2011-01-20 08:27:49Summary of Singer disinformation
John Cook


I'm not saying we're going to do a series on Singer next. But I like to use the forum as a way of storing crucial information so when I need to lay my hands on it down the track, it's close to hand (I think down the track I'll rename this forum from "Monckton Myths" to "Disinformation Deniers". What I think is over time if anyone encounters a goldmine of disinformation from a prominent denier, create a thread on this forum and we'll start collecting their articles where they spout all their worst rubbish.

For starters, here's an interview with Fred Singer. Even worse, it's on their own astroturf group National Association of Scholars.

Here's another piece featuring Singer: Time to cool it on global warming. It's short but it's recent and it's in the mainstream media - I believe its been picked up in a few outlets - so it features his most common disinformation.

2011-01-20 09:00:43Singer seems to be doing a tour of the Orange County
John Cook


Famed global-warming critic in O.C. today

Q. What is a good way to capsulize your main message on climate change?

A. My main message is the title of my recent book, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.” And that deals with natural climate cycles. My contention is that we’re now and have been in a natural climate cycle of warming at the present time. We came out of the little ice age about 200 years ago. And the other book is called, “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.” That book is a discussion of evidence for and against human influence on climate.


2011-01-20 09:22:07


"Disinformation Deniers" would mean people who are denying disinformation.

Probably not what you have in mind.

2011-01-20 09:38:49hah
Dana Nuccitelli

Hehe, that's true, neal.  Perhaps denier disinformation would be better.

Here's another document authored by Singer with a bunch of denialist co-authors (including Carter, Motl, Monckton, D'Aleo, and Idso) for the NIPCC.  It's absolutely chalk full of crap.  I saw it referenced recently because somebody had noted that Figure 11, which attempts to show UHI bias in the California temperature record, claims to show the data broken down by population density, but actually plots it based on population by county.  This would be valid if every county in California were equal in area, but in reality that's not even remotely accurate.  But there's all kinds of crap in there.  They even claim that the tropical troposphere 'hot spot' is a unique fingerprint from GHG warming - a common myth spread by Jo Nova, I believe, but which any climate scientist should know is false.