S. Fred Singer: One Whopper on Top of Another

Dr. S. Fred Singer, denier for hire, wades into the Financial Post letters page today to claim, once again, that he is innocent of accepting money from big oil or big tobacco. Complaining of previous attention from the DeSmogBlog, the good doctor says:

“Although tobacco has nothing to do with the global warming debate, Mr. (Kevin) Grandia suggests that I sell my science to special interests. And since he cannot show that I am 'in the pay of the oil lobby,' tobacco will have to do.”

Well, Fred, yes we can show that you are “in the pay of the oil lobby .” Tobacco is a bonus.

The question we have, still, is how you can look facts in the face and, with no apparent pang of conscience, deny them? How do you find the nerve to admit on CBC, as you did last Wednesday , that you took money from ExxonMobil, and then write a letter to the National Post  business pages this week saying that you didn't?

Finally, you complain that, because we won't apologize for calling you a liar, your only recourse is an expensive lawsuit. Well, here again, as long as you continue to lie in public, we're going to continue calling you a liar, your threats of a lawsuit notwithstanding. Your other recourse might be to admit your past indiscretions and stop committing new ones - an option that, clearly, has never occurred to you.

As for your question about who pays our lawyer, the answer is John Lefebvre, who is himself a lawyer, a philanthropist and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John also pays the lion's share of expenses for this blog. And bless him for that.


I can’t speak for Fred, Richard, but doing $10k worth of work in 1998 hardly constitutes being “in the pay” of the oil lobby. $10k is the price of a small study. I did two of these for the American Petroleum Institute a few years back, as input to the new US Climate Change Science Program. I rarely see those folks these days, because we happen to be on different trajectories. So I am certainly not in the pay of the oil lobby, and neither is Fred. You folks understand this perfectly well, being in the business yourselves. David http://www.climatechangedebate.org

If you are going to question people’s credibility based on their past actions, you should hold Ross Gelbspan to the same standards. Nine years after the Pulitzer Prize Committee unequivocally reprimanded him for falsely claming he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize he continues to make that claim. Refer here for the specifics: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/Publications/pressrel/pulitzer.html His only defense is (1) to laughably point to others who have incorrectly claimed he won the prize as “proof”, and (2) ad hominem attacks on his accusers. He is obviously willing to lie about the facts when it benefits his case. You should therefore be questioning his credibility on the topic of global warming, where he clearly is promoting an agenda.

Anonymous, seriously, step out of the shadows or forever hold your silence! If you wish to make false claims that Mr. Gelbspan is a liar, make yourself known so we can criticise you in return.

Also, you often cite the SEPP. A sign that you are an associate of Singer, Avery, et al. or actually Singer or Avery yourself, is it?

As for accusing Mr. Gelbspan of committing ad-hom attacks, that is patently false! You are guilty of committing ad-homs yourself during your assault on Mr. Gelbspan.

What kind of a man are you? I know! You’re a coward! Grow up and get a life!

Re: Singer’s funding. There far more evidence of Singer’s funding, and it’s subtantially more than a mere $10,000, as can be seen here:

“-In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.”


The question of funding shouldn’t be viewed as a simple ad hominem. Singer has shown a willingness to lie repeatedly, as well as a willingness to hire himself out to industry PR efforts and right-wing think tanks. In each case, it’s his ideology that’s more in question, and he shows a propensity for disinformation tactics, which reveals much about his character and his political beliefs.

Rather than the standard of informal logical fallacies, a standard from a court of law is appropriate. Singer’s credibility is in question because he’s not engaging in a scientific debate, he’s merely a hired gun selling his academic credentials to right-wing causes that suit his ideology and to make some income in the process.

I can only presume that Singer’s view is that the invisible hand will come to the rescue as the temperature rises.

[more resouces on Siegfried Frederick Singer in the following link] http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1