Fred Singer, lacking nobility, still claims the Prize

Wed, 2009-11-18 17:29Brendan DeMelle
Brendan DeMelle's picture

Fred Singer, lacking nobility, still claims the Prize

Climate skeptics are, not surprisingly, hitting the European speaking circuit in the weeks leading up to the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen. But what is surprising is that notorious global warming denier S. Fred Singer was described at a skeptic conference today as a Nobel prize winner, a flat out lie.

According to a Belgian journalist who alerted DeSmog to Singer’s appearance today at a skeptic conference in the European Parliament building, Singer was described in event materials as:

“a reviewer of IPCC reports, he shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore and 2000 others.”


The idea that Fred Singer shares any part in the IPCC/Gore Nobel prize is laughable, of course.  Other than Mr. Gore, the Nobel committee recognized only the IPCC authors, and they all received framed Nobel certificates.  If Singer can produce a framed Nobel, I’ll produce my Olympic gold medal (Singer must eat cereal too, I sure enjoy the prizes inside, although I’ve never seen a Nobel peace prize before).

None of the countless reviewers of the IPCC reports (DeSmogBlog’s own Kevin Grandia included) can claim any part of the Nobel glory. But that hasn’t stopped Fred Singer from trying to elevate his role as a reviewer to Nobel status.

Singer now “shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore,” according to materials announcing his keynote speech at today’s one day conference “Have Humans Changed the Climate?,” hosted by Roger Helmer, a British conservative member of the European Parliament. To be clear, this event isn’t endorsed by the entire European Parliament. Helmer just booked a room inside the building, no doubt hoping to add legitimacy to this leg of the Denial-a-Palooza ’09 tour, European edition. 

Other “distinguished” guest speakers at today’s skeptic parade include Ross McKitrick (of hockey stick denial fame), University of Oslo Professor Tom Segalstad (also a guest speaker at Heartland Institute’s skeptic conference), and James Delingpole from the Daily Telegraph (UK author who says he’ll “provide comedy value” at the conference).

Delinpole describes himself on his website as “a libertarian conservative who writes brilliant books and brilliant articles, and is really great on TV, radio and the internet too.”

Enticed by such an amazing self-description, I wandered inside his website to take a look around. I didn’t have to look too far before being completely impressed. After all, front and center of his own homepage today, Delingpole acknowledges what we at DeSmogBlog have known for years:


We climate change sceptics would have lost the battle long ago had it not been for the happy advent of the internet. It’s in the Blogosphere (and a few odd MSM strongholds such as The Wall Street Journal and Christopher Booker’s Sunday Telegraph column) where all the counterarguments are being disseminated.


Mr. Delingpole, thank you for admitting openly that skeptics like Fred Singer and yourself would be out of a job if you all had to rely on trying to get your non-scientific views published in actual peer-reviewed science journals. Please let Fred Singer know this when you see him next.

My work here is done.

Have you heard S. Fred Singer described elsewhere as a “Nobel prize winner?” Drop us an email at [email protected].

Previous Comments

This is the first I’ve heard Fred try it, but Christopher Monckton does it all the time.

Recall of Viscount Monckton:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf

“His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table
inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace
Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented
to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.”

As far as I can tell, that might be Robert L. Sproull, but more likley Robert S. Knox, both Emeritus Physics Profs @ U of Rochester.

I can top Singer – I’ve got THREE Nobel Peace Prizes:

1. Amnesty International member/activist/local chapter president
2. Red Cross life-saving certification
and best of all …
3. collected money for UNICEF while trick or treating as a kid.

sounds like you deserved it more than algore!

Were Gore to possess that pre-existing condition known as a spine, like Dr. John Christy, he would have humbly declined a political prize for his ostensible work of science.
Perhaps the pot smoking
www.counterpunch.org/reviews-html

or his proximity to the “several million degree” earth’s core
www.belowthebeltway/…/al-gore-earths-core-at-several-million-degrees/

have compromised what one would hope to be better judgement.

His latest work of science fiction,’OUR CHOICE,’ makes generous use of modern technology to ‘laughably’ propel readers (however few) well beyond where actual science leads.
www.ihatethemedia.com/gore-our-choice-photoshop-trickery/

These links will be thoroughly probed (VJ, et al)for any instance of impropriety, no matter how grossly unrelated to the subjects being discussed, to discredit what they can’t/won’t bring themselves to accept. The fait accompli? This mirrors scientific inquiry, though in a predictable advocacy research manner.

Well compared to Al gore and Obama he certainly is more deserving of a Nobel Prize. On the other hand the Nobel prize has lost a lot of it’s cache in the last few years by awarding the previous two.

In many ways Fred Singer has garnered a lot of respect for his work in regards to global warming and the abuse he has been subject to just to present a contrarian point of view for people to consider.

His endeavors to improve the condition of man at personal cost to himself have been duely noted by many and his sacrifice is not in vain. We need skeptics like Fred Singer to keep the world honest. His paper in 2008 is perhaps the best comiplation debunking global warming. Perhaps not the Nobel prize but a congressional medal of honor may be in his future.

I got a plastic nobel peace prize in a box of crackerjacks once.

The panel that gives the actual ones away is so political that they become meaningless anyway - at least since Arafat and especially since Obama. I just can’t figure out why they didn’t give one to Bill Clinton - not lefty enough for them?

I was unaware the Nobel Prize Committee has a category for Creative Cowpatties!

Here is a draft of Singer”s explanation:

“Heh, an administrative aide made the error, Heh, Heh”

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

O HO HO HO HO HO HO HO! EAT IT GINGER LADY! EAT IT FEMACK! SHAME ON YOU ALL IF YOU CONTINUE SUPPORTING THESE SHEISTERS!

Shoosh I read the same thing you did on the wall street journals blog this morning.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/

The e-mails have been authenticated by an australlian news organization but I still would want to want for some additional verification first. Thanks for the link to the actual e-mails Shoosh.

Really, referring to Andrew Bolt as a reputable Australian news organization is pretty funny. I’m sure you hang on his every word, but he’s obviously and deeply controversial. Gobble up his “insight” as unalloyed truth if you want, but find an objective reference if you want to repeat his claims…

Your glee is a bit premature. A few remarks taken out of context are not going to bring down the entire body of evidence (which, BTW, goes way beyond the hockey stick you obsess about).

FM

Realclimate just confirmed tha validity of the information and e-mails leaked yesterday night. This is a serious body blow to any credibility the IPCC global warmers had left. With the leaking of internal documentation and private e-mails of IPCC top climate scientists we can discern a few things already.
1. Away from the media, climate scientists are much more sceptical about just how conclusive their science and research really is. In fact many internal e-mails have quotes like “Climate change remains unproven”!
2. Climate scientists lead a “rock star” lifestyle, flying from tropical conference to tropical conference and receiving very lavish amounts of funding from Big government.
3. The peer review process within climate scientists is very chummy, much more so that any other faculty as they all know each other and every paper they put out is crafted to look decisive and firm even if they are not.
4. Much of the Mccyntire Hockey stick fiasco has been documented by internal e-mails with quotes to the effect that cliamte org has discovered some covered up information and yes data has been witheld from steve mccyntire.

People will uncover much more over the weekend as their are over 1000 e-mails opening up the secretive world of the IPCC.

I’m not going to gloat as like everyone else I was only after the truth, but now one can plainly see that their is no consensus and the science is very much in doubt. Climate scientists are a very close knit group that work together to protect 20+ years of research and produce scientific documents for political reasons rather than scientific. Will Desmog come clean and look at this new evidence objectively? Probably not they are making too much cash off of this deal as well. I do look forward to reading what the PR doctors and spinsters at Desmog come up with to explain this fiasco!

Wow, nice to see your “skeptical” senses so finely tuned, “Ralph”… Denialist sites race to post illegally obtained, definitely “excerpted” and possibly manipulated private correspondence and you’re right in there with “A ha!!!!!” With another off-key chorus of “hockey stick!!!!!!” for good measure.

So far, if the revealed correspondence is correct and even faintly in context, it seems like we have PROOF that real climate scientists privately find little to respect in their denialist harriers. As has been observed elsewhere, it’s enlightening to see Watts, McIntyre et. al. enthusiastically reveal about others what they have doggedly hidden about themselves. I wonder what we’d see in their hacked mail boxes?

Planting A.C.O.R.N.s?
Just blame George Bush, FOXNEWS, racism, and threaten legal action for exposing illegality. Recall how that puny attempt at deflection worked for Bertha Lewis (Chief Organizer for the soon-to-be-defunct A.C.O.R.N.)?

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails

Warmistas may now have to justify their generous funding with actual verifiable results, rather than with COULDIFMAYMIGHT. Oh, to be a fly-
on-the-wall in the Alarmist War-room!

do you melt glaciers by email?

this reminds me of a book jacket that once described the author of winning a pulitzer prize. I believe Fenton Communications used the same description in a media advisory. just saying, s*it happens.

Just for your information: Mr. Singer is also appearing in Copenhagen the day before COP15 starts at the Danish parliament, where denier-party Dansk Folkeparti are hosting a sceptic conference. Thanks for a great blog and particularly The Climate Cover-up.
Per Meilstrup

[x]

There is no better way to describe self-appointed climate auditor Steve McIntyre than ‘determined’. Highly determined even.

And you would have to be pretty obstinate to try and poke holes in peer-reviewed climate science given that McIntyre claims he does not receive a salary signed by Big Oil. As author of the sceptic blog Climate Audit, all of McIntyre’s work is funded on his own dime.

Of course, his hotel accommodation while in London this August, where our interview was conducted,...

read more