood alot of coastal cities. Polar bears don't eat ice... but they do need the ice to catch the seals they eat. Humans do need drinking water... which is why the millions of people who get their fresh water from annual glacier melt are going to be in serious trouble when those glaciers melt away completely.
As to ~1000 ppm CO2 and a significantly warmer world being 'good' for life. Life in general, maybe in the long run. Humans, not so much. It'd be better for bacteria, insects, plants, tropical species. Many species would die out and it'd take a LONG time for biodiversity to increase again. For us it'd mean less land to live on, more disease, less reliable water supplies, and more extreme weather events.
CBD: Thanks for the reply. However, please show me your calculations that prove exactly how much ICE must melt in order to raise the water levels of all the seas a 'few meters'. Please, don't forget to factor in the amount of water that would flow into dry lakes and riverbeds, and please also don't forget to take into account the already accounted for displaced water--from floating icebergs, etc.
Just show me, via scientific mathematics how much water, in gallons/miles, needs to melt to raise it just 2 meters.
Thanks.
KDK, I'm not sure why you need me to demonstrate an ability to perform basic math, but why not;
1 m^3 of water weighs 1 metric ton (t)
Area of world oceans: ~361,000,000,000,000 m^2
Ergo, the mass of ice which would need to melt to add two meters 'on top of' the existing oceans would be;
2 * 361,000,000,000,000 = 722,000,000,000,000 t = 722 Tt
Of course raising the sea level would also increase the total area covered by the oceans. I'm not sure what percentage of the world's land surface is less than 2 meters above sea level, but for simplicity let's assume ALL of it... so we divide by the 71% of the Earth currently covered by oceans to get the mass needed to drop 2 meters of water on 100% of the planet;
722 / 0.71 = 1,017 Tt
Which is well under half the ice on Greenland. Or West Antarctica. And only a small fraction of East Antarctica.
At current melt rates, 1,017 Tt of ice would take a few thousand years to melt, but we were talking about a 3 C global temp incre
CBDunkerson says: "... demonstrate an ability to perform basic math, but why not ..."
I'm sure many readers have no interest in the math, but I think it's fascinating. Note that I *did* insist that Mr. Singer avoid complex terminology and simplify basic concepts ... given the audience.
What interests me about your calculation is that it presumes an increment of three degrees. But, that wouldn't be sufficient to melt ANY of the Antartic icecap, if I understand correctly. The Artic is not as cold, but I'm curious about whether a 3-degree increase could actually melt half of the icepack on Greenland, producing a 2-meter rise in sea level.
Actually, my calculations weren't temperature specific. KDK asked for an ice amount to sea level rise conversion... not the temperature and time required to melt that much ice.
It is incorrect that a 3 C rise (the standard figure for a 100% increase in CO2) in average GLOBAL temperature would not melt any ice in Antarctica. We are currently at about +0.8 C from a 39% increase in CO2... and Antarctica is ALREADY melting. The ice mass balance of the continent as a whole has been negative for over a decade now.
KDK cited AVERAGE figures for the entire continent throughout the year. Temperatures in the Summer and along the coasts are significantly higher... which is where the melt is occurring. Also, a 3 C global increase does not mean that every part of the planet increases exactly 3 C. Warming is concentrated at the poles. The Arctic has already warmed about 2 C from the global increase of 0.8.
-continued-
-continued-
Calculating temperature and time to get a specified amount of sea level rise is MUCH more complicated than just the amount of ice needed. This is because both the rates of mass input from precipitation and output from melting and breakup (ice falling into the ocean) will continuously change.
Currently Greenland is losing ice mass at a rate of about 0.3 Tt per year. There is less data for Antarctica, but current estimates are around 0.2 Tt per year. Thus, at the current rate (from 0.8 C warming) it would take ~2,034 years to melt the 1,017 Tt needed to add 2 meters of water to the entire planet... but that rate is currently increasing as the temperature does and would eventually decline as the amount of ice in warmed areas did.
Reconstructions of past temperatures and sea levels show temperatures 3 C higher coinciding with sea levels 6 meters higher. So a 2 meter increase from 3 C is virtually certain, but the timeframe can't be nailed down with current data.
Oh, but the time frame HAS been determined.. just ask gore. 5 years, I think he said. At any rate, temps on THIS planet have NOT increased over the last decade... sorry.
When you 'adjust' data for Heat Island effects, you don't adjust them upward. CO2 is not a pollutant. I can't believe humans cannot see the stupidity in all this. Let's see: We have corporations dumping out mercury in the water supply--definitely can be measured and corrective measures demanded; we have chemicals in our food and water that shouldn't be there; we have the gov telling us more mercury is okay in 'vaccines' (UNs favorite med)... all from profitable corporations that are NOT made to clean up their toxic mess.
Yet, we have the avg person being told how much CO2 they should be able to emit, or to that effect. AGW is a scam... if a global emergency involves profit, it is surely a scam and most of the UNs scams involve major profits for some and more restrictions for the masses. Wake up.
S1P, Gore's recent estimate (I think it was 75% chance of 5 to 7 years) was for the Arctic ocean to melt out... not two meters of sea level rise. The last IPCC estimate was some time after 2100... but then it also had the ice extents recorded the past three years not happening until after 2050. Gore's estimate is definitely at the aggressive end of the scale, but not at all impossible. The most CONSERVATIVE estimates now have it happening before 2050.
As to temps having not increased the past decade... you are mistaken. Even the global warming skeptics / creationists at UAH show otherwise, and since their data is satellite based it CAN'T have an urban heat island bias.
1990-1994: -0.031
1995-1999: 0.148
2000-2004: 0.205
2005-2009: 0.239
Source: vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The average temp the past decade was the highest of any decade in ALL of the temp data sets, going back to 1850.
Finally, NONE of the proposed CO2 regulations cover individuals.
CBDunkerson says: "As to temps having not increased the past decade... you are mistaken."
Thanks for the UAH citation, but the large data table isn't well documented, so it's difficult to determine the basis for the anomlies you cite. The UAH and RSS satellite data is conveniently plotted at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
... which shows that annual average temperatures have clearly dropped over the decade since 1998. The trend line covers 27 years, rather than showing the running averages.
"... The average temp the past decade was the highest of any decade ..."
Correct. However, we're not interested in comparing the current decade with past decades. The issue is whether the current decade shows a temperature decline, which it does.
"... Finally, NONE of the proposed CO2 regulations cover individuals."
Correct. But, that's only a matter of expedience. The EPA wants to modify current law so it doesn't have to monitor most sources.
William wrote: "The issue is whether the current decade shows a temperature decline, which it does."
The only way I can make sense of this is that you are suggesting that temperatures declined over the course of the past decade... and yet if you look at the numbers I cited (which are just averages of the 'Globe' column), the second half of the decade (+0.239 C) was clearly warmer than the first half (+0.205 C).
A linear trend line for January 2000 - November 2009 (UAH doesn't have December numbers up yet) is increasing 0.0004 C per month. That's shallow compared to the prior decades, but clearly not 'dropping'.
It would thus be accurate to say, 'the pace of global warming slowed the past decade' or 'the record high set in 1998 has not been broken' (though in some of the data sets it has), but the numbers just do NOT support claims of 'cooling'. 2005-2009 was significantly warmer than 2000-2004, and every other 'half decade' in EVERY temperature data set.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!