T Nation

ABC Smears Scientist

ABC Smears Scientist For Questioning Global Warming �??Consensus�??

Steve Watson
Monday, March 24, 2008

Global Warming Denier: Fraud or �??Realist�??? is the headline ABC News uses to attack Princeton-trained physicist Fred Singer who dares to challenge the mainstream scientific “consensus” on the causes of climate change.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4506059&page=1

In a blatantly one sided hatchet job, ABC News attempts to demonize Singer and by proxy any other scientist who questions “broad scientific understanding” that climate change is being vastly hastened by man made carbon emissions.

Singer holds a degree in Electrical engineering from Ohio State University and a PhD in Physics from Princeton University.

That did not stop ABC from ignoring any scientific points Singer made in favor of simply attacking his credibility.

In an accompanying video, the network quote an environmental activist from the left-wing organization Greenpeace to attack Singer:

�??Kert Davies, an environmental activist, says Singer is connected to a whole web of organizations, many funded by oil and coal companies, that have spent millions trying to convince the public there�??s a scientific debate about global warming �?? slowing down government action on a phenomenon that could lead to storms, droughts, famines, massive refugee movements and even wars,�??

“Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once accepted an unsolicited check from Exxon for $10,000.” The article also states.

As we have consistently pointed out, energy companies stand to gain from inflated prices caused by the fear of global warming and their representatives have been actively pushing the man made global warming mantra.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

In an email response to Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters, which he gained permission to publish, Dr Singer responded to the ABC hit-piece:

The interview with Dan Harris went for an hour or more. Clearly, he ignored my complete scientific story (NIPCC vs IPCC), the fact that 100 climate scientists presented papers at the Heartland Conference, and that hundreds more are now listed as climate skeptics. [I am not even counting the nearly 20,000 scientists of various specialties who signed the Oregon Petition.]

Then he added the Greenpeace guy with his weird Exxon conspiracy and the smear remarks of anonymous scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford (likely Hansen, Oppenheimer, and Schneider). I would love to debate these guys; we would win hands down

And he personally assured me he wouldn�??t do a �??hatchet job�??

I commented on the suggestion that I am an �??all-around skeptic�?? to his Exec Producer <Felicia.Biberica@abc.com> as follows:

"Dan did well to mention my doubts about the cancer effects of Second-Hand Smoke, about the danger of spent nuclear fuel, and about �??Nuclear Winter.�?? All true �?? Dan did his research. On SHS, I simply agree with the experts (see attached review from a medical doctor, specializing in lung disease). Nuclear fuel presents no technical problems, only political ones. France and Britain handle its disposal; why don�??t we? �??Nuclear Winter�?? (which burst onto the scene in 1983 �?? and disappeared quickly) was basically a fraud, invented to shore up an ideological position. We disposed of it in a debate moderated by Ted Koppel on ABC-Nightline."
Journalists are better qualified than I to judge if ABC used proper journalistic standards and hold their feet to the fire.

Best Fred

Whether you agree with all of Singer�??s views or not, it cannot be denied that there are many many scientists who question the so called “consensus” on Global Warming.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Hundreds of Scientists have come forward over the past months and years to assert that in their opinion any degree of warming that has taken place over the last 25 years is beginning to be offset by a recent cooling trend. China, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has just experienced its coldest winter for 100 years.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKPEK161570.CH.242020080204

Many point to the fact that the Earth goes through natural warming cycles, primarily caused by increased solar activity.

Many question whether carbon dioxide caused temperature increase, a point borne out by ice core samples that show increases in carbon dioxide in the environment are a result and not a cause of higher temperatures, lagging behind by as much as 800 years.

Recently Weather Channel founder John Coleman expressed his intention to sue Al Gore for fraud.

The media in the vast majority of cases however, attacks any scientist who brings up these questions, often making out that they deny any form of warming has occurred at all.

While such counterpoints to the self ordained “consensus” are consistent and enduring, the “consensus” itself keeps flip-flopping and changing its story on global warming.

ABC presents a completely one sided opinion in this piece and which is intended purely to demonize Singer and by association any other scientist who questions the climate change orthodoxy. Their article states:

But scientists say there is no "other side." The debate about global warming is over, they say.

ABC News showed Singer�??s most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense."

Given that Singer has been regularly attacked in the past over separate issues he has taken contention with, such as the connection between passive smoking and lung cancer for instance, one might even surmise that ABC has purposefully chosen to attack Singer as an easy target in order to demonize every other climate change skeptic, or “denier” as they crudely term such people.

ABC News is following a concerted effort on behalf of the establishment media to stifle any debate on this issue and force over a pre-determined agenda where global warming is concerned.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277

Americans expect to have a continually rising standard of living. Reducing the standard of living by going to war is becoming more impractical due to advances in weaponry. Therefore, to convince Americans of the need to lower their expectations, alarmism over environmental concerns is the new gameplan.

The global elite is attempting to freeze history and our evolving to a generally communistic (in the actual Marxian sense) society, where science makes brute labor unnecessary and people are more or less equal. When everyone is pretty much free of economic concerns, what need is there for an elite?

Power is everything to those people.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The global elite is attempting to freeze history and our evolving to a generally communistic (in the actual Marxian sense) society, where science makes brute labor unnecessary and people are more or less equal. When everyone is pretty much free of economic concerns, what need is there for an elite?

Power is everything to those people.[/quote]

Are you saying that you subscribe to Karl Marx’s view that history follows a more or less linear progression and that global communism is the logical end of that progression?

Consensus means fact. At least to the media. I know a guy in news…He worked for CNN for 15 years. He said often times, when there were gaps in a story they’d make shit up that fit…I wasn’t shocked.I would really like to see the end of 24 hour news channels…Who the fuck needs to watch news 24 hrs a day? I get better opinions from “My Gym Partner’s a Monkey”

[quote]pat wrote:
Consensus means fact. At least to the media. I know a guy in news…He worked for CNN for 15 years. He said often times, when there were gaps in a story they’d make shit up that fit…I wasn’t shocked.I would really like to see the end of 24 hour news channels…Who the fuck needs to watch news 24 hrs a day? I get better opinions from “My Gym Partner’s a Monkey”[/quote]

Lol,my young one loves that show.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The global elite is attempting to freeze history and our evolving to a generally communistic (in the actual Marxian sense) society, where science makes brute labor unnecessary and people are more or less equal. When everyone is pretty much free of economic concerns, what need is there for an elite?

Power is everything to those people.

Are you saying that you subscribe to Karl Marx’s view that history follows a more or less linear progression and that global communism is the logical end of that progression?[/quote]

Yes, in the sense of there being some point at which it is so easy to attain one’s basic needs (food, shelter, medical care, what not) there is no longer a need for class distinctions. How many here would take orders from a boss if it was unnecessary?

I would disagree with the linear progression bit, due to the influence of Hegel on Marx.

“I am NOT a Marxist!!” — Marx, upon leaving the Communist
Internationale, 1885