Talk:Fred Singer/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

General question

I'm unclear about something: does anyone have an overriding issue with this article? Does anyone feel it is too negative, too positive, too long or too short? We seem to be squabbling about trivia, and I'm wondering if something more significant may be at issue. Personally I lean to the "too long" position, and I've already raised the 1967 predictions as an example of something that can be cut down. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Many parts of the article are longer than they need to be, although there's still important content missing. "Lacking focus" would probably be my assessment. The "global warming" section, for example, is just a long list of anecdotes. The "career" section is overly long, but still manages to leave out much of what he as done. The structure of the lead does not match the structure of the article. And the "public debates" section seems to just be tacked onto the end, like another article altogether. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, those are reasonable points. Maybe those are the kinds of things that need to be addressed? The blog thing is wearing thin. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The David King/OfCom part manages to be misleading, by repeating the "only surviving" misquote, and not mentioning that this in fact wasn't what King said. Why do we focus on the quote at all? We should just report that OfCom stated that Singer misquoted and conflated two different scientists. That way we remove all BLP issues from the description. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to changes with that, but I think a quote is valuable because it is more believable than a description (who wants to rely on Wikipedia's prose alone [together with footnotes] about a negative fact when you can pretty quickly see just what he said in one important spot in the documentary [the tail end] and just how he said it?). There's a certain amount of sloppiness in any interview quotes, but there's also a limit to what should be acceptable. And he didn't just misquote/conflate, he did it in a disparaging way, making fun of Corn. Quoting Singer makes the OfCom criticism harder to dismiss as possibly biased itself. We do quote criticism of Singer in the article, but this gives us a chance to get a lot closer to a fact (that he said this particular thing in this particular way) than we do with the more general criticisms, because they're ultimately complicated and somewhat abstract. This is not only "notable, relevant, and well-documented" but concrete, personal and human, and since it's related to the major controversy of his later years, it doesn't distract the reader from something important, but tends to draw attention toward it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't too long. It's currently 4,641 words readable prose size, which is fine for a bio covering a circa 65-year career. I'm concerned about the focus on what can be removed. It would be better first of all to focus on what's missing, if anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the 1967 predictions could be whittled down some. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I thought that paragraph was quite interesting, but I have no problem if you want to cut it down a bit, Scotty. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I may, when I've finished dealing with articles about people's pet dogs. Seriously.[1] ScottyBerg (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Try dealing with popular cat names. Seriously! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I thought at first that the doggie article crept through a loophole in the speedy deletion criteria, but then I learned that A7 covers non-notable animals. Good to know. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

John, I like your suggested "Trends in cat names." :D SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty good article. It's up at deletion review and I just clawed my way into that discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I found that paragraph about his predictions interesting too. My impression was that it actually portrayed him in a good light, as more than half of the predictions he made seem to have come true, and even the ones that were wrong have some sort of parallel in what actually happened. --JN466 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a fair bit of fluff in the article that could be whittled down. For example do we really need to read that he received a $97,000 grant, given that obtaining grants is a routine part of any university scientist's career? There are way too many details that have nothing to do with the man himself, such as what company manufactured a rocket or the name of the ship it was fired from.

These specifics aside, the overarching problem is that writing style is just too wordy. You can get rid of quite a few words without losing information. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I sort of lean in that direction. My prejudice, I confess, is in the "I've never heard of him" realm. Perhaps more needs to be said as to why he merits such detail. The Times says he is the "dean of climate change deniers," which was inexplicably omitted. That would help. I'd like to hear more about what needs to be added, as was suggested above. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the article. In terms of NPOV, it gives credit to his achievements, without skimming over his critics' suspicions that he is merely doing the bidding of industry. The length is okay to me; if it were ever submitted for FA, this would be the sort of length it would be expected to have. --JN466 20:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation Templates

The article isn't using citation templates and is short on ISBNs for the books. Please use the harvnb template for the main Scheuering ref eg

• Scheuering 2004, p. 115
• Scheuering, Rachel White (2004). "S Fred Singer 1924". Shapers of the Great Debate on Conservation: A Biographical Dictionary. Shapers of the great American debates. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. pp. 115–128. ISBN 0-313-32826-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

RDBrown (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (finally)

Hi RDB, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't add templates to references that are well-formed; see WP:CITE. (And by 115ff, I didn't mean pp. 115—128). The templates add to the citation clutter and slow down load time when there are a lot of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

In case anyone wonders why I added an image of Singer then removed it, it was an image I obtained a release for under a Creative Commons Attribution licence. But shortly after the author confirmed the release, she emailed me in a way that suggested she had not fully understood what it means to release an image. I've therefore had to delete it and ask her to confirm that she really does intend to release it. If I get that confirmation I'll restore it. Apologies for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for working on that. I've wondered what this guy looks like.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kitcher / Conway, Oreskes

Is the following quote or a precis of it, given the length, suitable for inclusion? Or should nested quote from Oreskes and Conway be used, when a page number can be provided?

Kitcher, Philip (4 June 2010). "Essay Review: The Climate Change Debates". Science. 328 (5983): 1230–4. doi:10.1126/science.1189312. The extraordinary story of deliberate obfuscation that Oreskes and Conway document begins with the delight of the tobacco companies in recruiting Fred Seitz and with Seitz's own connections to "scientists in their twilight years who had turned to fields in which they had no training or experience." It moves through the forging of a network of industrial and political alliances, and the creation of a variety of institutes and think-tanks devoted to challenging various forms of expert consensus, to a brilliant chapter in which the authors analyze the reasons why, as of 2009, a significant percentage of Americans (43%) continued to dissent from the minimal claim that there is "solid evidence the Earth is warming." As Oreskes and Conway conclude:
There are many reasons why the United States has failed to act on global warming, but at least one is the confusion raised by Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.

Conway, Erik; Oreskes, Naomi (25 May 2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury USA. ISBN 9781596916104.

RDBrown (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

rv: why

I have reverted SV's idiotic removal of properly sourced material that was added by some IP editor. This is all usable material. --Cursing Gnome (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

CBC accusation

Should an accusation made in a CBC program that is cited only to that program be included in the article's opening paragraphs? I haven't watched the program, so I don't know what exactly was said or in what context. But I would think BLP standards would require strong sourcing for that kind of statement. There's also a question of weight. Would it be more appropriate to include it in the body of the article? Perhaps something about him being controversial or having critics might be worth noting more generally in the opening paragraphs? Freakshownerd (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the flow of the previous version to this one, so could you outline what you see as the advantages? Also, please note WP:OVERLINK. Regarding CBC, it's important to include any major criticism in the lead; the CBC's Fifth Estate is highly respected, and probably fairly representative of reliable sources on this issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

(moved from SV talk) Please refrain from reverting a whole series of edits that greatly improves article content and abides Wikipedia's policies. If you have specific objections, feel free to make changes or indicate your concerns. Your behavior is rather rude and disruptive. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Then please don't restore extensive changes after there has been an objection. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(moved from SV talk) I see you deleted my previous comment from this page and moved it elsewhere without my permission. Where in this source ^ Revkin, Andrew. "Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other", The New York Times, March 8, 2009. does it say anything about "and in 2006 was named by the CBC as one of a small group of scientists creating a stand-off that is undermining the global response to climate change"?

You reverted a whole series of good edits without the slightest bit of thought or discussion. You also failed to address what was noted in my edit summary about your previous abuse of editing priviledges. Behavior like yours makes editing Wikipedia very unpleasant. I hope you will exercise greater courtesy and respect in the future. Effective collaboration requires cooperation. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Freak, can you please post here about this issue. On my talk page I'm the only one who will see it, and others may want to join in. I will look up the Revkin source and check it. It's probably a case of a citation having been moved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You undid a whole series of edits and restored improper citations, BLP violations, awkward wording, poor grammar, improper wikification, and crap organization in one foul swoop. You are the one that needs to go through the edits and explain why you've damaged the article in this manner. I look forward to reading your explanation. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The source for CBC is "The Denial Machine", The Fifth Estate, CBC, November 15, 2006, updated October 24, 2007. And I reverted your edits because I believe the current flow is better. If you disagree, please explain what you see as the improvement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I cited that article. Can you explain why you've chosen to undo that change so an unrelated NYT story is cited instead? Please undo your improper changes and discuss any legitimate objections. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The CBC is already cited. The NYT is there from when we mentioned "dean of climate contrarians," which was removed after objections. All you had to do was swap the position of the cites, which I've now done.

You've added the POV tag because your edits were reverted, though I saw no POV-related changes. What has now made it POV, in your view? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I also do not see any POV dispute here to justify the tag. Content disagreement yes but what is the POV element? --BozMo talk 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look through the edits I made, which you obviously haven't done, you'd see that I did in fact fix that citation with a helpful edit summary that said "fix citations". So you're just wasting my time. Please explain why the University of Virginia shouldn't be wikified and why the global warming section of Fred Singer's article needs a subheading that says "Fred Singer's views" in it? Then go through the rest of the edits you reverted and explain why you've done so. Thank you very much. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you first of all explain why you added the POV tag? The tag can only be added in response to specific points that must be addressed on talk and actionable within the content policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We're getting there. Please be patient. Once you've taken a turn addressing my objections to your edits and taken the time to explain how your changes improve the article, as I've been willing to explain mine, we can move on to the next step. Because you've chosen an infantile course of making mass reversions to very reasonable improvements without explanation, we're forced to take these baby steps. Now, please continue the discussion of why the University of Virginia shouldn't be wikified and why the global warming section of Fred Singer's article needs a subheading that says "Fred Singer's views" in it? Then go through the rest of the edits you reverted and explain why you've done so. Thank you very much. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please either justify the tag or remove it before discussing anything else. It currently looks as though you defaced the article because you didn't get your own way. I've referred you to WP:OVERLINK, which answers one of your questions. I also think you didn't improve the writing, which answers another. And each subsection of a section has a header. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. You are the one who has defaced the article. That's what we're trying to get corrected. Until your attacks on the article content are fixed, it violates various policies and doesn't provide an NPOV account of the subject. please continue the discussion of why the University of Virginia shouldn't be wikified and why the global warming section of Fred Singer's article needs a subheading that says "Fred Singer's views" in it? Then go through the rest of the edits you reverted and explain why you've done so. Thank you very much. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP warning

(moved from SV talk page) Because you have mass reverted appropriate changes to the Fred Singer article and removed my attempts to communicate directly with you here, I feel compelled to notify you with a proper warning about Wikipedia's BLP policies. Please familiarize yourself with these rules and refrain from violating them in the future by misrepresenting sources and adding inappropriate content to biographical articles. Thank you. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd, please don't post to my talk page again. I don't want to have a private discussion with you about this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're disrupting the article improvement effort and refuse to explain your changes to article content. You've made changes misrepresenting sources and altered the text so it is no long NPOV. This is unacceptable. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Which alterations made the article no longer NPOV? Please be specific. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You be specific. What is your reasoning for including a "Fred Singer's views" subsection in the global warming section of Fred Singer's article and what is your objection to wikilinking the University of Virginia? Freakshownerd (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained twice, and I'm not going to repeat it again. We don't link common terms. It's not just that one link that was the problem; you were generally overlinking. And each subsection of a section has a header; all the others do too. Please list your NPOV objections or remove the tag. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've followed this discussion very carefully and I'm quite sure you've never explained why the University of Virginia shouldn't be wikilinked. Are you suggesting the University of Virginia is a common term? That it violates a tenet in the Wikilinking guidelines? Which one? Can you provide an example of a featured article where the subject's University isn't wikilinked?

My NPOV objections include the fact that you've added back the ridiculous "Singer's position" appellation to the global warming section of the article. The article is about Fred Singer and that section isn't a discussion of his views. In fact it starts off with an accusation representing the views of others. So it's misleading and strange.

Are you going to give straight answers and explanations? Should we get additional opinions on whether the University where this man has taught for decades should be wikilinked? What process would you like to use for sorting out these disagreements. I'm finding it very difficult to work through it with you because you admantly refuse to answer very straightforward and simple questions. I still haven't the slightest idea why you think the University of Virginia shouldn't be wikilinked or why you think "Singer's position" is an appropriate or helpful header for that section. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not about linking to the University of Virginia, which I have now done. It was about your overlinking in general.

Your NPOV objection was that the subsection on Singer's position began with a criticism of him. I've therefore rearranged the material so that it doesn't. [2]

Was there another reason for adding the tag? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is about wikilinking. I wikilinked the University of Virginia and you undid it. That's exactly what we've been discussing for some time now. Are we in agreement that it is appropriate to include a wikilink to that subject?

As far as "Singer's position" I still think it's an entirely unhelpful and innaccurate header for that subsection. It misleads the reader. That's why I removed it. I'm still awaiting your explanation of why you readded it.

Furthermore, while your recent edit is an improvement, the section still begins "in constrast to the majority scientific postion,". In addition to be being pretty freaking obvious, that certainly wouldn't be something I would label Singer's position, and is something we've already hit the reader over the head with repeatedly right from the opening paragraphs. If we we can leave the section under the broader title of Global warming, perhaps we can work it in more appropriately and approach a reasonable level of consistency. I wonder how many article include a "John Doe's position" header and then start if off by noting something along the lines of "In contrast to climate skeptics,". I'm thinking not many.

This is a very aggravating process because you haven't bothered to explain yourself or to think through your mass reversion. If you would be so kind as to go through the edits and see which ones you object to and let us know why, that would be very helpful. Instead you've rejected all of them in their entirety and asked me to guess why. You've also thrown my repeated requests to you on your talk page that you show some courtesy and cooperation back in my face by deleting them and reposting them here where they don't belong. That kind of approach is rude, unhelpful and destructive. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Singer's position is a minority one, possibly even a very small minority one. I've done my best to stop this page becoming an attack page, which is what it amounted to at several points in its history, or being so mealy-mouthed about his achievements that it served to undermine him. But we can't lurch to the other extreme, and try to pretend that his position is just one among others. It's a minority position that has given rise in the high-quality media to suspicions that he's only doing it because he's paid to. Singer doesn't deny that he's paid, but he said he'd be expressing these views anyway. So the "in contrast to" issue matters. I agree that we over-write that in the lead (or did when I last looked), but that was the version that gained consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I resent your insinuation that I've attempted to skew the article unfairly toward any perspective. "But we can't lurch to the other extreme, and try to pretend that his position is just one among others." In fact the quote I added notes that he is known in some circles as the "dean of contrarians". And I challenge you to find an edit that I made here or elsewhere that in anyway seeks to misrepresent or misdirect our readers.

I noted my concerns on this talk page about the CBC content being in the opening paragraph. Most of my other changes were basic and cosmetic. The additions and moves I made left it absolutely clear that Singer is a critic of mainstream views, a skeptic, and a contrarian on climate science issues.

I've asked you repeatedly to identify specific objections you have to my changes and instead you retreat to generalizations and have played silly guessing games. I strongly favor a clear sentence in the lead that states the crux of the criticisms of Singer and his work, as discussed in the article. Something along the lines of: His research findings and conclusions are widely disputed and the objectivity of his work has been questioned by critics who claim that he and his groups have received funding from corporate energy companies.(modified) However, instead of moving forward and fixing the article with me, I'm stuck here arguing with you about trivialities as you continue jerking me around with a complete refusal to actually sort through the edits I made, change anything you find problematic, and express any additional concerns you have so we can work through them. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What energy companys has he recieved money from? mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Content based on two sources address the issue. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I`m guessing you mean Scheuering, Rachel White (2004-09-30). Shapers of the Great Debate on Conservation: A Biographical Dictionary. Which i can`t actually check. And Newsnight which is a 404 Is one mans opinion (this scheuering guy) really a good enough source for a blp? mark nutley (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at other articles I see that criticisms are seldom included in the opening paragraphs. I think a clear statement of opposition for a controversial figure is helpful, interesting, and revealing. But I was hoping to fix some basic issues before getting mired in the nitty gritty of how best to include critiques. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Woman, not man (Rachel). And yes, a book published by a reputable academic publisher is a "good enough source". Not that there aren't other sources for this. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Scheuering is online at [3]. And I agree that Greenwood Publishing, as an academic publisher, more than meets our sourcing standards; in fact I wish more of our articles were using sources like that. --JN466 12:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the POV tag, as I don't see a current, actionable POV issue here. Disagreements over wikilinking do not qualify; and the dispute about including criticism in the lead seems to have petered out. --JN466 12:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Npov

This article no longer mentions that Singer's views on Global Warming are minority. As such, it violates NPOV, explained in WP:VALID - "Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." It is a failure of NPOV to not state that Singer is in the minority. Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It mentions it in the lead, second sentence: "Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming." And again in the global warming section several times, e.g. "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," and "As the scientific consensus grew, Singer continued to argue from a skeptical position." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The second mention was not in the article when I inserted the tag. I have included a further note about where his views differ from the vast majority and with that included accept the removal of the tag. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The second mention was in the article when you added the tag; it just wasn't at the beginning of the section. It would be appreciated if people from both sides would stop trying to swing the article further to their own position, because when one tweaks an inch, someone else feels the need to counter-tweak, and off we go. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Scepticism is not by necessity a scientific minority position, and "undermining political response"'s isn't necessarily a minority position. That it is in the lead is good - but the lead is a summary of the article. To quote NPOV:

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

So when we are describing Singers position on something where he is in a minority or fringe position, we must make clear that this is so. In the disputed paragraph this was made clear at the front - and the removal of such makes us unable to tell whether this is a reasonably mainstream, minority, tiny minority or fringe position. [in this case it is a scientific fringe - and a political minority one]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what this means: "Scepticism is not by necessity a scientific minority position, and "undermining political response"'s isn't necessarily a minority position." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(i) All scientists are skeptics. If you're not a skeptic, you're not a scientist. (ii) "Political responses" are just that, political responses, and don't have any predefined relation to science. Despite those two points I think the article does imply that Singer is in the minority. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Undermining a political response (from CBS) is not a scientific position , or a scientific stance - it tells us nothing about whether Singer's views are mainstream or fringe (or where on a scale between those he is). It is quite possible to accept the scientific mainstream and argue against policy implementations. Being a critic doesn't make you stand outside the mainstream either, there are several examples of people who hold a mainstream position, but who are critical of some aspects of the science. What we are missing is a clear statement that Singers views on global warming are a tiny minority position. (finally all scientists are (or should be) sceptics - being sceptical tells us nothing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We could try this first paragraph instead, in case we're not getting the point across:

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist holding minority views on global warming, and an emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, who holds minority views. Despite his tiny-minority position, Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream—the overwhelmingly mainstream—scientific assessment of global warming, in contrast to the pseudoscientific silliness of other "positions." He is the author or editor of several books, all of which promote his minority views, including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has co-authored other books expressing the same minority views, such as Unstoppable Global Warming (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso, though calling them "minority" views does not begin to convey what a vanishingly small, indeed barely noticeable, frivolous minority it is.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to take a break. Do you think the above is helpful, in the least? Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought is was kinda funny, but really SV, you should`nt be giving these lads any ideas :) mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, how many times have you seen your own attempts at humor backfire? Please stop it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

True, perhaps I should have taken WP:BEANS into account. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Very humorous. And now that you have that out of the way - could you return to reality, and constructive comments? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I'm confused. Does Singer hold a minority viewpoint or not?  :) Hipocrite and Kim, I think SV makes an excellent point and if she can do it while making me laugh, more power to her. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it may be an excellent way to make a point, but the point is missed. As Boris has pointed out, "skeptic" is something every scientist is. It's part of the job description. Even if the term most often refers to so-called skeptics, we need a (as in one) clear statement that Singer is in conflict with the mainstream positions, not just "skeptic" (which many may confuse with skeptic). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a valid point, but what are we supposed to do when reliable sources use the term "sceptic" to describe those that disagree with the scientific concensus on global warming? AFAIK, we're supposed to use the terminology that reliable sources do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources (even used in the text) that describe Singers position as outside the mainstream, and as a minority position. Contrary to SV's humour, the issue is not that there should be massive insertions of "minority", but simply that we shouldn't remove the little that is/was actually there.[4]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot in the article that says explicitly or strongly implies that he's in a minority. Continuing to add more is overegging it, and that will make the reader suspicious:

• He is an "an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming."
• "Singer has been an advocate of the skeptical stance in the global warming controversy for a number of years."
• "In 1990 he founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project to promote the skeptical position ..."
• ..."and in 2006 was named by the CBC as one of a minority of scientists creating a stand-off that is undermining the global response to climate change."
• "In contrast to the scientific consensus, Singer argues ..."
• "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."
• "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 ..."
• "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."
• "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."
• "As the scientific consensus grew, Singer continued to argue from a skeptical position."
• "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 ..."
• "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 ..."
• "The relationships have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community ..."
• "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."
• "Scheuering writes that Singer circulated [the Leipzig Declaration] in the United States and Europe and gathered 100 signatories, though she says some of the signatories' credentials were questioned."
• "Singer prepared an NIPCC report called "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate" ... ABC News said ... that unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton ... dismissed it as 'fabricated nonsense.'"

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that he's a GW skeptic as that he's an environmental skeptic. Both Scheuering and, in much more detail, Oreskes and Conway, make it very clear that Singer's skepticism isn't limited to climate change - it has also included acid rain, ozone depletion, uv-skin cancer links, secondhand smoke, SDI and nuclear winter... As Scheuering clearly says (and O&C reiterate) SEPP was not established "promote the skeptical position" but I fight regulation. (I have raised the issue of misrepresenting that source to SV before, but not to no avail.)

Of course the entire issue has a pro-Singer spin, since it elevates his own claims and minimises third-party sources. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Our article makes the same point several times about him being an environmental skeptic in general. I'm not seeing your point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it fails to present the idea that these are not isolated instances, but rather examples of a single theme. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how it could be more explicit without battering the reader on the head. We use terms like career skeptic. We talk about CBC linking two of the debates he's expressed skeptical views on. We mention that he acts as a consultant to corporations that benefit from skepticism. We give several examples of his skepticism from different areas. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets take your examples then - to be short and concise, I will summarize them in these two, since most are the same:

• critic of position X - if you do not know whether X is a majority position, then you do not know where Singer stands. Nor is a critic of X automatically against X [the best critics are from within].
• "sceptical of Y" again tells us nothing about whether S's position in mainstream or minority. Scepticism is an inherent part of Science.

You are implying - but hardly ever saying. Your argumentation would only work, if the reader already knows that the sceptical position is in the minority - but follow the various talk-pages on GW, and you will find that people do not know such a thing (example: If you listen to Inhofe, then the sceptical position is in the majority) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Kim, I don't follow. I don't know what I'm supposed to be implying but not saying, or what argumentation you're referring to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So lets take it slow again: The text in the bullets, is mostly your contributions. All that text is implying something (alluding to Singer being in the minority position) - but it hardly ever says what it is implying. As for your argumentation, it seems to be your argument (since you presented the list), that it is said in several places that Singer is holding a minority position - but that argument fails, because it assumes that the reader will know (beforehand) what the majority position is, and that Singer thus is in the minority. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

Should we be worried about the licence claims on the image? Should be really be so quick to take the word of a known sock? (One which led to the sockmaster's block for double-voting.) Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A Google Image search didn't turn it up. Surely, if someone was gong to copyvio a foto, they'd swipe a better one? This one is barely in cell-phone class.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's arguably a BLP violation, because somewhat unflattering, which is why it was removed before. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly in favor of substituting a better photo, when such becomes available -- and if people hate it, we could use the "outside image" template to link to a better, non-free photo online..... Hmm, there isn't much online, either. Maybe what we have isn't so bad? --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Given the revisions to WP:NEWSBLOG, the views of Leo Hickman, a features journalist and editor at the Guardian, could be of use.[5] He comments on Singer's presentation on 11 June to the "Doctors for Disaster Preparedness" conference (an organisation linked to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) and how Singer and Willie Soon "who both claim to be serious scientists working at prestigious institutions, should choose to associate themselves with organisations that leech such an obvious political agenda." (leech? Possible Grauniad typo). . . dave souza, talk 07:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Explanation?

(copied from SV's talk page) Can you explain this edit [6]? What is meant by "for a number of years" and what value dxoes it add to the article? Also, why do we need to say that he has had a varied career and what does that mean? Is it just a reiteration of what's stated in the same sentence that he's worked in various areas? Why do we need to say that twice? Freakshownerd (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's to avoid the writing being so staccato, as in "Singer did A, Singer did B, Singer did C." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are better ways of doing that than padding out the text with meaningless words. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Like what? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many guides to clear writing. The classics like Strunk and White, Fowler and so on still give advice worth following. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Such as? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't muddle sentences by adding meaningless drivel. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Best known for...

According to Scientific American, Singer is "best known for his denial of the dangers of secondhand smoke". Should this aspect of his career be mentioned in the lead? MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a... well, whatever. It's just Scientific American, a notoriously partisan hack publication, after all. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the source here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I'm just more familiar with the secondhand smoke debate than the global-warming debate. Or perhaps it's just a matter of recentism - the secondhand smoke issue has died away quite a bit since the legally mandated release of tobacco industry documents and the racketeering verdict against Philip Morris et al. Either way, it seemed a bit odd that Singer's role in the debate wasn't mentioned in the lead, since it was a major part of his public persona for quite some time. But thanks for adding the ref in the appropriate subsection. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no problem if you wanted to add something to the lead, so long as we can word it so it doesn't jump out as too critical, and that's hard given the subject matter. But maybe we could explore some wording. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See the excerpt from The Climate War which I added one section down. I would envision something along those lines - which would summarize Singer's work as a public-policy advocate over the past several decades on issues including ozone depletion, secondhand smoke, and climate change. That would seem a bit more encyclopedic and less recentist than the current focus, which seems to be entirely on climate change, and it would mirror the description used by reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not according to "Scientific American", it's according to the non-notable authors of an article in SA. I've removed it for two reasons, it's highly dubious, and the authors were clearly attempting to discredit Singer's stance on AGW with his stance on passive smoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.118.17 (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Most individual authors of articles in major newspapers and magazines are non-notable. The work becomes notable because it's published under the imprimatur of an independent, widely respected media outlet. It would be fine to say: "According the the authors of an article in Scientific American..." It's not fine to remove the material because you think the authors are "non-notable". One could equally well remove most material from the New York Times, because the authors of the articles are not individually notable. Do you see why this rationale isn't convincing?

So we're left you removing the citation because because you consider it "dubious", and because of your personal interpretation of the authors' motives? Neither of those are policy-based objections. As I'm sure you know, the fact that we personally disagree with a source's content is not grounds for its removal. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Public debates

This section appears to be nothing more then a section where critiques of Singers positions are listed. It lacks any quality of debate and should therefore be removed or renamed. I would recommend renaming the section to "Opposing critiques" 67.176.220.219 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently I am deleting parts that should not be there since they present a negative bias that is not consistent with NPOV. If anyone feels that I have removed something that should be put back, please bring it up here for discussion first. 67.176.220.219 (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be removing well supported third party assessment, and substituting asssertions only supported by Singer's own organisation. Please discuss your proposals fully on this talk page before continuing. . dave souza, talk 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the information of the creation of the NIPCC is more reliable if taken directly from the source instead of third party. This is the only information I have added. The sections that I have removed did not have the proper writing style for a WP:BLP in the areas of Tone or Criticism. Although the removed text may have been properly sourced it was not presented in a conservatively and in a disinterested tone. Too much space was being given to particular viewpoints as well. Before restoring the removed sections they need to be reviewed to provide a proper NPOV.67.176.220.219 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just undid all 6 changes made by SlimVirgin. That user needs to talk here before returning the text I removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you say here which part of the article you object to? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from an edit war. Standards for BLP are higher then for other articles. When the material in a BLP is being questioned it is removed while discussion takes place. I have already stated above why I removed it. If you want to return some of the information we need to discuss it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The section on Funding needs to be removed. There is no reason to include funding as a topic unless it is to infer guilt by association, which is to be avoided in a BLP. Any reference to funding of SEPP or NIPCC should appear on their respective pages.67.176.220.219 (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The funding issue is important, because it goes to the heart of why Singer speaks out about these various issues, and it's well-sourced. Singer doesn't deny these financial relationships, but says they do not influence his research, which we make clear. It's also the case that he doesn't publish material that contradicts the position of the people he acts as a consultant for, which of course is normal, and we say that too. Is there anything in that section you see as false or unfair, or poorly sourced? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that he only does research because he is paid to do it is unsupported. 3 paragraphs is far too much space to be given over a single contribution of $10,000. The final sentence even says "The relationships have discredited Singer's research among members of the scientific community,..."

This is clearly included to create guilt by association. This whole section belongs on the SEPP page, not Singers BLP. Check the guidelines for WP:BLP under the heading Writing.67.176.220.219 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say he "only does research because he is paid to do it," though it's true that most people do research only when they are paid to: Wikipedians are the sad exception. :) The point is that high-quality reliable sources have raised the issue of funding, and Singer has responded to their concerns. Not to include the exchanges here would be a significant omission. And the relationships have indeed discredited him within the scientific community, as the sources say. We follow the lead of the reliable sources; that's all we ever do.

As for SEPP, that is largely Singer, [7] so the guilt-by-association issue doesn't arise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you do not understand guilt by association. The whole section on funding exists only to discredit Singers work by connecting all his research to Oil companies. That is clearly guilt by association and a violation of WP:BLP. It needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have just finished reading the book "Shapers of the Great Debate on Conservation: A Biographical Dictionary" section on Fred Singer. I checked the source in the book for where the information on that list of Oil Companies that is funding Singer came from and it pointed to a book written by Ross Gelbspan titled "The Heat is On." The consulting work that Singer was paid for by ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Unocal was in the 1970s during the energy crisis, not during his time working on global warming through SEPP.

I have also read the piece from Newsweek and it states that Fred Singer was in a meeting and that a memo was leaked from the meeting, but it doesn't say that Fred Singer saw that memo or agreed with its contents. That is clearly guilt by association. For all we know Exxon did not go through with their plans because Singer advised against the plan. Without another source this cannot be included.

Again I will point out that this section is titled funding and the only funding being talked about is a single unsolicited donation of $10,000. Does this warrant this much weight? If it must be included then the last paragraph will have to stay as more in unwarranted and there are obvious issues with the first 2 paragraphs.67.176.220.219 (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Many independent, reliable sources have quite a bit to say about Singer's connections to the oil and tobacco industries. I think you're repeating yourself without gaining any traction because it's clear you're not interested in what the sources actually say. You are free to believe what you like, but if numerous independent, reliable sources discuss Singer's links to the oil and tobacco industries, then any serious, honest encyclopedic biography will discuss them as well. If you can't bring yourself to write that kind of biography, then blogs are pretty much free these days. MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because many environmentalist remember that during the 1970s oil crisis Singer spoke for the oil industry and was paid to do it, does not mean that he has received money from the oil industry to fund his position on global warming. If you want to talk about funding in general then you might have a point, but the issue we are discussing at the moment is funding for SEPP. That funding is not linked to what happened in the 70's and the 2 should not be lumped together.67.176.220.219 (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather than have a philosophical discussion, it might be best to go to reliable sources. The Climate War (Eric Pooley, Hyperion 2010, ISBN 140132326X), for example, describes Singer thus (pp. 35-36):

A paid consultant for the antitax think tanks and the oil and power industries, over the years he had refused to accept a great deal of hard science. In the 1980s, he disputed the link between industrial chemicals called CFCs and ozone depletion (and was proven wrong when CFCs were banned and the ozone hole began to repair itself). In the 1990s he disputed the link between secondhand tobacco smoke and cancer. And for two decades he had been disputing the idea that greenhouse gases were warming the planet... By 2006, after that argument crumbled (the satellite data he relied on turned out to be wrong), he declared that global warming was "unstoppable" and caused by natural forces.

The book goes on to discuss the motivations of Singer and other "contrarians" (pp. 38-39):

It is possible that Singer and the others on the dais [at the Heartland Institute gathering] were equally sincere, even though many were paid to espouse these views. Though the climate activists liked to dismiss these scientists as liars-for-hire, fossil fuel money alone didn't explain their position any more than grant money explained why most climatologists embraced the consensus. Not only the deniers' [sic] livelihoods but also their identities came from this work. Many of the presenters at the Heartland conference simply loved intellectual combat; they saw themselves as flinty truth tellers trying to stop the world from adopting solutions they hated in response to a problem they didn't think existed.

To forestall one likely avenue of discussion, the author of this book, Eric Pooley, is deputy editor of Bloomberg BusinessWeek, former managing editor of Fortune, and a former high-level correspondent for TIME, and thus unlikely to be a raging leftist Commie anticapitalist tree-hugger. I would suggest we consider whether to incorporate some or all of this material into the article; in particular, the first excerpt seems to me a brief but complete summary of Singer's work as a public advocate over the past several decades. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing down

How about stubbing down the article and start again? Start with something simple like "Fred Singer is a physicist" and build up from there. This has been tried with some success in the past. --TS 01:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Another effective approach is to start collecting independent, reliable sources here on the talk page. Once there's consensus to a list of sources that meet WP:RS and WP:BLP, start rewriting the article around those sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that a serious proposal? This surely deserves to be a featured article. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

[r'y to TS] At a glance, the article appears to be a decent start -- though I know little about Dr. Singer. Why do you think we need to start from scratch? Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it is heavy into the resent climate debate, but lacking in pre-climate debate areas. A more balance page may be easier to come by, by starting over verse convincing all of the climate alarmists that the climate section needs to be trimmed down and other areas need to be built up.67.176.220.219 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

I am confused why this section is included. As far as I am aware Singer has no connection to Climategate. There is no reason to include his opinions on a topic that he is not involved in.67.176.220.219 (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the section? It's FS commenting on CG. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read the section. Singer is not involved in climate gate. Hence, there is no need to bring it up on his BLP. It is not good work to find out a persons opinion on every topic and list them here. All the other topics make sense. Singer has spoken to congress or lectured in political forums on them, but he has not done that with climategate. He just has a couple of blog posts. Big deal. There are many people who have done that.67.176.220.219 (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no argument for keeping this section I have removed it. If you feel that Singer is important to Climategate then present a reference here.67.176.220.219 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been order to gain consensus before removing this section. How exactly does one gain consensus when none of those who insist it stays are willing to talk about why it should stay?67.176.220.219 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He wrote about it for Reuters. I can't see any reason not to tell people that, and to describe his views. It was a notable event related to CC skepticism and he's a notable CC skeptic who commented on it in a reliable publication which, given that it was Reuters, would have been circulated widely. I can see the argument that his views about it might not be notable enough for other articles, because he had no direct involvement in it, but they're notable enough for his own bio. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a notable event for his career. There are plenty of CC issues that are covered. There is no reason to cover one that Singer is not involved in. The logic you are imploring is flawed. Just because CG is a CC issue does not mean that all people involved in CC are involved in CG. Since nobody else mentions Singers opinions from the article is proof that it is not important to the CG issue. As it is not important to Singers career and it is not important to CG it is not note worthy in Singers BLP.67.176.220.219 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to suppress this fact. It's one more issue in Singer's long and controversial career. He also appeared on BBC Two a year ago to discuss CG with Bob Watson, and earlier this year the American Thinker published an article he wrote on CG. Certainly participating in this debate is part of Singer's career. --Yopienso (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You did not watch the interview. I did. Near the end Bob Watson was asked about Climategate, but Singer was not asked to comment about it.67.176.220.219 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I beg your pardon; the link I gave doesn't even go to an interview. Here's the BBC Newsnight interview with Paxman and Watson. It's on YouTube, not BBC's own site, but there was a complaint about the broadcast that I'll provide a link to to verify the interview was from BBC. Just type 23 November into your page search to find it there. Singer is slow at first, even has his eyes closed, talking about climate change instead of the CRU, but Paxman gets him on track. Note that I am not making any claims regarding the validity of his argument, but saying it has been significant enough in his public life that it should be included in his own biography. I would not support including his opinions on the CRU email controversy page. --Yopienso (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This really looks like a coatrack to give Singer's non-notable blog opinions space on Wikipedia, in a place where they're shown out of the context of majority scientific views. The sources wouldn't be acceptable on the main articles about the controversy, and it's a pov fork putting them in this overextended bio. Should be deleted. Given that this raised BLP issues in that the sources fail WP:BLPSPS and Singer's accusations against living persons are shown without any reliable third party source, I'll delete the section until such time as a suitable third party source is found, when the section should be discussed on the talk page before re-adding it to the article. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

@Dave: I heartily disagree with you, and am sorry you chose to delete that section with a warning not to restore it without discussion. You should have gotten consensus before deleting something under discussion. I sincerely hope there's not a power struggle here between you and SV playing out here in a convenient test article.

@All editors: A person's own biography is precisely where his opinions should be aired. Whether that equates to revealing, exposing, or promoting depends on the reader. Compare this flat-earther. Now, for once, instead of blithering on about something when I don't know what I'm talking about, what is this BLP business? (I'm asking.) I don't see that the article as it stood maligned any individual. Wikipedia does Singer a disservice in censoring this part of his career. --Yopienso (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As this is clearly a BLP violation, it should be deleted unless and until it is properly sourced to a reliable third party source showing its significance to Singer's career. Please see the linked section of BLP policy, noting in particular "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to ..., blogs... unless written or published by the subject... Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
While the material is indeed arguably self-serving, it clearly makes claims about living third parties, and about events not directly related to the subject – hia only relationship to the subject is that he's chosen to blog about it. If other articles also share these faults, they should be improved as a matter of urgency. . dave souza, talk 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it a BLP violation? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I don't know why it's so important to you (Dave) to prevent this information from appearing in Singer's bio. It's part and parcel of his most cherished work.

My question about BLP (Naturally I read your link before posting.) was, who is being maligned? Further, what's self-published in the part you deleted? Reuters? Anthony Watts? Those aren't Fred Singer's publications. I just don't see any BLPSP here, and had assumed it was because of my ignorance. You have not enlightened me. I realize WP does not accept Anthony Watts, but I don't think that stems from it's being self-published. Maybe it does.

WP does accept blogs of major publications such as SciAm, Nature, and leading newspapers. Here's one about Singer at a Guardian blog.

Here's an impeccable source, pp. 14-15 of a hostile Greenpeace report. On 16 February 2010, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with Fred Singer, filed a lawsuit to the US EPA,127 demanding that, on the basis of the hacked emails and so called ‘flawed datasets’, the EPA drop all its proposed regulation on CO2 and other greenhouse gases. (My bold.)

Is there a consensus, editors, to let our readers know where Singer stands, what he says and believes, what he does? Or is the consensus that his ideas are too dangerous--or silly, or disagreeable to some editors--to publish?

No, we will NOT go around removing Wilbur Voliva's and Ayn Rand's and Karl Marx's and Immanuel Velikovsky's controversial ideas from their WP biographies in order to keep Singer's out of his. --Yopienso (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Reuters and Guardian blogs, etc, are not personal or group weblogs of the kind the policy regards as self-published. They're regular columns like any other, which the newspapers have elected to call blogs. They're subject to the same editorial control as any other column, and Dave is aware of that, because the issue has arisen before, and is dealt with in the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly an attack by Singer on living people, identified as the scientists concerned, and Singer's views in this regard are fringe in terms of science as well as having been rejected by six detailed investigations, including that by the EPA. As for the enthusiasm for questionable sources, NEWSBLOGs may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control: it refers to a case involving a professional journalist, but the Reuters blog is a polemic by Singer and Reuters specifically state that "the views expressed are his own" which is not an indication of full editorial control. Obviously NEWSBLOG doesn't apply to Watts Up With That? where again Singer is attacking the work and reputation of other living people. The blog by John Vidal is more reputable, in that he's a professional journalist and the Guardian's environment editor. Some further context about Singer is provided in this blog published by the Guardian, which might be worth thinking about. Are you proposing to cite the Greenpeace report? . . dave souza, talk 23:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, good--looks like we can find some common ground on which to build consensus.

The Reuters blog is out except to document Singer's opinions...which, of course, his biography should document. This article is about Singer, not about Climategate.

I find no attacks by Singer on living people, but even if they were, we could include them in his own biography. On our Don Imus bio, for example, we repeat his allegedly racist remarks as well as Al Sharpton's demand that Imus be fired. That does not constitute BLP of either the Rutgers women or Sharpton, it merely records an event. Back to Singer, the worst I see in these blogs is that he suggest Pachauri return his Nobel Prize and Boer should call off his meeting and go home. How are those personal attacks? His other comments are directed at a nameless "they": They [he does not specify who] control the UN Intergovernmental Panel... But again, my understanding of our policy is that we could repeat any hostile remarks made by or against the subject of a biography so long as we as editors do not impugn the reputation of any living person. If you are aware of any instance in which Singer attacks a person, please document it here.

I was thinking to use the Greenpeace Report to verify that Singer is very much involved in reacting to Climategate, but we could certainly report Greenpeace's hostility toward him and his efforts. --Yopienso (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This has been in the article since at least December 2009, [8] and is sourced to Singer's Reuters column, a reliable source. I'm therefore going to restore it, though I'll take a look at the second source used (the blog post Singer wrote), and if it mentions third parties by name, I'll remove it. But the Reuters column is a reliable source. Dave, if you want to remove it, please gain clear consensus first, perhaps by opening an RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SV,the fact it's been there for almost a year doesn't mean it should be. It should be there simply because Singer is so concerned with his interpretation of the CRU hacking that he, with others, brought a lawsuit against the EPA's CO2 regulations claiming Climategate showed they were based on sloppy science. This page is the one referenced by Greenpeace's footnote #127. (I would call the Greenpeace report far more "polemical" than Singer's writings. Just my humble opinion.) Reuters is reliable for Singer's opinions. Is that what you mean?

Dave, I have no objections whatsoever to introducing Greenpeace's or anyone else's hateful comments about Singer. This article is about him and should include his life, his work, his opinions, and, to a degree, responses to all that. Not every little comment that's ever been made, but that climate skeptics adore him and activists deplore his ideas. --Yopienso (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no refutations to my two-week-old points here. Shall I go ahead and include this lawsuit against the EPA as one of the more recent events of Singer's career? Yopienso (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd forgotten about this. By all means go ahead and restore the Climategate section, Y, and add the lawsuit if a reliable source reported it. I can't see any mention of Singer in the link you posted above, and it's not clear what it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The lawsuit against the EPA mentions SEPP is supporting it, but the links are to CEI and the only mention I see about Climategate are brought forth by the authors of the articles in describing Dr. Phil Jones. I see no quotes from Singer in the related links.67.176.220.219 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Break

I find it strange that one editor is allowed to come into a topic and start making changes without discussion undoing work that was discussed months ago.67.176.220.219 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

IP, please self-revert the changes you have made today with the exception of the reference you supplied. The rest are detrimental to the article. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To the IP, it would be appreciated if you would read what you're editing, as you left the Climategate section incoherent: [9]

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 an opinion piece for Reuters "Now the Climategate leak has shown that the surface temperature data that IPCC relies on is based on distorted raw data and algorithms that they will not share with the science community. The scientists implicated in Climategate have misused peer review and pressured journal editors to prevent publication of research that questions their research. They have taken control of the IPCC process and they have smeared opponents personally, rather than critiquing the research." A British House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee later issued a report that largely exonerated the scientists.

You also removed some of Singer's opinion from that section, and removed entirely the paragraph about SEPP's funding. [10]

Perhaps instead of reverting, you could explain what you want to achieve with the Climategate section, and we can write it together so that it makes sense and nothing is excluded. Also, please explain what your objection is to explaining the funding issue.

Posting the three Climategate versions side by side below. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Current	Guettarda [11]	67.176.220.219 [12]
In December 2009, after the release of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit—a controversy that came to be known as "Climategate"—Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters accusing the scientists of distorting raw material, misusing peer review, pressurizing editors to prevent publication of alternative views, and smearing opponents. He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, and 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." A British House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee later issued a report that largely exonerated the scientists.	In December 2009, after the release of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters accusing the scientists of "Now the Climategate leak has shown that the surface temperature data that IPCC relies on is based on distorted raw data and algorithms that they will not share with the science community. The scientists implicated in Climategate have misused peer review and pressured journal editors to prevent publication of research that questions their research. They have taken control of the IPCC process and they have smeared opponents personally, rather than critiquing the research." A British House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee later issued a report that largely exonerated the scientists.	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 an opinion piece for Reuters "Now the Climategate leak has shown that the surface temperature data that IPCC relies on is based on distorted raw data and algorithms that they will not share with the science community. The scientists implicated in Climategate have misused peer review and pressured journal editors to prevent publication of research that questions their research. They have taken control of the IPCC process and they have smeared opponents personally, rather than critiquing the research." A British House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee later issued a report that largely exonerated the scientists.

I feel that my version of the Climategate section uses Singer's actual quote from the article referenced while the other version looks like work product taking information out of context. As for the SEPP funding. That was discussed in detail back in October. I read the book that the information was taken from and the oil companies being listed did not all fund SEPP. Only one of them did. You can find that list of oil companies properly listed in the Consultancies section of the article. Listing it in the SEPP section is in error.67.176.220.219 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not looking just at the facts that are given, but at writing style. We want it to sound professional. Yopienso (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How can taking statements out of context to confuse the reader as to what is said be considered professional? The way others are butchering it a reader would believe that Singer is making broad statements about climate scientists in general instead of statements about a few individuals.67.176.220.219 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you find wrong with the column above labeled "Current"? I see nothing out of context. Also, it seems to me the oil companies do partially fund SEPP. Yopienso (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Funding

This is the funding paragraph 67.176.220.219 keeps removing (Dec 30, Dec 29, Oct 25, Oct 25, and Oct 24). Could you say, please, what is wrong with it?

Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank run by Sun Myung Moon's 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 cut ties with Moon, and is funded by foundations and oil companies. She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The section "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. She argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation." Consutancy work for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Unocal occured in the 1970s. It it already in the consultancy section. By listing it here you are creating a false impression that these oil companies are funding SEPP. They are already listed on the page and do not need to be listed here a second time. This paragraph as a whole really has little to do with SEPP. I see that the heading has been changed to include funding for some reason. This really is a deplorable attempt to adjust what should be included in the section.67.176.220.219 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would you call it "deplorable"? We have a good source writing about the funding. She says that SEPP (which is basically just Singer) used to be funded by the Unification Church, but is now funded by foundations and oil companies. She doesn't say that this occurred only in the 1970s that I can see, though I will check again. Do you have a source for what you're saying? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference she used is not reliable for the connection between oil companies and SEPP and is the exact line she uses earlier when talking about the oil industries in the 70s. In fact the reason for this is because the secondary source she is using misquoted the line she is using about oil company funding in the 70s. Authors who don't like Singer often go back to that single source to make a connection between oil companies and SEPP.67.176.220.219 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On which page does she mention Singer being funded by oil companies in the 1970s? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked that paragraph so that it's closer to the source; see above. I can't find anything in the source about funding in the 1970s. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Other Singer Activities

Singer participated in a large number of other public interest, science related issues over the years and I wonder why they are not categorized and elaborated on here. One of them was SDI or Star Wars another was fight over acid rain and yet another was the hole in the ozone. All of these are well known controversies of general interest and his opinions are well known and well documented.

I would like to see a section on each so that readers are given a chance to follow this notable person's career over the years and see how it developed.

If there aren't any objections, I'll break out the content into those sections, chronologically listed so as to keep with the flow of the existing material. Jaydee000 (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Heartland documents, Singer's salary?

I've removed this section for now. At least one of the "leaked" documents appears to be forged, see "Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute" by Megan McArdle at The Atlantic. Let's let this settle awhile -- see WP:NOTNEWS. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Pete. Not sure why there's a rush to judgement here. An even if Singer did receive a stipend, why it's important enough to be in the article, not to mention in the lede. It is my understanding that it is rather usual for think tanks to award stipends to some researchers and authors. Madman (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I find this discussion facile and obscure. There are two distinct topics:

i) the authenticity of the salary information; and,

ii) the significance of the salary information.

Let's deal with these one by one.

i) Heartland has admitted that documents were stolen. They have claimed that ONE document, which is NOT the one the salary information was taken from is fake.

Please see http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

and

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/(1-15-2012)%202012%20Heartland%20Budget.pdf

ii) Fred Singer is a public figure at present because he is both an esteemed scientist and a vocal denier of anthropogenic global warming (AGM). It is reasonable to assume that people visiting Wikipedia have heard about him because of his vocal denial of AGM. He is getting paid by a conservative organization that takes donations and redistributes them to promote ideas -- including denying AGM (see first sentence of relevant section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute ) . Therefore, there is a strong prima facie case of conflict of interest.

This fact is so important that, indeed, it ought to be prominently displayed to anyone seeking information about who this Fred Singer guy is, and why he is so vocal against AGM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.24.194 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm unable to see any "conflict of interest". As far as I know, Singer has always been a sceptic so I'm unable to see how getting a stipend would present a conflict of interest. Are you implying that such a stipend is unusual in think-tank-erey? Or that this stipend actually changed his viewpoint?

In a similar vein, would you approve of adding material to Al Gore's leded on the speaking fees he receives? Madman (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting paid by an organization that promotes scientific view x is a conflict of interest for a scientist to argue for view x insofar as they are acting as a scientist. Fred Singer's page emphasizes his scientific credentials and his views on AGM. As a non-scientist, you may be unaware of the ethical and professional significance of receiving payments to promote a scientific position when doing science. Here is a helpful article on the subject:

http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/scienceeditor/v28n4p111-113.pdf

Therefore it is significant that he may have a conflict of interest. Why did you mention a former politician? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.24.194 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please see "Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files" by Andrew Revkin, New York Times. Gleick sort-of denies making up the fake memo, but his credibility isn't too high now. Heartland says some documents Gleick obtained "may have been altered" [13]. Best to be extra-cautious with contentious WP:BLP material. Let it settle awhile -- we don't have deadlines. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the link supporting the authenticity of the leaked documents. Your link at

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

quotes Gleick as saying

"I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication."

You're right, the weight of evidence supports keeping Fred Singer's income from Heartland front and center until there's any reason not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.24.194 (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gleick's already admitted lying [14], and Heartland hasn't confirmed the doc in question. Why not wait awhile for independent confirmation? What's the hurry? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Links posted above form compelling evidence that the budget document that lists payments is authentic. The evidence comprises

-a post from Heartland admitting leaked documents, and specifically naming one document OTHER than the budget document as faked. This is a form of independent (indeed, 1st party) confirmation that the documents are accurate. Had Heartland EITHER denied the accuracy of the budget document OR claimed inaccuracy of any other documents besides the one explicitly claimed to be fake, then this would not be independent confirmation. As it stands, it is a form of independent confirmation.

-a post from the leaker attesting to his identity and the accuracy of the documents in the wild including the budget document.

Why not leave it in until there is ANY evidence that the budget document is altered? Or, more plainly (since you are fond of asking questions yourselves), why don't you want Wikipedia readers to know about Fred Singer's clear conflict of interest as a scientist making claims about anthropogenic global warming? What is your interest in preventing this information from being clearly displayed until it meets your idiosyncratic standard of evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.24.194 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks.

There are rules here in Wikipedia, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks and two that Mr Tillman mentioned earlier: WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. These rules say that we should not give undue weight to specific events or sources and that we are not a newspaper and should not rush to judgement.

There is also a rule against 3 reverts within 24 hours, a rule that you have violated in the past.

Thanks, Madman (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Has anyone here actually looked at the stolen budget document? The money is clearly budgeted for SEPP, not Singer. Look at page 8 of the PDF on DeSmogBlog. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point, Mr Shines. I have removed the paragraph pending verification from other reputable sources. Madman (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's one reason why WP:NOR is important - if you don't know the background of what you're reading you can draw the wrong conclusions from primary source documents. For the last decade or so, SEPP and Singer have been pretty much one and the same. Guettarda (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The cited source goes on to say, re Singer & others: "Whether these funding arrangements actually exist cannot be verified." So I don't understand why an experienced editor would put unverifiable, contentious material into a BLP. Please explain your reasoning. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I did explain my reasoning for my edit...I modified the paragraph to remove material that was not actually in the cited source, and left it reporting what the source did. It's true, as you say, that Goldenberg says that she was unable to verify whether the payments were actually made. And I have now modified the paragraph to reflect that. Incidentally, you're suddenly so worried about BLP violations (and I appreciate that you are finally learning the importance of this policy), let me remind you that BLP applies on your user talk page, just as in any other page. You really shouldn't allow it to be used to be used to make unsupported accusations of criminal behaviour against living people. Guettarda (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Whether these funding arrangements actually exist cannot be verified" and "It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents," appear to be clear - the claims about Singer are at this point rumour, and not properly placed in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Singer's statement re his Heartland connection and stipend

"The Heartland Institute Flap" by S. Fred Singer The relevant material is in his last section, "Heartland and NIPCC":

In 2007, I founded the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) to prepare a proper scientific response to the 2007 IPCC report. In searching for a publisher, the Heartland Institute seemed like the best choice; NIPCC had no ongoing funding and relied entirely on volunteers. ... The NYT story that by 2013 Heartland "expects to have spent some $1.6 million on financing the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" is not true and requires a correction.

[. . .]

As mentioned in the Heartland documents, I receive a monthly stipend to cover expenses. The checks go directly to the non-profit Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) rather than to me personally. I consider this as an advance royalty from the publisher to an author. ...

Singer also comments on Craig Idso's and Robert M. Carter's involvement with the NIPCC project. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The "doicuments" used in the article are still not authenticated, and I fear the entire section is a gross violation of WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and was trying to place this in context with the A.Th article above. Singer and SEPP apparently have an ongoing funding relationship with Heartland -- HL pays Singer through SEPP for his work on NIPCC. I think we could make a BLP-compliant bit from his statement, but agree what we now have up isn't it. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Collect that as it currently stands the paragraph is a clear BLP violation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Dr. K & Collect. Madman (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred Singer at BLPN

Read all about it. And please no edit-wars while the related BLPN discussion is active, (or at any other time for that matter but maybe this is too much to hope for). Many thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Predictions?

There's a long section summarizing Singer's 1967 article in The Washington Post with predictions from the perspective of 2007. Should this be shortened a bit? It seems a bit minor. Michael-Zero (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

ya, maybe his inability to reasonably predict the future with no evidence is why he's upset that thousands of scientists with expertise in chemistry, biology and geology have an ability to forecast a very narrow reasonable prediction about future climate. or maybe he's just a hack that will set up organizations with a slick con-artist-like ability to take money from corporate interests and manufacture "science" tailored to tobacco or oil, like a pepsi/coke challenge that always finds for it's own drink. at least he's old, right? progress by coffins. 65.96.75.136 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

POV Comments

I have reverted several POV comments in this article which have little support in the literature and no refs given, I have also deleted a comment which was not supported by the ref which was given. Peterlewis (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Predictions

The section on the Washington Post article with predictions for the year 2007 is amusing, but the section is disproportionately long for the article. I am going to move it to the "writings" section. Michael-Zero (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

consolidated Scheuering references

The article had 19 separate citations to various pages of Scheuering's biographical chapter on Singer. I have consolidated these into one entry in the reference list, with multiple citation; since the whole chapter is only 11 pages, I don't think that we need to separately cite each page. Michael-Zero (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Ethics part of Global Warming section

I've moved this here, as it is very confusing and unencyclopedic -- though better than what was there before, so thanks! There might be something here we can use, but I'm not sure.

Excised bit:

In 1992, then-Senator Al Gore, who had become the leading candidate for the vice presidential slot of the Democratic party, faced sudden scrutiny over a paper on global warming written by Singer and by Dr. Roger Revelle, whom Gore had claimed, as his mentor at Harvard, had introduced him to the problem of climate change. The contradiction between what Gore had written that he learned from Revelle, and what Revelle had written in the paper was noted by the Press. Revelle had died since the paper had first been published, and Gore wanted Revelle's name removed from an upcoming republication of the paper. Gore contacted Dr. Justin Lancaster, a Research Fellow at Harvard University School of Public Health and former colleague of Revelle's, who publicly charged Singer with unethical conduct. Lancaster alleged that Singer had tricked Revelle, who had undergone heart surgery several months prior to publication, and had not been mentally competent enough to understand what he was doing. Singer sued Lancaster for libel, and, after undergoing discovery, in 1994, Lancaster issued a full retraction. [Cited to "Singer, S. Fred 2003"]

--Pete Tillman (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that this paper was termed "the Cosmos article" during the 1990s, as it was published in the Cosmos Club journal. The purportedly "coauthored" Cosmos article differed hardly at all from an earlier paper published by Singer alone in Env'l Science & Technology journal more than a year prior. Lancaster charged that the Cosmos article was not written by Singer and Revelle, but rather by Singer alone, with edits and contributions from a group of other collaborating skeptics, of which Revelle was not aware. Singer's sworn testimony substantiates this charge.

It should also be noted here that in July of 2006 Lancaster withdrew and repudiated his 1994 "retraction," and he published online an unequivocal statement with respect to the "Cosmos Myth," which included the sworn deposition testimony of Singer, Lancaster's own sworn affidavit that had been filed with the MA court, sworn affidavit of Revelle's secretary and other documentation that supported and/or proved true Lancaster's original charges against Singer. These documents are archived online at http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen . Lancaster claims that his 1994 retraction was coerced by a SLAPP suit, which suits are now prohibited by law in Massachusetts. ~~ Justin Lancaster

Singer and Second Hand Smoke

The text of the article says: "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 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."

This is not very likely as the tobacco archive shows, in a FAX to Bill Orzechowski (head of the Tobacco Institute) from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute proposing that Singer carry out the study proves http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html.Eli Rabett (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim of Singer being in denial

The section starts with "According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking". The reference only contains that exact statement with no argument or reference to what exactly he said or claimed. Looks like a very weak reference to me. If the claim doesn't have any more substance it should be removed.

The fact that he critisized a scientific paper and calling it junk science is not the same as being in denial. The claim might be valid or invalid, but stating that he is in denial suggests that the statement by David Biello and John Pavlus has political undertones. The paper critisizes the scientific method used which might very well be a valid critique, even if the report made the correct conclusion about second-hand smoking in the end.

Any thoughts? Bro4 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of the "denier" rhetoric is political -- and unencyclopedic for here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Singer has been accused of rejecting peer-reviewed science: problematic section in lede

The last sentence in our lede is problematic:

Singer has been accused of rejecting peer-reviewed and independently confirmed scientific evidence in his claims concerning public health and environmental issues.

IB Singer rejects all of these accusations, some of which are clearly political (Oreskes, "The Denial Machine"). It's not clear to me exactly what he's being accused of, and one of the supporting cites is to an article by Singer himself, which is odd.. Needs a rebuttal statement from Singer, and more clarity. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Singer published on climate/atmospheric physics in peer reviewed journals after 1974? On AGU's journal website I couldn't find any (only political and economic plus some lecture on space weather). The same in all of Elseviers journals. Steffen Schmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.8.94.203 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fred Singer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041910/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925191452/http://news.sciencemag.org:80/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130074750/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)