Writing
Singer has written frequently in the mainstream press throughout his academic career, including in
The New York Times,
Washington Post and
Wall Street Journal, often striking up positions that go against mainstream thinking, his overall position one of distrust of federal regulations and a faith in the free market. He believes 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.
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 energy crisis and said it was largely a media event. 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 CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss. Kert Davies of Greenpeace told ABC News in March 2008 that Singer was a career skeptic. "He believes that environmental problems are all overblown," Davies said, "and he's made a career on being that voice."
During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, he argued that smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires would have little impact, in opposition to most commentators. He debated the astronomer Carl Sagan on ABC's
Nightline, Sagan arguing that the smoke might loft into the upper atmosphere and lead to massive agricultural failures. Singer argued that it would rise to then be rained out after a few days. Singer's position proved correct: the fires had little impact beyond the Gulf region.
The public debates in which Singer has received most criticism have been about secondhand smoke and global warming. He has questioned the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, and has been an outspoken opponent of the mainstream scientific view on climate change; he argues 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. 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.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway named Singer in their book,
Merchants of Doubt, as one of three contrarian physicists—along with Fred Seitz and Bill Nierenberg—who regularly inject 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.
Secondhand smoke
In 1994 Singer was involved as a writer and reviewer of a report on secondhand smoke published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, of which Singer was a senior fellow at the time. The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science". Singer also appeared on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces defending the industry’s views, according to Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous writing in the
American Journal of Public Health.
British journalist George Monbiot wrote in
The Guardian in 2006 that APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo mentioning Singer in 1993 to Ellen Merlo, vice-president of Philip Morris USA, the tobacco company. Philip Morris had just commissioned APCO to help rebut the EPA's 1993 study. The memo said: "As you know, we have been working with Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..." Monbiot writes that an article written by Singer..."Junk Science at the EPA"...said that the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke were based on what Singer called a shocking distortion of scientific evidence, and that the EPA had had to rig the numbers in its report. Monbiot added that he had no evidence that Singer had been paid by Philip Morris.Monbiot, George. "The denial industry",
The Guardian, September 19, 2006; Monbiot, George. "Birthing of 'junk science'",
The Guardian, undated.
Singer told CBC's
The Fifth Estate in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had "cooked the data" to show that secondhand 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. Singer told CBC that 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."
Global warming
Singer's position
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. 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."
"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 CO2 is making a detectable difference. It should in principle, however the atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it causes warming." 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."
SEPP
In 1990, Singer set up the Scientific & Environmental Protection 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 frequently to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use. He 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, Singer continued to argue from a skeptical position.
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. Scientists Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote in 1998 that Singer had used results that did not include the cooling effects of aerosols in the atmosphere and had failed to include the actual temperatures of the 1980s.
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. A paper by Benjamin Santer and colleagues argued that Singer and coauthors had erred in neglecting the effects of inter-annual temperature trends, and that they had used a statistical method that erroneously made the modeled and observed temperatures appear to disagree. Santer's work found that the method indicated disagreement even when tested with synthetic data sets that had been deliberately constructed to agree with one another.
Funding
Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated to the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank run by the Unification Church. 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. Scheuering writes that Singer has since cut ties with the Washington Institute, and receives funding through consultancy work and grants from foundations and oil companies, such as ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Unocal. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering writes that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies who pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Opposition to the IPCC
In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued 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 magazine saying the IPCC report had presented material selectively. He wrote: "The summary does not mention that the satellite data...the only truly global measurements, available since 1979...show no warming at all, but actually a slight cooling." Scheuering writes that Singer acknowledges the surface thermometers from weather stations do show warming, but he argues that the satellites provide better data because their measurements cover pole to pole. According to Scheuering, Singer's critics say the weather satellite record only goes back to 1979, and that satellite readings have failed to account for differences in measurement from the gradual decay of satellite orbits; when those readings are corrected, they show the same warming trend as the ground measurements.
Leipzig Declaration
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 dioxide emissions from only a part of the world community...is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living.
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. Danish journalist Øjvind Hesselager wrote that out of the 33 Europeans listed as signatories to the Declaration, 12 denied having signed it with two saying they had never even heard of it.
NIPCC
More recently, Singer has set up the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); the idea had occurred to him in 2004 when a group of scientists met at a United Nations climate conference in Milan. NIPCC organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007, and calls itself an international coalition of scientists that provide what they say is an independent examination of the evidence for climate change.
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. 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."
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Singer was interviewed for the documentary,
The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on Britain's Channel 4 in 2007. The program presented the climate-change debate from the minority skeptical perspective.
Climategate
In December 2009, after hundreds of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit were leaked...a controversy that came to be known as "Climategate"...Singer wrote a Reuters blog entry accusing the scientists of suppressing data, smearing opponents, and misusing the peer review process. He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, further arguing that the temperature trends were heading downwards even as greenhouse gasses like CO2 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 is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all." When the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Science and Technology Select Committee issued a report largely exonerating the scientists concerned, Singer wrote an editorial for
Watts Up With That? describing the result as a whitewash.