Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Scientists can also wear their citizen hats

Fred Singer is a lot like George Costanza

with 16 comments

One of my favorite Jerry Seinfeld episodes is the one where George Costanza tells Jerry that every decision he has ever made has turned out to be wrong.  Jerry suggest that George should then “do the opposite” and maybe his luck would change.  When George does the opposite, he begins dating a beautiful woman and lands a job with the New York Yankees.

S. Fred Singer is a lot like George Costanza.

S. Fred Singer is one of the notorious Merchants of Doubt described by Oreskes and Conway in their new critically acclaimed book titled Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.  S. Fred Singer has been on the wrong side of the scientific consensus on important issues such as:

1) Smoking and cancer
2) DDT
3) Acid rain
4) Ozone depletion
5) Manmade climate change

It is truly absurd that ANYBODY listens to this guy because his position is usually wrong.  He is the George Costanza of science.

Whatever Singer says, believe the opposite and it is probably correct.

Furthermore, it is likely that the organizations (and their key people) that Singer is connected to are also making false statements and misleading the public on important issues such as manmade climate change.  Using the Greenpeace Exxonsecrets.org site as a resource, I have mapped the organizations and key people that Singer is linked to.  When you see that organization or key person making a public statement about climate change, think like George Costanza.  Believe the opposite.

Organizations Singer is linked to

Organizations Singer is linked to

Heritage Foundation key people

Heritage Foundation key people

Cato Institute Key People

Cato Institute Key People

Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Key People

Advancement of Sound Science Coalition Key People

Hoover Institution Key People

Hoover Institution Key People

National Center for Policy Analysis Key People

National Center for Policy Analysis Key People

Weidenbaum Center Key People

Weidenbaum Center Key People

Frontiers of Freedom Institute Key People

Frontiers of Freedom Institute Key People

Science & Public Policy Institute - Monckton

Science & Public Policy Institute - Monckton

Independent Institute Key People

Independent Institute Key People

American Council on Science & Health Key People

American Council on Science & Health Key People

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies

ECO

ECO

Before any of my detractors claim that guilt by association is unfair, consider this:

In their publication, The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism, Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman (2008) analyzed 141 English-language environmentally skeptical books published between 1972 and 2005. They found that that over 92% of these books, most published in the US, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs) like those above and that 90% of CTTs espouse environmental skepticism.The authors conclude:

    “Skepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.”

They further state:

    “Thus, the notion that environmental skeptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of ‘junk science’ lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of skeptics as marginalized ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as skeptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.
Advertisements

Written by Scott Mandia

July 21, 2010 at 10:56 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Skepticism should not be condsidered a tactic unless the person or group hearing the skepticism is lacking intelligence. When a scenerio is presented and evidence is shown it should be countered by evidence to the contrary, not just to say I doubt this. It’s like the movie ‘Jaws’. The sheriff saw evidence of a shark but couldn’t convince the politicans that it was true. The Skeptic’s had no facts to back up their doubts except that they knew the profits would be effected. The end result was the water turned red.
    Movie writers and producers have been ahead of their time since the beginning of movies. That’s why they write scripts to show how skepticism is the wrong way to go and how it is always motivated by greed.
    Even though this is a free country (as we speak) the average person isn’t capable of making a decision that could protect them from the elements of nature and man. It is best left in the hands of the few who know. If I heard evidence to the contrary of Global warming, I’m not so sure I would be smart enough to know who is right. The only thing that the average person should be able to figure out is that the earth survived for millions of years but it has only been a 100 years since man has had the abiltiy to change things environmentally speaking.
    So in short, I am saying let the professionals do what they do best. That is to use their brains to protect us all. Bottom lines and profits won’t be of any value in a decimated world.

    Thomas Bove

    July 21, 2010 at 11:31 pm

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lou Grinzo, Scott A Mandia. Scott A Mandia said: Fred Singer is a lot like George Costanza – http://bit.ly/bSI2cd […]

  3. “It is truly absurd that ANYBODY listens to this guy because his position is usually wrong.”

    It really is not absurd at all when you realize that those people who listen to Singer have already decided that they want to believe what he says.

    Sam Cohen

    July 22, 2010 at 12:51 pm

  4. Your analogy has merit, but the thought of Singer getting laid is not something I wish to contemplate.

    Singer getting a real job, on the other hand…

    Roger Romney-Hughes

    July 23, 2010 at 12:08 am

  5. Very useful connections you’ve drawn.
    Thanks,
    jg

    john g

    July 25, 2010 at 2:42 pm

  6. […] Lambert, John Cook, and Scott Mandia have covered  the […]

  7. […] is truly absurd that ANYBODY listens to this guy because his position is usually wrong.  He is the George Costanza of science.  Whatever Singer says, believe the opposite and it is probably […]

  8. […] to investigate Heartland Institute and The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) run by S. Fred Singer, who is also on Heartland’s payroll. According to John Mashey’s detailed report, these […]

  9. […] Fred Singer is a lot like George Costanza […]

  10. […] Fred Singer who has been wrong on science so often he is the George Costanza of science. […]

  11. […] I also linked Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling because they appear to be legitimate experts until you peek behind the curtain to see the groups they run around with. Balling is closely aligned with S. Fred Singer who is a well-documented science denier. He is so bad I call him the George Constanza of Science. […]

  12. […] of climate science denial’s key players titled Climate of Doubt. The show highlighted S. Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Christopher Monckton, Chris Horner, Myron Ebell, and James Taylor, among several […]

  13. Hey, this is great. My only suggestion is that perhaps you could move the names around so that they dont over lap with the name of the institution they are connected to. Currently, I am writing a short paper for my masters program and I chose the topic of compiling climate skeptic peer reviewed literature. My discussion section is talking about how I’m finding that their evidence doesn’t really matter because it is only used to create doubt, but what matters is who these people, who is funding them, and what institutions they are connected to. I have arrived to this website and i love these graphics. I am recognizing a lot of the names you have listed from my own paper. These people are demonic entitites.

    Adriana Anonymous

    December 3, 2017 at 3:56 pm

  14. […] secondhand smoke, amphibian population loss, and even minimum wage benefits. In recent decades he’s worked for a plethora of fossil fuel-funded think tanks, denying established climate […]

  15. […] secondhand smoke, amphibian population loss, and even minimum wage benefits. In recent decades he’s worked for a plethora of fossil fuel-funded think tanks, denying established climate […]

  16. […] secondhand smoke, amphibian population loss, and even minimum wage benefits. In recent decades he’s worked for a plethora of fossil fuel-funded think tanks, denying established climate […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: