Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. “Do you really believe in Martians?” I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington event. The answer was “No.”
Wikipedia’s error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. The page that Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career by painting him as a political partisan and someone who “is best known as president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and second-hand smoke and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax.”
Innocent Wikipedia readers would be surprised to learn that Dr. Singer is no conservative kook but the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Center; the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a commendation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research on particle clouds; and the recipient of a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of weather satellites.
He is, in short, a scientist of the highest calibre, with a long list of major scientific achievements, including the first measurements, with V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space, the design of the first instruments for measuring ozone, and the authorship of the first publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation in the earth’s magnetic field to explain the magnetic-storm ring current.
Read more here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/25/the-real-climate-martians-solomon.aspx
—————
The Real Climate Martians, by Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, April 26, 2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So does this mean that Wiki should be discouraged from here as a reference site like New Scientist was?
Another excellent article by Lawrence Solomon. He is one of several mainstream Canadian journalists who dare to challenge the Climate Alarmist mantra. He is the author of an excellent past series of articles called “The Deniers” which has now been compiled and published in book format. Notably the bulk of these journalists with a flash of realism are carried by the CanWest media chain which appears to be the only major media outlet in Canada to provide a balanced view on the issue (they of course also have their share of wacko Alarmists). Other journalists carried by CanWest that also have a reality based viewpoint include Lorne Gunter and Terence Corcoran.
The other notable Canadian journalist that I’ve mentioned before that takes a more balanced view is Rex Murphy. While not an ardent “Denier”, he has taken the Alarmists to task on a number of issues with biting composition and oratory. Interestingly enough his venues are the CBC and the Globe and Mail, two media outlets that otherwise tend to promote a rabidly Alarmsist viewpoint. Here’s a few of his better items carried on the CBC:
Here’s a couple more good ones:
I have quite enjoyed my frequent visits to wiki pages but I don’t bother with youtube.
One of our engineering academics says his students quite often cite Wikipedia in their reports – he usually tells them to go away and do their research properly.
“one of the world’s renowned scientists,” the more I read this blog, the more laughs I get.
Fred Singer and tobacco.
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming
SJT
I don’t think any of us have come across a more gullible individual than youself.
Rather be gullible than stupid like your good self Louis.
Daniel,
Thanks for ad hominem, but reading Desmogblog one reads in the comments that a Fred corrected the Wikipedia entry inferring that Singer believed in martians, followed by a comment by Lawrence Solomon thanking “Fred” for the correction but why was it shortly afterwards reinstated after his alleged correction.
Fred Singer said that you can’t really correct Wikipedia entries, and here we have proof positive that incorrect information cannot be removed. I know of others who have tried to correct wrong entries in Wkipedia experiencing the same type of censorship.
However I have come to realise it is not the activity of malignant lefties but the actions of dullards who, while having been brilliantly trained what to think, have not yet worked out hot to think. Stupid is as stupid does I suppose.
correction: “hot” should be “how” in the second last sentence. If I was truly dumb I suppose I would not have noticed this error.
if you have time to spare you can look up the edits in Wiki and see how others kill time…years and years of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Singer&action=history
After all the hoohaa, Connelly admits that the tobacco links are at best dubious.
Copied from John Ray’s Greenie Watch:
“Fred Singer replies:
1. Unfortunately, Jim Peden is correct. Unnamed parties have been inserting bizarre items into my Wiki biography. Larry Solomon has just published an article about this in the National Post.
The latest Wiki version makes me out to be some kind of wacko who believes in the existence of Martians.
2. Global Warming: The Newsweek allegation is completely untrue. No one from my organization attended such a meeting at the American Petroleum Institute. The NY Times ran the story originally and retracted it later when it was shown to be incorrect. We complained to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham and to writer Sharon Begley. But Newsweek has never corrected its story.
3. NIPCC: On ABC World News (March 23, 2008) reporter Dan Harris asserted that (unnamed) scientists at NASA, Princeton, and Stanford referred to NIPCC as “fraudulent nonsense.” On the ABC web story, he changed the words to “fabricated nonsense” but never identified the scientists. I am pretty sure I know who they are (Hansen, Oppenheimer, and Schneider) and wonder if they really used the word “fraudulent” or if Harris made it up. If we sue for libel, we could find out. But is it worth it?
As an aside, ABC clearly stated that the Exxon donation of a decade ago was “unsolicited.” The Wiki account does not, and attempts to link it to NIPCC.
4. When all else fails, there’s always tobacco. I am nonsmoker, belong to an anti-smoking organization (ACSH), and hate cigarette smoke. But this does not affect my science. Expert epidemiologists, including those at the Congressional Research Service, all agree that EPA cooked the data in order to link ‘second-hand’ smoke to lung-cancer deaths. See, e.g., here or here
I wanted you to know all this but don’t really expect to change Wiki.
Viscount Monckton comments:
There is a well-organized team under a computer nerd called Kim Dabelstein-Petersen who are responsible for dive-bombing the biographies of anyone known to question the alarmist viewpoint on the climate. They did it to me. When I said I would sue, they said legal action would be ineffective because they shelter behind a jurisdiction of convenience in Florida, where the publication of lies is permitted. So I told them that I’d obtain an interdict from the Scottish courts, forbidding the Internet trunk carriers from carrying any Wikipedia inaccuracies about me. That got their attention. My page has been cleaned up and locked against further tampering (for the time being, at any rate).”
QED having lost the debate the AGW’ers now start attacking the messengers using anything they can get their hands on.
Time that Wikipedia was renamed Wikiganda. Is the AGW argument so weak that it is necessary to resort to smears? It seems that it is. This passive smoking nonsense and Fred Singer is just ridiculous.
Even Sir Richard Doll who did the seminal work linking smoking with cancer said:
“The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826939.stm
Mmmm. Doll was 91 when he said that and Freddy Singer is now 83. May I humbly suggest that these geriatrics are not at the top of their game.
IN respect of second hand smoke, the following groups say it is carcinogenic:
# The World Health Organization[81]
# The U.S. National Institutes of Health[82]
# The Centers for Disease Control[83]
# The United States Surgeon General[84]
# The U.S. National Cancer Institute[85]
# The United States Environmental Protection Agency[86]
# The California Environmental Protection Agency
# The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society
# The American Medical Association
# The American Academy of Pediatrics
# The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
# The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health
I’ll go with the advice of these organisations, thank you very much.
I also note that Singer’s wiki page does not say Singer believes in Martians. All it says is this:
“In 1960 Singer supported the suggestion of Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky that the Martian moon Phobos was of artificial origin” A bona fide reference is provided.
Marohasy is being dishonest and must apologize if she wishes to retain any dignity.
What’s said about passive smoking, and what can be demonstrated scientifically are two different things. Singer has represented the science correctly.
No need to be disrespectful to older people who are in fact ‘still at the top of their game’ or are deceased so they can’t defend themselves.
The above article was written by Lawrence Solomon, not Jennifer Marohasy, and is posted here for discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Singer&diff=208621825&oldid=208542768
This is the edited text; “and, in 1960, supported the suggestion of Russian astrophysicist [[Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky]] that the Martian moon [[Phobos (moon)|Phobos]] might possibly be of artificial originSinger, S. F., ”Astronautics”, February 1960″
I note that the Wiki ‘Bio’ on Fred Singer was edited on:
This page was last modified on 28 April 2008, at 07:34.
Which was some time after Lawrence Solomon’s article think.
Wiki should be commended for deleting these comments; it shows that they do have a system to protect against wilful misrepresentations
Said Connolly “we aren’t scared of wingnut journos”
Gavin: “I have quite enjoyed my frequent visits to wiki pages but I don’t bother with youtube.”
Spoken like a true ecofascist!!
Looks like SJT has uncovered the mystery of the attacks on the credibility of this scientist. SJT provides a link to a blog site run by a master spin doctor, a PR firm. Its president is James Hoggan and the PR firm James Hoggan & Associates. … Mr. Hoggan is Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, an executive member of the Urban Development Institute and Future Generations and a Trustee of the Dalai Lama Centre for Peace and Education. He helped establish the Suzuki Foundation Business Council on Sustainability to encourage collaboration between the environmental and business communities. His personal web site includes http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming Thanks for the tip.
Looks like SJT has uncovered the mystery of the attacks on the credibility of this scientist. SJT provides a link to a blog site run by a master spin doctor, a PR firm. Its president is James Hoggan and the PR firm James Hoggan & Associates. … Mr. Hoggan is Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, an executive member of the Urban Development Institute and Future Generations and a Trustee of the Dalai Lama Centre for Peace and Education. He helped establish the Suzuki Foundation Business Council on Sustainability to encourage collaboration between the environmental and business communities. His personal web site includes http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming Thanks for the tip.
The recent history file on Fred Singer’s Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Singer&action=history
It’s been busy since the article was published.
Also look at how Sikipedia wrote up about Richard Lindzen. Singer’s got some company.
Full revision list link following;
Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Singer&limit=500&action=history
Lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen&limit=500&action=history
Peiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser&limit=500&action=history
Paul Biggs,
I’ve checked the Wikipedia history from immediately prior to the Solomon article to the present and it AT NO STAGE says that Singer believes in Martians. The information Wiki contains pertaining to Singer’s views on the Martian moon Phobos has a bona fide reference to Astronautics magazine.
When will Jen Marohasy correct her false claim?
Verity treacle – the headline for the article states that Lawrence Solomon claimed this, so she has made no false claim at all.
Marohasy quotes from the article and directs readers of this blog to “Read more here”. That constitutes an endorsement. A failure to retract will constitute a lie.
Verity treacle,
“read more here” merely points to the rest of the article referred.
This is like me finding an article on the methods the SS used at Auschwich, quoting part of it, and then directing readers to the rest of the article published elsewhere on the web. Using your logic I must therefore be endorsing National Socialism’s genocide policies.
Perhaps you should apologise to Jennifer after impugning her with this allegation?
Verity treacle,
one of these edits states “In 1960 Singer supported the suggestion of Russian astrophysicist [[Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky]] that the Martian moon of artificial origin”
i assume you didnt read it and upon reading this you can apologise to everyone here.
Verity treacle has no need to apologise, verity treacle is a substance not a person.
Horses like a little treacle on their oats, so did the Anzacs.
Marohasy has deliberately used her blog to spread a lie. It would be shameless of her not to apologise.
Paul Borg- I already referenced that quote and it clearly doesn’t say Singer believes in Martians.
Verity Treacle
The attack is ad hom it has been demonstrated,
The attack is the man and not the science, consistently.
The attack should be the science not the man.
There is a smear on and use your name trollop.
Marohasy has not lied, or used her blog inappropriately you gutless piece of filth.
See the revision lists they should not exist, Wikis being flamed.
Rog 7.09 am shows the attacks.
Verity teacle, prove it.
In response to some earlier comments/discussion in this thread:
The article that begins this thread was written by Lawrence Solomon. And he correctly explains that Fred Singer was misrepresented on the issue of Martians by Wikipedia.
Indeed just because a claim looks respectable, and is referenced, doesn’t mean it is true.
The question asked by Solomon and the paper written by Singer are two different matters. wikipedia’s reference is to the Martian moon, Singer wrote a paper on it.
Is that not true?
Singer wrote a scientific paper about a moon?
SJT, better check your GPS gadget because you seem totally over the moon.
Marohasy says: “And he [Solomon] correctly explains that Fred Singer was misrepresented on the issue of Martians by Wikipedia.”
Why not explain in your own words how Singer was misrepresented? You won’t of course, because you are being less than generous with the facts. Shame on you.
Absolute nonsense.
The edit clearly implies Singer beleived in aliens creating the moon. Consequently the edit was reverted due to it being ‘out of context’.
Play all the semantics you want.
IIRC the Phobos problem was that the orbit appeared to be decaying faster than the mass should let it. This implied very low density which led to speculation that the moon was hollow which *might* indicate it was an artifact. Since humans didn’t build it this led to speculation that “aliens done it”.
All good fun and the worst outcome would be an early Mars probe series, eventually crewed.
Unlike the AGW conjecture whose worst outcome is very bad indeed in wrecked economies worldwide.