PRINCETON, NJ (January 3, 2011)—S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.
Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,
I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.
NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”
Singer continues his work in the sciences, focusing lately on geophysical research and the Earth’s atmosphere. He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).
The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.To learn more about NAS, visit www.nas.org.
####
CONTACT: Ashley Thorne, Director of Communications, NAS: 609-683-7878; thorne@nas.org
Dion
| July 31, 2012 - 12:50 PM
Pulling numbers out of thin air is a terrible and odious way to have a debate with “both sides of the argument.” That 40% number is a falsehood- there is about a 98% consensus of all scientists who study this phenomena that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and every major scientific institution in the world supports the conclusion of man caused global warming.
Want a number that isn’t pulled out of thin air? Multiple REAL polls have showed that it’s possible 1/5 of Americans believe that the sun goes around the Earth. So hey, let’s have a debate about whether the earth goes around the sun—there seems to be more honest disagreement with that than there is over man made global climate change.
But not personally liking global climate change doesn’t make it any less true- and misleading people through made up data is reprehensible.
Bill Hubbard III
| October 17, 2012 - 10:48 PM
Dion…. Here are Mr. Singer’s credentials, in case you missed them: He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962). I tend to believe his 40% estimate. What credentials do you have in order to state 98% of scientists agree global warming is man-made?
I believe Mr. singer"s conclusion is well founded: ” I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.” What say you Mr. Dion?
Joshua
| November 02, 2012 - 8:28 PM
Climate change is obviously occurring, but what is not so obvious are the factors involved and their respective impact. We don’t know if man plays a major or insignificant role in the equation and we don’t even know if the effects we are currently witnessing are unique or cyclical.
The fact that we hear so much about the melting of the Arctic ice caps and hear virtually nothing about the growth of the Antarctic ice caps is telling- global warmers aren’t interested in data that doesn’t support their politicized campaign against pollution. Their cause is noble and I support the notion that we should take care of the resources given to us, but using spotty science to promote that cause is unwise. The ends do not justify the means.
Add to the fact that the “solutions” to a problem (which may be man made or man made-up) is cap and trade and carbon credits only further fuels the skepticism- particularly when the very ones who are pushing the global warming agenda are those who are in a position to profit from it (ie Al Gore). Furthermore, the green companies that have been given tremendous government subsidies have a track record of going bankrupt- so again, our “solutions” to a questionable problem do not seem to produce the desired results. They have nearly all been a colossal waste of (often taxpayer) money.
Maybe we should rethink our green strategies and stop using questionable science as a blunt instrument of change.
lol for fools
| January 06, 2013 - 11:36 PM
Bill - there are numerous studies showing the 98%, maybe you should go look t them instead of believing one person with creditntials, just because you agree with what is said, doesnt make it true.