That’s Why They Call it Denial

March 26, 2016


Twitter exchange in which, despite 2 record warm years followed by shocking uptick in global temperatures, long time climate denial stalwart S. Fred Singer still clings to the climate denial orthodoxy.

You’re excused if you never heard of Fred Singer – but he really has been one of the most destructive pseudo-scientific disinfo specialists, not only on behalf of Exxon and the usual suspects, but the tobacco industry as well. A man for all toxic seasons.

Here’s an early “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” video where I took on one of his pet shibboleths.


6 Responses to “That’s Why They Call it Denial”

    • From Peter’s Youtube video about Dr Singer:

      1) “… as a critic of attempts to regulations of second hand smoke” Nossir. Dr Singer narrowly criticized EPA’s attempt to label second hand smoke as a Class A carcinogen, when (correct me if I’m wrong) EPA’s own consultants didn’t conclude that it was. ICYMI, a Federal judge overturned EPA’s decision in 1998, and a WashPo quoted him saying, “EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the [1986 Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research] Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs’ products and to influence public opinion” ( ). Don’t bother pointing me to Desmog material on this, those folks flat out failed to read their own ‘evidence’, where Dr Singer’s paper said in plain English, “The health risk from smoking is not the focus of this paper. Instead, this paper explores the EPA’s analysis of ETS or second hand smoke”

      2) ‘In the ’90s, Singer wrote op-ed saying global warming didn’t exist.’ Nossir, not in any such simplistic manner. Washington Times, September 30, 1993: “…the straightforward scientific response to exaggerated fears of a climate catastrophe is the fact that the most reliable climate data, obtained from satellites, show no measurable temperature increase — contrary to all existing theoretical models—even with current levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases about 50 percent above the pre-industrial value.” ( ) Wall Street Journal Europe, January 28-29, 1994: ” … Despite reams of new and reliable scientific data, this is a point that many have still not grasped. Historic temperature records from ground stations around the globe show warming between 1900 and 1940—before CO2 built up in the atmosphere—followed by a slight cooling until about 1975, at which time a sudden short-lived warming set in. None of these variations are in accord with the computer models which have been used to support predictions of catastrophic future warming. Moreover, contrary to theories and calculations about the atmospheric greenhouse effect, global temperature measurements taken from weather satellites since 1979 have shown no increasing trends.” ( ) I could keep right on going with this, right up to the present time where Dr Singer and others are very consistent about the existence of overall global warming over the last 150 or so years, the plateauing of it lately, and what extent human activity plays in the matter. Meanwhile, I have already pointed out how the “not happening / happening” narrative is nothing more than a set of oft-repeated enviro-activist talking points ( ).

      I’d suggest if any of you has multiple verbatim texts of Dr Singer’s ’90s op-eds where he flat out says global warming does not exist, you’d better start producing ’em.

      As for the bit about him being a disinfo specialist on behalf of Exxon, I’d suggest you’d better start producing the evidence to back that up, not just with some rant about the $10k donation he got, or the $65k guilt-by-association Atlas Economic Research Foundation accusation from you-know-who, but backed up with actual evidence that ‘money paid’ came under an agreement to spread lies meeting the satisfaction of specific industry people. Don’t count on Crock’s “d.o.g.” commenter to provide it, as he clearly can’t deliver.

      Gents, I can’t make this any plainer: you’ll have folks on your side only so long as they never question your talking points. But when they do, particularly among wavering AGW believers, Unrest is Born. All those dominoes y’all have set up – the smoking parallel, the 97% consensus, the industry corruption – as a defense against an indefensible anti-science belief will come tumbling down. Gore’s foray just now into the RICO prosecution angle is about as politically suicidal as you can get.

      Figure out your exit strategy. You are going to need it sooner or later.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        The ever-reliable Russell Cook (otherwise know as Crock’s own “Turd in the toilet bowl that refuses to be flushed” appears once more, coming to the defense of his Uncle Fred Singer, the Head Whore at Heartland that Russell sucked up to in order to get a job as a climate change denier propagandist.

        For those who are not familiar with his body of “work” Russell has no background in science and no understanding of climate change. He specializes in smoke blowing and obfuscation, most of it based on 20 year (and older) denier BS, as exemplified by his “sources” in this Gish Gallop of meaningless references. He is referencing Singer articles from 1993 and 1994 from such non-science right wing rags as The Washington Examiner and the WSJ? And holding up ONE article from the WashPost about a 20-year-old court case on secondhand smoke as if it meant something? LMAO! Russell is plain and simply paid by Heartland to defend Singer and try to hold back the avalanche of truth that will soon engulf the deniers. (And he will now again say “prove it”, just as Al Capone said to the FBI on a multitude of charges until they got him on tax evasion. PS Russell once put 27 “prove its” in a row in a comment on another blog)

        How about instead talking about some recent articles about SCIENCE, not your usual BS, Russell? Like the record temperatures and record ice melt in the Arctic? I have asked Russell MANY times to talk to us about global warming and Arctic ice, and his response count is Zero-Nada-Zilch. Why is that, Russell?

        Russell says “don’t look at desmogblog”? To the contrary, anyone who wants to see some truth about Singer (and Russel)l should look at the HUGE quantity of info there:

        Another good peice on Singer can be found here:

        (And stay away from GobSpitfiles if you value your sanity. So much undiluted
        Russell is bad for one’s mental health).

        Russell finishes with his usual “prove it”, “exit strategy”, and hollow “pooh-poohing” comments, except that he is getting more frantic each time he parrots them. Beware, Russell—they’re coming to get you and your Uncle Fred!

        • Thought I’d give the Crocks folks a few days to find material to back up Peter Sinclair’s claim about Dr Singer’s 1990s Op-Ed positions. And what do we see? Commenter “d.o.g.” doing exactly what I said he would do, fail to deliver with any evidence proving Dr Singer lied, was paid to lie, that I’m a paid propagandist or that I deny climate change, etc & so forth. Predictable.

          Notice also how “d.o.g.” feels compelled to obfuscate the second hand smoke thing as ‘one article about the case’, when the truth is that the situation was detailed across the country in multiple newspaper accounts about a Federal court decision that is binding to this very day against the EPA. Notice additionally how he further obfuscates in trying to draw me into scientific conclusions which I (and apparently he) does not have the scientific expertise to offer? Notice also how he attempts to put the “don’t look at desmogblog” words in my mouth when a detailed look through all the comments I’ve placed here at Crocks advocate for all to look through Desmog material and point specifically to full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc. proving skeptic scientists operate in a pay-for-performance arrangement with sinister payees to lie to the public? And notice the irony where he then tells everybody to stay away from my blog – while still being unable to pick out a single falsehood within it?

          Notice as a parting shot, “d.o.g.” says ‘they’re coming to get me and Dr Singer’. For what? If there ever was an open opportunity for Crocks readers to extract devastating specific material out of “d.o.g.”, there it is, where all at Crocks would now benefit, since many could then forward that stuff to whoever the ‘they’re coming to get me’ mob is. And when y’all have that info, don’t be shy about including “d.o.g.”‘s evidence that I wear ball caps, and whatever he has to prove each comment I place here yields whatever dollar amount he says I get. But first, y’all might want to ask “d.o.g.” why it is that he feels you aren’t smart enough to make your own informed decisions about what you will read at my blog. Kinda insulting of him to tell you what YOU should think, yes?

  1. lerpo Says:

    OT, but have you seen this one?

    Seth MacFarlane says the correct answer to “What is the greatest threat to the security of the united states” is climate change.

  2. grindupbaker Says:

    This Singer guy is incompetent. I’m a lay person who’s only studied in hobby time and I know more than he does. Climate sensitivity isn’t from the simulation climate “models”. It’s from paleoclimate analyses. They yield a wide range of +2.2 degrees to +4.4 degrees (so +3.3 most likely). The purpose of climate simulations is to identify interesting regional aspects. I gather they only do a coarse job at the moment. Of course the climate simulations are going to be similar (I seem to recall most likely estimate is ~+3.2 degrees) to paleoclimate analyses because they are good enough over 100 years. It’s stupid to think that averages (they call “ensembles”) are going to show variations in rise over a couple of decades or so because averaging removes all that stuff, it “averages it out”, that’s what averaging is for. If they knew which model was the one that got the oceans and a few details right and precisely what starting conditions to give it then there would be no “ensembles”, they would just run the simulation once and it would be finished until 100 years from now, then run another one. If IPCC showed an ensemble graph with a line then they erred. All that can be shown with an ensemble graph is a range with shading showing most likely within it and some circles now and then indicating areas it would likely go through over the next 100 years.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: