I’ll be damned. I though it was humans exhaling.

By the way retard, based on your obvious lack of intelligence, I am going to assume you misspelled your screen name by accident, and I’m going to help you out. It should be “InvoluntaryServitude”.

By the way, does it strike you as strange that there are TWO well known anti-AGW liars who were ALSO well known tobacco company liars?

Well shit, what do you know? They even worked together:

“# S. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz , “Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate”, The Independent Institute, December 1, 1998, ISBN 094599978X”
http://sourcewatch.org/index.p.....rick_Seitz

“No attacking the argument again then Karmakaze. What do you gain by attempting to defend this nonsense?”

What argument? All I see are a bunch of unproven assertions based on lies and half-truths…

For example:

“New scientific evidence suggests there is a stronger link between solar activity and climate trends on Earth than there is with greenhouse gases,”

What new “scientific evidence”? They don’t even tell you what it is, simply say there is new evidence and claim it calls AGW into question.

“Singer said scientists have long theorized that changes in the sun’s activity also impact the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth – affecting the Earth’s cloudiness and thereby the climate.”

That is one of those half-truths. Here is the TRUTH:

“The mechanism by which cosmic rays might affect climate is as yet purely speculative and unquantified. While it has long been known that radiation could form ions and, in theory, ultimately lead to cloud formation, the importance of this process compared to all the other major sources of particles and cloud condensation nuclei has not been proven. Indeed, there is no evidence that the flux of cosmic rays has decreased over the last 30 years.

Even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....hs/m1.html

“Singer is one of many scientists who say recent scientific observations have determined that “solar variability” – or fluctuations in the sun’s radiation – directly affects climate change on Earth.”

There is a lie AND a half truth. The fact is NO ONE has ever said the Sun DOESN’T directly affect climate change. What they have said is that the CURRENT WARMING is NOT caused by changes in the Sun, because the observed changes are not large enough to account for the observed warming. See the Met Office quote above.

““In the broad sense, the Earth’s climate is determined by solar radiation,” Singer said. “If the radiation changes, so will the general climate.””

No shit, Sherlock, BUT it hasn’t changed enough to account for the observed warming. Once again, another half truth. NO ONE has ever said that changes of the Sun’s activity has NEVER affected general climate, they DO say that the Sun is NOT causing it now.

“Singer said scientists have long theorized that changes in the sun’s activity also impact the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth – affecting the Earth’s cloudiness and thereby the climate.”

Half truth followed by a lie. See the Met Office quote.

“The hypothesis is underpinned by the idea that variations in the sun’s irradiance – electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun that reaches earth’s surface – translate into climate changes on Earth in two key ways: 1) cosmic rays create either more or fewer low, cooling clouds in our planet’s atmosphere; and 2) ozone changes driven by solar activity in the stratosphere create varying degrees of heating in the lower atmosphere.”

And yet there is no evidence that cosmic rays have reduced, and thus cloud reduced, in the last 30 years, during which time the world has continued to warm. If the lack of cosmic rays are causing Global Warming, then why haven’t they changed while the Earth warms? In other words, the TONS of evidence that anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions are responsible, is not enough “proof”, but vague a hypothesis with no supporting evidence IS “proof”?

“Recent experiments that have been performed using weather balloons and satellites actually confirm the hypothesis, he said.”

What experiments, and what were the results? Another vaguely worded assertion that means NOTHING, and is actually little more than a flat out lie.

““There is now little doubt that solar-wind variability [streams of ionized gases that radiate out from the sun] is the primary cause of climate change on a decadal time scale,” Singer said.”

Flat out lie. There is FAR MORE doubt about that than AGW!

““It looks as if solar activity, not solar radiation itself, determines what happens with the climate.”

Wait… Didn’t the article just say:

“Singer is one of many scientists who say recent scientific observations have determined that “solar variability” – or fluctuations in the sun’s radiation – directly affects climate change on Earth.”

Why yes, yes it did! They can’t even keep their bullshit consistent!

“The report, “Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate,” has helped open the way for scientists to perform meaningful research in areas that have been largely unexplored and under-emphasized in previous studies, Singer said in the interview.

For example, he said, there are research efforts now underway that set about to examine the connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation presumed in the sun-climate theory.”

Oh so they great Singer has made it possible to carry out such research has he? When was that report of his again?

“Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
Written By: Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
Published In: Summary for Policymakers
Publication Date: March 2, 2008
Publisher: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change / The Heartland Insstitute”
http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22835

And when did this research on cosmic rays and cloud formation begin?

Well, I found this:

” Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997] proposed a “cosmic ray-cloud cover” hypothesis that cosmic ray flux, modulated by solar activity, may modify global cloud cover and thus global surface temperature by increasing the number of ions in the atmosphere, leading to enhanced condensation of water vapor and cloud droplet formation. We evaluate this idea by extending their period of study and examining long-term surface-based cloud data (from national weather services and the Global Telecommunication System) as well as newer satellite data (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) D2, 1983–1993). No meaningful relationship is found between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover over tropical and extratropical land areas back to the 1950s. The high cosmic ray-cloud cover correlation in the period 1983–1991 over the Atlantic Ocean, the only large ocean area over which the correlation is statistically significant, is greatly weakened when the extended satellite data set (1983–1993) is used. Cloud cover data from ship observations over the North Atlantic, where measurements are denser, did not show any relationship with solar activity over the period 1953–1995, though a large discrepancy exists between ISCCP D2 data and surface marine observations. Our analysis also suggests that there is not a solid relationship between cosmic ray flux and low cloudiness as proposed by Marsh and Svensmark [2000 ].

Published 27 July 2002.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossr.....0560.shtml

Singer even lies about the effect HIS research has had! HE IS A PAID LIAR! Who paid for that report to be made? The Heartland Institute:

“Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $791,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[27]

Contributions include:

* $30,000 in 1998;
* $115,000 in 2000;
* $90,000 in 2001;
* $15,000 in 2002;
* $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
* 85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
* $109,000 in 2005; and
* $230,000 in 2006.
”
http://sourcewatch.org/index.p.....on_Funding

THEY ARE PAID LIARS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE ELITE.

“This is the kind of scientific endeavor that has gone missing in government studies that assume human activity predominates over natural influences, Singer continued. Although it was long assumed that the sun was a constant star, one that did not experience any variability (changes) in its irradiance, this has turned out not to be the case.”

FLAT OUT FUCKING LIE! Seriously. What has long been KNOWN is that changes in Soloar irradiance amounts to LESS THAN 0.1% from maximum to minimum. It changes, but only a very small amount, and nowhere near enough to account for current warming.

“To the extent that it does look at solar variability at all, which is limited, the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been “disingenuous” in its approach to solar variability by virtue of focusing on relatively minute solar cycle changes that overlook cosmic rays, the Singer report suggests.”

Wait…

“This is the kind of scientific endeavor that has gone missing in government studies”

And the next paragraph:

“To the extent that it does look at solar variability at all, which is limited”

Another blatant contradiction. SINGER IS A LIAR! He is totally incapable of telling the truth about ANYTHING!

“However, the observations derived from satellites and balloons actually show “no increasing warming, but a slight cooling with altitude” in the zone of the atmosphere where greenhouse gas theories anticipate warming, Singer said.”

TOTAL LIE. The only difference between the predictions and the reality was the magnitude of the changes, and that lead to further research that showed that the models were nto taking enough account of atmospheric mixing between the warming troposphere and the cooling stratosphere.

By the way, if less tropospheric clouds are responsible for the warming, why is the stratosphere cooling? The climate scientists who advocate AGW (nearly all of them) know exactly why – because less long wave radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface makes it into the stratosphere, thus causing it to cool – so what is Singer’s explanation? He never even mentions it!

In fact, in that “report” he cooked up for the oil companies, the word “stratosphere” appears only twice, and one of those was in the “About S. Fred Singer” section! The other was a reference to water vapour. Similarly the word “stratospheric” only appears a few times in relation to stratospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour. Not one word about the predicted AND observed stratospheric cooling!

But if you REALLY want to know why I didn’t bother arguing against Singer’s bullshit, it is because that very article does it for me!

“There are compelling scientific studies that would indicate the warming trend that occurred in the later part of the 20th century cannot be attributed to cosmic rays or other solar activity, according to Jay Gulledge, a senior scientist with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.”

“In an article in Nature magazine, Solanki and his colleagues wrote: “Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”"

“Although solar activity may partially account for some of the warming in the early part of the 20th Century, all of the best research concerning the warming that has occurred in the past two to three decades cannot be explained by way of cosmic rays, Gulledge added.”

So how does Singer (given the last word by a compliant media mouthpiece) respond?

“What’s controversial in my view is not the fact that solar activity affects the climate but the exact mechanism, the details,” Singer told CNSNews.com. “There’s overwhelming evidence, it’s also in my report, that solar activity varying on a time scale of decades produces corresponding affects on the climate on decadal scale.””

In other words there is overwhelming evidence except HOW, HOW MUCH, and HOW LONG. In other words there is NOT “overwhelming evidence”, there is a string of lies and half truths pushed by a an oil company stooge, funded by an oil company front, and published by an elite mouthpiece!

So, yes Cruise4, I didn’t bother refuting Singer’s bullshit, because anyone with a brain could have done it themselves, even if they had simply read the WHOLE ARTICLE.

—-

@InvolentaryServatude

“It would be NICE if those concerned with Climate Change would do themselves (and the rest of us) the favor of checking facts. Although, it might be fun to get on the popular “media driven bandwagon” and spout off. The “herd” mantality does have its drawbacks – like making an ASS out of yourself (Karmakaze).”

Oh, what “facts” would those be?

“Dr. Frederick Seitz worked for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

FACT: SIEGFRIED “FRED” SINGER, Ph.D. is not Dr. Seitz.”

No shit, Sherlock! Did you figure that out all by yourself, retard?

“DAMN, how does it happen? Amazing, when one doesn’t bother looking, they really DO become an ASS. Now that you know you GRAND STAND more then THINK. Why not do us all a favor and research who REALLY funds Climate Change: Government vs. private. What happens to the scientific community when the GOVERNMENT agenda of “man made” climate change is not met.”

Well done idiot.

“In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on “junk science” intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

“The report’s principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris’ plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on “junk science,” defending the industry’s views.39″ [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about “The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995,” a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the “Top 5 Myths” list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The “Top 5 Environmental Myths” list packaged EPA’s secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an “aggressive media interview schedule” organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA’s conclusions.[9]
[edit]
Oil Industry Contractor

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post “in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.”
http://sourcewatch.org/index.p.....red_Singer

Good job, you fucking retard, you managed to prove yourself to be an utter fuckwit in a single post! Well done!

““The truth is treason in the Empire of Lies.” ~ Ron Paul”

Paul knows all about LYING:

“MANASSAS, Virginia, Aug. 25 /Christian Newswire/ — By endorsing Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) for reelection over his principled conservative challenger, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has put “pork ahead of principle,” Richard A. Viguerie said.

Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said the endorsement is “completely inconsistent with everything Congressman Paul has said that he stands for. But, unfortunately, it is consistent with his record of pork-barrel spending for the folks back home in his district.”

Viguerie noted that, according to a recent article in the Houston Chronicle, Paul “is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.”"
http://www.christiannewswire.c.....17616.html

You are SUCH a sucker! You fall for ALL their bullshit, don’t you?

“New scientific evidence suggests there is a stronger link between solar activity and climate trends on Earth than there is with greenhouse gases, Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, told CNSNews.com.”

Singer also used to say that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer. Of course that was when he was funded by tobacco companies. Now he is funded by fossil fuel companies, so…