0.5% of climate scientists, not 97%

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, I mean the references.

I don't know what you are talking about. You need to be specific so I know what you are referring to.
There is no consensus and there never was. Present the references here if you would like, but you should check them yourself first to see if they are valid though. Dr. Singer is a well respected climate scientist. I think he knows more than you do. If you have a criticism of his article point it out. Have you even read it?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Dr. Singer is a well respected climate scientist.

Not by any of the many scientists I have spoken too in the past. In fact, without a single exception, they all thought he was very wrong about many things and most thought that he was either a moron and/or a perpetual liar; and they hardly expressed what you would call "respect"! The exact opposite in fact! They fear, like I do, that he and morons like him in science could give good science a bad reputation it ill deserves and they hate him and morons like him for that!

Judging from the many conversations I had with scientists in the past, most scientists agreed that he is very wrong about his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss, as well as his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and his denial of the evidence for man made climate change. Most accuse him of not adhering to the basic principles of science, more specifically, not adhering to scientific method.

I would guess the only people that might "respect" him are either laypeople ignorant of science or morons just like him.

Originally posted by humy
Not by any of the many scientists I have spoken too in the past. In fact, without a single exception, they all thought he was very wrong about many things and most thought that he was either a moron and/or a perpetual liar; hardly what you would call "respect"! The exact opposite in fact.

Challenge him on the facts. You lie too much for me to believe anything you claim. Are facts not good enough for you? Is slander all you have?
Dr. Singer is very well respected contrary to what you claim. You should do more than make a mere allegation and expect us to believe it. Provide a source of information if you can.

Originally posted by Metal Brain

Dr. Singer is very well respected contrary to what you claim. .

By who?
By most scientist?
If so, prove it.
Certainly none of the many scientists I have personally spoken to in my long career in science has ever expressed any respect for Fred Singer. Usually the exact opposite in fact, with most calling him a "moron" and/or a "liar". In fact, I would guess he is one of the most hated people of all time in science by other scientists.
Therefore, I must assume you are talking total crap, as usual, until if or when you show us so credible evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps you can start to try and find a scientist here in this science forum that shows great respect for him and then give us his name ....
Or give us a credible link with statistics that show that most scientists generally agree with and/or respect him...

Originally posted by humy
By who?
By most scientist?
If so, prove it.
Certainly none of the many scientists I have personally spoken to in my long career in science has ever expressed any respect for Fred Singer. Usually the exact opposite in fact, with most calling him a "moron" and/or a "liar". In fact, I would guess he is one of the most hated people of all time in science by othe ...[text shortened]... e link with statistics that show that most scientists generally agree with and/or respect him...

"Certainly none of the many scientists I have personally spoken to in my long career in science has ever expressed any respect for Fred Singer. Usually the exact opposite in fact, with most calling him a "moron" and/or a "liar". In fact, I would guess he is one of the most hated people of all time in science by other scientists."

What kind of scientists? Climate scientists?

Climate scientists respect Dr. Singer. I have not seen any claims that Dr. Singer is a liar at all, except from biased people like you that are not climate scientists and foolishly believed false consensus assertions that are obviously misleading. Take the consensus project for example. They make the assertion that climate change is real ( which 100% of climate scientists believe) but then add "and man is the cause" which is an assertion that man is causing 100% of global warming. That is simply impossible. There is not a climate scientist in the world that would rule out natural causes. Anybody that takes the consensus project's words literally is an idiot. It is clearly a false statement no climate scientist would ever agree with.

http://www.nas.org/articles/The_Father_of_Global_Warming_Skepticism_An_Interview_with_S_Fred_Singer

Originally posted by Metal Brain


What kind of scientists?

various types; including climate scientists. The climate scientists, (and many others including top physicists ) , including some professors in climate science (among many other things ) I spoke to at university, said he is just a moron. And, given the evidence, I just had to agree.

There is not a climate scientist in the world that would rule out natural causes.

right. So what has that got to do with man made global warming? You can have climate change from BOTH natural and man made climate change; the two not being mutually exclusive. If you imply the two are mutually exclusive, which you do seem to imply from your post, tell as the physical reasons, complete with the equations of physics, why so....

Most climate scientists believe climate change currently ongoing is probability (and most are almost certain if not absolutely certain ) as a result of BOTH natural causes and man made causes. This is because No climate scientist denies natural climate cycles; which does absolutely nothing to give rational grounds to disbelieve man made climate change as the two are not mutually exclusive. Get it now?

Originally posted by humy
various types; including climate scientists. The climate scientists, (and many others including top physicists ) , including some professors in climate science (among many other things ) I spoke to at university, said he is just a moron. And, given the evidence, I just had to agree.

[quote] There is not a climate scientist in the world that would rule out ...[text shortened]... grounds to disbelieve man made climate change as the two are not mutually exclusive. Get it now?

Metal is clearly biased against any kind of human intervention in the climate, he said as much in his statement the only way we could shift the balance of nature would be with a nuclear war with the result being nuclear winter.

Too bad he isn't correct.

Originally posted by humy
various types; including climate scientists. The climate scientists, (and many others including top physicists ) , including some professors in climate science (among many other things ) I spoke to at university, said he is just a moron. And, given the evidence, I just had to agree.

[quote] There is not a climate scientist in the world that would rule out ...[text shortened]... grounds to disbelieve man made climate change as the two are not mutually exclusive. Get it now?

You have not given the name of a single climate scientist that doesn't respect Dr. Singer and you have shown time and again you are dishonest. I simply do not believe you.

"right. So what has that got to do with man made global warming?"

The fact you agree with me discredits the consensus project which sonhouse has blind faith in. The consensus project is a joke!

There is not a single climate scientist that thinks Dr. Singer is a moron. Dr. Singer is nothing short of a genius so your assertion is ridiculous. Some climate scientists disagree with Dr. Singer, but they still respect him and that is a fact. Given the evidence you will simply ignore it and believe what you want. You have accused Dr. Singer's climate change research of being funded by oil companies which is completely false. All you have done is repeat lies about him with no evidence of any such thing. Your have destroyed your credibility by lying many times on this forum in an attempt to slander Dr. Singer with outright lies and that is a fact. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Predictably, you have not presented any facts to back up your slanderous lies. Pathetic!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You have not given the name of a single climate scientist that doesn't respect Dr. Singer !

I haven't met any scientist face to face for many years now but I can still list from long ago:

James Annan

Keith Browning

and, when I briefly went to the university of Leeds for my OU course summer school:

Piers Forster

I got those names from my very old written personal notes (a bit like a diary except no dates ) because I had written them down in my very old notes like I always do for potentially important names (thought might one day want to contact them. You never know! ) I would otherwise inevitably forget (I am terrible at names ) and I remember they all said he is a moron and/or words of roughly that effect.

How many climate scientists have you personally spoken to that say he isn't? Can you give a list of names?

Dr. Singer is nothing short of a genius

Nope; he is almost as much as a moron as you are. At least he has some science credentials; -he is an idiot with some science credentials while you are just an idiot.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Dr. Singer is nothing short of a genius

lol

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
lol

http://www.nas.org/articles/The_Father_of_Global_Warming_Skepticism_An_Interview_with_S_Fred_Singer

Originally posted by humy
I haven't met any scientist face to face for many years now but I can still list from long ago:

James Annan

Keith Browning

and, when I briefly went to the university of Leeds for my OU course summer school:

Piers Forster

I got those names from my very old written personal notes (a bit like a diary except no dates ) because I had written them down ...[text shortened]... science credentials; -he is an idiot with some science credentials while you are just an idiot.

Didn't James Annan lose a bet to Dr. David Whitehouse?

Here are some quotes by your heros who had to eat crow:

James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent ‘warmist’, recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look ‘increasingly untenable’, with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.

Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’

Is this the Keith Browning you were referring to? Are you sure he is a climate scientist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Browning

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.nas.org/articles/The_Father_of_Global_Warming_Skepticism_An_Interview_with_S_Fred_Singer

Here is one bit about your beloved Singer: In 1960 he supported the view that Phobos, one of the moons of Mars, was made by Martians:

"1960: Artificial Phobos hypothesis
In a 1960 Astronautics newsletter, Singer commented on Iosif Shklovsky's hypothesis[31][32] that the orbit of the Martian moon Phobos suggests that it is hollow, which implies it is of artificial origin. Singer wrote: "My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them."[33] Later measurements confirmed Singer's big "if" caveat: Shklovsky overestimated Phobos' rate of altitude loss due to bad early data.[34] Photographs by probes beginning 1972 show a natural stony surface with craters.[35] Ufologists continue to present Singer as an unconditional supporter of Shklovsky's artificial Phobos hypothesis."

So the UFO crowd loves him. That should tell you something.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is one bit about your beloved Singer: In 1960 he supported the view that Phobos, one of the moons of Mars, was made by Martians:

"1960: Artificial Phobos hypothesis
In a 1960 Astronautics newsletter, Singer commented on Iosif Shklovsky's hypothesis[31][32] that the orbit of the Martian moon Phobos suggests that it is hollow, which implies it is of ...[text shortened]... 's artificial Phobos hypothesis."

So the UFO crowd loves him. That should tell you something.

That is a lie. What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That is a lie. What is your source of information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Scroll down to 1960 Phobos hypothesis

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naaman_Brown/Fred_Singer