Talk:Fred Singer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

somebody create a Quotes section. Include this: "Both air and water pollution have been virtually eliminated in developed nations." taken from here: http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/singer_interview.htm


(William M. Connolley 11:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Store this here for now while I think about adding it to article:

His last known science-type (as opposed to comment-type) paper is: RE-ANALYSIS OF THE NUCLEAR WINTER PHENOMENON, SINGER SF, METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, 38 (4): 228-239 1988. It has never been cited.

http://www.sepp.org/bios/singer/cvsfs.html Doesn't have a list, sadly.

Anyone know a more recent one?

Hi, not sure about it, but Web of Science gives back lots of newer articles (didn't check if they are scientific):
  • Singer, SF Oil depletionOIL GAS J 101 (31): 10-+ AUG 11 2003
  • Singer, SF Science editor bias on climate change?SCIENCE 301 (5633): 595-595 AUG 1 2003
  • Singer, SF Under the sunSCIENTIST 17 (12): 15-15 JUN 16 2003
  • Singer, SF Origin of phobos and deimos: Why we need samples.METEORIT PLANET SCI 37 (7): A131-A131 Suppl. S JUL 2002
  • Singer, SF Energy futuresTECHNOL REV 105 (3): 14-14 APR 2002
  • Singer, SF Bets off for oil peakGEOTIMES 47 (7): 4-4 JUL 2002
  • Singer, SF Global warming: An insignificant trend?SCIENCE 292 (5519): 1063-1063 MAY 11 2001
  • Singer, SF Difficulty in reconciling global-warming dataNATURE 409 (6818): 281-281 JAN 18 2001
  • Singer, SF To Mars by way of its moonsSCI AM 282 (3): 56-57 MAR 2000

Singer, SF, Talvacchia, J, Watson, N Nontoric Hamiltonian circle actions on four-dimensional symplectic orbifolds P AM MATH SOC 127 (3): 937-940 MAR 1999

--till we *) 13:02, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC) (with reformatting by WMC)

(William M. Connolley 18:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)) I don't think the last one is the same SFS though! Not his style. I think we're using the same source. I found the ones you mention above, but, ha ha, they don't count, because they are all comment-type not science type (I think): letters to the editor and the like. I looked at a few of them on WoS and they didn't have abstracts online: which is usually a sign of a comment piece.

Reverted deletion of of "The Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy" as being founded by the unitarian church. This is interesting information which provides insight to the reader as to the foudation's beliefs and there is seemingly no need to delete it.--Deglr6328 02:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  1. It's not the Unitarian but the Unification Church.
  2. The connection is described in more detail at Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy.
  3. No reason to emphasize founding or funding sources unless it's part of someone's argument that these sources have affected the institute's objectivity. --Uncle Ed 19:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My mistake about the Unitarian/Unification mixup. I will not re-revert the changes, as an edit war on such a trivial matter would indeed be preposterous. I will say, however, that I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the only reason to mention the founders of the organization must have some devious ulterior motive. If the organization's objectivity is not in question to begin with, perhaps you can help me understand why there would be any protest at all to simply stating its founder's name? Anyway, enough of this trifling. Lastly, and I absolutely do not wish to condescend here, as you clearly have made many more edits to wikipedia than I have; but may I humbly suggest that, in future, you give extra thought to making edits truly NPOV. Some of your past edits have left me feeling....shall we say...concerned... about bias rearing its ugly head. IMHO, wikipedia should never be about attempting to influence a reader's views on a subject but instead, only about presenting factual information in the most dispassionate manner possible.--Deglr6328 06:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] An old quote

(William M. Connolley 08:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Singer said:

I am persuaded to think that any climate change is bad because of the investments and adaptations that have been made by human beings and all of the things that support human existence upon this globe. Even minor fluctuations of climate could change the distribution of fish, ... upset agriculture,...and inundate costal cities...... Such changes could occur at a faster rate perhaps than human society can evolve. S. Fred Singer, ed. 1975. The Changing Global Environment pp5.

[edit] Is it neutral?

Viriditas asked me to check this article. I found one particularly difficult sentence:

Singer claims that he speaks for a "majority" of scientists, although no scientists have endorsed his claim of speaking for them.

In context, this reads like an attempt to discredit Singer. How can we fix this? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:12, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 13:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Well I added that. FS's claim (does he actually make that claim? You added it. Can you source it? If not, perhaps the solution is to remove the claim) is absurd and cannot stand unqualified.
Okay, but when did he ever claim to "speak for a majority of scientists"? And how come you're only in the minority?
(William M. Connolley 17:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ed, you insserted this fatous claim [1] please don't expect me to defend it. Presumably, you made it up off the top of your head? If so, it would be best to simply remove it.
Well, fer cryin' out loud, doc, why would you ever accept ME as a source for anything? You KNOW better ;-) --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 17:42, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

See Amy Ridenour

(William M. Connolley 19:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) OK, I'll strip it out of FS then.

[edit] Ted Koppel of Nightline

Certainly, there was nothing academic about Gore's attacks on Singer, who has been a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, deputy assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and chief scientist of UPS Department of Transportation. Singer has also had three of his books published by The Unification Church, headed by the Rev. Moon, proprietor of the Washington Times, which, coincidentally or not, uncovered much of the Whitewater scandal. "You can see where this is going," Koppel commented, "If you like Dr. Singer's views on the environment you mention his most impressive credentials. If you don't, it's Fred Singer and the Rev. Sung Myung Moon and the Unification Church." What is really significant is whose scientific hypotheses have emerged intact from Koppel's acid bath of truth. For example, Singer and Dr. Carl Sagan, a Gore ally, had entirely different predictions about the consequences of oil fires after the Persian Gulf War. "The record shows in this instance Dr. Sagan was wrong and Dr. Singer was right," Koppel said, "Predictions are a hazardous business" - especially when you rely, as Sagan did, exclusively on computer models. [2]

People criticize Singer and Sagan using two different standards. Personally, I think it's prejudice.

What's the best way to mention that Carl Sagan's nuclear winter scenario for the Kumaiti oil fires turned out to be mistaken? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 20:54, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singer's views on the atmosphere

We should not merely call his POV "contrarian" but should say specifically what he disputes and why he disputes it. Let's mention his oft-repeated assertion that warming predicted by IPCC models are contradicted by satellite readings.

I think it's especially unfair to emphasize Carl Sagan's advocacy of the scientific method while trashing Fred Singer for actually using it.

Sagan and Singer both made a prediction about Kuwaiti oil fire smoke in 1991, based on their competing atmospheric theories. One was right, the other wrong. Shouldn't we expect the one who was wrong to change his theory afterwards, based on the scientific principle that every hypothesis contradicted by observation must be discarded? --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 21:13, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You need to find a source for the predictions then I guess. What exactly did Sagan predict? And Singer?
(William M. Connolley 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Re Singers views on the atmos: I'm not really sure exactly what they are. Roger Pielke (here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000304) rather implausibly attempts to say that Singer isn't too far from the consensus based on this: http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html but I think thats a bit implausible.

[edit] Double standards

So how is this "weasel words" concept supposed to work that has been touted on the other pages? Apparently the phrase "skeptics say" is grounds for removal of an entire section, yet right here a large section of this page is "environmentalists say", followed by a collection of opinionated statements. Apparently it's only a "weasel word" if it starts with "skeptics say", and not when it starts with "environmentalists say"? — Cortonin | Talk 23:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)) As I understand it (and as I apply it), if you find something weaselly, you're allowed to object/remove it, and whoever wants it in is then obliged to find references.
Okay then, I removed the section I mentioned. Three of them are displaced ad hominems, and one of them has two links, one of which provides no support for the statement, and one of which says that Singer claims he has not received oil industry money (and alludes to a document which shows otherwise, but does not specify what document or where it can be found). — Cortonin | Talk 03:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I readded that section, but removed one statement and removed one link, but kept the other (quote: "ExxonMobil has become a major funder of the most visible 'greenhouse skeptics', [...] including S. Fred Singer [...]"). And no, it is not important that Singer claims the opposite. The other points are o.k. and backed up (see talk above by WMC). If someone can show a counter-example then this is of course something different. -- mkrohn 18:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Now hold on a second here. First, you added two websites. The first one says:
According to ExxonMobil documents, the company gave a 1998 grant of $10,000 to Singer's institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). It gave another $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Fairfax, Virginia which promotes Singer's work.
and
In his letter to The Washington Post, Singer wrote: "My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil."
In 1998, ExxonMobil gave $135,000 to the Hoover Institution -- the same year Singer published an article in the institution's publication, The Hoover Digest.
These are the only two examples give of "financial ties to oil". The first one suffers from a serious problem in that this 1998 ExxonMobil document doesn't seem to exist. I looked for it, and couldn't find it. The only reference to it is on this commentary blog, and other similar blogs which reference it. If you can locate that document, THEN we have a direct example. But if Exxon makes no note of having given money to Singer, Singer says he hasn't received money from Exxon, and no documentation exists that any money changed hands, then it's simply an unfounded allegation. It should perhaps more accurately say, "kwikpower has accused Singer of receiving funding from Exxon in 1998, but no documentation has been found of this transaction, and Singer says he has received no funding from Exxon." — Cortonin | Talk 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The second one suffers from serious misrepresentation. The Hoover Institute is simply a public policy institute at Stanford. The Wesson Fellow is simply a position there, where as being a Fellow typically goes, the person would get paid anyway by the institute, but being a fellow is considered an honor, and is sometimes accompanied by a small payraise. As is traditional for Fellows, the Robert Wesson Fellow was probably established by an endowment left by someone, and that someone was probably Robert Wesson. Whether or not ExxonMobile donated $135,000 to the same institute where Singer happened to be working at the time is completely irrelevant, and shows no financial contribution from Exxon to Singer. For them to imply that it does show a financial connection is a bit "shady". People need to start debating these issues on the issues, rather than resorting to such disreputable character assassination attempts. — Cortonin | Talk 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
In addition, you added, "he is a retired scientist who has produced no new research since the mid-1970s." This is of course, wrong. Do a literature search before putting up statements like that, especially if they have no documentation (and perhaps even if they do, since documentation is pretty shady sometimes on this topic, and it's best to go to the original source). The first few examples:
  • Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation, Douglass DH, Pearson BD, Singer SF, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (13): Art. No. L13208 JUL 9 2004
  • Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence, Douglass DH, Pearson BD, Singer SF, Knappenberger PC, Michaels PJ, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (13): Art. No. L13207 JUL 9 2004
And this is the same SF Singer, unless of course there are two SF Singers working for SEPP. You never know when clones will pop up. — Cortonin | Talk 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
About the money: there are dozens of links where different organizations say that Fred Singer received money from Exxon, e.g., [3] ("Another highly visible skeptic, S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO."), [4], [5]. And more important: it is not necessary that someone proves that money was given to F. Singer. This is not the task of an encyclopedia project. Of course references have to be given that others claim that Singer received money from Exxon.
--mkrohn 19:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
*sigh* It makes the whole environmental movement look like a bunch of crazed conspiracy theorists when you add things like that. Do you think Singer says what he does so that he can get money from Exxon? Which is the cause and effect here? Yeah, maybe there are some people out there claiming this, but are they the mainstream of environmentalism? I certainly hope not, for the sake of environmentalism. Perhaps you could reword it so that it doesn't sound like all environmentalists think like that, and perhaps you could also find specific attributions for people promoting those other two criticisms as well. — Cortonin | Talk 04:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
So $10,000 7 years ago is "major funding"? Check how far that goes in a business budget, look at Exxon's annual report on donations and some other organization budgets for comparison. For that matter, compare Exxon's lists to your source. (SEWilco 04:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] by William M. Connolley [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last article?

Actaully Singer has something in ?GRL? 2004/5 I forget - I think he was last author William M. Connolley 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Climatologists

Is Singer actually a climatologist? He is currently in Category:Climatologists, but does his PhD in Physics make him one? Or is the category more arbitrary? Hardern 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco section

Seems kind of odd that this is in the article. Is this a well known controversy surrounding him ("The Tobacco Remarks") or is it put in here to create controversy? Seems almost like a personal attack. The machine512 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What should an atmospheric physicist know about the medical effects of tobacco anyway? The machine512 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another attack statement

The group is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between smoking and lung cancer, and between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer.

Bias bias bias. The machine512 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is a biased but whether it is verifiable and notable. Someone should look for support on this. If however, we can find reliable sources that say this it would be fine to have in the article. JoshuaZ 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There, I think that's cited enough now. JoshuaZ 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the citations. The article that he wrote seems to be about CFCs and an increase in UV radiation. It does mention skin cancer, but I am not seeing where he states UV doesn't cause skin cancer. Maybe rewording is needed, such as CFCs and UV radiation? Thanks. The machine512 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He says in http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/ozone/ozscsst.html that "Each of these steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect" when referring to "Exposure to more solar UV radiation leads to a huge increase in skin cancer rates and hundreds of thousands of additional deaths" and expands on this in the section "The Skin Cancer Scare" JoshuaZ 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see it now from this statement "And indeed, recent laborato- ry experiments have now established that melanoma rates are not likely to depend on exposure to solar UV-B radiation."

Another thing that concerns me is that it says the group IS skeptical of these things. Note this was in the 1970s when much research was going on to prove these things, these ideas weren't fact back then and reletively new. Should we change it to say "was", or do they still hold the view? The machine512 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit:It seems the article was written in 1994, not 1970s. The machine512 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So any remaing issues with that sentence? JoshuaZ 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless they still hold the view we should use past tense. The machine512 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They are up on their website and there isn't any indication that they don't so I'm not sure what the issue is. In any event, it would probably be easy to find more recent examples. JoshuaZ 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, well just to be safe I think it should be past tense, there is no harm in that (agreed?), unless you can find something that states otherwise. Thanks again for the citations. The machine512 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ just said their website still has that view. Should past tense be used for "The Catholic Church leader was its Pope" if the Church's web site still states that the Pope is its leader? (SEWilco 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
If no one had heard from the Pope or the Church in ten years, then yes you could say "was", because "was" is stating the truth (at some point known, currently unknown). Would you make the claim that the Mars Global Surveyor is still in orbit around Mars?
If their website states that they currently have that view, and not an article from ten or more years ago, then by all means go for it. Otherwise it is best to be safe and not POV. The machine512 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =====================

new book coauthored by Singer -

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (Paperback) by Dennis T. Avery (Author), S. Fred Singer (Author) Paperback: 276 pages Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. (February 1, 2007) Language: English ISBN-10: 0742551172 ISBN-13: 978-0742551176

[edit] ========================================
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/Talk%7EFred_Singer_55e8.html"