Poor Fred Singer seems to be stuck in a timewarp. He's been asked by one Larry Bell to write a foreword for his new book on scientific corruption, climategate, politics of power, you know the usual guff . In the context of the IPCC S Fred tells us : "For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs".
Not bad for an organization established in 1988. Any chance of supporting evidence for that claim Fred?
Needless to say the timetravelling IPCC errors are being copied and pasted all over the web. I found it in Forbes magazine, but it appears to have been pasted in to the ironically titled Real Science website too . Oooo here's another one. Copy editing vacancy going at Climate Realists too.
Showing posts with label Fred Singer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Singer. Show all posts
Scientists not skeptical enough for the WSJ
Here's a worrying example of just how polarized , and dishonest, reports about climate science have become. First the facts. The esteemed American Geophysical Union a scientific organization offers a Q&A service for journalists . It will not, repeat not, offer a commentary on policy . If you are a journalist and you have a scientific question on the science you can email the service and they will hook up your question with one of 700 experts on whatever field of climate science is troubling you. So it's a resource for journalists, not much of a story I know.
The (Murdoch owned) Wall Street Journal runs a different story though. WSJ hack Anne Jolis contacts Fred Singer, John Christy and Dick Lindzen and argues that the AGU service is corrupted because it does not include their skeptical views . None of these names are new to anyone following the polemic. John Christy graced our tv screens here in the UK recently on Panorama, whilst the skeptical commentaries of Dick Lindzen (Vice President's Climate Task Force 2001) and Fred Singer (SEPP) are too numerous to mention.
Jolis posits that journalists are being misled by the AGU. But she can contact these names for herself if she needs their opinion, that's what her job is. Nobody can view this story without concluding that the truth has been distorted with somewhere. It's rather sad to see a grown up paper like the WSJ run a story that they are being misled, when in reality WSJ.com is misleading it's viewers .
TheGuardian "US researchers fight to reclaim climate science message"
The (Murdoch owned) Wall Street Journal runs a different story though. WSJ hack Anne Jolis contacts Fred Singer, John Christy and Dick Lindzen and argues that the AGU service is corrupted because it does not include their skeptical views . None of these names are new to anyone following the polemic. John Christy graced our tv screens here in the UK recently on Panorama, whilst the skeptical commentaries of Dick Lindzen (Vice President's Climate Task Force 2001) and Fred Singer (SEPP) are too numerous to mention.
Jolis posits that journalists are being misled by the AGU. But she can contact these names for herself if she needs their opinion, that's what her job is. Nobody can view this story without concluding that the truth has been distorted with somewhere. It's rather sad to see a grown up paper like the WSJ run a story that they are being misled, when in reality WSJ.com is misleading it's viewers .
TheGuardian "US researchers fight to reclaim climate science message"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)