Fred Singer: Difference between revisions

Line 13:

| death_date = {{death date and age|mf=yes|2020|4|6|1924|09|27}}

| death_place = [[Rockville, Maryland]], U.S.<ref name="Schwartz_2020">{{cite news |last1=Schwartz |first1=John |title=S. Fred Singer, a Leading Climate Change Contrarian, Dies at 95 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/climate/s-fred-singer-dead.html |access-date=April 12, 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=April 11, 2020}}</ref>

~~| nationality = Austrian, American~~

| other_names =

| known_for = Early space research; first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service (1962–1964); involvement in [[global warming controversy]]

Line 137:

Line 136:

====SEPP and funding====

In 1990 Singer set up the [[Science & Environmental Policy Project]] (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the [[Earth Summit]], Singer started writing and speaking out to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use, and argued that the natural world and its weather patterns are complex and ill-understood, and that little is known about the dynamics of heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere, or the role of clouds. As the scientific consensus grew, he continued to argue from a dismissive position.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> He has repeatedly criticized the climate models that predict global warming. In 1994 he compared model results to observed temperatures and found that the predicted temperatures for 1950–1980 deviated from the temperatures that had actually occurred, from which he concluded in his regular column in ''The Washington Times''—with the headline that day "Climate Claims Wither under the Luminous Lights of Science"—that climate models are faulty. In 2007 he collaborated on a study that found tropospheric temperature trends of "Climate of the 20th Century" models differed from satellite observations by twice the model mean uncertainty.<ref>Douglass, David H.; Christy, John R.; Pearson, Benjamin D.; Singer, S. Fred. [https://archive.today/20130106012102/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"], ''International Journal of Climatology'', 28: 1693, December 5, 2007.</ref>

In 1990 Singer set up the [[Science & Environmental Policy Project]] (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the [[Earth Summit]], Singer started writing and speaking out to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use, and argued that the natural world and its weather patterns are complex and ill-understood, and that little is known about the dynamics of heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere, or the role of clouds. As the scientific consensus grew, he continued to argue from a dismissive position.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> He has repeatedly criticized the climate models that predict global warming. In 1994 he compared model results to observed temperatures and found that the predicted temperatures for 1950–1980 deviated from the temperatures that had actually occurred, from which he concluded in his regular column in ''[[The Washington Times]]''—with the headline that day "Climate Claims Wither under the Luminous Lights of Science"—that climate models are faulty. In 2007 he collaborated on a study that found tropospheric temperature trends of "Climate of the 20th Century" models differed from satellite observations by twice the model mean uncertainty.<ref>Douglass, David H.; Christy, John R.; Pearson, Benjamin D.; Singer, S. Fred. [https://archive.today/20130106012102/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"], ''International Journal of Climatology'', 28: 1693, December 5, 2007.</ref>

Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the [[Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy]], a think tank founded by [[Unification Church]] leader [[Sun Myung Moon]].<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> 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.<ref>Singer, S. Fred. {{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html |title=Environmental Strategies with Uncertain Science |access-date=January 15, 2003 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080110224712/http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html |archive-date=January 10, 2008 }}, ''Regulation'' 13(1), Winter 1990, Cato Institute.</ref> Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and was funded by foundations and oil companies.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> She writes that he was a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and [[Unocal]], and that SEPP had received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer said his financial relationships did 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.<ref name = "scheuering2004" />

Line 157:

Line 156:

====Climategate====

In December 2009, after the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]], Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters in which he claimed the scientists had misused [[peer review]], pressured editors to prevent publication of alternative views, and smeared opponents. He also claimed the leaked e-mails showed that the "surface temperature data that [[IPCC]] relies on is based on distorted raw data and [[algorithm]]s that they will not share with the science community." He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, and that the temperature trends were heading downwards even as [[greenhouse gas]]es like [[carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] 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]] (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all."<ref>Singer, Fred S. [https://web.archive.org/web/20091219085226/http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/ "Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle"], Reuters, December 14, 2009.</ref> A [[British House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] later issued a report that exonerated the scientists,<ref>~~Gillis, Justin. [~~https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html "British Panel Clears Climate Scientists"], ''The New York Times'', ~~July~~ 7, 2010.</ref>

In December 2009, after the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]], Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters in which he claimed the scientists had misused [[peer review]], pressured editors to prevent publication of alternative views, and smeared opponents. He also claimed the leaked e-mails showed that the "surface temperature data that [[IPCC]] relies on is based on distorted raw data and [[algorithm]]s that they will not share with the science community." He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, and that the temperature trends were heading downwards even as [[greenhouse gas]]es like [[carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] 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]] (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all."<ref>Singer, Fred S. [https://web.archive.org/web/20091219085226/http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/ "Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle"], Reuters, December 14, 2009.</ref> A [[British House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] later issued a report that exonerated the scientists,<ref>{{cite news

| url = https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html

| last = Gillis

| first = Justin

| title = British Panel Clears Climate Scientists

| date = July 8, 2010

| work = The New York Times

| access-date = August 23, 2025

| archive-date = January 7, 2012

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120107013149/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?pagewanted=all

| url-status = live

}}</ref>

and eight committees investigated the allegations, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.<ref name="6committees">The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: [http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html House of Commons Science and Technology Committee] (UK); [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html Independent Climate Change Review] (UK); [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html International Science Assessment Panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041910/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html |date=May 9, 2013 }} (UK); [https://web.archive.org/web/20100704031346/http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html Pennsylvania State University] [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html first panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100925191452/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html |date=September 25, 2010 }} and [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html second panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130074750/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html |date=January 30, 2012 }} (US); [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538 United States Environmental Protection Agency] (US); [https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/u-s-scientists-cleared-in-climategate-1.1031242 Department of Commerce] (US); [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html National Science Foundation] (US)</ref>

Line 208:

Line 218:

[[Category:2020 deaths]]

[[Category:American climatologists]]

[[Category:American environmental scientists]]

[[Category:American non-fiction environmental writers]]

[[Category:American ~~environmental scientists~~]]

[[Category:American people of Austrian-Jewish descent]]

[[Category:Ohio State University College of Engineering alumni]]

[[Category:Princeton University alumni]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
   | death_date = {{death date and age|mf=yes|2020|4|6|1924|09|27}}
   | death_place = [[Rockville, Maryland]], U.S.<ref name="Schwartz_2020">{{cite news |last1=Schwartz |first1=John |title=S. Fred Singer, a Leading Climate Change Contrarian, Dies at 95 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/climate/s-fred-singer-dead.html |access-date=April 12, 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=April 11, 2020}}</ref>
- | nationality      = Austrian, American
   | other_names      =
   | known_for        = Early space research; first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service (1962–1964); involvement in [[global warming controversy]]
@@ Line 137: / Line 136: @@
 ====SEPP and funding====
-In 1990 Singer set up the [[Science & Environmental Policy Project]] (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the [[Earth Summit]], Singer started writing and speaking out to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use, and argued that the natural world and its weather patterns are complex and ill-understood, and that little is known about the dynamics of heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere, or the role of clouds. As the scientific consensus grew, he continued to argue from a dismissive position.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> He has repeatedly criticized the climate models that predict global warming. In 1994 he compared model results to observed temperatures and found that the predicted temperatures for 1950–1980 deviated from the temperatures that had actually occurred, from which he concluded in his regular column in ''The Washington Times''—with the headline that day "Climate Claims Wither under the Luminous Lights of Science"—that climate models are faulty. In 2007 he collaborated on a study that found tropospheric temperature trends of "Climate of the 20th Century" models differed from satellite observations by twice the model mean uncertainty.<ref>Douglass, David H.; Christy, John R.; Pearson, Benjamin D.; Singer, S. Fred. [https://archive.today/20130106012102/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"], ''International Journal of Climatology'', 28: 1693, December 5, 2007.</ref>
+In 1990 Singer set up the [[Science & Environmental Policy Project]] (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the [[Earth Summit]], Singer started writing and speaking out to cast doubt on the science. He predicted disastrous economic damage from any restrictions on fossil fuel use, and argued that the natural world and its weather patterns are complex and ill-understood, and that little is known about the dynamics of heat exchange from the oceans to the atmosphere, or the role of clouds. As the scientific consensus grew, he continued to argue from a dismissive position.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> He has repeatedly criticized the climate models that predict global warming. In 1994 he compared model results to observed temperatures and found that the predicted temperatures for 1950–1980 deviated from the temperatures that had actually occurred, from which he concluded in his regular column in ''[[The Washington Times]]''—with the headline that day "Climate Claims Wither under the Luminous Lights of Science"—that climate models are faulty. In 2007 he collaborated on a study that found tropospheric temperature trends of "Climate of the 20th Century" models differed from satellite observations by twice the model mean uncertainty.<ref>Douglass, David H.; Christy, John R.; Pearson, Benjamin D.; Singer, S. Fred. [https://archive.today/20130106012102/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"], ''International Journal of Climatology'', 28: 1693, December 5, 2007.</ref>
 Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the [[Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy]], a think tank founded by [[Unification Church]] leader [[Sun Myung Moon]].<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> 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.<ref>Singer, S. Fred. {{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html |title=Environmental Strategies with Uncertain Science |access-date=January 15, 2003 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080110224712/http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-singer.html |archive-date=January 10, 2008 }}, ''Regulation'' 13(1), Winter 1990, Cato Institute.</ref> Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and was funded by foundations and oil companies.<ref name = "scheuering2004" /> She writes that he was a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and [[Unocal]], and that SEPP had received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer said his financial relationships did 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.<ref name = "scheuering2004" />
@@ Line 157: / Line 156: @@
 ====Climategate====
-In December 2009, after the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]], Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters in which he claimed the scientists had misused [[peer review]], pressured editors to prevent publication of alternative views, and smeared opponents. He also claimed the leaked e-mails showed that the "surface temperature data that [[IPCC]] relies on is based on distorted raw data and [[algorithm]]s that they will not share with the science community." He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, and that the temperature trends were heading downwards even as [[greenhouse gas]]es like [[carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] 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]] (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all."<ref>Singer, Fred S. [https://web.archive.org/web/20091219085226/http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/ "Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle"], Reuters, December 14, 2009.</ref> A [[British House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] later issued a report that exonerated the scientists,<ref>Gillis, Justin. [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html "British Panel Clears Climate Scientists"], ''The New York Times'', July 7, 2010.</ref>
+In December 2009, after the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]], Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters in which he claimed the scientists had misused [[peer review]], pressured editors to prevent publication of alternative views, and smeared opponents. He also claimed the leaked e-mails showed that the "surface temperature data that [[IPCC]] relies on is based on distorted raw data and [[algorithm]]s that they will not share with the science community." He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, and that the temperature trends were heading downwards even as [[greenhouse gas]]es like [[carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] 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]] (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all."<ref>Singer, Fred S. [https://web.archive.org/web/20091219085226/http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/ "Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle"], Reuters, December 14, 2009.</ref> A [[British House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] later issued a report that exonerated the scientists,<ref>{{cite news
+| url = https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html
+| last = Gillis
+| first = Justin
+| title = British Panel Clears Climate Scientists
+| date = July 8, 2010
+| work = The New York Times
+| access-date = August 23, 2025
+| archive-date = January 7, 2012
+| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120107013149/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?pagewanted=all
+| url-status = live
+}}</ref>
 and eight committees investigated the allegations, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.<ref name="6committees">The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: [http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html House of Commons Science and Technology Committee] (UK); [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html Independent Climate Change Review] (UK); [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html International Science Assessment Panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041910/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html |date=May 9, 2013 }} (UK); [https://web.archive.org/web/20100704031346/http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html Pennsylvania State University] [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html first panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100925191452/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html |date=September 25, 2010 }} and [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html second panel] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130074750/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html |date=January 30, 2012 }} (US); [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538 United States Environmental Protection Agency] (US); [https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/u-s-scientists-cleared-in-climategate-1.1031242 Department of Commerce] (US); [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html National Science Foundation] (US)</ref>
@@ Line 208: / Line 218: @@
 [[Category:2020 deaths]]
 [[Category:American climatologists]]
+[[Category:American environmental scientists]]
 [[Category:American non-fiction environmental writers]]
-[[Category:American environmental scientists]]
+[[Category:American people of Austrian-Jewish descent]]
 [[Category:Ohio State University College of Engineering alumni]]
 [[Category:Princeton University alumni]]

Fred Singer: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search