MarineHawk
Singer was hired by tobacco to thwart EPA attacks/regulations on tobacco. Excerpt and then link. Google his name. He was on tobacco payroll and now receives oil money to spin climate change. It's all over the net and is no secret.
"Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]
In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]
[edit]
Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...S._Fred_Singer
And then documents verifying he receives money from big oil. Snippets and link.
Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies.[26] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot claimed that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[27] Monbiot also added that "I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money from Philip Morris."
In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed specifically in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Star here........
I don't usually like citing wiki for data, but if you prefer another source - it's all over the net.
So, let me get this straight. You dismiss the scientific assertions of all of the independent climate scientists that concur, through peer reviewed papers, that climate change is indeed occurring and that man is a contributing component of this occurrence; yet you support a sole "climate scientist's" findings whose findings have resulted from the funding of big oil?
This the position that you've just stated and with that I say we should close this thread. You're the only individual here to have contributed anything meaningful to this discussion and the basis of your position is now well understood. Throw out the peer reviewed opinions of the majority of climate scientists in favor of the one that receives funding from oil.
Also, I wasn't trying to debate or inflame a negative discussion with you on the war. In case you haven't noticed a trend here, I try to obtain unbiased information in order to arrive at my conclusions. I feel that we may not be receiving accurate representation of the Iraq war as both parties that I spoke with (both served there) espoused much progress and all I hear through the media is negative. I haven't had time to read the links you provided concerning your position on same, but I'm interested and will do so. Again, thanks for the consideration on this. I'm trying to get more info on the matter through unbiased sources. If you served our country, you're service is appreciated. I'm grateful you're alive to speak of it.