posted May 19, 2010 07:27 PM         

See, I knew you wouldn't understand the science or the scientific and mathematical notation.

You actually believe you can refute a solid peer reviewed...and accepted scientific paper with the ranting, raving and scribbling of a religious fanatic.

So acoustic, when are you going to supply that list of 9,000 so called scientists of the man made global warming religion who are PhDs and who have peer reviewed papers on the subject?

One last thing acoustic. Did you really believe I would accept the word of a deacon in the church of man made global warming...about the scientific credentials of real climate scientists.

The bozo at the site you linked to disparaged the number 1 climate researcher in the field...a PhD named Singer.

posted May 19, 2010 07:41 PM         

Drilling offshore, drilling in Alaska, drilling in the Bakken reserve, uncapping the capped wells and extracting oil IS the right direction.

That's also a step in the direction of reducing oil imports from the middle east, Africa and Venezuela.

Building nuclear power plants is a step in the right direction.

Building hydroelectric power plants is a step in the right direction.

posted May 19, 2010 09:50 PM         

And who are you talking disparaging Singer?

You want to talk about me not understanding that paper, I don't see you trying to explain it, do I? you sure do talk a lot of sh!t for a guy who can't even manage simple logic.

posted May 19, 2010 11:34 PM         

The foundation has been knocked out from under the crackpot theory of man made global warming and they're never again going to be able convince Americans to believe a word they say on the subject.

posted May 20, 2010 01:35 AM         

quote:

---

Right acoustic, everyone knows who's blowing smoke rings out of his anus on this issue and it's not me.

---

You're right. Everyone does know. Only it is most definitely you.

You have no experts with peer-reviewed papers.

You have no scientific institutions you can point at as proof that your opinion is relevant scientifically.

You've tried propping yourself up with the work of a Senator denialist, and a flimsy list of supposed scientists that you can't prove work in, or know anything about the field of study they've signed an opinion on.

No people, no papers, no reputable institutions. You've got nothing, and you're still here talking. That makes you the one blowing smoke.

quote:

---

Of course, for the mushroom set who like being kept in the dark and fed horseshiiit, they will always have their mouths wide open to receive their daily load.

---

posted May 20, 2010 08:05 AM         

"Experts" who had to use phony data, who had to falsify data, who had to manipulate their computer models, who had to hide their data to keep it out of the hands of real scientists who would expose their methods, their errors and their fraud(s).

Those "experts" who are on the government gravy train(s), don't want to get thrown off and will do or say anything to keep the government money rolling in to fund their lifestyles.

Those "experts" you cite will never again have their word taken for anything, nor will they be accepted in scientific circles as "experts" in anything besides "experts in fraud".

Everything about global warming is fraudulant; including the fraudulant investigations at the UN/IPCC, the investigation at East Anglia University, the investigation at Pennsylvania State University. And notice how they screech, scream, whine and shriek when an outside investigation is opened by the Attorney General of Virginia. They thought they were going to get to investigate themselves.

Do I really need to tell you where you can stuff your so called "experts"?

posted May 20, 2010 09:36 AM         

Here's info on Fred Singer:
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming

posted May 20, 2010 10:31 AM         

This pretty much knocks your nonsense into the cocked hat acoustic.

Fred Singer, PhD is the foremost climate scientist in the world...and has been for a very long time.

The pretend scientists you hold in high regard are frauds and con artists who got caught attempting to stampede the world into belief in the fraudulant man made global warming religion.

posted May 20, 2010 10:40 AM         

His asking for an apology for their stating the truth doesn't knock anything. Perhaps I should just post all the text here.

EDIT: Here's the entry:

28 June 06
No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will be forthcoming

On Sunday, June 18, the DeSmogBlog received an email from Dr. S. Fred Singer, in which he says, “Yr (sic) June 16 blog contains the false statement that I sold my services to tobacco lobbyists.”

Dr. Singer goes on to “demand a full retraction and apology from the blog,” and he asks that we publish the following statement: “Dr. Singer and SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) have no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past. As a matter of policy, SEPP does not solicit funds or other kinds of support from any industry or from government, but relies on tax-deductible donations from foundations and individuals in many countries. Further, Dr. Singer serves on the Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), an organization that has a strong anti-smoking position.”

We have no comment on the ACSH, but Dr. Singer’s main point – that he has “no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past” – strains credulity.

For example, here is the link to a memo in which an official from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a “research” paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report. Here is the link to a letter thanking the Tobacco Institute for $20,000 intended “to support our research and education projects.” Here is a research paper, just as described in the earlier memo, with Dr. Singer’s name as the author. And here is another Tobacco Institute memo, reporting on Dr. Singer’s appearance with two Congressional Representatives releasing the paper to the media.

More to the point, for a blog about the dubious public relations tactics being used to skew the climate change debate, is Dr. Singer’s previous statements about his involvement with the oil industry.

For example, on Feb. 21, 2001, Dr. Singer wrote to the Washington Post, saying: “As for full disclosure: My résumé clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. “My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil.” At the time that Dr. Singer wrote this letter, ExxonMobil was listing him on their website as a recipient of US $10,000 in direct funding and as a participant in an event to which ExMo contributed $65,000. Our colleague Ross Gelbspan reported all this in The Nation in an article that can be found here.

This is a stark illustration of what we are up against in the climate change "debate." On one hand you have the world's most accomplished and reputable scientists - more than 2,000 of whom have submitted research to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - carefully weighing every pronouncement for accuracy and subjecting all of their research to peer-review before announcing it publicly. These people agree, unreservedly, that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.

On the other hand, you have a huge and expensive public relations campaign denying that scientific consensus. This campaign is largely financed with money from energy companies like ExxonMobil, which is then lightly laundered through "think tanks" like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or the Competitive Enterprise Institute or through industry front groups like Dr. Singer's own Science & Environmental Policy Project. The money is then passed along to "experts" like Dr. Singer, who seems happy enough to be paid for his services, even if he is reticent to admit it after the fact.

There should be no doubt in this conversation where the weight of credibility lies.
_______________________________

posted May 20, 2010 12:36 PM         

He demands the nutty putty crowd who have lied about him retract their libel and slander.

It does no good to attempt to smear Singer with lies which are slanderous.

Someone suggested his name to sit on a panel, board or whatever...on tobacco issues.

Big F-ing deal. There's no issue here...unless you can prove Singer took the appointment. Can you?

Since when do we convict anyone in America on what someone else does?

Perhaps in O'Bomber's Socialist Utopia but not in the America I know.

posted May 20, 2010 12:40 PM         

May 19, 2010
Leftwing Drama Queen Scientists
Mark J. Fitzgibbons

The leftwing-activist Union of Concerned Scientists may have done more harm than good to its favored cause, global warming. It released a letter signed by 800 Virginia scientists urging the state's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, to drop his taxpayer fraud investigation directed at the University of Virginia's records of Climategate figure Michael Mann.

Cuccinelli, who received a Bachelors of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Virginia, is showing no signs of favoritism to his alma mater.

The scientists' letter is long on drama, and devoid of substance. Its gist is that the laws of the universe -- or at least the civil laws of Virginia -- should not apply to scientists because . . . well, because they are scientists. The letter reads in part:

Science thrives on rigorous debate and a frank exchange of differing ideas and perspectives. The freedom of scientists to openly disagree and discuss critical scientific topics has brought Virginia and the United States prosperity and global leadership in science. Research shows that scientific discovery is held back when government officials harass scientists.

Of course, public policy, religion, economics, indeed all areas of thought, conscience and prosperity, also thrive on rigorous debate and frank exchange.

Earth to scientists: government officials have been harassing people without PhDs for a long time.

The Virginia investigation, however, isn't about probing science's boundaries or honest mistakes; it is about whether Professor Mann intentionally misrepresented or omitted material facts to procure a taxpayer grant. The standards of the law are higher than those of science in this matter. Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment, and is not an academic liberty.

Scientists who believe they are above the law fit nicely into the self-indulgent, elitist paradigm against which a backlash is brewing. People who aren't ideological detractors of all things conservative are supportive of the investigation and skeptical of the motives of its critics.

posted May 20, 2010 01:13 PM         

quote:

---

The Virginia investigation, however, isn't about probing science's boundaries or honest mistakes; it is about whether Professor Mann intentionally misrepresented or omitted material facts to procure a taxpayer grant.

---

A grant wouldn't be contingent upon him providing false data. Why would a grant ever be contingent upon something that would tempt a scientist into falsifying things? It doesn't make any sense. "You can have our grant money, but only if you can prove this particular data set is scientifically valid." Makes no sense whatsoever.

posted May 20, 2010 01:40 PM         

quote:

---

Fred Singer, PhD, is the foremost scientific expert on climate.

---

No he's not. You can't prove that assertion in any way. That's a perfectly ridiculous thing to say, and anyone with a hint of knowledge about him would say the same.

quote:

---

He demands the nutty putty crowd who have lied about him retract their libel and slander.

---

They DIDN'T lie about him! His tie to big tobacco is well known. He's insane for trying to say that he's never been associated with them.

quote:

---

It does no good to attempt to smear Singer with lies which are slanderous.

---

You mean the truth. I wouldn't have any reason to lie about him.

You want me to prove his involvement with tobacco? Ok:

Smoking gun proof: http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2021178206_8208_0.PDF

posted May 20, 2010 01:42 PM         

The Attorney General of Virginia is demanding documents from the University of Virginia concerning the employment and research grants to Michael Mann.

The fraud artist community is outraged that anyone would presume to investigate one of them...they are privileged characters don't you know.

And Fred Singer, PhD, confirms that actual fraud is involved with those who have manipulated data, hidden data and produced fraudulent documents to push man made global warming on the world.

All of that is substantive acoustic.

It's your blither, blather, bloviation and bullshiiit which is without substance.

posted May 20, 2010 01:56 PM         

quote:

---

And Fred Singer, PhD, confirms that actual fraud is involved with those who have manipulated data, hidden data and produced fraudulent documents to push man made global warming on the world.

---

He confirms no such thing. He's not in a position to.

quote:

---

All of that is substantive acoustic.

---

posted May 20, 2010 10:01 PM         

"Can't open index
Index Path: D:\inetpub\wwwroot\www.pmdocs.com\cgi-bin\avppubidx
Error msg: can't acquire index locks"

Hahaha

You post a link to a memo about "indoor air quality" which Singer did not author...and expect anyone to believe that disqualifies Fred Singer, PhD, on the subject of "global warming".

I'm not sure whether you're losing it...or perhaps have already "lost it".

posted May 21, 2010 02:21 AM         

In the first link I posted Singer made the case against a link between tobacco smoke and cancer.

The link you can't get to work is the one I was using to find Singer-related docs. If you simply used a little ingenuity, and clicked 'home' you could have started from there:
http://www.pmdocs.com/pmpublic.asp

It's a catalog of documents used in litigation against Philip-Morris. To get more specifically in to Singer's organization taking money from tobacco, you'll have to also do a separate google search on Fred Singer criticism. Actually, I think the guys at desmogblog have links. Tobacco companies funded Singer via funding his front organization, and he wrote opinions questioning the validity of smoking's link to cancer.

quote:

---

You post a link to a memo about "indoor air quality" which Singer did not author...and expect anyone to believe that disqualifies Fred Singer, PhD, on the subject of "global warming".

---

posted May 21, 2010 08:39 AM         

Many companies use scientific specialists to read through research reports or studies to check methodology, conclusions reached and a variety of other factors...before publishing reports or reacting to someone else's report or study. Generally, this consulting work is advisory in nature and deals with scientific fact as opposed to PR hype...what they can say and remain on safe scientific grounds as opposed to what their advertising or marketing departments "would like to say".

Further, you've posted no evidence Dr Singer ever worked for a tobacco company. The literature you posted bears the name APCO. There's no evidence Dr Singer ever ran any tobacco studies or clinical trials for any tobacco company.

Dr Singer is right about the junk science used to attack Alar, Radon and a variety of other so called risks. I wish there was an article by Singer speaking to DDT, another junk science induced scare by radical leftist so called environmentalists.

The problem with some of the junk science is that when it's used to ban some substances...it kills a hell of a lot of people.

DDT was the most effective control for mosquito's. Mosquito's which carry Malaria. The junk science used to get DDT banned has now killed more than 50 million people..mostly in Africa. That's roughly the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. How come leftists are not shedding any tears over the loss of 50 million lives caused by employing junk science?

Gee, that's roughly the total loss of life caused by World War II.

What you are attempting here is equivalent to demanding Carol Browner and other rabid leftist Socialists in the enviornmentalist movement be arrested and charged with...at least 2nd degree murder for their part in getting DDT banned using junk science.

Attempting to attack Dr Singer indirectly for consulting work he may or may not have done....does nothing to attack his scientific credentials regarding his opinions on man made global warming...a field in which Dr Singer is the foremost expert in the field.

Dr Singer says deliberate scientific fraud was committed by the nuts and crackpots in the man made global warming religion.

Now that we've seen the emails.."to hide the decline", "employing tricks", the fraudulent "Hockey Stick Graph", selectively choosing only the warmer temperature reporting stations while deleting the cooler reporting stations, deleting all the reported actual temperatures used for reports from the files...and all the rest of the fraud; reasonable people agree with Dr Singer's assessment of the fraud committed by junk scientists.

posted May 21, 2010 11:21 AM         

Singer IS a member of The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a right-wing think tank. Here's a letter thanking the tobacco industry for their support:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841126.html

As part of the 1998 Tobacco Settlement Agreement, the Philip Morris corporation released millions of pages of documents concerning their operations. These detail how, after the Environmental Protection Agency moved in 1993 to have second-hand tobacco smoke declared a carcinogen, Philip Morris hired the AdTI to campaign against the move. This resulted in the 1994 paper Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination.

Tobaccodocuments.org contains a number of searchable documents produced as court discovery linking AdTI to Lorillard and Phillip Morris corporations. AdTI is linked to Dr. Fred Singer in the tobacco documents,[6] the Cooler Heads Coalition,[7] Consumer Alert,[8] Heartland Institute,[9][10] and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[11][12][13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville_Institution

posted May 22, 2010 09:19 AM         

quote:

---

Singer's involvement in ]denying the effects of tobacco is quite similar to his involvement in denying global warming. In both instances he's on the books for the people trying to deny the science....acoustic

---

You have proved no such thing acoustic. Neither have you posted any comments by Dr Singer in which Singer DENIES the effects of tobacco.

So Dr Singer is a member of an organization. So the organization sent a letter. So what?

You are a member of LindaLand. Do you take personal responsibility for everything everyone at LindaLand says? Does that mean you agree with everything said here?

Dr Fred Singer is the foremost climate scientist in the world and has been for a very long time. Dr Singer says man made global warming is a fraud, a con, a hoax and those who are pushing it on the world are committing deliberate fraud.

posted May 22, 2010 02:50 PM         

quote:

---

You have proved no such thing acoustic. Neither have you posted any comments by Dr Singer in which Singer DENIES the effects of tobacco.

---

Remember:
These detail how, after the Environmental Protection Agency moved in 1993 to have second-hand tobacco smoke declared a carcinogen, Philip Morris hired the AdTI to campaign against the move. This resulted in the 1994 paper Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville_Institution

The first link I posted from Philip-Morris was a paper about the EPA created by S. Fred Singer. http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2021178206_8208_0.PDF

If that doesn't open, then you have to start the search over again. You can look by document number 2021178206 (then go to Edit/Find and type in Singer, you'll be there in a second). If you just do a search on Singer, SF you'll find lots of stuff from Singer's campaign on their behalf.

Here's the paper referenced in the wikipedia article: http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756807-6876.html

quote:

---

So Dr Singer is a member of an organization. So the organization sent a letter. So what?

---

He wasn't just a member. He was the driving force behind this campaign. I warn you not to engage in subterfuge on this. You have no means of disproving any of this, so I'm not going to tolerate a scepticism from you whereby you do nothing but keep asking for corroborating information. A search on "Fred Singer tobacco" will find you plenty of evidence to support the claims. All you have to do is look at the referenced docs.

quote:

---

Dr Fred Singer is the foremost climate scientist in the world and has been for a very long time.

---

No he's not, and you've not even attempted to prove as much.

quote:

---

Dr Singer is right.

---

posted May 22, 2010 04:19 PM         

Dr Fred Singer's scientific credentials, appointments, papers and head of agencies say Singer is the foremost climate expert in the field.