Home > SEPP

The project, based in Fairfax, Virginia, has since 1990 presented arguments against the "environmentalist" positions on ozone depletion and global warming theory. Its website regularly presents what it claims is evidence that the media and other institutions have shown bias in reporting on the global warming controversy.

SEPP claims that the United Nations panel on climate change ( IPCC) has produced misleading summaries of the work of scientists whose results did not support the IPCC's preordained conclusions. It strongly rejects the claim frequently voiced by the UN panel and the Democratic Party of the US, that a " scientific consensus" exists regarding the global warming hypothesis, contending that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol vastly overstate the degree of scientific certainty on climate change.

SEPP's board of directors and advisers is, according to Grist magazine, "made up primarily of retired scientists no longer active in the field, and many of whom are also on the board of the closely linked George C. Marshall Institute."

The SEPP site appears to be becoming out of date: it lists three science advisors [1] who are dead ( William Mitchell, William Nierenberg and Chauncey Starr ); the "key issues" page [2] says that "weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever" - this has not been true for some years (see satellite temperature measurementsSatellites have been measuring the temperature of the troposphere since 1979; the usable balloon ( radiosonde) record begins in 1958. Currently (July 2004) the trend in satellite data from the Mears et al version is +0. 129 °C/decade , from the Spencer an).

1 Views of the SEPP

SEPP has emerged as one of the chief opponents of the global warming hypothesis, dismissing it as an unvalidated theory. SEPP's position on global warming is summed up in these quotes from Dr. Singer's web site:

• ". . . at least two-thirds of the warming in this century occurred before 1940, i.e., before most of the increase in greenhouse gases. The period, 1940-1975, showed a cooling. More important perhaps, the highly accurate global temperature data from weather satellites show no warming whatsoever in the last 18 years, while the climate models predict a warming of 0.4 to 0.6 C. Clearly, the theoretical models have not been validated by actual observations. Why then should we trust them to predict a future warming?" (August 26, 1996) [3].

Note that the claim about "at least 2/3 of the warming" does not appear to be supported by the temperature record http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm. Further, the claim about no warming from the satellite record is currently wrong: the rise to-date (mid 2003) is 0.07-0.26 oC/decade, depending on which satellite record is used (see satellite temperature record); and climate models reproduce past temperature history quite accurately [4] (contrary to SEPPs claim here, (point 4)).

• "The possibility that global temperatures could rise because of an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a concern that needs to be monitored," says Singer. "But there has been no indication in the last century that we've seen anything other than natural climate fluctuations. Both greenhouse theory and computer models predict that global warming should be more rapid in the polar regions than anywhere else," he says, "but in July the Antarctic experienced the coldest weather on record." (Sept. 2, 1997) [5]

The claim that there is "no indication" of anything other than natural fluctuations is odd: most recent research (see anthropogenic climate change) suggests that recent warming is anthropogenic. Even Patrick MichaelsPatrick J. Michaels (born c. 1942?) is a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and the state climatologist for Virginia. His professional specialty was the influence of climate on agriculture. He is noted for his views as an op, a well-known "skeptic", has said: it is "proven humans are warming the atmosphere" [6]. Attempting to refute warming by quoting cooling in any one year is to confuse weather with climate.

SEPP was the author of the Leipzig DeclarationThis article is about the climate change declarations, not the Leipzig Declaration on Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change is a statement signed by 80, which it says was based on the conclusions drawn from a November 1995 conference in Leipzig, Germany, which SEPP organized with the European Academy for Environmental Affairs.

SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of Ozone depletion, asserting that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial [7]. This claim can be seen to be false by breaking the statement into components:

1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer
2. become well-mixed in the atmosphere
3. percolate into the stratosphere
4. and there release chlorine.

SEPP don't say which of 1-4 they consider controversial, so they must be considered one by one. 1 is a commonplace see CFC for example. 2 is also commonplace: e.g. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/, section 1.3 documents this. 3 is given in the same source, or even the SEPP page [8]. 4 ditto, "The situation changed in 1991, however, when NASA scientist C. Rinsland published data showing HCl increasing at about half the rate of HF, suggesting both natural and man-made sources (13)" says even SEPP, or the ozone depletion page.

Thus we see that each of statements 1-4 is true, and uncontroversial: the original statement is hence also true, and uncontroversial: the original SEPP claim is thus shown to be false.