[Vision2020] Dennis Avery & S. Fred Singer: Climate Science Frauds

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Thu Jun 26 04:33:14 PDT 2008

I revealed that the global warming skeptic petition presented to Vision2020
recently originated with misrepresentation, based on efforts from a
former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz
(and his associations with the the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
publishing junk science on climate change), who misused his prior
connections to NAS, forcing the NAS to issue a statement rejecting his
global warming petition with its misuse of their identity, and clearly
stating the NAS disagreed with the claims of this petition:

Consider S. Fred Singer, and Dennis Avery (of the Hudson Institute, a
blatantly political, not scientific institution), neither of whom are
climate scientists, offered as a credible source on climate science,
regarding the book, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," and
other media or Internet campaigns, which was presented to Vision2020 as a
source for hundreds of published peer reviewed scientists who disagree with
the claim that anthropogenic warming is a serious problem.  Here is the
source offered on Singer and Avery:


Or another at URL below, that I offer:


Too bad some are taken in by this sort of irresponsible yellow journalism
junk science.  Many of the scientists whose papers have been used by Singer
and Avery to promote their claims on climate science, have responded to this
use of their scientific work with utter rejection:


500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?

29 Apr 08

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely
distributed Heartland
entitled 500
Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming

The article, by Hudson Institute
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute>director and
Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T.
Avery<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Avery>(inset), purports to
list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming
scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the
world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday
afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24
hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying
that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their
names be removed.

This is a brief taste of some of the responses that have been copied to the

Here's some more quotes:
I am very shocked to see my name in the list of "500 Scientists with
Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Because none of my
research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a
consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of
my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my
professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist."

Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State
University.* *
Just because you document natural climate variability doesn't mean
anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that
most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined
represent a greater threat."

Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia
University* *

Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts
concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?"

Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
*They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet
their own agenda. This is not science."*

Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey
*Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the
list which misrepresents my research."*

Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York
at Buffalo

*I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20
years arguing the opposite."*

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

*I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I
insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not
give you permission to put it there."*

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Old Dominion University

*I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements
listed in the article."*

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

*Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"*

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

*I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do
not share the views expressed in the summary."*

Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences,
Simon Fraser University

It is easy to compile a list of scientists, who have published articles and
books, who question Einstein's Relvativity theory, Darwin's Evolution
theory, or the Big Bang theory, all scientific theories accepted as having a
solid basis in science by the scientific community.  Wrap them together, and
sell the contents to an awed public, wondering how Einstein, Darwin, Smoot
and Mather, could indulge in such hyperbole!  And let's not forget those
full of hot air gas bag global warming promoting climate scientists,
terrorizing other scientists into following their party line (give me a
break!  Do they wear uniforms and carry tasers?), for career promotion,
grants, big book deals, and power over the public, while they lead the
deluded hoi polloi into a big government wet dream of liberal world wide
regulation, ruining the global economy, forcing the poor into further
poverty and malnutrition, scaring innocent children into believing the the
planet will burn up... Please!

Singer and Avery's work on climate science is based on a
pre-selected collection of papers, some of which do not support their
thesis, though they cherry pick statements from the papers to suggest they
do, all aimed at supporting their argument, deliberately rejecting published
scientific articles that negate their thesis; and not seeking general peer
review in the scientific community (they would face a rather critical

"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," would be rejected as a
presentation of objective unbiased scientific research, by numerous
reputable scientific organizations, given its conclusions regarding
anthropogenic global warming are not accepted by the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
Their work is nothing more than sophisticated pseudo-science cherry picked
opinion writing, that will fool the gullible who have not done in depth
research into climate science.  Skepticism based on an open minded
assessment of all of the published work on climate science is respectable.
But Avery and Singer seek to obfuscate an open minded assessment.

This discussion at Realclimate, offering commentary from climate scientist
David Archer, who attended a talk by Dennis Avery, and was able to ask
substantive questions (they apparently did know who he was), offers more
perspective on this issue:


Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080626/e1fe624d/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list