The Science is Settled

Global warming skeptic Fred Singer comes to Harvard

By Andrew L. Schlafly

In times past, the theory of global warming might have made for interesting discussion. Today, however, we are free from the burdens of thought. There are people with elite degrees and awards who have studied these questions; they can simply tell us the answer: Human beings are making global temperatures skyrocket. Don’t believe it? Just wait until twenty-foot rises in sea level submerge the entire city in which you live. And you better not speak against the consensus. If you do, you will be called a denier. But such temporal excoriation is not the whole story. Your true punishment for stubborn-minded denial is the bloodguilt that you will bear for the impending destruction. We can only hope that you will repent and recant before it is too late.

On Thursday, March 12, renowned environmental scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer came to Harvard to address these issues. Dr. Singer possesses scientific credentials of the highest caliber. He received his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton, has held distinguished professorships at George Mason University and the University of Virginia, and helped found the environmental sciences department at the University of Miami. He has also held many influential governmental positions; to name just a few, he was the first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service and served as the Chief Scientist of the United States Department of Transportation under the Reagan administration. Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Singer has published hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers, and is one of the most prolific scientists of our time. 

Unlike many of those who promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming, however, Dr. Singer does not base his credibility on the strength of his resume. On the contrary, his message was a simple one: Never let anyone’s academic title intimidate you into blindly accepting their claims

Such refreshing ideas were met with widespread enthusiasm. The two-and-a-half-hour event was packed from start to finish, attracting guests from the greater Boston area and beyond. Even more impressive, however, were the ideas discussed at the event. Dr. Singer used concrete evidence to bolster his message of the senselessness of blind acceptance of others’ scientific theories. One of his central points dealt with the infamous “hockey stick graph” of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change’s report. This graph visually displays the earth’s temperature history over the past millennium, along with temperature projections into the next century. A keystone of the IPCC report, it predicts that the relatively small increases in global temperatures in recent years will rapidly accelerate over the next century. The graph is suspect on two fronts. First, Dr. Singer pointed out that each subsequent edition of the IPCC report presented a graph with a sharper acceleration of projected temperature rises, and that such changes were largely due to political pressures. Moreover, the climate models used to construct the graph may inherently predict such rapid acceleration, regardless of the input data used.

Dr. Singer’s presentation was not merely an attack on existing theories; he also presented data directly supporting his assertion that climate fluctuations are primarily due to natural causes. One particularly striking piece of evidence was his graph connecting solar activity to temperature changes. Carbon-14 levels are known to be a proxy for solar activity, while Oxygen-18 levels are widely accepted as a proxy for temperature. Dr. Singer presented data, taken from a stalagmite in Oman, showing a remarkably strong correlation between C-14 levels and O-18 levels throughout several thousand years of history. Indeed, graphs of these two quantities showed a fingerprint-like match. Unlike the IPCC’s warming projections, this data came directly from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It was not produced for a political organization, nor was it commissioned for political purposes. 

Dr. Singer also attacked the rising-sea-level claims of many global warming alarmists. Displaying a graph of sea levels over the past century, he clearly demonstrated that sea levels have been rising at a roughly constant rate. The alarmists’ claims of sudden and immense accelerations in rates of sea-level rise therefore seem rather contrived. Moreover, as a student in the audience noticed, some of the alarmist claims of sea-level rise by the end of the century do not even conform to basic statistical standards. For example, one source put forth a minimum estimated sea level rise of 600 cm, and a maximum sea level rise of 600 cm. Such precision is patently absurd to anyone familiar with the most basic elements of quantitative modeling; even the IPCC reports presented wide (and much more moderate) ranges for estimated sea-level rise. How can one possibly suggest that all scientists are in such profound agreement when some of their predictions don’t even pass basic proofreading?

Dr. Singer acknowledged the uncertainty inherent in his own explanations of warming. For instance, while suggesting that solar activity might cause warming, he was careful to acknowledge that there is plenty of room for scientific dissent against this explanation; likewise, he admitted that his theory of natural, alternating, 1500-year periods of cold and warmth is only a very rough summary of a complicated climate history. It was this dual approach of augmenting understanding instead of encouraging dogmatic acceptance, along with admitting the intrinsic uncertainties of climate science, that made Dr Singer’s message so powerful.