Talk:Fred Singer

Rockoon?

Is this the same "S. F. Singer" who (together with Van Allen and Halvorson) was responsible for the Rockoon? Tony Mach (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

NASA SOUNDING ROCKETS, 1958-1968 - A Historical Summary, NASA SP-4401, 1971, by William R. Corliss "The rockoon concept seems to have been originated by Lt. M. L. (Lee) Lewis during a conversation with S. F. Singer and George Halvorson during the Aerobee firing cruise of the U.S.S. Norton Sound in March 1949. The basic idea is to lift a small sounding rocket high above the dense atmosphere with a large balloon in the Skyhook class. Once enough altitude is attained, the rocket is fired by radio signal straight up through the balloon. The rocket will reach much higher altitudes than it could from the ground. The rockoon has turned out to be a simple, cheap way of getting high-altitude data without special facilities. Many rockoons employing Deacon, Loki, and Hawk rockets were fired between 1952 and 1960. Once satellites and high-altitude sounding rockets became available in adequate numbers, the use of rockoons declined. "James A. Van Allen first put rockoons to practical use when he and his group from the University of Iowa fired several from the Coast Guard Cutter East Wind during its cruise off Greenland in August and September 1952. 41 Van Allen was looking for high-altitude radiation near the magnetic poles and needed a vehicle that could reach well over 80 km (50 mi) with an 11-kg (25-lb) payload and yet still be launched easily from a small ship. The rockoon was the answer." Apparently there was only one S.F. Singer active in astronautics in the 1950s. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently so. YoPienso (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Advocate for climate denial" now well-sourced

The phrase "advocate for climate denial" was removed from the lede by Peter Gulutzan claiming that it was poorly sourced. I restored the material with an appropriate and impeccable reliable source, Inside Climate News, which directly describes the subject as a "climate denialist." Any removal of this longstanding and now well-sourced material will require consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why anyone would think the removal would be appropriate. Perhaps we add more emphasis in the article body, with further sourcing? --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP emphasizes it in various ways, here is one: "If it [i.e. material that has been deleted on good-faith BLP grounds] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." WP:BLP also says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." So NorthBySouthBaranof didn't follow BLP requirements and saying that others need consensus is false. NorthBySouthBaranof's heading for this thread is also problematic since WP:TALK says "Keep headings neutral" but let's let that pass this time and get to why the content is wrong. The material is poorly sourced, there is no evidence that Katherine Bagley is an expert on the subject of Fred Singer, or that insideclimatenews given its partisan nature is a reliable source in context for any of its attacks (by the way WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is applicable too), or indeed that insideclimatenews is really the "news" organization it pretends to be, with editorial control fact-checking retracting etc. And it's merely name-calling, without evidence that Singer aligns with climate deniers (in fact he has said "climate deniers give us skeptics a bad name"). I hope other editors will opine about the subject, and in the meantime have not reverted NorthBySouthBaranof's edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I restored the material with a significant change - to wit, an impeccable reliable source, the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News. Your unsupported personal beliefs about an award-winning, widely-cited non-profit news organization are just that - personal beliefs. You are welcome to start a thread on RSN if you believe there is a consensus to deprecate ICN as a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added an additional academic reference to the American Behavioral Scientist, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, as well as a reference to The New York Times. There are now, as you requested, multiple reliable secondary sources for the statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There are many sources that describe Fred Singer's views in terms of denial. David Morrison (astrophysicist) is a leading skeptic and Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which is an international organization that promotes skepticism. He published a 2010 article in the Skeptical Inquirer (CSI's flagship publication for skeptics) "The Storms over Climate Change" pointing out that, "as skeptics, we need to recognize the techniques used to distort and politicize the science." He singles out Singer, along with Fred Seitz as promoting denialism (as opposed to skepticism) on a number of scientific issues, stating "...Seitz and Singer and a handful of others have taken the same denialist position on one issue after another: tobacco and cancer, acid rain, ozone depletion, DDT, secondhand smoke, and now global warming". So here's another citation supporting Fred Singer's advocacy of climate denial IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

---

This is trashing the reputation of a distinguished and deceased physicist, whose contributions to physics helped make GPS practical -- and in the editorial name of Wikipedia. Have you people no shame? --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Singer's involvement in basic physics research on General Relativity, and its application to early GPS development, is related in his interesting autobiographical essay at American Thinker in 2015: "Einstein, Your GPS (and Me)" --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What is it about the reliable sources used that you object to? And "shame" is rather off target here. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Also note, American Thinker has been discussed at RSN in 2008 and 2018, and it's evidently not a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave: I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Are you saying that Fred Singer isn't a RS for his own life & career? That the abundant recognition he received as a professional physicist (including a Presidential Science Medal for his basic research, which led to the development of satellite-based GPS) wasn't merited? I stand by my comment. This is ideological opinion speaking in WP's editorial voice, which BLP does not allow. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's his reputation: https://www.drillednews.com/post/fred-singer-obituary-climate-denier -- Jibal (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

RS? Looks like an opinion piece to me. See Inappropriate content for Wikipedia, "Text that is intended to attack or disparage the subject" applies. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Singer was a climate change denier is well-supported by reliable sources. NOTE: The comment above was changed after I replied to it, please see here for the comment I was replying to. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the OPINION etc. is what's supported by RSs . The current version fails WP: Neutral point of view (NPOV). "Climate Change Denier" is widely regarded as a derogatory description. See Inappropriate content for Wikipedia ","Text that is intended to attack or disparage the subject" --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Random essays do not overrule basic policy. --JBL (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is a "random essay", in your opinion? Why not try to address the question? Is "Denier" a defamatory term? I think it is, as do many others. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Our article on the subject is titled Climate change denial, which suggests that it is a neutral rather than derogatory term. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It suggests this area is as intensely politicized as ever! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And it's part of his notability, if not the most notable aspect of his life. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Good grief. "The most notable aspect of his life!" Have you actually read the article? --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest focusing on policies and content rather than editors. ArbEnf applies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Updating verb tense

Someone should take the time to go through the article and update the verb tenses. I just noticed that the section on Global warming is written as though Singer is still alive — i.e., using the present tense instead of the past tense ("conflicts" vs. "conflicted," etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcreshkof (talk • contribs) 02:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:DIY. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Denialist

He is not relevant as a physicist. His main claim to "fame" is his opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change, plus the one on smoking and cancer, and others. The same is true for Frederick Seitz. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fred Singer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. What changes do you think would improve this article? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Although you have never edited this article or its Talk page, you should have been able to find the page [1] and thus [2]. That would have been less effort than writing the boilerplate response above, which is intended for informing rookies and not for bothering someone who has been editing Wikipedia for twenty years.

Do you have any improvements to the Fred Singer article, or are you following me after disagreeing with me somewhere else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)