Editing Fred Singer (section)

==Public debates==

===Writing===
Throughout his academic career Singer wrote frequently in the mainstream press, including ''The New York Times'', ''The Washington Post'', and ''Wall Street Journal'', often striking up positions disputing mainstream thinking. His overall position was one of distrust of federal regulations and a strong belief in the efficacy of the [[free market]]. He believed in what Rachel White Scheuering calls "[[free-market environmentalism]]": that market principles and incentives should be sufficient to lead to the protection of the environment and conservation of resources.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> Regular themes in his articles have been energy, oil embargoes, [[OPEC]], Iran, and rising prices. Throughout the 1970s, for example, he downplayed the idea of an [[1970s energy crisis|energy crisis]] and said it was largely a media event.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /><ref>[http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html "S. Fred Singer Ph.D."] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060928135220/http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html |date=September 28, 2006 }}, Scientific & Environmental Protection Project, accessed May 18, 2010.</ref> In several papers in the 1990s and 2000s he struck up other positions against the mainstream, questioning the link between [[UV-B]] and [[melanoma]] rates, and that between [[Haloalkane#Chlorofluoro compounds (CFC, HCFC, HFC)|CFCs]] and stratospheric ozone loss.<ref name="Ozone, Skin Cancer, and the SST"/>

In October 1967, Singer wrote an article for ''The Washington Post'' from the perspective of 2007. His predictions included that planets had been explored but not colonized, and although rockets had become more powerful they had not replaced aircraft and ramjet vehicles. None of the fundamental laws of physics had been overturned. There was increased reliance on the electronic computer and data processor; the most exciting development was the increase in human intellect by direct electronic storage of information in the brain—the [[Brain–computer interface|coupling]] of the brain to an external computer, thereby gaining direct access to an information library.<ref name=SingerOct1967>Singer, S. Fred. [https://archive.today/20130131204145/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/185635742.html?FMT=AI&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Oct+1,+1967&author=By+S.+Fred+Singer&desc=Looking+Back+From+A.D.+2007 "Looking Back From A.D. 2007"], ''The Washington Post'', October 1, 1967.</ref>

He debated the astronomer [[Carl Sagan]] on ABC's ''Nightline'', regarding the possible environmental effects of the [[Kuwaiti oil fires]]. Sagan argued that if enough fire-fighting teams were not assembled in short order, and if many fires were left to burn over a period of months to possibly a year, the smoke might loft into the [[upper atmosphere]] and lead to massive agricultural failures over South Asia. Singer argued that it would rise to {{convert|3000|ft|m}} then be rained out after a few days.<ref>"First Israeli scud fatalities oil fires in Kuwait", ''Nightline'', ABC News, January 22, 1991.</ref> In fact, both Sagan and Singer were incorrect; smoke plumes from the fires rose to 10,000&ndash;12,000 feet and lingered for nearly a month,<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_s04.htm#IV.%20AIR%20POLLUTANTS%20FROM%20OIL%20FIRES%20AND%20OTHER%20SOURCES | title = Environmental Exposure Report: Oil Well Fires | publisher = U.S. Department of Defense | date = August 2, 2000 | access-date = September 15, 2014 | archive-date = September 24, 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150924024302/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/owf_ii/owf_ii_s04.htm#IV.%20AIR%20POLLUTANTS%20FROM%20OIL%20FIRES%20AND%20OTHER%20SOURCES | url-status = dead }}</ref> but despite absorbing 75&ndash;80% of the sun's radiation in the Persian Gulf area the plumes had little global effect.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Hobbs PV, Radke LF |title=Airborne studies of the smoke from the kuwait oil fires |journal=Science |volume=256 |issue=5059 |pages=987–91 | date=May 1992 |pmid=17795001 |doi=10.1126/science.256.5059.987 |bibcode=1992Sci...256..987H |s2cid=43394877 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1231018 }}</ref>

The public debates in which Singer received most criticism have been about [[second-hand smoke]] and global warming. He questioned the link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer, and was an outspoken opponent of the mainstream scientific view on [[climate change]]; he argued there is no evidence that increases in [[carbon dioxide]] produced by human beings is causing [[global warming]] and that the temperature of the Earth has always varied.<ref name="Gray2009" /> A CBC ''Fifth Estate'' documentary in 2006 linked these two debates, naming Singer as a scientist who has acted as a consultant to industry in both areas, either directly or through a public relations firm.<ref name=CBCsmoking/> [[Naomi Oreskes]] and [[Erik M. Conway|Erik Conway]] named Singer in their book, ''[[Merchants of Doubt]]'', as one of three contrarian physicists&mdash;along with [[Fred Seitz]] and [[William Nierenberg|Bill Nierenberg]]&mdash;who regularly injected themselves into the public debate about contentious scientific issues, positioning themselves as skeptics, their views gaining traction because the media gives them equal time out of a sense of fairness.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brown |first=Seth |date=2010-06-01 |title='Merchants of Doubt' delves into contrarian scientists |url=https://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2010-06-01-deathmerchants01_ST_N.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100601083553/https://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2010-06-01-deathmerchants01_ST_N.htm |archive-date=2010-06-01 |access-date=2023-08-04 |website=[[USA Today]]}}</ref>

===Second-hand smoke===
According to [[David Biello]] and [[John Pavlus]] in ''[[Scientific American]]'', Singer was best known for his denial of the health risks of [[passive smoking]].<ref>Biello, David and Pavlus, John. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=even-skeptics-admin-global-warming-is-real-video "Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real"], ''Scientific American'', March 18, 2008.</ref> He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the [[Alexis de Tocqueville Institution]], where he was a senior fellow.<ref>Singer, S. Fred and Jeffreys, Kent. [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=ymo86b00&page=18 "The EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke"], courtesy of the University of California, San Francisco, see page 18 for the authors, undated, accessed May 18, 2010. A prepublication draft of the report was archived in the files of Walter Woodson, Vice President-Public Affairs of the Tobacco Institute: [http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756102-6120.html scan] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130329220215/http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756102-6120.html |date=March 29, 2013 }} (accessed December 26, 2012). When the report was released by the de Tocqueville institution as the first chapter of the report ''Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination'', Singer's credit was changed from lead author to "reviewer".
* For the final version of the report, see [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/d/v/r/dvr49b00/Sdvr49b00.pdf "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination"], Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, August 11, 1994, accessed December 26, 2012</ref> The report criticized the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "[[junk science]]". Singer told [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]]'s ''The Fifth Estate'' in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had "cooked the data" to show that [[second-hand smoke]] causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by [[APCO Worldwide#The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition controversy|APCO]]. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. "They don't carry a note on a dollar bill saying 'This comes from the tobacco industry,'" he said. "In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn't ask APCO where they get their money. That's not my business."<ref name=CBCsmoking />

===Global warming===
In a 2003 letter to the ''[[Financial Times]]'', Singer wrote that "there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming."<ref>{{cite news |title=Climate concern is just a tax ruse |last=Singer |first=S. |newspaper=[[Financial Times]] |location=London |date=November 26, 2003}}</ref> In 2006, the CBC's ''Fifth Estate'' named Singer as one of a small group of scientists who have created what the documentary called a stand-off that is undermining the political response to global warming.<ref name=CBCsmoking /> The following year he appeared on the British Channel 4 documentary ''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]''.<ref>Gibson, Owen and Adam, David. [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/jul/22/channel4.ofcom "Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists"], ''The Guardian'', July 22, 2008.</ref> Singer argues there is no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans cause global warming, and that if temperatures do rise it will be good for humankind. He told CBC: "It was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. Vikings settled Greenland. Is that good or bad? I think it's good. They grew wine in England, in northern England. I think that's good. At least some people think so."<ref>"The Denial Machine," 20:10 mins.</ref> "We are certainly putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," he told ''The Daily Telegraph'' in 2009. "However there is no evidence that this high CO<sub>2</sub> is making a detectable difference. It should in principle, however the atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO<sub>2</sub> is a greenhouse gas it causes warming."<ref name="Gray2009" /> He believes that radical environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers. "The underlying effort here seems to be to use global warming as an excuse to cut down the use of energy," he said. "It's very simple: if you cut back the use of energy, then you cut back economic growth. And believe it or not, there are people in the world who believe we have gone too far in economic growth."<ref name = "scheuering2004" />

Singers's opinions conflict with the [[scientific consensus on climate change]],<ref name="The MIT Press">{{cite book|title= Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren|editor1-last= DiMento|editor1-first= Joseph F. C.|editor2-last= Doughman|editor2-first= Pamela M.|year= 2007|publisher= The MIT Press|isbn= 978-0-262-54193-0|pages= [https://archive.org/details/climatechangewha00dime/page/n82 65]–66|contribution= The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?|last= Oreskes|first= Naomi|url-access= registration|url= https://archive.org/details/climatechangewha00dime}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | quote=The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together | publisher=IPCC | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf | title=CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers | access-date=March 7, 2015 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150227220848/http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf | archive-date=February 27, 2015 }}</ref> where there is overwhelming consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]], and a decisive link between carbon dioxide concentration and global average temperatures, as well as consensus that such a change to the climate will have dangerous consequences.<ref name="Stern">
{{cite book
 |title= The Economics of Climate Change — The Stern Review
 |first= Nicholas Herbert |last= Stern
 |author-link= Nicholas Stern
 |year= 2007
 |publisher= Cambridge University Press
 |location= Cambridge, UK
 |isbn= 978-0-521-70080-1
 |url= http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/climatology-and-climate-change/economics-climate-change-stern-review
 |access-date= February 19, 2014
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite news
 |title= How Dangerous Is Global Warming?
 |newspaper= [[Los Angeles Times]]
 |archive-date= September 27, 2007
|access-date=April 14, 2007
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220913/http://www.climateark.org/articles/2001/2nd/howdangi.htm
 |date= June 17, 2001
|url= https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/74167018.html?dids=74167018:74167018&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+17%2C+2001&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=M.3&desc=DIALOGUE
}}</ref> In 2005, [[Mother Jones (magazine)|''Mother Jones'']] magazine described Singer as a "godfather of [[climate change denial|global warming denial]]."<ref name="mj200505">{{cite news |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/put-tiger-your-think-tank |title=Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank |date=May 2005 |magazine=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]] |access-date=October 20, 2015}}</ref> However, Singer characterized himself as a "skeptic" rather than a "denier" of global climate change.

====SEPP and funding====
In 1990 Singer set up the [[Science & Environmental Policy Project]] (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the [[Earth Summit]], Singer started writing and speaking out to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use, and argued that the natural world and its weather patterns are complex and ill-understood, and that little is known about the dynamics of heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere, or the role of clouds. As the scientific consensus grew, he continued to argue from a dismissive position.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> He has repeatedly criticized the climate models that predict global warming. In 1994 he compared model results to observed temperatures and found that the predicted temperatures for 1950–1980 deviated from the temperatures that had actually occurred, from which he concluded in his regular column in ''The Washington Times''—with the headline that day "Climate Claims Wither under the Luminous Lights of Science"—that climate models are faulty. In 2007 he collaborated on a study that found tropospheric temperature trends of "Climate of the 20th Century" models differed from satellite observations by twice the model mean uncertainty.<ref>Douglass, David H.; Christy, John R.; Pearson, Benjamin D.; Singer, S. Fred. [https://archive.today/20130106012102/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"], ''International Journal of Climatology'', 28: 1693, December 5, 2007.</ref>

Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the [[Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy]], a think tank founded by [[Unification Church]] leader [[Sun Myung Moon]].<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> A 1990 article for the [[Cato Institute]] identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.<ref>Singer, S. Fred. {{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html |title=Environmental Strategies with Uncertain Science |access-date=January 15, 2003 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080110224712/http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html |archive-date=January 10, 2008 }}, ''Regulation'' 13(1), Winter 1990, Cato Institute.</ref> Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and was funded by foundations and oil companies.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> She writes that he was a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and [[Unocal]], and that SEPP had received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer said his financial relationships did not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.<ref name = "scheuering2004" />

In August 2007 ''Newsweek'' reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called "the denial machine" met at the [[American Petroleum Institute]]'s Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer's group, the [[George C. Marshall Institute]], and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.<ref name=Begley>Begley, Sharon. [http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/3 "The Truth About Denial"], ''Newsweek'', August 13, 2007.</ref> The week after the story, ''Newsweek'' published a contrary view from [[Robert Samuelson]], one of its columnists, who said the story of an industry-funded denial machine was contrived and fundamentally misleading.<ref>Samuelson, Robert. [http://www.newsweek.com/id/32312 "Greenhouse Simplicities"], ''Newsweek'', August 20–27, 2007.</ref> ABC News reported in March 2008 that Singer said he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but he acknowledged that SEPP had received one unsolicited charitable donation of $10,000 from ExxonMobil, and that it was one percent of all donations received. Singer said that his connection to Exxon was more like being on their mailing list than holding a paid position.<ref name=Harris>[[Dan Harris (journalist)|Harris, Dan]] et al. [https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4506059&page=1 "Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'?"], ABC News, March 23, 2008; Singer, S. Fred. [http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23002/Letter_to_ABC_News_from_Dr_S_Fred_Singer.html "Letter to ABC News from Dr. S. Fred Singer"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090827030100/http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23002/Letter_to_ABC_News_from_Dr_S_Fred_Singer.html |date=August 27, 2009 }}, Science & Environmental Policy Project, March 28, 2008, accessed May 16, 2010.</ref> The relationships have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community, according to Scheuering. Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer's credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /><ref>{{cite journal|last=Michaels|first=P. J.|author2=Singer, S. F. |author3=Knappenberger, P. C. |title=Analyzing Ultraviolet-B Radiation: Is There a Trend?|journal=Science|date=May 27, 1994|volume=264|issue=5163|pages=1341–1342|doi=10.1126/science.264.5163.1341|pmid=17780851|bibcode=1994Sci...264.1341M|doi-access=free}}</ref>

====Criticism of the IPCC====
{{Main|Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)}}
In 1995 the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) issued [[IPCC Second Assessment Report|a report]] reflecting the scientific consensus that the balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate. Singer responded with a letter to ''Science'' saying the IPCC report had presented material selectively. He wrote: "the Summary does not even mention the existence of 18 years of weather satellite data that show a slight global cooling trend, contradicting all theoretical models of climate warming."<ref>Singer, Fred. [http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item07.htm "Letter to Science: Changes in the Climate Change Report"], Science & Environmental Policy Project, July 3, 1996, accessed October 30, 2010. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090109153334/http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item07.htm Archived] on October 30, 2010.</ref> Scheuering writes that Singer acknowledges the surface thermometers from weather stations show warming, but he argues that the satellites provide better data because their measurements cover pole to pole.<ref name = "scheuering2004" />
According to Edward Parson and [[Andrew Dessler]], the satellite data did not show surface temperatures directly, but had to be adjusted using models. When adjustment was made for transient events the data showed a slight warming, and research suggested that the discrepancy between surface and satellite data was largely accounted for by problems such as instrument differences between satellites.<ref>Parson, Edward A., and Dessler, Andrew E. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Pvq4-5EdkW8C&pg=PA35 ''The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate'']. Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 35–37.</ref>

Singer wrote the "[[Leipzig Declaration]] on Global Climate Change in the U.S." in 1995, updating it in 1997 to rebut the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. The Kyoto Protocol was the result of an international convention held in Kyoto, Japan, during which several industrialized nations agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Singer's declaration read: "Energy is essential for economic growth ... We understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change; but we believe the Kyoto Protocol—to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only a part of the world community—is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living."<ref name = "scheuering2004" />

Scheuering writes that Singer circulated this in the United States and Europe and gathered 100 signatories, though she says some of the signatories' credentials were questioned. At least 20 were television weather reporters, some did not have science degrees, and 14 were listed as professors without specifying a field. According to Scheuering, some of them later said they believed they were signing a document in favour of action against climate change.<ref name = "scheuering2004" />

{{anchor|NIPCC}}Singer set up the '''Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change''' (NIPCC) in 2004 after the [[2003 United Nations Climate Change Conference]] in Milan. NIPCC organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007,<ref name=nature1/> to provide what they called an independent examination of the evidence for climate change.<ref>Johnson, Harriette and Bast, Joseph L. [https://archive.today/20120802185051/http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23062 "Climate Change Conference Invigorates Global Warming Debate"], ''Environment News'', The Heartland Institute, May 7, 2008.</ref> Singer prepared an NIPCC report called "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," published in March 2008 by the [[Heartland Institute]], a [[conservative think tank]].<ref name=nature1>Singer, S. Fred (ed.). [http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/singer_Nature_Not%20Human%20Activity,%20Rules%20the%20Climate.pdf "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate"]{{Dead link|date=June 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, March 2, 2008, accessed May 17, 2010.</ref> ABC News said the same month that unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton who spoke to ABC about the report dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense". In a letter of complaint to ABC News, Singer said their piece used "prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears".<ref name="Harris"/>

On September 18, 2013, the NIPCC's fourth report, entitled ''Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science,'' was published.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020171042/http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf |archive-date=2013-10-20 |url-status=live | title=Summary for Policymakers | publisher=[[The Heartland Institute]] | date=September 2013 | access-date=March 14, 2014}}</ref> As with previous NIPCC reports, environmentalists criticized it upon its publication; for example, [[David Suzuki]] wrote that it was "full of long-discredited claims, including that carbon dioxide emissions are good because they stimulate life".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/climate-change-deniers_b_3984750.html | title=Climate Change Deniers Don't Deserve an Equal Voice | work=[[Huffington Post]] | date=September 25, 2013 | access-date=March 14, 2014 | author=Suzuki, David}}</ref> After the report received favorable coverage from [[Fox News Channel]]'s [[Doug McKelway]],<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-study-says-threat-of-man-made-global-warming-greatly-exaggerated | title=New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated | work=[[Fox News Channel]] | date=September 19, 2013 | access-date=March 16, 2014 | author=McKelway, Doug}}</ref> climate scientists [[Kevin Trenberth]] and [[Michael Oppenheimer]] criticized this coverage, with Trenberth calling it "irresponsible journalism" and Oppenheimer calling it "flat out wrong".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/18/fox-equates-faux-un-climate-report-with-the-rea/195947 | title=Fox Equates Faux UN Climate Report With The Real Thing | work=[[Media Matters for America]] | date=September 18, 2013 | access-date=March 16, 2014 | author=McKelway, Doug}}</ref>

====Climategate====
In December 2009, after the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]], Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters in which he claimed the scientists had misused [[peer review]], pressured editors to prevent publication of alternative views, and smeared opponents. He also claimed the leaked e-mails showed that the "surface temperature data that [[IPCC]] relies on is based on distorted raw data and [[algorithm]]s that they will not share with the science community." He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, and that the temperature trends were heading downwards even as [[greenhouse gas]]es like [[carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] were increasing in the [[atmosphere]]. He wrote: "This negative correlation contradicts the results of the models that IPCC relies on and indicates that [[anthropogenic global warming]] (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all."<ref>Singer, Fred S. [https://web.archive.org/web/20091219085226/http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/ "Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle"], Reuters, December 14, 2009.</ref> A [[British House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] later issued a report that exonerated the scientists,<ref>Gillis, Justin. [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html "British Panel Clears Climate Scientists"], ''The New York Times'', July 7, 2010.</ref> 
and eight committees investigated the allegations, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.<ref name="6committees">The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: [http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html House of Commons Science and Technology Committee] (UK); [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html Independent Climate Change Review] (UK); [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html International Science Assessment Panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041910/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html |date=May 9, 2013 }} (UK); [https://web.archive.org/web/20100704031346/http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html Pennsylvania State University] [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html first panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100925191452/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html |date=September 25, 2010 }} and [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html second panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130074750/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html |date=January 30, 2012 }} (US); [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538 United States Environmental Protection Agency] (US); [https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/u-s-scientists-cleared-in-climategate-1.1031242 Department of Commerce] (US); [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html National Science Foundation] (US)</ref>