Newsmaker Interviews
Cooling It On Global Warming
Newsmaker interview with Fred
Singer, aka the godfather of global warming denial
by Bill Steigerwald
July 24, 2005
Sunday
Global warming is always a hot topic in liberal media circles,
where the political and scientific consensus is that global climate
change is occurring, it is a danger, it is caused by mankind
and we need to start doing something serious about reversing
it.
For a little balance, we called
up Fred Singer, aka "the godfather of global warming denial."
An expert on global climate change and a pioneer in the development
of rocket and satellite technology, he holds a Ph.D. in physics
from Princeton and happens to be the guy who devised the basic
instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone. Now president of
the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group
(sepp.org), his dozen books include "Hot Talk, Cold Science:
Global Warming's Unfinished Debate." I talked to him by
telephone from his offices in Arlington, Va.
Q: Here's a line from a recent
Mother Jones article: "There is overwhelming scientific
consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are
causing global average temperatures to rise." Is that true?
A: It's completely unsupported by any observation, but it's supported
by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models
would indicate this. The observations do not.
Q: What's the best argument
or proof that global warming is not happening?
A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by
two completely different methods. One is from instruments carried
in satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is
from instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the
atmosphere and take readings as they go up. These measurements
show that the atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely
slight -- a great deal less than any of the models predicts,
and in conflict also with observations of the surface.
Q: An epic New Yorker series
said unequivocally that the permafrost, the Arctic sea ice and
the Greenland glaciers are all melting. Is that true and is it
because of global warming?
A: The Arctic temperatures have been now measured for a long
time. They vary cyclically. The warmest years in the Arctic were
around 1940. Then it cooled. And it's warming again, but it hasn't
reached the levels of 1940. It will continue to oscillate. That's
the best prediction.
Q: What is the most dangerous
untrue "fact" about global warming that's out there
in the media-sphere?
A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea
level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and
is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating,
irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue
to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been
for the last few thousand years.
Q: If you had a 12-year-old
grandkid who was worried about global warming, what would you
tell him?
A: I would tell them that there are many more important problems
in the world to worry about, such as diseases, pandemics, nuclear
war and terrorism. The least important of these is global warming
produced by humans, because it will be insignificant compared
to natural fluctuations of climate.
Q: How did you become "the
godfather of global warming denial"?
A: That's easy. Age. I organized my first conference on global
warming in 1968. At that time I had no position. It was a conference
called "The global effects of environmental pollution."
At that time I remember some of the experts we had speaking thought
the climate was going to warm and some thought it was going to
cool. That was the situation.
Q: Climate is extremely complicated
-- is that a true statement?
A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will
never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It's just
too complicated.
Q: Give me a sample of how
complicated just one little thing can be.
A: The most complicated thing about the atmosphere that the models
cannot capture is clouds. First of all, clouds are small. The
resolution of the computer models is about 200 miles; clouds
are much smaller than that. Secondly, they don't know when clouds
form. They have to guess what humidity is necessary for a cloud
to form. And of course, humidity is not the only factor. You
have to have nuclei -- little particles -- on which the water
vapor can condense to form droplets. They don't know that either.
And they don't know at what point the cloud begins to rain out.
And they don't know at what point -- it goes on like this.
Q: Is this debate a scientific
fight or a political fight?
A: Both. I much support a scientific fight, because I'm pretty
sure we'll win that -- because the data support us; they don't
support the climate models. Basically it's a fight of people
who believe in data, or who believe in the atmosphere, versus
people who believe in models.
Q: Is it not true that CO2
levels have gone up by about a third in the last 100 years?
A: A little more than a third, yes. I accept that.
Q: Do you say that's irrelevant?
A: It's relevant, but the effects cannot be clearly seen. The
models predict huge effects from this, but we don't see them.
Q: Why is it important that
global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized
way?
A: It's a scientific problem. The climate is something we live
with, and we need to know what effect human activities are having
on climate. I don't deny that there's some effect of human activities
on climate. We need to learn how important they are.
Q: Why is it important that
global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized
way?
A: It's a scientific problem. The climate is something we live
with and we need to know what effect human activities are having
on climate. I don't deny that there's some affect of human activities
on climate. Cities are warmer now than they used to be. We have
changed forests into agricultural fields. That has some affect
on climate. We irrigate much of the Earth. That affects climate.
And so on. We are having some influence on climate, at least
on a small scale. So we need to know these things. We need to
how important they are.
Q: And global warming is something
we should study but not get panicky about?
A: The thing to keep in mind always is that the natural fluctuations
of climate are very much larger than anything we can ascribe
so far to any human activity. Much larger. We lived
through a Little Ice Age just a few hundred years ago. During
the Middle Ages the climate was much warmer than it is today.
So the climate does change all the time. We need to understand
the scientific reasons for natural climate change. Most of us
now think it's the sun that is the real driver of climate. It
has something to do with sun spots, but the mechanism is not
quite clear. That's what's being studied now.
Bill Steigerwald is
a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune- Review.
©Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved.
Distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc.
E-mail Bill at bsteigerwald@tribweb.com
Publish A Letter on SitNews Read Letters/Opinions
Submit
A Letter to the Editor
Sitnews
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska
|