News The Global Warming Hoax (1 Viewer)

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

B

BarackZero

Guest
I have recently completed S. Fred Singer's marvelous book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years

In it, Fred shatters just about every global warming myth in existence. Of course Fred is a world authority on climate physics, and as such, he thoroughly documents his findings.

About the only thing environmental extremists can say in response is that Fred is "in the pocket of oil companies."

The old ad hominem attack is a favorite of Democrats, environmentalists, and pretty much anyone who wishes to avoid debating a subject, but prefers to attack the messenger.

Incidentally, the spending on behalf of promoting the Al Gore theme is at least ten times that of the other side. This fact never seems to occur to the fear-mongers who commend everyone to stay at home and do virtually nothing, unless it be powered by solar cells.
 

neu

215
1
when posts=0 do we assume it's spam? if you're not spam, please shatter a few myths for us.

History seems to be repeating itself. He supported the Tobacco industry, now he's supporting the climate change denial industry:

Wikipedia said:
In 1994 Singer was the Principal Reviewer of a report authored by Kent Jeffreys titled Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination which was published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), a conservative think tank of which he was a Senior Fellow.[19] The report attacked the United States Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science". Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views, according to a peer-reviewed commentary by Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous.
Yach, Derek; Bialous, Aguinaga (November 2001). "Junking Science to Promote Tobacco". Vol 91, No. 11. American Journal of Public Health. pp. 1745-1748. http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.6-JunkScience-Yach.pdf [Broken]. Retrieved on 2008-08-16.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fred Singer is grateful to you for having bought his book.
 
B

BarackZero

Guest
Not to mention actually reading it as well
So many objections, and so very inconsequential.

1. It is inordinately difficult to be "spamming" with "zero" posts.

2. One need not BUY a book to read it. There is this marvelous location called a "library."

3. I read books of all kinds, particularly by people with whom I disagree. Evidently that is a characteristic I do not share with many readers here. For example, I have read Earth in the Balance, and found it seriously wanting, along with Pale Blue Dot, Demon Haunted World, Cosmos, Climbing Mount Improbable, and many, many others.

I don't fear books by others. I read them to learn their points of view, how they may be right were I am wrong.

Don't be afraid.
 

neu

215
1
1. It is inordinately difficult to be "spamming" with "zero" posts.
There are often threads by new members which turn out to be spam.

2. One need not BUY a book to read it. There is this marvelous location called a "library."

3. I read books of all kinds, particularly by people with whom I disagree. Evidently that is a characteristic I do not share with many readers here. For example, I have read Earth in the Balance, and found it seriously wanting, along with Pale Blue Dot, Demon Haunted World, Cosmos, Climbing Mount Improbable, and many, many others.

I don't fear books by others. I read them to learn their points of view, how they may be right were I am wrong.

Don't be afraid.
Now you've got that off your chest do you want to give us some examples of Fred shattering Global warming myths? I asked but you didn't notice. I shall keep an open mind
 
B

BarackZero

Guest
1. The IPCC report was based on research which was not peer reviewed. Shameful.
2. The Hockey Stick graph has been discredited.
3. Claims of increases in temperatures were found to be inaccurate when statisticians found errors by climate "researchers."
4. Research contrary to the Al Gore dogma is minimized, ignored, or otherwise treated in a most unprofessional and most unscientific manner.
5. The environment takes actions to counter increases both in carbon dioxide as well as temperature increases.
6. Global temperatures have three or four cycles, the most critical of which is 1500 years in length. It is the sunspot cycle, and it heats up earth, but not very much.
7. Slight increases in temperatures will save many more lives than they will cost, and they will greatly enhance agricultural productivity.
8. The doomsday claims are grossly exaggerated, just as they were by the discredited Club of Rome report, predicting global famine in the 1970s.

Don't be afraid of facts and truth. They're really good for you!
 

SixNein

Atheist
Gold Member
9
16
I have recently completed S. Fred Singer's marvelous book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years

In it, Fred shatters just about every global warming myth in existence. Of course Fred is a world authority on climate physics, and as such, he thoroughly documents his findings.

About the only thing environmental extremists can say in response is that Fred is "in the pocket of oil companies."

The old ad hominem attack is a favorite of Democrats, environmentalists, and pretty much anyone who wishes to avoid debating a subject, but prefers to attack the messenger.

Incidentally, the spending on behalf of promoting the Al Gore theme is at least ten times that of the other side. This fact never seems to occur to the fear-mongers who commend everyone to stay at home and do virtually nothing, unless it be powered by solar cells.
I'll make it easy for a refute:
Did he explain why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system? Venus gets about 25% of the sun irradiation of Mercury, yet Venus is hotter then mercury. Venus has a ton of C02 in the atmosphere, and C02 prevents heat from escaping. How do you account for this? Explain to me why Venus is nothing more then a c02 powered pressure cooker, without c02.

The evidence of global warming is incontrovertible. We can speak of ice core data, ice sheets, fossils, and various other topics that all point to global warming after you have managed to create a convincing refute on Venus.
 

neu

215
1
You got proof of all those points from one book. That's value for money.

Don't be afraid of facts and truth. They're really good for you!
I agree, do have references for the claims you/Fred make?
 
B

BarackZero

Guest
I'll make it easy for a refute:
Did he explain why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system? Venus gets about 25% of the sun irradiation of Mercury, yet Venus is hotter then mercury. Venus has a ton of C02 in the atmosphere, and C02 prevents heat from escaping. How do you account for this? Explain to me why Venus is nothing more then a c02 powered pressure cooker, without c02.

The evidence of global warming is incontrovertible. We can speak of ice core data, ice sheets, fossils, and various other topics that all point to global warming after you have managed to create a convincing refute on Venus.

You're right. I concede. I'm sure Fred Singer would concede as well.
All the SUVs being driven on Venus account for its being so very hot.

Don't read the book. Be afraid. Be very afraid to read books that will upset you.
 
B

BarackZero

Guest
You got proof of all those points from one book. That's value for money.



I agree, do have references for the claims you/Fred make?
My but I thought this was a forum for discussions. It seems that any thinking
outside the political left is ... well, unthinkable around here.

Now if you are so interested in what is inside the referenced book, I suggest you read it yourself.

Otherwise I continue to get grilled on what it says and get more and more demands for facts, references, and such that if provided, would only get me blackballed for copyright infringement.

It's Lose/Lose with Al Gore's crowd.

Fred makes the brilliant point that "consensus" does not good science make.

Copernicus at one time was the only person on earth who believed the earth revolved around the sun. But here's the crucial point: Copernicus was right.
 

LowlyPion

Homework Helper
3,055
4
You're right. I concede. I'm sure Fred Singer would concede as well.
All the SUVs being driven on Venus account for its being so very hot.

Don't read the book. Be afraid. Be very afraid to read books that will upset you.
Aren't you the one indulging in a host of argument fallacies as you are trolling through the threads here spewing conservative rhetoric?

You're awfully short on factual refutations in support of your original premise that Global Warming is somehow a hoax.
 

neu

215
1
Now if you are so interested in what is inside the referenced book, I suggest you read it yourself.

Otherwise I continue to get grilled on what it says and get more and more demands for facts, references, and such that if provided, would only get me blackballed for copyright infringement.
So you can't tell us why because Singer will sue you for copyright infringment. Can you copyright facts?

I confused by your motives. WHat do you hope to achieve by making claims then refusing to validate them. It only impleis you don;t know what you're talking about
 

LowlyPion

Homework Helper
3,055
4
Fred makes the brilliant point that "consensus" does not good science make.
You might want to make that point to Daniel Inoyue and the Senate Minority Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation web site that is trying to tabulate a names list for the purpose of denying Global Warming?
 
117
2
My but I thought this was a forum for discussions. It seems that any thinking
outside the political left is ... well, unthinkable around here.

Now if you are so interested in what is inside the referenced book, I suggest you read it yourself.

Otherwise I continue to get grilled on what it says and get more and more demands for facts, references, and such that if provided, would only get me blackballed for copyright infringement.

It's Lose/Lose with Al Gore's crowd.

Fred makes the brilliant point that "consensus" does not good science make.

Copernicus at one time was the only person on earth who believed the earth revolved around the sun. But here's the crucial point: Copernicus was right.
You talk like a 5-year old. When copernicus came up with his idea he had evidence, and that satisfied scientists who were thinking scientifically. The idea that sun was in the middle was falsified right away.

I find it ironic when people who argue against a theory where you would need 50 dump trucks to store all the hard-copy evidence say that their idea is not accepted, so it has chance of being right because everyone else is hooked up with "myth". I will tell you what, there are many many more scientists and if you get your paper on arXiv the vatican won't read it, but scientists who have facts to support their arguments. And the fact that you say you are going to get copyright infringement strengthens the idea that you have no idea how it works.

I used to read these sort of books so I can refute those people who read the book and take it as gospel. Then I realised these sort of books don't have any evidence. I would love to see an article in a peer-reviewed journal stating global warming isn't true because it does seem odd, doesn't it, that there are people who believe that it is false, there are evidence, and there is not a single credible paper about it?
 
B

BarackZero

Guest
Aren't you the one indulging in a host of argument fallacies as you are trolling through the threads here spewing conservative rhetoric?

You're awfully short on factual refutations in support of your original premise that Global Warming is somehow a hoax.
1. It's NOT my "original premise." I'm merely citing learned scholars in the field of climate physics.

2. Science, as demonstrated by men unafraid to confront Al Gore, are hardly "spewing conservative rhetoric." Al Gore and his sycophants have been politicizing science for many years now. It's time for thoughtful people to confront them and their lies.

3. I say again, there are hundreds of citations in Fred Singer's book, which you are evidently afraid to read.

Don't be afraid. Facts and science won't hurt you.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt University divinity school

"Who are these guys." - Al Gore looking at busts of Founding Fathers at Monticello
 
117
2
1. It's NOT my "original premise." I'm merely citing learned scholars in the field of climate physics.

2. Science, as demonstrated by men unafraid to confront Al Gore, are hardly "spewing conservative rhetoric." Al Gore and his sycophants have been politicizing science for many years now. It's time for thoughtful people to confront them and their lies.

3. I say again, there are hundreds of citations in Fred Singer's book, which you are evidently afraid to read.

Don't be afraid. Facts and science won't hurt you.

"I took the initiative in inventing the internet." Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt University divinity school

"Who are these guys." - Al Gore looking at busts of Founding Fathers at Monticello
Lies? Learned scholars? I know some climate physicists. They are nothing like what you think. Just writing a book and taking few chips at the theory (well, not valid ones anyways) does not invalidate the theory of global warming. You can go ahead and say evolution isn't true, or cold fusion is possible, or whatever. How would these people get around to arguing that? Just exactly the route you took.
 

LowlyPion

Homework Helper
3,055
4
1. It's NOT my "original premise." I'm merely citing learned scholars in the field of climate physics.
No. You posted it. It's your premise now.

If you've posed it without understanding then just say so.

If you believe it, then offer your defense - just the facts - and maybe skip the ad hominems and specious distractions?
 

neu

215
1
3. I say again, there are hundreds of citations in Fred Singer's book, which you are evidently afraid to read.

Don't be afraid. Facts and science won't hurt you.
I'll ask again, please list at least one or two of these references. At the moment, you apear to be the only one is a afraid of science
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top