Why is climate & dangers of smoking denier Fred Singer trying to ban 'Merchants of Doubt'. The docu never said he is a 'liar for hire'?

Question

On screen, the man widely regarded as the grandfather of climate denial appears a genial participant in a newly-released expose about industry’s efforts to block action on global warming.

But behind the scenes, Fred Singer has lobbied fellow climate deniers to try to block the film, Merchants of Doubt, and raised the prospect of legal action against the filmmaker.

“It’s exactly what we talk about in the film. It’s a product of a playbook which is to go after the messengers and attack and try and change the conversation, and try to intimidate, and it is very effective,” said Robert Kenner, the filmmaker.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/11/climate-sceptics-attempt-to-block-merchants-of-doubt-film

Answer 1

It's pretty clear why he would want to stop it. It exposes him for what he is to a wider audience than the book and it may be the end of his meal ticket. He is currently paid to deny global warming and spread confusion about the issue and if he becomes widely seen as untrustworthy then people will stop paying him.



Also, if it really does have a video of him saying those things, then no one but a fool would take him seriously.

Answer 2

When I was looking into learning how to sing, improving my voice and vocal depth, I found something of great help. Learn here https://tr.im/7eapa

by following the program, I have noticed major differences in my singing ability, and I have learned how to hit notes I never would have previously imagined. I've always been part of my church choir, and every else also notices the improvements. I found that with this, as anything else, consistency and perserverence are key. Practice makes perfect. But having some great professional help along the way certainly doesn't hurt! Anyhoo, take care!

Answer 3

Siegfried is exposed in the book (and presumably in the movie book too) and no doubt doesn't like it. But any attempts to spin his way out are ultimately hopeless. The historical track record is a lengthy one and undeniable. When he was in his prime the science was indeed uncertain, but not for the past couple of decades. His legacy of deception will live on long after he is gone and his real contributions to science (not in the climate area) are forgotten.

Answer 4

It is the same as in the Inconvenient Truth. They were forcing this proven crap down the school children's throats.



Why should anyone give free reign to a bunch of lies? So how do you fight outright lies?



Goebbels even admitted how to do this, "for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie." And since this is a free country,he will never win an all out banning of the book. But he will put in publice notice the falsehood of GW. Also, there might be a court action where the writers will have to prove their crap.



Remember, the truth is the enemy of the lie. You greenies are so afraid of the truth. Boo!

Answer 5

That Oreskes chick is some piece of work:



"Oreskes can name virtually no significant funding for skeptics. Skeptics are almost all unpaid volunteers, working out of professional and patriotic duty, appalled by the illogical, anti-science sentiments of people like Oreskes.



The enormous “vested interests” are well over a thousand to one in favor of alarmism as measured by funding, yet Oreskes has not even considered them. The largest proactive skeptical organization (Heartland) has a budget that is one hundredth of Greenpeace and WWF’s combined. Funding for alarmist research since 1990 is at least $79 billion, and probably a lot higher. Funding for skeptical research is so small, no one can add it up.



The oil giants like Shell and BPmostly support alarmism and carbon markets.



She resorts to twenty year old documents about tobacco funding to smear by association because she has so little real evidence of actual funding or misbehavior of skeptics. As it happens, Fred Singer was never directly paid by a tobacco company, has never doubted that smoking causes cancer, but corrected a scientific error in a paper on passive smoking. He deserves thanks. Oreskes owes him an apology.



Skeptics far outrank believers in both numbers and in scientific kudos. They have won real Nobel Prizes in physics, the climate scientists Oreskes quotes have won “Peace Prizes”. Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists including 9,000 PhD’s and hundreds of professors. The IPCC can name 62 people who reviewed the critical chapter nine of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, some of them reviewing their own work. Alarmists don’t try to counter the Petition Project with a petition of their own because, even with all their supporters on the scientific gravy train, they don’t stand a chance of coming up with a number large enough to prop up their claims that 97% of scientists agree.



Oreskes claims “deniers” attack the messenger, which on it’s face is true, except that she is the one who denies the evidence and attacks the messenger. She is the Queen of Smear and The Merchant of Doubt herself. Virtually no one has done more to smear opponents in this debate than she has."

Answer 6

Are you asking why someone would want to stop a film designed solely to attack them???



I was wondering,... I want to make a film that talks about you raping little kids, Chuck. Surely you are willing to give me a few hundred thousand to help me release my film.



What? You don't want to??? I don't understand? Your not wanting to means you rape little children, doesn't it???



What??? It doesn't???



Holy crap. You do know how to use logical reasoning. Now try applying it to other areas.



Edit:

Please note Chuck, that I am not suggesting you rape little kids. What I am saying is that:



1.) Me making the claim does not make it true.

2.) You calling it a lie, does not make you guilty.



For some reason you seem to not understand 1 and 2. I don't know why you do not. You know you don't rape little kids and you would be angry with anyone that suggests you do, RIGHT???



So you have the ability to understand #1 and 2 in SOME circumstances. Now lets try applying your knowledge to ALL circumstances, not just some, MKAY.



Chuck,

So I have you correct, you are calling me a commie for wanting less gov't and less gov't control??? I am pretty sure you don't know what communism actually means. Also, I am not suggesting you should not have freedom of speech. Instead I am exercising my freedom of speech by telling you why you are wrong. Note that I actually tell you why you are wrong and don't just say you are wrong and insult.



CLEARLY though, you do not seem to listen when I use non-extreme examples. I have to make you see how your logic if misapplied, leads to stupid results in a way that affects YOU. For some reason, you just ignore logic, unless it directly applies to you.



Gring0,

Why do you lick Dog anus? You don't, you say? That is just what a dog anus licker would say.



I can apply this absurd logic to anything I want to use as an insult. IT IS ABSURD LOGIC!!!.



Asking why someone is against a film that calls the person a liar, is stupid. It the whole witch trials over again.



"I am not a witch" followed by "That's exactly what a witch would say, so you must be a witch."



It is stupid logic. You know it is stupid logic.

Answer 7

"Oreskes said such attacks were typical of Singer. “This is what he does.” she wrote in an email."



Oreskes who a whole book based on a personal attack. And did a film about it as well. And she's wondering why there is a push back??

Answer 8

He was called “a liar for hire” in the documentary in the media coverage which is probably enough to win a libel suit. Why would you care?

Answer 9

Fred Singer and Roger Revelle (Al Gore's highly reveared mentor) teamed up with Chauncey Starr to write an article begging scientists and Governments to NOT move too fast on curbing CO2 emissions.



Roger Revelle also "apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming" to BIG BUSINESS and BIG GOVERNMENT thinkers.



Try researching "The Grandfather of Global Warming" - Roger Revelle, instead of your useless attempts at black-balling Fred Singer. You don't even know the guy or what he stood for. Fred Singer knew Roger Revelle very well and together have made sense of your "Climate Clown" activism and where it has come from.



BTW - Although I know that cigarette smoking can be hard on the body, the truth of the matter is that the over-zealous, anti-smoking crowd continue to over-blow the reality of deaths and health issues caused by smoking. The % is a lot smaller than they continue to claim.



Additionally :



Thumbs up to O.M.'s remarks. Oreskes has been an environmental wacko EXTREMIST for many years and continues to make irrational remarks about intelligent people that make absolutely no sense.



" ... Oreskes is the author of one of the silliest articles ever to appear in the journal Science. She claimed that she analyzed 928 peer-reviewed papers on global warming and 100% agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concerning global warming. If you go to the website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) you can find hundreds of peer reviewed papers that disagree with the IPCC in one way or another.



Her latest book, with co-author Erik Conway, is Merchants of Doubt. In this tedious book she treats us to the details of numerous disputes between those who subscribe to normative environmental theology and those who don't. Normative environmental theology is the sort of theology that is preached by the Sierra Club or the Union of Concerned Scientists. Oreskes is a professor and an important administrator at the University of California. Like Chomsky, she cloaks her endless conspiracy theories in the machinery of scholarship. Her 343 page book has 64 pages of notes. A pig with lipstick is still a pig. ... "



" ... In the introduction to Merchants of Doubt the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the stratosphere to cool and the troposphere to warm is explained as follows:



' But if the warming is caused by greenhouse gases emitted at the surface and largely trapped in the lower atmosphere, then we expect the troposphere to warm, but the stratosphere to cool. '



It is a bit difficult to know what this sentence means but it is clear that Oreskes hasn't the faintest idea concerning radiation and the role of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) are not trapped in the lower atmosphere but are well mixed up to and including the stratosphere. CO2 causes the stratosphere to cool because CO2 is a good radiator of infrared radiation and thus improves the capability to exhaust stratospheric heat to space as radiation. Cooling of the stratosphere is not evidence of global warming. It is evidence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The distinction is important. ... "

Answer 10

it soes not fit his senile mindset.

Answer 11

it does not agree with his ideas