Singer does Houston: ‘The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks’

“Carbon dioxide is harmless. Carbon dioxide is in our lungs. It doesn’t hurt a thing. All of these efforts are counterproductive, expensive and hurt our economy and kill jobs.”

Eric Berger blogs for the Houston Chronicle:

When it comes to covering the issue of climate change, I have an open mind. So when skeptic scientists visit Houston, I make an effort to hear them speak. In the past I have covered Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, to name a couple of the most prominent visitors.

Last night I availed myself of the opportunity to hear physicist Fred Singer speak at the University of Houston. Singer, 88, trained as an atmospheric physicist and is an outspoken critic of the prevailing views held by climate change researchers…

Read Berger’s entire report.

13 thoughts on “Singer does Houston: ‘The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks’”

  1. Mr. berger makes a big deal of peer reviewed articlesw. Going from memory as I am too lazy to look them up, there was aCold Fusion paper in SCIENCE. The infamous Wakefied anti-vaccine paper was in a peer reviewed journal. The idiotic repressed memory theory was supported by papers accepted by the judge in the Father Shanley trial. My understanding is that Einsteins papers of 1905 were not peer reviewed, nor the early Quantum Mechanics papers. peer review has little value when the peers are members of a clique of advocates..

  2. Gregg, fill a room up with nitrogen, breathe one breath, and fall to the floor. That’s all it takes. One breath and you are unconscious. A minute more and you are dead. Then, everyone who comes to your rescue without an SCBA also breathes that one breath and dies. Nitrogen is the number 1 killer in the chemical industry because of this, often killing two or three would-be heroes. However, every breath you breathe is 80% nitrogen. The “fill a room” analogy is sheer ignorance, and I know you know better than that.

    No health effects are evident in greenhouse workers who routinely work in as high as 1% CO2, several times the maximum expected amount. There are no direct health effects from any expected quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  3. GreggM is at it again!. Is he blissfully unaware, that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in june of last year, that CO2 is totally harmless and vital to life on earth and it should not be penalised by taxing it? Or does he really think, that he knows more, than the Supreme Court? He must be a real whizz kid!
    Also, just ask the hundreds of thousands of growers of plants, flowers, vegetables and trees, who use glass-houses, why they increase the level of CO2 by heating the inside from an average level of some 392 p.p.m. to more than 1,000 p.p.m. They will tell you and prove to you, that it will increase the yield and the quality of their produce. And that is a true fact and not idiotic doomsay of unproven theories.
    Go and hug your trees and talk to them GreggM!

  4. Fill a room with 100% O2 and in a few minutes you will be dead.
    Carbon Dioxide (NOT oxygen) is very necessary to trigger the breathing mechanism – without this wonderful gas we would just. stop. breathing (literally) … and it would be particularly unpleasant in those few minutes.

  5. Tell you what, fill the atmosphere with 0% carbon dioxide and within a few weeks there won’t be anymore funerals.

  6. Q: Why does the x-axis of the temperature vs. time chart that all the global warming folks love to show start in 1880?

    A: Because it’s all they have in the ‘science’ box of tricks.

    We have Antarctic core samples for 160,000 years (at least) that show our current temperature and rate of temperature increase is neither unprecedented nor unexpected as it is part of a pretty regular trend. We can also show life prospers in warmer times and struggles in cold. Please Mr. Berger, show all the data we have, not the less than 1% you quote.

  7. A human cannot survive in any gas @ 100% not even oxygen. Our Earth’s atmosphere is 0.039% carbon dioxide we’ve got a looonng way to go before we hit danger levels. The alarmists have got you all worked up over nothing.

  8. gregM:

    The “global warmers” are not talking about 100% CO2, they are talking about ANY CO2. Your kind of “logic” is what makes climate skeptics.

  9. FTA:

    “That said, he began to disparage climate scientists, saying, “Climate science is not what we call real science. It’s not physics or chemistry.”

    Frankly, I would disagree. Trying to disentangle the complicated threads of our planet’s atmosphere to understand how it works, and predict how it might change in response to human and solar activity, is indeed a very robust and challenging science. I would agree that we have a ways to go to reach a comprehensive understanding on this subject.”

    Climate sceince isn’t empirical like physics or chemistry. Meaning no proof and no prediction. And that is why it’s challenging. It’s a science of guessing, observing, guessing the cause and observing. The alarmists are really devoted to the guessing part to the point that it’s confused for observation in the case of models and to the point that it’s influenced how and what they choose to observe. And yeah, skeptics get to fudge a bit by focusig only on the potential drawbacks because the burden of proof is not on them. It is not even a skeptic’s responsibility to disprove – only point out lack of proof.

    Fill a room with water ….

  10. Tardish thinking………

    CO2 in the Atmosphere is what we are talking about – not a closed room.

    Tell you what, fill a room with 100% Water Vapor and stand in it, just tell us what kind of flowers you want for your funeral! You’ll be very dead in less than five minutes!

  11. Tell you what, fill a room with 100% carbon dioxide and stand in it, just tell us what kind of flowers you want for your funeral! You’ll be very dead in less than five minutes!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.