March 14, 2007

Interview Passage of the Day: Fred Singer on Globaloney and Globalarmism

From a PBS Frontline interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer (described at the link as “an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues”; bolds are mine):

SINGER: Take an example. Take the UN Science Advisory Group, the IPCC. In their report–which is a very good report, by the way…which is close to 600 pages without an index, so no one really reads it except dedicated people like me–there’s a five-page summary of the report that everyone reads, including politicians and the media. And if you look through the summary, you will find no mention of the fact that the weather satellite observations of the last twenty years show no global warming. In fact, a slight cooling. In fact, you will not even find satellites mentioned in the summary.

Now, why is that? These are the only global observations we have. These are the best observations we have. They cover the whole globe. The surface observations don’t cover the whole globe. They leave out large chunks of the globe. They don’t cover the oceans very well, which is 70 percent of the globe. So you see, the summary uses data selectively, or at least it suppresses data that are inconvenient, that disagree with the paradigm, with what they’re trying to prove. This happens often, unfortunately.

Now, you’ll also notice that people who are skeptical about global warming generally do not have government support for their work. They don’t have to write proposals to government agencies to get money. They tend to be people who have other sources of income. They might even be retired and live on pensions, or they might [have] other sources of income that do not depend on writing research proposals to federal agencies. And if you look at research proposals to federal agencies, you will find that people who write a proposal saying, “I’m going to do research to show that global warming is not a real threat”…they’re not likely to get funding from any of the government agencies.

FRONTLINE: Do you think, then, this is no longer operating as “normal” science, that there’s some kind of pathological mechanism here?

SINGER: I think climate science is on its way to becoming pathological, to becoming abnormal in the sense that it is being guided by the money that’s being made available to people.

One of the most tiresome arguments the globalonists use to try to marginalize skeptics is that the skeptics are funded by corporate money or have some other personal ax to grind. The tactic should be considered out of order, but since they used it first, and have used it hundreds of times already, the question should be turned around: How objective are you if your very ability to make a living as a “climate scientist” depends on getting grants from a government that appears to be dominated by globalarmists?

Share

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.