Global warming denialist panel draws 35 people

U.Va. professor throws cold water on global warming | |

Earth might be slightly warmer, and sea levels might be slightly higher, but the changes are natural and should not be blamed on fossil-fuel emissions, a panel of scientists and skeptics said at a public forum Tuesday.

“Human influence on the climate is very, very small – barely detectable,” S. Fred Singer, a critic of global warming and professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, told an audience at the Meyera Oberndorf Central Library.

Such views run contrary to what a consensus of international scientists concluded years ago – that with 90 percent certainty, global warming is being fed by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from man-made sources such as power plants, factories and cars.

The biggest applause from the audience of about 35 people came when Singer suggested the Environmental Protection Agency be disbanded.

Tip: @MilesGrant on Twitter

SOOOOO many things to say. Almost too much. This was a political event where people who have a certain point of view came to have it reinforced. Of course, there were some who were curious. The article notes that two environmentalists left with the impression that the presentation was deceptive or misinterpreted.

I get this whole flat earth vibe from global warming denialists. They will never go away. What’s a shame is that they use the word  “skeptic”. They aren’t looking at the evidence. They wish to deny it. This article is worth a read, just to remind you that there is a long way to go, but there is a shift towards some rationality, I think.

Just a note on disbanding environmental protection. Try remembering what it was like when coal, oil and metal mining companies had no regulations, when you could dump garbage everywhere, discharge waste water (or sewage) right into the rivers. Ah yeah, the good old days.

  5 comments for “Global warming denialist panel draws 35 people

  1. Mac
    January 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM

    Yep, USA, Pittsburgh, PA, mid-20th century. Rivers swirling goo, air is full of soot/ash.

    Roll forward to late 20th century and you can swim in the rivers and breath the air.

    Both the result of human endeavor.

    But, “Human influence on the climate is very, very small – barely detectable,”

  2. chip
    January 27, 2012 at 11:12 AM

    Yeah, we can’t get the weather right for tomorrow, but you think people who doubt anthropogenic climate change are irrational. Riiight.

    The climate models used to predict climate change in the coming decades didn’t even get the temperature right for the last one. What a joke. When you have a model that makes predictions, but then when you plug in the variables for KNOWN historical conditions, and it DOESN’T WORK, it is NOT likely to be correct for the future either.

  3. Acleron
    January 27, 2012 at 11:24 AM

    “Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research.”

    Just as well, otherwise his anti passive smoking statements while being funded by the tobacco industry and his AGW denialism (they do not deserve the skeptic title) while funded by the oil companies could be called a conflict of interest.

  4. julianpenrod
    January 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

    As is so characteristic of defenders of New World Order denial of climate change, chip uses patently illegitimate assertions. chip takes exception to the fact that thw weather can’t be predicted for tomorrow, but the change overall for the next century can be charted. If you toss a die, statisticxal theory says, you won’t be able to say with 100% certainty what the outcome will be, but, if you toss the die 1,000,000 times, you will get results which can be predicted very closely. And, as much as chip wants to hinge their “argument” on the model not predicting the last decade’s warming, there does not seem to be any real evidenmce of that occurring. But, notice, too, the palpable insipidity of chip saying the climate isn’t warming because the amount that it warmed is higher than the amount they said it would warm! When the corrupt don’t have anything to say, they just talk and rely on at least the gullible coming to their defense. Rather similar to Cheney’s observation that “You fight with the army you’ve got”, in the U.S.’ case, funneling trillions into body armor, heqavy vehicles, buying off local tribes, robots and drones, because you know God isn’t going to back up your depraved agenda!

  5. Fastmover01
    February 2, 2012 at 9:15 AM

    When a scientist or scientific group that is responsible for providing data to prove or disprove a hypothesis, is revealed to have tampered, skewed or otherwise withheld data we should rightfully step back and take a skeptical look. One of my biggest red-flags for this hullabaloo, is damn near from the announcement of Global Warming, in the late 70’s, an economic framework suddenly appeared and was ready make alot of people (mostly politicians and enivironmentalist elites) rich off of regualtion and croney-ism. While I can agree that climate change is occuring, we still are researching how our planet handles and repairs itself. Limiting damage is important. As for the EPA it DOES need to be scaled back and it’s regulatory powers put into check. As it stands, the regulators in the EPA don’t go into situations with a neutral mindset anymore. It has become regualtion for the sake of regulation and job-security.

Comments are closed.