Are the often alarming claims about global warming based on science and justified by the facts? Is the human race really facing a major crisis due to emissions from fossil fuels? Would the proposed Climate Treaty solve a real environmental threat or would it create worldwide economic and social harm? S. Fred Singer is a distinguished astrophysicist who has taken a hard, scientific look at the evidence. In this new book, Dr. Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to model climate on computers, solar variability and its impact on climate, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate. Singer’s masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of any global warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would actually have a positive impact on the human race. Further, Singer notes how many proposed “solutions” to the global warming “crisis” (like “carbon” taxes) would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations. According to Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001: A Space Odyssey , Hot Talk, Cold Science dares to point out that ‘the Emperor has no clothes.’ Is there evidence to suggest discernible human influence on global climate? Of great interest, this book demonstrates that, at best, the evidence is sketchy and incomplete. Hot Talk, Cold Science is essential reading for anyone who wants to be fully informed about the global warming debate. " Hot Talk, Cold Science will be difficult to dismiss, though many will undoubtedly wish to do so.” —Frederick Seitz, past president, National Academy of Sciences; president emeritus, Rockefeller University S. Fred Singer is research fellow at The Independent Institute, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and a distinguished research fellow at the Institute for Space Science and Technology. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is the former director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and former chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation. Hot Talk Cold Science Global Warming's Unfinished Debate By S. Fred Singer The Independent Institute Copyright © 1999 S. Fred Singer All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-0-945999-81-2 Contents Acknowledgments, Foreword Frederick Seitz, Preface, 1 Overview: The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty, 2 Unfinished Business: Scientific Issues to Be Resolved, 3 Epilogue: What to Do about Greenhouse Effects, Notes, Appendix: Mitigation of Climate Change: A Scientific and Economic Appraisal, References, About the Author, Index, CHAPTER 1 Overview The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty A driving force behind the push for a global climate treaty has been the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Through a series of well-publicized reports — co-authored by teams of scientists and policy specialists — the IPCC has come to be viewed by many governmental agencies, environmental policy organizations and the media as the leading source of scientific information on climate change. It is for this reason that I focus much of my attention on reports issued by this esteemed organization. The major conclusion of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC WG-I 1996) — that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" — cannot and should not be used to validate current Global Circulation Models (GCMs). The growing discrepancy between weather satellite observations, backed by balloon radiosonde data, and the results of computer models, throws doubt on the models' adequacy to predict a future warming. An earlier IPCC (1990) conclusion that observed and calculated temperature changes are "broadly consistent" is no longer accepted; the current IPCC explanation of the acknowledged discrepancy in terms of cooling effects from anthropogenic (man-made) sulfate aerosols is being increasingly disputed. There exist different, competing views about the cause(s) of the discrepancy — including exogenous factors like solar variability, and endogenous factors like clouds or water vapor distribution — all inadequately treated by current computer models. The models do not include a variety of human influences, ranging from possible climate effects of air traffic to the diversion of fresh water from the Mediterranean. Even if a moderate warming were to materialize, its consequences would be largely benign — for other climate parameters, for sea-level changes, and for agricultural production. The goal of the Global Climate Treaty — avoiding a "dangerous" level of greenhouse (GH) gases —