With characteristic shamelessness, the mendacious Dr. S. Fred Singer  and two of his three co-authors are flagrantly misrepresenting a new article that they have published in the International Journal of Climatology.
The article, A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions , appears to be a legitimate paper that identifies an interesting statistical variation in a very narrow set of climate data. The folks at RealClimate.org  have picked the paper apart pretty successfully, demonstrating some fundamental flaws (the authors ignored new information when old datasets suited their purpose better), but the Journal of Climatology is a reputable publication and, in accepting this paper, it accords a certain degree of credibility to the authors' findings.
That, however, does not forgive the misleading public relations campaign that Singer has now launched on the strength of this publication. In a press release trumpeting the new paper, Singer announces: “Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.”
He quotes leading author David Douglass saying; “The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
And he quotes the once-respected John Christy saying: “Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
These conclusions are neither “inescapable” nor are they represented anywhere within the newly published paper. In fact, if you look on Singer's website , he doesn't even provide a link to the actual journal article - not even a title that would make it easier to search the article out. Neither will you find the article linked on any of the climate-change denying websites (like this  ) that have picked up the story.
No, Fred Singer makes no effort to get you to read actual science. He offers only his unfounded interpretation.
Somebody (probably the graduate student Benjamin Pearson) deserves some credit for identifying a statistical anomaly of scientific interest. But using this study to dismiss the notion of climate change is like concluding, on the strength of a second-quarter interception, that your favorite team had lost a football game - even when you could see the final victorious result posted on the scoreboard.
This is spin, plan and simple. I'd welcome all comers to read the links and judge otherwise.