Fred Singer, a world famous and controversial figure in the realm of climate change science, said Tuesday at a campus lecture he does not believe the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, a point of view that raised many skeptical questions.

At the lecture, which was hosted by the University of Texas Objectivism Society, Singer said since CO2 is a greenhouse gas it should in theory cause the earth to warm, but there isn’t enough data showing that the earth is actually warming in a way that cannot be explained by natural cycles.

“ According to theory the increase in CO2 should be causing a warming…that’s what planet models show,” said Singer, “ but the models simulate the atmosphere in an imperfect way.”

The earth’s climate cycles have caused periods of warming and chilling in the past, said Singer, referencing events like the Ice age and Medieval Warm Period. But since 1800, Singer said the earth has been in a general warming period.

“ I look at all this as a natural cycle, it’s still warming…and then it will probably cool again,” said Singer, referencing the book he co-authored ‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years,’ which professes the same point of view.

However, although Singer said he believes the earth is in a warming period, he believes the warming observed from 1978 to 2000 by surface readings, is “not real.”

To support his claim of no significant warming during this time period, he referenced oceanic readings, atmospheric readings and non-thermometer proxy readings, like tree rings a stalagmite growth that he interpreted as showing no warming. The discrepancy between these readings and the surface ones is an issue he calls problematic.

“That’s a polite way of saying we don’t accept it, ” said Singer.

Throughout the lecture Singer referred to PowerPoint slides with charts and graphs showing temperature trends for various spans of times taken by different means.

Singer’s hour-long lecture was followed with about a half hour of questions, many which questioned his conclusion that CO2 is not a major global warming player and that the temperature has been increasing in recent years. Stavana Strutz, a PhD candidate in ecology, evolution and behavior at UT, took the most confrontational manner with Singer and accused him of leaving out data that conflict with his conclusion.

“How do you justify leaving out data in your analysis after 2000? How do you justify not including the trends from 1850 up to 1978 in your warming analysis trend?” she asked Singer.

Strutz, who crunched global temperature readings to see the warming trend for herself, said she came to the lecture to represent an alternative voice to Singer’s point of view.

"I wanted there to be a response here to point out flaws in what he’s saying,” said Strutz. “ A lot of scientists I invited didn’t want to come because they didn’t want to give the impression of what he was saying was legitimate.”

Clark Wilson, a member of the UT Objectivist Society, said he’s glad that Singer came to speak because it provided an alternative voice to the global warming issue.

“Just because I’m an objectivist doesn’t mean I believe green energy is a hoax… as an objectivist I want to know both sides,” said Wilson.

However, Charles Jackson, a research scientist for the Institute of Geophysics and part of the UT faculty at the Jackson school of Geosciences, says that much of the evidence Singer refers to is less of an alternative opinion and more bad science.

“ A lot of these points that are being made [by climate change skeptics] aren’t even of interest to science because they don’t hold much merit,” said Jackson, who attended a Singer lecture with colleagues on campus two years ago. “ It was clear to us he didn’t understand how climate records are made and when these things were pointed out to him he just changed the topic.”

Contrary to Singer’s view, Jackson said that the planet is warming and that the rate of effects like sea ice melting and sea level rising are consistent with CO2 being the causative agent.

“We know the rate of effects of the greenhouse gasses, so if we didn’t see a warming we would be wondering why, “ said Jackson. “...It would be astonishing not to see it. “

The National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council the American Geophysical Union, among others, all says that global warming is hugely influenced by humans releasing excess CO2 into the atmosphere. Jackson said that among climate scientists the question isn’t if global warming is happening, but how fast it is occurring and how large of an effect it will have on society.

But hearing people like Singer say that there is no evidence for global warming and other scientists say the opposite can be a frustrating experience for a regular person trying to understand a complicated issue.

“For all you know it’s two experts who disagree,” said Jackson. “ It’s good for people to understand the strength of the evidence [for human caused global warming] themselves.”

Jackson said that the general public can get a better understanding by looking at scientific communities, like scientific societies and research institutions, instead of taking the word of a single source. “The data that exists is all public and if you are so inclined, you can dig up all the evidence and convince yourself.”

Check out the Climate Change evidence yourself:

Singer website:www.sepp.org/

Jackson website: www.utexas.edu/know/2010/11/08/climate_myths/

IPPC website: www.ipcc.ch/