ABC Dumps on Anthropomorphic Global Warming Skeptic

Dr. S. Fred Singer was trashed the other night on ABC for daring to present an opinion differing from Al Gore’s on the causes of global warming. Here’s his Dr. Singer’s response letter to ABC Brainwashing News:


TO: Felicia Biberica Fiona Conway
Producer Executive director
ABC News ABC News
212-456-3634 77 W. 66th St.
cell 201-647-7966 New York City 10023
< >

Dear Ms Biberica and Ms Conway March 25, 2008

I share the anger expressed in nearly 100 postings (so far) at the shoddy handling of my interview aired on March 23: It was an appalling display of bias, unfairness, journalistic misbehavior, and a breakdown of ethical standards. It used prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears. I urge you to read the postings; only one person offered any support to ABC, as far as I can see.

I put the following account on my website

1. Interviewer Dan Harris used a man from Greenpeace who spouted conspiracy theories about me, showing someone’s diagram that ‘connects’ me to groups alleged to be financed by oil companies. The only purpose I can think of is to suggest to viewers that I am in the pay of oil companies and that therefore my science is somehow tainted and not credible. First, the suggestion is completely false. I am not financed or supported by oil companies or by any industry. Then, Harris tried to suggest that I misrepresented by denying oil company support but admitting receiving an unsolicited donation. I draw a distinction –as would any reasonable person — between being ‘supported’ and between a single charitable donation (constituting a tiny fraction of 1%) of all donations received. Finally, the word ‘connected’ is imprecise, and can mean anything from being on a mailing list to holding a position and receiving a salary. In my case it is definitely the former.

2. Dan Harris also referred to unnamed scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced what I do as ‘fraudulent nonsense.’ [The ABC website changed it to ‘fabricated’ nonsense – perhaps on advice of ABC’s lawyers.] They are easily identified as the well-known Global Warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and Steve Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. [I suspect they’ll chicken out. They surely know that the facts support my position — so they resort to anonymous slurs.] Hansen is no longer the careful scientist he was but has turned into an ideologue willing to publish junk ‘research’. Oppenheimer, who may still be on the payroll of Environmental Defense, an activist lobbying group, has negligible credentials. Schneider has not published significant research in years. Both Hansen and Oppenheimer could be labeled as ‘Contrarians’ since they disagree with important conclusions of the UN-IPCC.

3. Dan Harris did mention my doubts about the lung-cancer effects of Second-Hand Smoke, about the danger of toxic waste (spent nuclear fuel), and about ‘Nuclear Winter.’ All true — Dan did his research but withheld the full story. On SHS, I simply quoted from the experts (see attached review article from a noted medical doctor, specializing in lung disease). Nuclear fuel presents no technical problems, only political ones. France and Britain handle its disposal; why don’t we? ‘Nuclear Winter’ (which burst onto the scene in 1983 — and disappeared quickly) was basically a fraud, invented to shore up an ideological position. We disposed of it in a debate moderated by Ted Koppel on ABC-Nightline. But Harris left the audience with the impression that I am a ‘career skeptic’, and therefore my skepticism about manmade GW should be ignored.

4. Yours is supposed to be a news program not an opinion journal. Dan Harris completely ignored the new scientific evidence against anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) and the fact that 100 other scientists presented papers that support this view. The Heartland Conference in NY had an attendance of more than 500, practically all of them AGW skeptics. That’s news, but ABC ignored it.

Conclusion: ABC owes it to its audience and to me to make appropriate corrections — an apology and retraction by Dan Harris on the World News program.


S. Fred Singer, PhD (Physics, Princeton)
Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
Fellow, American Physical Society

Education Does Not Solve Moral Problems

Click below to hear the most idiotic load of horse-crap this year:


Hello…earth to Kate… The STI epidemic has gone up dramatically after the advent of all so called “sex education”. Give me a freaking break.

In the age of information…these women just aren’t getting adequate information.

-That’s absolute horse-s**t! Tell me, exactly how many people don’t know about sexually transmitted diseases?

“We can’t be relying on private foundations, or parents, or a teens pears to be educating each other. We really do need government’s help on this.”

You have got to be kidding? It is not the function of government to educate society about sex. This is a classic dogma of the left (though not exclusive to it). If people were only ‘educated enough’ there would be no problems in society. This is totally and absolutely false. McCain said something somewhat similar the other day, and Mark Steyn had a great response to this ludicrous “education will save us” idea:

McCain said the United States’ goal in fighting Islamic extremists should be “to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists.”In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.”

MS: Really? Even as a theoretical proposition, trusting the average American college education (even if one does not draw Sami el-Arian or Ward Churchill as one’s mentor) to woo young Muslims to the virtues of the Great Satan would be something of a long shot. But it isn’t even theoretical anymore.There’s plenty of evidence out there that the most extreme “extremists” are those who’ve been most exposed to the west – and western education: from Osama bin Laden (summer school at Oxford, punting on the Thames) and Mohammed Atta (Hamburg University urban planning student) to the London School of Economics graduate responsible for the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The idea that handing out college scholarships to young Saudi males and getting them hooked on Starbucks and car-chase movies will make this stuff go away is ridiculous – and unworthy of a serious presidential candidate.

Read his whole post here.

Wake up to reality Kate. If anything – your two stupid amoral cesspool shows likely encourage young teens too fool around. The day you refuse to act in shows that glorify having sex with everything alive whenever and however you feel like…perhaps I will start giving your infantile vacuous pablum some actual credence.

Freedom of Speech is Dead

From the top of LiveLeak’s website:

“Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.”

Would this happen over an anti-Christian documentary?

A New Hugo…

Click Below to watch:



Awareness Test

I’ll admit – this isn’t exactly fair…But it’s funny.

What. The. Crap.


No reward candidate is worth this.” – Han Solo

UPDATED: Perceptions vs. Reality of Politics in Church

If I was to say to you that I have a problem with political viewpoints being dictated at church by pastors (which I do), what comes to your mind right away? For me – the first thing that pops into my mind (still) is a person like Pat Robertson or some other radical hard right sort of character. Whatever person comes to mind – that’s not really my point. What matters is the perception of what political agenda we automatically assume the pastor is pushing.

The overarching point is, before I become philosophically conservative (or more realistically, before I understood conservative philosophy), I held this perception that most conservatives voted conservative, simply because they were sort of led to in church. The funny thing was that, this line of thinking held no truth in my own personal experience. I was attending a fairly conservative Baptist church, and I had never heard an unbalanced (or super conservative) viewpoint being expressed by the pastor. The problem here was my perception.

At the time – I would say that I was apolitical and pretty much uninterested in the subject. Still, I had somehow obtained a bias (call it a political bias or stereotype) that politics in church were always of the hard right. The question is, where would I learn such a perception without actively seeking out political positions. The answer is of course, the media. The media in this country (TV, Hollywood, The New York Times, etc), as a whole, are liberally biased (I wouldn’t have a problem with this except that they explicitly claim not to be). (This is where someone will always point out how far right they think Fox News is. Ok, let’s say they are slant right, but have you ever thought that maybe they aren’t as right as you perceive them – especially when you have NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, CBS, and every Hollywood film you’ve seen in the last 20 years all slanting the other direction?). The more I learned about actual conservative philosophy, the more I realized how blatantly mischaracterized conservative ideas where in the media. In fact, I would bet that what most people think about conservative ideas – and what those ideas are, are totally different things.

Either way, back to the our perception as it regards to pastors biases. This discussion is a great tee-up for this clip of Obama’s old pastor Jeremiah Wright (click the image to watch):


Also, please check out one of their church bulletins. (page 9 and 10 at least.)
So, back to our perceptions. Even Don Miller’s book – Blue Like Jazz, seemed to be subtly asserting the idea that political preaching is a problem only held with the “religious right.” I am not trying to say that it doesn’t happen on the right. However, now that I actually understand conservative philosophy (which took some effort on my part), I am certain that the idea that only right wing ideas are preached in church, is false. This is a stereotype and it needs to end.

Also, Where this political preaching is going on, on both sides of the isle – it is dangerous and I think it is does a great disservice to the cause of Christ. When pastors preach political points from the pulpit – it greatly harms people’s (non-Christian’s) perception of what church is all about. Church is a place to discuss and learn Biblical understanding – not to be told how to vote. People should be encouraged to make up their own minds on political issues, based on the values that they learn about in church.

Perceptions are a very hard thing to change though – so I’m not really holding my breath here.

UPDATE: Just found this article by Peter Wehner that relates (probably far more eloquently) to what I am getting at here.

For the last quarter-century, the MSM has focused almost all of its coverage on faith on the religious Right. One of the consequences of all the attention being given to the hate-filled sermons by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is that it will draw attention to the religious Left in America.

It strikes me that the religious Left commits some of the same fundamental errors as the religious Right did during its heyday: too closely associating Christianity with politics; implying that a proper reading of the Bible will easily translate into a partisan agenda; tending to belittle and demonize political opponents. Both Pat Robertson’s and Jim Wallis’s willingness to vulgarize their Christian faith in order to advance their political agendas has been problematic for both sides.

But where the religious Left has set itself apart is in its stand on political issues. It was wrong, profoundly wrong, in its views on the nature and threat of Soviet communism; on its enchantment with “liberation theology” and Marxist dictators like Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega; in its unmitigated hostility toward capitalism; in its one-sided criticisms of Israel; in its opposition to welfare reform. The list goes on. And as Reverend Wright has reminded us, there is a very deep, almost bottomless, hatred for America that runs through the hard Left and among some on the religious Left.

For decades, all the media glare has been on the short-comings of the Robertsons and Falwells. Fair enough: they are deeply flawed figures. But it’s long past time to concentrate attention on the words and mindset of those on the hard religious Left–people who attempt to pretty up the noxious views of Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky in the garb of religious faith and “social justice.”

If Jeremiah Wright’s ugly sermons highlight for Americans what the Left is preaching from its pulpits–and what they need to be held accountable for–that will be all to the good.

Minority Report = Real

Well, the glass screen technology at least.

Rainy day workout? Dude. Seriously.

uhhhm…Prancing workout anyone?

Sorry…I guess…

“…remember to train, and not to strain…”
(Yeah, especially with that move at 3:08.)

Exit question: Why would you do this workout as opposed to just running? Rain? Seriously, you can only debase yourself so far.Once Again -> Possible workouts:

  • Running
  • Walking
  • Wearing hot-pants and frolicking around like an idiot.

More Garbage on the Eco Front: Plastic Bags…not killing millions.

Millions of animals that is. I have highlighted a couple points and added in a comment here and there {in curly braces}. This, from the Times of London:

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.

The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.

Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags {In cased you missed that: Government using it’s power to force something on the private sector – based on non-science…}, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him.

But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: “The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.” {This is a mainstay of most “causes.” As long as I feel good about helping the environment, the poor, etc – it doesn’t matter if what I am doing really actually results in helping anyone or anything.}

Campaigners say that plastic bags pollute coastlines and waterways, killing or injuring birds and livestock on land and, in the oceans, destroying vast numbers of seabirds, seals, turtles and whales. However, The Times has established that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals.

They “don’t figure” in the majority of cases where animals die from marine debris, said David Laist, the author of a seminal 1997 study on the subject. Most deaths were caused when creatures became caught up in waste produce. “Plastic bags don’t figure in entanglement,” he said. “The main culprits are fishing gear, ropes, lines and strapping bands. Most mammals are too big to get caught up in a plastic bag.”

He added: “The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species.For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.”

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian Government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to “plastic bags”.

The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers. For four years the “typo” remained uncorrected. It was only in 2006 that the authors altered the report, replacing “plastic bags” with “plastic debris”. But they admitted: “The actual numbers of animals killed annually by plastic bag litter is nearly impossible to determine.”

In a postscript to the correction they admitted that the original Canadian study had referred to fishing tackle, not plastic debris, as the threat to the marine environment.

Regardless, the erroneous claim has become the keystone of a widening campaign to demonise plastic bags.

David Santillo, a marine biologist at Greenpeace, told The Times that bad science was undermining the Government’s case for banning the bags. “It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags,” he said. “The evidence shows just the opposite. We are not going to solve the problem of waste by focusing on plastic bags.

“It doesn’t do the Government’s case any favours if you’ve got statements being made that aren’t supported by the scientific literature that’s out there. With larger mammals it’s fishing gear that’s the big problem. On a global basis plastic bags aren’t an issue. It would be great if statements like these weren’t made.”

Geoffrey Cox, a Tory member of the Commons Environment Select Committee, said: “I don’t like plastic bags and I certainly support restricting their use, but plainly it’s extremely important that before we take any steps we should rely on accurate information. It is bizarre that any campaign should be endorsed on the basis of a mistranslation. Gordon Brown should get his facts right.”

Read the full article.

This is what happens when you put so much faith in “science.” This is also why I am not so quick to jump onto the man caused global warming wagon. I care about the environment as much as anybody, but we need REAL practical (and affordable) solutions, and we need not get so worked up by all the doom & gloom mongers. What are the real things that we can change to make out environment better (you know – the ones that won’t collapse the world economy)? Let’s figure those out, and do them.