söndag, oktober 28

Intervju med "unstoppable Fred Singer"

Fred Singer är en av de mer kända skeptikerna till FN:s klimatpanel (IPCC). Han har varit Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia. Han är också en av de aktivaste i debatten om globala uppvärmningen och anser att dagens uppvärmning är naturlig. Alla åtgärder t.ex. att reducera koldioxidutsläppen är därmed meningslösa för att påverka temperaturen.

Singer har gett ut boken "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years". Singer kommer att debattara globala uppvärmningen med Charles Teller. Debatten kommer säkert att generera en del uppmärksamhet i media. Om media tiger ihjäl den finns alltid bloggarna.

Uppdatering: Debatten har ägt rum och ett kort referat finns här.

Här följer en intervju med Fred Singer. [Källa].

Q: What did you think upon hearing of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize?

A: First of all, I was really not surprised. The peace prize is a political exercise. Remember that Yasser Arafat got the peace prize for, ha, contributing to lasting peace in the Middle East. It's very interesting, the peace prize selection committee comes from the Norwegian Parliament, so they're all politicians. The government is a very left-wing government right now. I spoke about it this morning, in fact, and said that if the government changes -- if the Progress Party, which is an anti-immigration party. gains majority control -- it might give a peace prize to Pat Buchanan. It's purely political, unlike the other prizes, which are awarded by the Swedish academies and which are based on committees that know something about the subject.

Q: Have you seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"?

A: Yes. I saw a slide show at a presentation, which he made in Washington. I saw the movie and I read the book. They're all the same amount of bunk. They're all very, very well presented -- very skillfully presented from a technical point of view. But the science is really shoddy.

Q: A lot of people have seen the movie but they don't really keep up on this global-warming debate, which is very complex and very nasty sometimes about which science is true and which isn't.

A: It is nasty, but it shouldn't be complex. The issue is very simple. The only really important issue is, is the warming we are experiencing now natural or is it man-made? That's really the only issue. Everything else is commentary.

Q: Now the Gore camp will say global warming is man-made and they'll point to all kinds of things to prove that.

A: And they're all wrong.

Q: Is there anything that they point to where you say, "Yes, that's true but ...?"

A: Yes. There are a lot of things they point to where I say, "Yes, but... ." For example, they say glaciers are melting. Yes, but. It doesn't tell you what the cause is. You see, any kind of warming, from whatever cause, will melt ice. Whether it's natural or man-made warming, the ice doesn't care. It will melt when it gets warmer. This is a trick that they do.

They play this trick many times over -- showing the consequences of global warming, which really don't tell you what the cause is. And the only important question is, remember, "What is the cause? Is it natural or man-made?" If it's natural, then there is nothing we can do about it. It's unstoppable. We can't change the sun or influence volcanism or anything of that sort. We're not at that stage yet. It also means that all these schemes for controlling CO2 are useless, completely useless. It's all bunk.

Q: When you say global warming is natural, what is your chief culprit?

A: The sun. The sun. Definitely. The evidence we have shows an extremely strong correlation with solar activity. The (Earth's) temperature follows the solar activity and the correlation is very strong. The mechanism itself is still under some dispute, but we think in some way the sun influences cosmic rays, which in turn influences cloudiness.

Q: That doesn't even count the heat output of the sun, which changes over time, doesn't it?

A: Those are very small and are not enough to account for all the climate changes that we see. What is causing it is not just the heat of the sun, but emissions from the sun that we don't see -- except with satellites and spacecraft -- the so-called solar winds and magnetic fields.

Q: What about the things like the wobble of the Earth on its axis and the Earth's eccentric orbit around the Sun?

A: That's also important, but on a different time scale. For each time scale there is a particular cause. The time scale I'm talking about when I talk about direct solar influences are of the order of decades. The time scales that involve wobbles and orbits of the Earth around the sun involve times scales of 10,000 or 100,000 years.

Q: Can you give a synopsis of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years"?

A: Yes. Our book -- I co-authored it with Dennis Avery -- basically looks at published papers in the peer-reviewed literature by geologists and other paleo-scientists, oceanographers and so on, who have studied the climate records of the past. Every one of them shows this (roughly 1,500-year) cycle. It was first discovered in ice cores in Greenland. Then it was seen in ocean sediments in the Atlantic. And now it's been found everywhere, including in stalagmites in caves. In all kinds of climate records that you wouldn't think of that have been studied, you see this cycle. It shows warming and cooling -- that's an oscillation -- a slight warming and a slight cooling. It's not a big effect. But it could well account for the current warming. It can well account for the warming that occurred 1,000 years ago. It can well account also for what we call "The Little Ice Age," which occurred roughly 500 years ago.

Q: When people talk about the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica growing or shrinking or melting completely, what should we know about that?

A: Well, the ice sheets of Greenland have not melted in historic time at all, even though it was much warmer 1,000 years ago and very much warmer 5,000 years ago. The ice sheets on Antarctica haven't melted for millions of years, because it's really quite cold there. There is always some melting that takes place during the summer, of course, when the sun shines directly on the ice. But in the precipitation that falls -- the rain and snow that falls -- soon turns to ice and grows the ice sheet back again.

Q: Is the quote-unquote "scientific consensus" that Al Gore and his acolytes are always speaking of growing stronger or weaker?

A: Let me put it this way: Many scientists, unfortunately, support the idea that the human influence on climate is very strong compared to natural influences. We don't. We see the evidence differently. But most scientists disagree with Gore on specifics. For instance, on sea level rise: The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control), which is the U.N.'s climate advisory body, has come out with its report and predicts a sea level rise on the order of a foot and a half per century. Al Gore has a 20-foot rise. So he's way out of line compared to the mainstream science.

Q: People like you, who think that global warming is not a crisis that demands instant or dramatic government action, are regularly accused of being tools of the oil, gas and coal industries. How do you defend yourself from that charge?

A: Ha, ha. Well, there are various ways. In the first place, I've held these views for a very long time. And secondly, I'm not a tool of the oil industry. In fact, when you think about oil -- let's take Exxon for an example -- what the global warmists are trying to do is to demonize coal. Why? Because coal emits more carbon dioxide than oil or gas. Well, if they do that -- if they prevent the use of coal -- it figures that it makes oil and gas more valuable. It drives up the price. Exxon has huge reserves of oil and gas. So, in a sense, Exxon should benefit from global-warming alarmism. I don't know if people have thought about that. It's not been commonly discussed that all these holders of oil and gas reserves benefit financially any time the global warmists prevent the use of coal.

Q: The global warming community thinks we're going to turn to wind and solar and ocean-wave energy to replace fossil fuels.

A: None of that is economic. It will produce some energy at a great cost. Put it this way: If it were economic, it would have been done by now. The only way you can do wind and solar is with large government subsidies. And you ask yourself, "Why should we all subsidize with our tax dollars something which is basically uneconomic?"

Q: Here's my McCarthy Era question: Do you now or did you ever get money or grants or whatever from energy companies?

A: Sure. I'd love to get more, but they only did it once, I think. It was unsolicited, unannounced, and I cashed the check immediately. I've been wishing for more, ha, ha, but they haven't given me any more. Now, don't forget that what they've given me amounts to a tiny fraction of 1 percent of our total cumulative budget (at SEPP.org ). And don't forget that the energy companies give hundreds of millions of dollars -- which is at least 10,000 times as much as we're getting -- to researchers everywhere who are working to show that global warming exists and is human-caused.

Q: Do you have any explanation why the Al Gore camp has won the global warming argument in the mainstream media?

A: That's not really my field. I'm not sure they've won the argument in the media. I'm sure there are still many people in the media who are skeptical of Al Gore's arguments -- and they should be.

Q: Should they be skeptical of your arguments as well?

A: Some are skeptical of my arguments, yes, of course. That's because they haven't looked into it. In other words, I'm very convinced that when I talk to somebody one-on-one and show them the evidence, they will agree with me.

Q: You plan to debate Dr. Charles Keller in Pittsburgh next week --

A: Right. I will show the evidence, and if he's honest, he'll agree with me.

Q: What in general is your chief argument going to be with him?

A: My chief argument will be that the actual data show that the climate models don't work, and the actual data show that the cause of the global warming can not be a greenhouse effect.

Q: Have you debated him before?

A: Yeah, we had a debate about 10 years ago.

Q: What have you learned since then?

A: A great deal.

Q: As you've watched this global-warming debate evolve, are you optimistic that good science, honest science, will trump politics?

A: Yes, I'm optimistic because eventually it must do that. The problem is the word "eventually." In the meantime, a great deal of damage can be done to our economy as various schemes are being put forward to control CO2 emissions -- essentially to control the use of energy.
Min kommentar: Fred Singer drar samma slutsatser som Bob Carter i filmerna nedan. Dagens globala uppvärming är inget onormalt, har inträffat massor av gånger tidigare i historien och koldioxidutsläppen är inte den dominerande orsaken utan solen. Verkliga data visar att klimatmodellerna, som IPCC bygger sina scenarion på, är felaktiga.

För övrigt böjar även en del hängivna klimatalarmister komma till insikt om att Kyotoprotollet är värdelöst och bör begravas. Det gäller också framtida varianter. Artikeln "Time to ditch Kyoto" är publicerad i Nature. Kuriosa är att författarna låter ungefär som miljövänsterns hatobjekt nr 1 - president Bush. Begrav Kyoto och satsa mer på utveckling och forskning är slutsatsen.

Andra bloggar om: , intressant.se


At 29 oktober, 2007 07:42, Blogger nomad67 said...

Har jag missat någonting?

Keller: "Most of the global warming -- at a 95 percent confidence level -- in the last 20 years has been caused by human beings"

Sedan när är detta konstaterat med 95% säkerhet? Denna siffra verkar växa helt på egen hand och lär vara uppe i 135% innan året är slut.

At 29 oktober, 2007 10:40, Anonymous Anonym said...

Apropå ingenting, hur går det med orkanerna i år? Är de fler eller färre än väntat?

At 30 oktober, 2007 11:15, Blogger Den siste mohikanen said...

Recon, även om det skulle vara sant (vilket det ju naturligtvis inte är eftersom det inte går att räkna konfidensintervall på okända storheter) så vad betyder det?

Enligt den mest alarmistiska temperaturkurvan, från Nasas GISS, har temperaturen stigit 0,3°C under de senaste 20 åren. Att vi skulle vara säkra på att hälften av detta är ett antropogent bidrag betyder ju i så fall att "växthuseffekten" skapat en temperaturhöjning om 0,15°C, dvs en omätbar höjning och absolut inte alarmerande.

Orkanerna är färre än förutspått och inom den tidigare variationen.

At 30 oktober, 2007 11:16, Anonymous Anonym said...

Svar till ananym ang. orkaner: Kolla www.climateaudit.org


At 30 oktober, 2007 15:30, Blogger Per Welander said...

anonym + orkaner: Orkanaktiviteten har varit det lägsta på 20 år. Tvärt emot vad många alarmister varnade för.

Verkligheten visar gång på gång att alarmisterna har fel.

At 30 oktober, 2007 22:31, Blogger Den siste mohikanen said...

Det blir väl 30 år Per? Senaste året med lägre aktivitet var 1977.

Jag tror jag börjar förstå hur afrikaner känner sig. De jag känner säger att de enda nyheterna om afrika som når världen är katastrofer, krig eller naturliga. Det menar de, skapar en falsk bild av afrika. Vad skall vi då inte säga om klimatbevakningen i våra svenska medier? Varje naturlig förändring i negativ riktning (vilket ju i genomsnitt är ca 50% av förändringarna) kan tillskrivas klimathotet, medans de positiva femtio procenten förbigås med tystnad. Hej och hå Karin Bojs, vad bra journalistiken blir....

At 30 oktober, 2007 22:34, Blogger Skeptikern said...

James Inhofe höll nyligen ett långt tal med mängder av "peer reviewed"-källor som helt motbevisar idén att människan driver klimatet.

Dessa forskningsrapporter når dock inte svenska miljöjournalister.


At 30 oktober, 2007 23:58, Blogger Per Welander said...

Du har helt rätt mohikanen, 30 år ska det vara. Tänkte rätt men skrev fel.

At 31 oktober, 2007 00:08, Blogger Per Welander said...

Jag ställde en gång på bloggen frågan (till alarmisterna) vilka (icke) väderhändelser som tyder på att antropogen uppvärmning (AGW) INTE sker. Om det nu är så att många orkaner, översvämningar etc. visar att AGW äger rum så borde motsatsen finnas, dvs händelser som säger att AGW inte äger rum. T.ex. låg orkanaktivitet om hög orkanaktivitet kan skyllas på AGW.

Hittills har alarmisterna aldrig kommit med ett enda förslag här. Varför - jo det är politik och de vill kunna skylla allt (varmt, kallt, torka, regn o.s.v.) på AGW. Eller kanske Thomas Palm kan bidra med förslag här?

At 31 oktober, 2007 00:18, Blogger Per Welander said...

Lägger ut Skeptikerns länk till Inhofe artikeln här. Långt men läsvärt. Tänkte ett tag skriva en bloggpost om den men hann inte.

At 31 oktober, 2007 09:02, Anonymous Anonym said...

"Varje naturlig förändring i negativ riktning (vilket ju i genomsnitt är ca 50% av förändringarna) kan tillskrivas klimathotet, medans de positiva femtio procenten förbigås med tystnad."

Njae, jag tror snarare det är så att alla klimatförändringar är, per definition, negativa. Det finns inga positiva klimatförändringar. I alla fall inte om människan skulle ligga bakom dom. Den enda positiva klimatpåverkan som finns är ju om människan har noll klimatpåverkan... så har i alla fall jag tolkat media.

Intressant också att se att med Pers två senaste inlägg så är det inte längre så mycket folk inne i kommenterarna och kritiserar som förut.


At 31 oktober, 2007 13:20, Blogger Den siste mohikanen said...


jag tror du har rätt om medias uppfatting och förändringar. Allt skapar drabbade och skall belysas ur negativ synvinkel, ungefär som när murens fall beskrevs som en farlig utveckling.

Så vi har att göra med ultrakonservativa, ekonomiskt och vetenskapligt illiterata journalister med böjelse för utvecklingskritik. Jippie...

At 31 oktober, 2007 16:07, Blogger Per Welander said...

Komplettering: Fullständiga versionen av Inhofes tal (47 sidor pdf) finns här.

At 31 oktober, 2007 22:48, Anonymous Anonym said...

Her er en interressant ting om svalbard.

Viser seg at en sterk nordavind kan forklare den plutselig nedsmeltingen:


Finner ikke denne igjen noen andre steder.

At 01 november, 2007 07:47, Anonymous Anonym said...

"Det finns inga positiva klimatförändringar." Visst är det så. New York Times 13 okt: 'För Chile och Argentina var det den kyligaste av vintrar, och då menar vi inte bara termometern. Under en av de kallaste vintrarna i Sydamerika på årtionden, stängde Argentina av minst 90% av den naturgas man levererar till Chile...' Så nu utreder chilenarna alternativet kärnkraft.

At 01 november, 2007 12:42, Blogger nomad67 said...

Visst kan klimatförändringar vara positiva, i alla fall om dessa är åt det varmare hållet:


At 01 november, 2007 20:49, Anonymous Anonym said...

Från Henrik Alexandersson:

samt Melanie Phillips, 25/9 2007, "Cold turkeys":

En påtaglig klimatförändring, för närvarande oförklarlig, måste ha inträffat i polatrakterna. Kylan, som under sekler täckt havet uppe i norr med en ogenomtränglig isbarriär, har under de senaste två åren markant avtagit...

1.000 kvadratmil is, som tidigare täckt grönlandshaven mellan 74º och 80º nordlig bredd, har helt försvunnit under de senaste två åren...

Översvämningarna som hela sommaren har drabbat alla de delar av Tyskland vars floder rinner upp i snötäckta berg, utgör ett tydligt bevis på att nya värmekällor har öppnats...

Det här är utdrag ur ett brev från Royal Society's President till brittiska amiralitetet, där han ber dem sända ett fartyg till Arktis för att undersöka denna dramatiska minskning av istäcket. Året var 1817. (Ref; Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153.)

At 02 november, 2007 02:45, Blogger Henrik Sultan said...

Gillade denna reklam bild från WWF

Lite överdriven kanske :p
Detta har iof inget med intervjun att göra men ändå...

At 03 maj, 2008 22:58, Anonymous Anonym said...

Kan någon ge ett vettigt svar på denna fråga:Oceanernas medeltemperatur är f n enl NCDC
exakt samma som 1880.Haven har alltså inte blivit varmare på
128 år.Haven täcker ca 70% av jordens yta.Hur kan man då alls
tala om global uppvärmning?
Mene Tekel


Skicka en kommentar

<< Home