Comments on: Shocking climate quiz

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:08:07 +0000

Yes, but he doesn’t think the words apply to global warming. We live on a strange planet!

By: IANVS

IANVS — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:03:00 +0000

Fred,

“If we ignore the present warning signs and wait for an ecological disaster to strike, it will probably be too late.”

“And I would agree with it even today.”

Can we quote you on that?

By: Paul K

Paul K — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:06:32 +0000

Joe,
It is wonderful that S.F. Singer has replied to your post. Here’s hoping he sees the general politeness and seriousness – except when telling a joke – of your site and becomes a daily reader. It seems he has never believed in AGW. He demonstrates that environmentalism and fear of climate catastrophe are far from congruent.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:17:15 +0000

Wow! Who knew S.F.S. reads this blog.

Record wildfires, droughts, floods, however, do not qualify as ‘greening’ the earth and improving agriculture and forestry in my book — or in the book of most scientists.

Maybe, “browning” the earth.

As someone once said, “If we ignore the present warning signs and wait for an ecological disaster to strike, it will probably be too late.”

By: S Fred Singer

S Fred Singer — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:52:07 +0000

One more thing to Paul and Ron:

I find the evidence against AGW very convincing — even if the IPCC ignores it.

By: S Fred Singer

S Fred Singer — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:49:25 +0000

Funny thing. I recognized my quote of long ago (40 years?) but cannot identify the context. And I would agree with it even today.

Anyway, since I am convinced that current warming is mostly natural –and not unusual — I don’t see a conflict here.

The increase in CO2 is not “degrading the environment” Most agree that it is ‘greening” the earth and improving agriculture and forestry

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:21:30 +0000

Why is that some Believers become skeptics after weighing the evidence, but you rarely hear of the reverse?

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:18:24 +0000

Very interesting. What made Singer so radically change his view on AGW?