Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate

by S. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz (Foreword)

Designed to appeal to lay readers and specialists alike, this concise, scientific analysis refutes the pessimistic global warming scenarios depicted in the media. In addition to covering better-known topics such as the climate record, computer models, and the effects of clouds, oceans, and greenhouse gases, the book also provides an in-depth examination of less frequently discussed issues including the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to model climate on computers, solar variability and its impact on climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate. Potential upsides related to global warming and the extreme financial consequences that economically disadvantaged groups and nations would suffer as a result of many of the proposed solutions are identified.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Politics, Climate Change

120 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1997

Reviews

[Frank Settineri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhere between a textbook and a novel, Dr. Singer presents hundreds of data sets that demonstrate why science and politics should never be mixed. For example historical 1) CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures rise; 2) Surface temperature monitors have been moved away from rural areas and closer to (hotter) airports; 3) CO2, not related to human activities, is rising yet it is not the predominant green house gas (GHG). Methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor have more significant impacts; 4) The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has omitted data from its reports that show the average temperature has not increased as much as models predict; 5) Temperatures will rise only 0.6 degrees C by the end of the century, independent of climate regulations; 6) Since the 1980's environmentalists have been actively promoting fossil fuel restrictions, resource transfer to less developed countries, world government/UN sovereignty, negative population growth, solar/wind subsidies. The book is not a page turner; the information in it can be overwhelming and is also well above my pay grade. However it's an important book to understand what is behind the global warming/climate change rhetoric and it's worthwhile if you're interested in hearing the entire story, not just what is broadcast by news outlets.

[Dan Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Junk science vs real crisis.

Excellent book.
Only one idea needs further explanation: If one has a doubt about the veracity of claims, watch the direction of money flows and the direction political power comes from. Once you determine whoprofits, you can assess whether the science is junk or not. (Gore is now a multimillionaire--worth more than Clinton by engaging in co2 credits brokering. Feinstein Isa multimillionaire driven by her husband's involvent with the bullet train. Etc.)

[Bruce Rennie · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you are looking for a book to explain climate change, this is not it. The author is a professional sower of doubt, whose career as a scientist took a sharp right turn in the sixties/seventies when health/environmental issues began driving government intervention and regulation. The author is ideologically opposed to government regulation and has fought a number of questionable battles against it including attempting to undermine action against tobacco, acid rain, CFC's and now climate change.

For a history of science denial and the generation of doubt, you may be interested in Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt or David Michaels Doubt is Their Product.

Science denial, which also includes anti-vaxxing advocates, has a now easily identifiable toolkit which includes fake experts, cherry picking, logical fallacies, red herrings, and, of course, conspiracy theories. The author contributed greatly to this toolkit and its easily identifiable in the text.

It still may be valuable to read this book as an example of science denial tactics, but as a source of information on climate change it is pure trash.

[Robert Melnyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and technically detailed book about global warming/climate change. This book uses real science to debunk the hysteria over climate change. Global warming/climate change is not the threat that many continue to say it is. The planet is not warming at the rate that the global warming proponents said it would. And in fact, the planet has thrived in times of warmer conditions. More CO2 in the atmosphere not only does not necessarily cause an increase in global temperatures, but it can be a positive thing for plant growth. The planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles for billions of years. There were times when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was far greater than it is today (before humans began to burn fossil fuel), and times when there was far less than there is today. It has very little, if anything, to do with the burning of fossil fuels. I recommend people read this book to understand the true facts about climate change. I also recommend both "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science", by Ian Plimer and "Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom", by Patrick Moore.

[Terrance D Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Most Authoritative Book on Global Warming!

When your read the pages and pages of qualifications and background of each of the authors of this book you'll know that it is written based on scientific facts and not political scare tactics and rhetoric. The sky is not falling!

[Gregory Knapp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Singer clearly and methodically destroys all the media, UN and Democrat arguments that the dangers of climate change is here and it's serious. Quite the contrary, there in zero need to make any changes to our use of fossil fuels now or in the future, per Singer. He is thorough in both his analysis of the science and the talk.

I now feel comfortable in my prior assessment that the hoopla about climate change is only a fake argument to raise money for fake science and for political control, exactly what Biden is doing to the US! Shameful.
PS: I don't have any clue why Fred Singer isn't listed as the Author!

[Molly · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wildly inaccurate but one star for the passion!

[Sean Spooner · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have begun looking into climate change much more deeply, and this was the first "anti-climate change" book that I found. Overall the book was well written. The book seems to be well grounded in science and research. I certainly feel less certain about the alarmist views regarding climate change after reading this, but I will be spending some time researching many of the things Singer mentions in this book on my own. I am sure that there is some shady politics going on, which Singer highlights very clearly. He lays out his case fairly well, in a quite convincing manner.

However, Singer makes various statements that seem imprecise, or sometimes just silly. I wonder how much of his perception on this topic has been influenced by his own bias. I worry that he initially (and perhaps rightly) was skeptical about the climate change research, but that he has become locked into this perspective which clouds his perception of the more recent research. I am sure that there is some merit to what he describes, but I will be reading more into it on my own.

----

A few issues I had with the book:
On page 16 he states, "Note, however, that it is bad practice to join sets of disparate measurements - taken by different instruments at different locations with different levels of accuracy". Unless I grossly misunderstand what he is trying to say, this seems flatly incorrect to me. The hallmark of good science is multiple independent measurements and analyses that point to the same result.

He also makes some pretty strong comments about politics without seeming to back them up. On page 150 he claims that "the best responses to climate change are probably found in the private sector and not in the public sector". He does describe how there seems to be a tipping point in prosperity after which environmental issues can be addressed and improved (after basic human needs are met). This seems fair enough, but he seems to outright dismiss the idea that there is also an aspect of this that must be done at a larger scale (and thus in the public sector). Climate change is a global phenomenon, and thus it must require at least some working together by larger parties at the country scale.

-------

Interesting things I will look into more:
One discussion that I found very interesting was his claim that the temperature readings that we have are imprecise. He argues that the heat island effect, and the use of buoys at the surface of the oceans (rather than sampling underwater) could produce a "fake" warming effect in temperatures.

"Climategate", and the IPCC reports being altered AFTER scientists said it looked good both seem horrifying. I will be looking into those topics to see if Singer speaks of them critically and accurately (he seems personally involved so I'm not convinced he gives an impartial perspective on them).

--------

If what Singer describes in this book is true, I don't understand why the "climate deniers" are so bad at making their arguments to the broader public. If this is all true, then it feels like a "slam-dunk" case that shouldn't be hard to argue. I am sure that there are forces that try to prevent this dissent from being broadly publicized. However, whenever I see someone arguing that climate change is a hoax, they never make any real points and rather broadly gesture that it's all made up. This is the first book I have read that seems to take a critical approach arguing against climate alarmism.

[Kristie J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a scientific, intellectual, logical, and calm review of the various claims about climate change made by climate activists. The author, a respected scientist for many decades, makes the case that much of climate change alarmism is political and not based on current or accurate scientific observations. In fact, the politics are corrupting the science. Singer calmly lays out the facts of what we know and what we don't know about climate change. I appreciated the chapters that explained how we were misled by the IPCC's climate reports and how climate change alarmism progressed from the 1970s through the numerous Conferences of the Parties (COP). Intriguing chapters include: Misled by the IPCC, The Hockey Stick Deception, The Climategate Scandal, The Unreliable Surface Temperature Record, The Gap Between Observed Temperatures and Climate Models, and Benefits of Modest Warming, among others.

A couple of the chapters in the middle got quite technical and a bit over my head. However, this book is a must-read for anyone who is wondering whether the climate change hype we are inundated with in the media is real or not. Spoiler alert: it is not. The book encourages a healthy, scientific skepticism about climate change based on evidence. We are often told that the science about climate change is settled, but Singer insists it is not.

I also appreciated the list of acronyms and comprehensive index at the back of the book. There were lots of technical terms and abbreviations and I had to look them up in the back several times.

[Mika Auramo · Rating 4 out of 5]

S. Fred Singerin tietokirja ”Hot talk, cold science” on erinomaista luettavaa, jos on halua pohtia, onko sähköfirman tuulivoima niin ekologista kuin väitetään ja pitäisikö vähentää omaa hiilijalanjälkeään, jotta maailma pelastuisi ja jotta meri ei nielisi etelän saaria eivätkä ihmiset kärventyisi hengiltä Etelä-Euroopassa niin kuin tv-uutisissa meille kerrotaan.

Ilmakehä- ja avaruusfyysikko tohtori S. Fred Singer on yksi maailman arvostetuimmista ja eniten julkaisseista ilmastoasiantuntijoista, ja hänen loistava ilmaston lämpenemisen myyttejä, propagandaa ja kylmiä tieteellisiä faktoja sisältävä opus on julkaistu kolmantena ja täydennettynä painoksena vuonna 2021, ja esipuheessa on pitkä liuta muiden arvostettujen ilmastoasiantuntijoiden lausunnot ja kommentit.

Kirja on jaoteltu nimensä mukaisesti kahteen osaan, ja ensimmäinen eli poliittinen propaganda ja suu vaahdossa tulevien kauhukuvien pauhaaminen osoitetaan lähinnä poliittiseksi teatteriksi, jota YK ja muut globalistit masinoivat. Toisessa osassa onkin vuorossa asettaa vastakkain ICPP:n ja muiden toimijoiden propaganda ja tieteelliset faktat, unohtamatta CO2 ja merenpintojen nousemista ja jäätiköiden sulamista. Lopuksi vielä pohditaan monipuolisesti lisääntyneen hiilidioksidimäärän hyötyjä ilmastossa, niin sanottua vihreää siirtymää ja triljoonien bisnestä, jota kestäväksi kehitykseksikin on tavattu kutsua.

YK:n Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lytätään moneen otteeseen, ja sen tehtävänä on toimia lähinnä poliittisena toimijana ja edistää globalistien vihreää siirtymää ja puhtaan energian tuottamista, sillä onhan sellainen kasvava trendi, kun iso osa ihmisistä (vailla kestäviä tieteellisiä perusteluja) on saatu uskomaan, että ihmisen toiminta ja varsinkin hiilidioksidipäästöt ja fossiilisten polttoaineiden käyttö olisivat keskeinen tekijä oletetussa ilmaston lämpenemisessä. Tosiasiallisesti ilmasto ei juurikaan ole lämmennyt viimeiseen reiluun sataan vuoteen, vaikka monissa tietokonemalleissa ja sääasemien seurannassa niin ilmenisikin mittaustulosten vääristelyn vuoksi. Singer kutsuukin niin sanottua tieteellistä konsensusta jostain ilmastohätätilasta ihan pötypuheeksi, ja koko nykyinen ilmastogate on ihan skandaali.

Kirjassa on myös runsaasti taulukoita ja kuvitusta, ja niistä lukija voi itsekin päätellä, miten ilmastoalarmistien ennusteet ja tietokonemallien uhkakuvat ja pelottavat käyrät ilmaston lämpenemisestä karkaavat vuosi vuodelta yhä kauemmas todellisuudesta. Harva enää muistaa ja jaksaa seurata, miten kävi Al Goren, prinssi Charlesin ja Greta Thunbergin ilmastokatastrofin mönkään menneille ennustuksille. An Inconvenient Truth -leffassa vuodelta 2006 Gore meni uskottelemaan, että meret nousevat ainakin kuusi metriä ja jäätiköt sulavat näihin päiviin mennessä, mutta toisin on käynyt. Viimeisten satojen vuosien aikana merenpinta on kohonnut ehkä millin tai pari vuodessa, eli seuraavan sadan vuoden aikana nousua voisi tulla muutama tuuma yhteensä. Näissähän on ollut keskeisenä CO2-päästöjen vähentäminen, ja olettamukseen liittyy, että ilmasto lämpenisi lisääntyneen hiilidioksidin määrän vuoksi. Tällaisesta ei kuitenkaan ole Singerin mukaan tieteellistä näyttöä, ja muutoinkin ihmisen toiminta vaikuttaisi olemattoman vähän siltä osin kuviteltuun ilmastokriisiin. Singer pohtii myös, voisiko hiilidioksidimäärän lisääntyminen alentaa maapallon lämpötilaa.

Kirjan loppupuolella pohditaankin poliittista agendaa koko ilmiön taustalla, ja Singer asettaa vastakkain kaksi perspektiiviä eli malthusilaisen ja kornukopianismin. Gro Harlem Bruntlandt, Norjan entinen pääministeri liittyy tähän siten, että hän lanseerasi 1980-luvulla käsitteen kestävä kehitys, jonka tavoitteena on yksinapainen maailmanhallitus, jossa Nato ja YK ovat keskeisiä toimijoita alaorganisaatioineen, lisäksi fossiilisten polttoaineiden käytön vähentäminen, maapallon väestön kutistaminen sekä aurinko- ja tuulivoiman edistäminen. Jälkimmäinen eli kornukopianismi perustuu uskomukseen, että maapallolla on tarpeeksi resursseja ja teknologiaa maailman väestön elättämiseen, mikä näyttää riittävältä antamaan ihmiskunnalle lähes rajattomasti kasvuvaraa antiikin runsaudensarvimyytin omaisesti.

Singer uskoo, että ihmisen toiminnalla ei juurikaan ole merkitystä ilmaston lämpenemisprosessissa (vajaan asteen verran sadan vuoden kuluessa). Malthusilaiset eivät tunnu uskovan, että ihmiset kyllä ympäristön tavoin sopeutuvat näin maltillisen lämpötilan nousuun, vaikka historia on osoittanut (esim. roomalainen ja keskiaikainen) lämpimämpien ajanjaksojen hyödyt ihmisten ruokkimiseksi. Kun ilmakehässä on enemmän hiilidioksidia ja lämpötilakin on nykyistä korkeampi, myös elintarviketuotanto hyötyy tästä, sillä lisäähän lisääntynyt hiilidioksidi kasvimassaa: mitä enemmän CO2:ta sitä enemmän satoa.

Harva ihminen on Singerin mielestä riittävästi valveilla, että on huomannut, minkälainen agenda on kaikenlaisilla päästörajoituksilla ja -verotuksella. Poliittisen ohjauksen avulla pyritään kielloin ja rajoituksin kiihdyttämään siirtymää ei-fossiilisiin energialähteisiin, kuten tuuli- vesi-, aurinko- ja ydinvoimaan lisäämällä polttoaineiden verotusta ja naamioimalla kaikenlaisia jakeluvelvoitteiden lisäämistä esimerkiksi dieselautoilla ajavien elämän kurjistamiseksi.

Kesällä 2023 valtavirtamedia revittelee otsikoita, että maapallolla on kaikkien aikojen lämpöennätykset menneet rikki, mutta eihän tämä pidä paikkansa, vaan meneillään on pleistoseeninen jääkausi ja sen viimeinen vaihe, ja itse asiassa ilmasto on viilentynyt viimeiset 4000 tuhatta vuotta. Onkin hyvä pysähtyä miettimään tällaisten otsikoiden edessä mihin pyritään, kun esitetään, että ilmasto lämpenee. ICPP ja muut vastaavan kaltaiset poliittiset toimijat mielellään aloittavat lasku-urakkansa noin sadan vuoden takaa, mutta tällöinkin yleensä jätetään välistä lämmin jakso 1910–1940-luvulle, sillä eihän sellainen sovi nykyiseen narratiiviin, jossa lämpenemisen ajurina väitetään olevan (vailla tieteellistä konsensusta) nimenomaan CO2-päästöt.

[George B. Mallory, Jr.]

Sensible

Fred Singer he the credentials to speak plainly and definitively to the public about the science of climate change and the corruption s of the environmental movement. I heartily endorse this book.

[Colin Lanier · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is well written. If you want to read this to get a different perspective on climate change, it is an interesting read, but it is important to double-check the information that you are given, especially when the vast majority of scientists disagree with his ideas.

This is the same man who was paid by the tobacco industry and argued that second-hand smoke from cigarettes was not harmful. It has since been exposed he was paid by ExxonMobil for his work in climate change denial, or "skepticism" as he calls it. It is healthy to practice skepticism in research methodology, but it seems his intention is not to make it better, but to dismantle the evidence that politicians use to enact policy, as he made clear in the book. I bet Exxon was very happy with that conclusion.

Singer presents only his own research that proves his own point without any discussion of counter-arguments. His claims hinge on the idea that emissions follow after raising global temperatures, therefore how could emissions be causing global warming? Yet, there are many explanations for this. The world's oceans are the largest carbon sink, and when the temperatures rise, the solubility of carbon decreases, so more carbon is released into the air and then the atmosphere. A similar phenomenon happens with the polar ice caps, in which the heat melts the ice and the carbon that was once trapped in the glaciers is released.

[J]

Here are some of the interesting issues the author raises to question whether man's activities are going to cause a global warming and the predicted negative effects:
-- urban heat island effect inflating temperature readings
-- increasing temperatures lead to increased evaporation, which might lead to increased snowfall at the poles, which might lead to a net decrease in sea level rather than a net increase from melting ice
-- computer models don't agree with observations, so we can't rely on them for predictions

Maybe these have been dealt with conclusively in other books or papers, I don't know.

I'm not a climate scientist, so I have great difficulty telling if this scientist's views are more well-supported than another scientist's. So the book leaves me in the same place I was when I started reading it, more or less, except that I am more familiar with the global warming critics' side.

Overall the book was a bit sloppy and repetitive in places. He doesn't define terms and writes as if the reader already knows what things like "radiative forcing" are. Sometimes he seems to use double standards, like on page 12 when he dismisses global climate models but cites evidence from other computer models that try to understand climate change: "Attempts have been made to 'fix' the discrepancy [between observations and computer model results:] by introducing into the GCMs the effects of sulfate aerosols said to cool and counteract the positive radiative forcing of greenhouse gases... But a recent modeling experiment indicates that the aerosol effect is minute and ascribes the lack of troposphere warming to a cooling of the stratosphere..."

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although a little dated, this book gives the best history of the global warming issue that I have ever seen in one place. Many charts, graphs and technical riffs can be skimmed; the text however is clear and important.

[William F · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sadly truth is lost when politics drives science.