Britannia Radio

Interview with S. Fred Singer by William Westmiller


  " I would be very reluctant to assume responsibility for a project
that might very well move the globe, more quickly than nature otherwise
would, into the next Ice Age."

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4774

FRED SINGER  Exclusive Examiner Interview with S. Fred Singer by
William Westmiller - Friday, January 1st 2010,

  Examiner: Does the International Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] have
it all wrong?

  Singer: The Panel was established by members of the United Nations
with an assortment of political objectives in mind. Hundreds of
scientists are doing commendable research and they have contributed to
many of the Working Group reports, but they don't participate in
writing the final "Summary for Policymakers" that gets all the
attention of media and national leaders. The IPCC procedure actually
requires the Working Group reports to conform with the political
conclusions of the Summary, written and negotiated by a group of U.N.
politicians.

  No doubt, there are some scientists who want to collect large
government grants for studying climate. The recent release of emails
from the East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit suggests that
some of them want to provide their employers with an unjustified
political consensus that serves their purposes.

  Thousands of competent scientists who have scrutinized the IPCC
reports agree that many of the conclusions are unsupported by the
scientific evidence. Many IPCC reviewers have publicly rejected the
Summary's conclusions. In my opinion, every good scientist is a
skeptic. Humans don't dictate facts to nature. As our knowledge of
global climate improves, we may discover that all of the popular
assumptions are wrong.

  Examiner: How did the anthropogenic theory get started and why has it
been so popular?

  Singer: There have always been people who recognized that pollution
was a problem and adopted the perspective that the natural environment
needed to be protected from human abuse. If I were to speculate, I
suppose the Wicca religion created the seeds in Europe. Native American
traditions and fables had an influence in the United States. But that's
sociology, not science.

  In the scientific community, the idea of human causation was probably
started by David Keeling in 1958, when he observed that CO2 increases
he was measuring at the South Pole seemed to match the increase in the
combustion of fossil fuels during recent decades. Keeling devoted most
of his life to measuring atmospheric CO2 and founded the modern
research facility at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. His speculation wasn't improper
and his surmise was certainly worthy of investigation, but many
scientists adopted the proposition of anthropogenic causation as a
matter of faith.

  I don't like to speculate about people's motives, but there are many
reasons that scientists, politicians, and businessmen latched on to the
anthropogenic theory. For scientists, it was an interesting idea and
may have been related to their field of study, usually meteorology.
Twenty years ago, there were no "climate scientists", nor any PhD in
"Climatology", so it was an enticing field, open for exploration.

  The idea that humans might be responsible for a potentially damaging
warming trend certainly appealed to politicians, particularly those
with a strong "environmental" record and reputation. It was a chance to
“save the world" and be a hero. I won't even mention the name of one
politician who has made it a career.

  Finally, when governments began adopting policies that embraced the
anthropogenic theory, money started flowing. Businessmen saw an
opportunity for profit and took advantage of financial incentives and
government subsidies. The tempting promise of huge profits probably
encouraged a transition from legitimate pollution control investments
to energy opportunities. The speculative "sustainable" technology
required equipment and servicing; the new "climate modeling" required
huge supercomputers and programmers; and the proposed "carbon markets"
needed traders, speculators, and investors. Beyond all that, businesses
want to develop a good image and are anxious to be associated with
popular trends. So, "BP" no longer stands for "British Petroleum", it
means "Beyond Petroleum".

  All of those trends feed back into the faith-driven scientists, who
are expected to maintain the appearance of a consensus, suppress
skepticism, and ensure that the published facts conform to the
objectives of business and politics. It's the ultimate in bio-feedback
loops.

  Examiner: Whether you're right or wrong, do you think the Kyoto
Protocol or energy taxes have any merit?

  Singer: Let's assume that I'm stupid and crazy? If fossil fuel
combustion were a problem, there is a vast array of scientific
mitigation measures that could be effective. There is also plenty of
speculation about relatively simple, but global-scale, interventions
that might impede warming. I would be very reluctant to assume
responsibility for a project that might very well move the globe, more
quickly than nature otherwise would, into the next Ice Age. I suppose,
if I were a crazed fanatic I would encourage people to burn as much
fossil fuel as possible to forestall eventual global cooling. I
wouldn't expect anyone to follow that advice, but it might make me a
famous ... or infamous ... celebrity. But then, of course, higher
levels of CO2 would benefit agriculture and save the lives of millions
around the world, especially children, who now suffer from malnutrition

  Kyoto is a strange blend of superficial government promises and
artificial market incentives. It hasn't worked, even for the limited
purposes and goals it had set for itself, primarily because of the
absence of any enforcement measures. I would be the last person to
propose some global government that actually had the power to impose
strict limits on energy use or emissions worldwide. That's a huge
amount of power, which would surely result in a huge amount of
international corruption.

  There are several energy tax schemes that have been proposed by
warming advocates. They're taking the popular approach, politically:
there are very few politicians who don't salivate at the thought of
some new method of imposing taxes that they can spend. Saving the world
from some despicable horror sells well; persuading people ... or
forcing other people ... to make financial sacrifices for the "common
good". I'm a scientist, not a politician, so my sole interest is in
finding the truth. That requires evidence, based on data and verifiable
facts. I don't think I could stomach the process of writing laws to
force people to conform with my own sentiments, passions, and beliefs.
To each his own.

  Examiner: You've devoted a lot of time and energy to this debate. Are
you optimistic or pessimistic?

  Singer: I am really quite optimistic. I am sure that sound science
must -- and will -- win out in the long run and convince not only
scientists but also the public and politicians that climate change is
almost all natural, and that a modest warming, should it occur, is good
for humanity overall. The revelations of “ClimateGate” will be very
helpful here and show how a gang of determined climatologists was able
to con almost everyone by cooking the data and stifling any scientific
criticism from 'skeptics.'

  Of course, 'long run' may mean many more years -- during which the
alarmists will try to impose policies that produce great economic
hardships for no good reason. I fear especially those who have learned
to game the system and are using global warming scares to enrich
themselves at our expense. I won't mention names but you know who they
are: Utopians who believe that global governance will lead to a better
world; Luddites who oppose technological advance and economic growth;
international bureaucrats and profiteers who want power and money. If
they ever gain the upper hand, the world may have a difficult time
recovering.

  I hope I can be around when we can look back on past decades and say:
"How could this climate insanity have fooled so many smart people?"