brought to you by www.energyboom.com
 
“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



S. Fred Singer

S. Fred Singer

Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? Breaking out the Wegman File

Did Edward Wegman's team commit plagiarism in preparing its 2006 Congressional report on the so-called MBH Hockey Stick? Objectively, yes.

Is there a conspiracy to confuse and distort climate science? Absolutely. If you doubt it, read the John Mashey paper attached (or our book, Climate Cover-up).

Have any crimes been committed? That'll be for a judge to decide. But given that misleading Congress is a felony offense, there might be some justifable nervousness among the people who coached Wegman through his attack on the scientistists behind the Hockey Stick.

The inspiration for these questions, and some fodder for the answers, is presented in painstaking and well-documented detail in the attached paper (see new version 1.0.1, updated Feb 11, 2010). Prepared by the computer scientist and entrepreneur John Mashey, it is a roadmap, a reference source and a timeline for the campaign of deceit that began in the 1990s and has come to something of a crescendo with the recent thefts of the East Anglia emails.


Read more: Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? Breaking out the Wegman File

What's next?

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).


Read more: Fred Singer, lacking nobility, still claims the Prize

What's next?

Fred Singer: A Man you would be embarrassed to have on your side

The folks at Wildlife Promise ask:

"If he's such a heroic challenger of the scientific consensus, why don't you hear S. Fred Singer denying there's water on the moon?"

And then they postulate:

"The short answer is, because there's no money in it."

The whole post is short, sharp and well worth the time. If you are judged by the company you keep, I NEVER want to be seen with S. Fred.


Read more: Fred Singer: A Man you would be embarrassed to have on your side

What's next?

S. Fred Singer and the Global Warming Denial Machine

ABC News aired a sweeping piece on career contrarion S. Fred Singer, a character well-known to us here at the DeSmogBlog.

The 84-year old "grandfather of the global warming 'skeptics'" shows just how over the edge he is in the following exchange:

ABC Anchor, Dan Harris: There are so many scientists who disagree with what you're saying, the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], NASA, NOAA, the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society - we're talking about scientists all over the globe.

S. Fred Singer: What can I say? They're wrong.


Read more: S. Fred Singer and the Global Warming Denial Machine

What's next?

The Usual Suspects: Climate Change Deniers on Road to Stockholm

A two-day gathering of scientists -- mostly greenhouse skeptics -- in Stockholm in mid-September will focus on: Global Warming  - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability”. The gathering will feature presentations by such skeptical luminaries as S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.  Not all scientists are enthusiastic about the conference. Tom M. L. Wigley, a top climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote: "You may be well meaning, but I think this meeting idea is flawed. You seem to be making the same mistake as the popular press, who often give equal weight to minority views. It is true that the so-called 'skeptics' sometimes raise interesting points, but they are usually either on the fringe, or are quickly shown to be wrong. The normal process of scientific publishing through the peer review process will eventually sort the wheat from the chaff. I doubt that many mainstream scientists who work in the climate change area will want to come to your meeting. Certainly, it is not something I would want to participate in."

 


Read more: The Usual Suspects: Climate Change Deniers on Road to Stockholm

What's next?

Atlas Sings Fred's Song: A Duet in Duplicity

Environmentalists who oppose global warming also oppose any kind of realistic alternative, according to the Atlas Foundation for Economic Research. The foundation's thinking becomes clearer when one sees who their hero is! Atlas declared on their website that: "For those who believe public policy should be based on sound science, Dr. Singer offers a wealth of information, credibility and encouragement." Even though S. Fred lied about the $10,000 he received from ExxonMobil in 1998 -- the same year that Atlas got another $65,000 from the oil giant.


Read more: Atlas Sings Fred's Song: A Duet in Duplicity

What's next?
Syndicate content

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!



DeSmog Tip Jar

DeSmog Tip Jar

Flickr Photos

Flickr Photos
James Hoggan - Black and WhiteHoggan, Robertson, HarcourtClimate Cover-Up Book CoverRichard Littlemore

Member of the Progressive Bloggers Network

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORK

Progressive Bloggers