The Global Warming Hoax

  • News
  • Thread starter BarackZero
  • Start date
  • #1
BarackZero

Main Question or Discussion Point

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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
neu
220
3
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:
  • #3
1,838
7
Fred Singer is grateful to you for having bought his book.
 
  • #4
neu
220
3
Fred Singer is grateful to you for having bought his book.
Not to mention actually reading it as well
 
  • #5
BarackZero
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.
 
  • #6
neu
220
3
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
 
  • #7
BarackZero
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!
 
  • #8
1,838
7
Not to mention actually reading it as well
Indeed, and also for advertising his book on internet forums.
 
  • #9
SixNein
Gold Member
42
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.
 
  • #10
neu
220
3
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?
 
  • #11
BarackZero
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.
 
  • #12
BarackZero
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.
 
  • #13
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
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.
 
  • #14
neu
220
3
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
 
  • #15
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
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?
 
  • #16
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?
 
  • #17
BarackZero
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
 
  • #18
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.
 
  • #19
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
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?
 
  • #20
neu
220
3
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
 
  • #21
13
0
milankovich_cycles.png


http://global-warming.accuweather.com/cycle-thumb.gif

http://www.treehugger.com/solar-cycles-wp-001.png [Broken]

My biggest problem with the science of man-made global warming is that information is published like it was sensationalist propaganda. The research only addresses the "right now" while hardly ever looking at the big picture. There have always been periods of warming and periods of cooling. Always. CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere. It's true that because of the use of fossil fuels more is being released than ever has before, but that doesn't change the fact that we are in the middle of a natural period of warming. Every other day, there is another story on Sun spot cycles, and they all say the same thing: there hasn't been such high levels of Sunspots in 8,000 years. And I'm sure we all know that heightened Sunspot activity means that Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so strange that we would be experiencing warming. Let's break it down:

Sunspot activity at it's highest level in 8,000 years -> More Solar radiation -> Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases -> warmer temperatures

The science is there. The question we ask ourselves now is: Is human activity increasing the intensity of this Sunspot cycle? Maybe. One thing is for sure, we are setting record temperatures everywhere in the world. But not by astronomical levels. We haven't seen a 20 degree increase (which would make true the doomsday theory that the media shoves down our throats). We've seen an increase of a few degrees over the last 10 years. Considering the fact that Sunspot activity has increased to levels that the Earth hasn't been subjected to in 8,000 years, isn't this change in climate understandable?

I don't know enough to tear down the entire theory. I'm not a meteorologist or an environmental scientist. But, there are several things I've learned as a result of being a human being: 1) We overreact, 2) The media sensationalizes everything (let us remember that the doomsday theory comes from Al Gore and the media. There have been very few, respectable scientists who have given us an apocalypse scenario. That's because it very simply isn't realistic.), 3) People like having something to rally around and fight for together.

I'd like to end this post by mentioning again the Sunspot cycle. This current cycle will end. Temperatures will decrease. There is absolutely no way to refute this bit of science. Our CO2 emissions do not effect the Sun's activity. So, the Sunspot cycle will end, and temperatures will decrease to somewhat normal levels. However, the future of automobiles is in low-emissions. Not because it's best for "Mother Nature", but because it is best for commerce. Oil is an exhaustible resource, we all know this. And for car companies, the money is in the electric/clean burning fuels market. Toyota has the Prius, Chevy has the Volt, countless other companies have hybrid-this and hybrid-that. The point I am trying to make here is that even if we have the power to kill the Earth through global warming, it just isn't going to happen. We're moving away from fossil fuels as an economic necessity. It just so happens that it's also ecologically sound. Also, it's important to understand that we can't undo what we've already done. And at present time, we haven't done enough to cause a doomsday scenario. Maybe someday, if we were to continue our current level of CO2 emissions, we would finally do ourselves in, but it's not going to happen during this Sunspot cycle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
SixNein
Gold Member
42
16
1. The IPCC report was based on research which was not peer reviewed. Shameful.
The IPCC is not alone on a island. Peer reviewed material has been in full agreement with IPCC findings. Everyone from the Pentagon to The American Meteorological Society has reviewed the science and agreed with the assessments.

2. The Hockey Stick graph has been discredited.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

3. Claims of increases in temperatures were found to be inaccurate when statisticians found errors by climate "researchers."
You have to give examples, there is thousands of publications from thousands of scientist on this topic. So you have to say this or that publication. Then we can discuss what region that publication was targeted and so forth.

4. Research contrary to the Al Gore dogma is minimized, ignored, or otherwise treated in a most unprofessional and most unscientific manner.
Give some examples of research being treated unprofessionally.

5. The environment takes actions to counter increases both in carbon dioxide as well as temperature increases.
The C02 absorption by the environment is taken into account by scientist. For example, the ocean is absorbing C02 and turning acidic.

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.
Glacial and Interglacial cycle. The Ice-core data from multiple sources extend back hundreds of thousands of years. This can also be verified by other sources such as fossils.

7. Slight increases in temperatures will save many more lives than they will cost, and they will greatly enhance agricultural productivity.
The stability of humanity is closely related to stability of climate. Governments cannot take massive amounts of population move due to sea level rise and other factors. Perhaps you should investigate some of the assessments by the pentagon.

8. The doomsday claims are grossly exaggerated, just as they were by the discredited Club of Rome report, predicting global famine in the 1970s.
The PH levels of the oceans are dropping. That alone should be enough to frighten anyone without all the other additives of global warming.

Don't be afraid of facts and truth. They're really good for you!
Then you should start researching more.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
SixNein
Gold Member
42
16
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.
Venus has a think layer of C02 in its atmosphere and SUV's emit c02. In other words, it's putting up additional C02 into our atmosphere.
 
  • #24
SixNein
Gold Member
42
16
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991#Controversy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/02/net_builders_kahn_cerf_recognise/
 
  • #25
SixNein
Gold Member
42
16
My biggest problem with the science of man-made global warming is that information is published like it was sensationalist propaganda. The research only addresses the "right now" while hardly ever looking at the big picture. There have always been periods of warming and periods of cooling. Always. CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere. It's true that because of the use of fossil fuels more is being released than ever has before, but that doesn't change the fact that we are in the middle of a natural period of warming. Every other day, there is another story on Sun spot cycles, and they all say the same thing: there hasn't been such high levels of Sunspots in 8,000 years. And I'm sure we all know that heightened Sunspot activity means that Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases. Suddenly, it doesn't seem so strange that we would be experiencing warming. Let's break it down:

Sunspot activity at it's highest level in 8,000 years -> More Solar radiation -> Earth's exposure to solar radiation increases -> warmer temperatures

The science is there. The question we ask ourselves now is: Is human activity increasing the intensity of this Sunspot cycle? Maybe. One thing is for sure, we are setting record temperatures everywhere in the world. But not by astronomical levels. We haven't seen a 20 degree increase (which would make true the doomsday theory that the media shoves down our throats). We've seen an increase of a few degrees over the last 10 years. Considering the fact that Sunspot activity has increased to levels that the Earth hasn't been subjected to in 8,000 years, isn't this change in climate understandable?

I don't know enough to tear down the entire theory. I'm not a meteorologist or an environmental scientist. But, there are several things I've learned as a result of being a human being: 1) We overreact, 2) The media sensationalizes everything (let us remember that the doomsday theory comes from Al Gore and the media. There have been very few, respectable scientists who have given us an apocalypse scenario. That's because it very simply isn't realistic.), 3) People like having something to rally around and fight for together.

I'd like to end this post by mentioning again the Sunspot cycle. This current cycle will end. Temperatures will decrease. There is absolutely no way to refute this bit of science. Our CO2 emissions do not effect the Sun's activity. So, the Sunspot cycle will end, and temperatures will decrease to somewhat normal levels. However, the future of automobiles is in low-emissions. Not because it's best for "Mother Nature", but because it is best for commerce. Oil is an exhaustible resource, we all know this. And for car companies, the money is in the electric/clean burning fuels market. Toyota has the Prius, Chevy has the Volt, countless other companies have hybrid-this and hybrid-that. The point I am trying to make here is that even if we have the power to kill the Earth through global warming, it just isn't going to happen. We're moving away from fossil fuels as an economic necessity. It just so happens that it's also ecologically sound. Also, it's important to understand that we can't undo what we've already done. And at present time, we haven't done enough to cause a doomsday scenario. Maybe someday, if we were to continue our current level of CO2 emissions, we would finally do ourselves in, but it's not going to happen during this Sunspot cycle.
Fine sunspots, then please explain why Venus is hotter then Mercury. If it's not the C02 then what?
 

Related Threads on The Global Warming Hoax

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
290
Views
37K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
180
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
5K
Top