| Revision as of 14:08, 13 May 2010 editBozMo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,164 edits →professor emeritus: well← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:13, 13 May 2010 edit undoBozMo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,164 edits →professor emeritus: okNext edit → | ||
| Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
| ::::::::: FWIW the reference appears to imply he was a PE in 2000. That does not mean he still is. These things often carry residence or other requirements and are not always until the grave. --] ] 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | ::::::::: FWIW the reference appears to imply he was a PE in 2000. That does not mean he still is. These things often carry residence or other requirements and are not always until the grave. --] ] 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::: For virginia though implies it would be permanent. So its probably ok --] ] 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:13, 13 May 2010
 | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Environment: Climate change B‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Template:Community article probation
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
Rv: why
Its a blog William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Regrettably, FG seems to be reverting-without-talking. The source you're using is a blog. You can't do that. Asserting that it references a real source is meaningless, because we can't trust the information in the blog. That is the point. If we could trust what was in it, it wouldn't need a ref elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- The original source links directly to the Newsweek retraction. There is no verifiability issue here. FellGleaming (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- But of course there is the its-a-blog issue. Which you've ack'd in the article, even if you don't have the honesty to do so here, by doing what you should have done in the first place: using newsweek direct as a source. The question now arises as to whether you've paraphrased it accurately William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, you've inserted countless references to blog entries. You're well aware that "it's a blog" is not a black and white issue. Or are you saying its valid to remove every reference to the RealClimate blog throughout all WP? FellGleaming (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- This has been done to death. Someone with more patience than I can explain it to you if you can't be bothered to look it up for yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- To FG, if the blog links directly to the Newsweek article then wouldn't it be logical to reference the Newsweek article itself instead of using a blog as an intermediary? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's more logical to use the original source (which is not a blog, btw) because it redacts out all but the relevant section (while still linking to the original source), making verification of the claim easier. However, I have since linked to the original NW retraction FellGleaming (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. There was no mention of an "apology" in Samuelson's column, so I fixed the wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your fix is inaccurate. Please see below. FellGleaming (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. There was no mention of an "apology" in Samuelson's column, so I fixed the wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's more logical to use the original source (which is not a blog, btw) because it redacts out all but the relevant section (while still linking to the original source), making verification of the claim easier. However, I have since linked to the original NW retraction FellGleaming (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- To FG, if the blog links directly to the Newsweek article then wouldn't it be logical to reference the Newsweek article itself instead of using a blog as an intermediary? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- This has been done to death. Someone with more patience than I can explain it to you if you can't be bothered to look it up for yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, you've inserted countless references to blog entries. You're well aware that "it's a blog" is not a black and white issue. Or are you saying its valid to remove every reference to the RealClimate blog throughout all WP? FellGleaming (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- But of course there is the its-a-blog issue. Which you've ack'd in the article, even if you don't have the honesty to do so here, by doing what you should have done in the first place: using newsweek direct as a source. The question now arises as to whether you've paraphrased it accurately William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- The original source links directly to the Newsweek retraction. There is no verifiability issue here. FellGleaming (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of Newsweek Source
SBH, you are misrepresenting the source. Allow me to quote the relevant section:
| “ | NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget. | ” |
Samuelson is refuting the entire concept of an industry-funded "denial machine", a point of view he expounds upon not only in this story, but in interviews after the fact. Please do the right thing and revert your edit. FellGleaming (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome to fix it. Please try to use neutral wording that is close to the source, e.g., "Samuelson stated that the story's accusations of ExxonMobil sponsoring a think tank..." etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please let me know if you find the new version acceptable. FellGleaming (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Its written by a columnist in his bi-weekly column, which (as such columns do) stating his opinion. Presenting it as if it is Newsweek that is retracting, refuting or apologizing is fundamentally misleading. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Saying "Newsweek retracted the story" is misleading. Saying "Samuelson called the story..." is not. Also, Samuelson is a contributing editor, not a random columnist. FellGleaming (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Samuelson's bio at Newsweek lists no other responsibility besides writing biweekly columns. It would be misleading to indicate that Samuelson's opinion column reflected a change of mind at Newsweek.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Saying "Newsweek retracted the story" is misleading. Saying "Samuelson called the story..." is not. Also, Samuelson is a contributing editor, not a random columnist. FellGleaming (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fine title - but please look up what a contributing editor actually is. As Brian says: Samuelson writes a bi-weekly column for Newsweek. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Samuelson's bio at Newsweek lists him as contributing editor:
Removing this information simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is against WP policy. The new form of the text is longer, less clear, and seems tailor-made simply to hide that fact. Please do the right thing and self-revert this one. FellGleaming (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- A "contributing editor" is nothing but a fancy name for a freelance writer who commonly writes articles for a magazine. It has no real connection to being an editor of a paper/journal/magazine. In this case the more correct (and less misleading description, as evidenced by your own confusion) is columnist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, we have the magazine itself calling him an contributing editor, and no source whatsoever calling him a "columnist". Yet you want to remove a well-sourced description and replace it with an unsourced title that is designed simply to minimize his position? His official title is contributing editor. I realize you may not like the sound of that, but no one here is confused by it. Further, Samuelson's position with Newsweek is certainly not "freelance". You may want to look up the definition of that term if you're confused by it. FellGleaming (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- The same reference that you are using to call him contributing editor, states that he is writing a bi-weekly colum - which is the only thing that he apparently does for Newsweek. So its quite accurate and well-referenced to call him a columnist. Sorry - but do you have any reference for him not being freelance? Since in "contributing editor" in fact implies that he is? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not accurate. A source saying that a person is a contributing editor, who writes a column, is not a source that says a person is a columnist. Two entirely different concepts. Anyone can write a column. That does not make them a "freelance columnist". FellGleaming (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose one solution is to insert the wiki definition of "contributing editor" into this section of the article to help clarify that his opinion's aren't Newsweek's. A better solution is to delete the reference to "contributing editor" or "biweekly columnist" and just say that "Newsweek later carried a rebuttal opinion by Robert Samuelson". Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- The very best solution is to delete the entire reference to Newsweek. It might be marginally notable on an article on SEPP, but in a bio on Singer himself, it not only falls below the bar for notability, but seems a simple muckraking smear attempt, and the text length, compared to his entire career, has severe problems with undue weight as well. FellGleaming (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, that is certainly not the best solution. We can't just remove critique because a single individual feels that it is over the top. And Samuelson is a single individual writing an opinion - whereas the Newsweek article is a journalistic piece. NPOV is not to present Samuelsons personal opinion as equally valid/with weight as a front-page journalistic article. As for being about SEPP - nope - that is WP:OR - and besides that since his wife left SEPP, SEPP == Singer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- The very best solution is to delete the entire reference to Newsweek. It might be marginally notable on an article on SEPP, but in a bio on Singer himself, it not only falls below the bar for notability, but seems a simple muckraking smear attempt, and the text length, compared to his entire career, has severe problems with undue weight as well. FellGleaming (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose one solution is to insert the wiki definition of "contributing editor" into this section of the article to help clarify that his opinion's aren't Newsweek's. A better solution is to delete the reference to "contributing editor" or "biweekly columnist" and just say that "Newsweek later carried a rebuttal opinion by Robert Samuelson". Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not accurate. A source saying that a person is a contributing editor, who writes a column, is not a source that says a person is a columnist. Two entirely different concepts. Anyone can write a column. That does not make them a "freelance columnist". FellGleaming (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- The same reference that you are using to call him contributing editor, states that he is writing a bi-weekly colum - which is the only thing that he apparently does for Newsweek. So its quite accurate and well-referenced to call him a columnist. Sorry - but do you have any reference for him not being freelance? Since in "contributing editor" in fact implies that he is? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, we have the magazine itself calling him an contributing editor, and no source whatsoever calling him a "columnist". Yet you want to remove a well-sourced description and replace it with an unsourced title that is designed simply to minimize his position? His official title is contributing editor. I realize you may not like the sound of that, but no one here is confused by it. Further, Samuelson's position with Newsweek is certainly not "freelance". You may want to look up the definition of that term if you're confused by it. FellGleaming (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest edits
I've reverted the latest changes - the reason for this is:
- This breaks with WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Samuelson's opinion column carries significantly smaller weight than a frontpage journalistic article with the full editorial review of Newsweek. The text about an Exxon campaign being discredited is not in the reference - the only thing Samuelson calls discredited is a specific instance with the AEI (ie. not Singer).
- This removes contnt that is supported by a reliable secondary source. With no good rationale - if we are going to "trim it" then we should cut down or consolidate text from various references - not remove the refs.
- This because it is wrong. It wasn't astronomical observations - but erroneous interpretation of these. Do please note that it wasn't Singers erroneus interpretation. To my view it is far better to state that Singer was basing this on wrong data, than to say that he misinterpreted astronomical observations.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- (a) The Newsweek piece isn't about Singer.
- (b) SEPP's executive board has 5 members. It isn't "SEPP = Singer".
- (c) This entire article as metastasized into a COATRACK to impugne Singer for his CC views. The material on AGW far outweighs the entire rest of the article. For a scientist with as lengthy, varied, and distinguished as Singer, this is clearly undue weight.
- (d) Re: Phobos, the original astronomical data was in error. Better observations led to a different conclusion. In any case, Singer never made the original allegation or wrote a paper or any other piece of it. He made one remark about it 50 years ago, and you're giving his bio entry greater length for this than even his original remark? This is clearly undue weight.
FellGleaming (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Reading the sources in full, it seems the entire article section on Phobos is entirely in error. Singer did not conclude the satellite was hollow, and his suggestion it may potentially be artificial was clearly predicated with caveats, which are not captured in the article text. Further, its a single off hand remark in a 60 year career; it's not only not notable, but seems included as a simple attempt to poison the well. FellGleaming (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- This concerns me. Is there anywhere easy I can find the references in full? --BozMo talk 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing whatsoever about this anywhere on the web but here. Three sources in the article. Two make no mention of Singer at all. The third, Astronautics, is reportedly published by the AAS, but they don't list it. They list one with a similar name, the Journal of Astronautical Sciences. It could have been renamed, but this one has been published since 1954.
- In any case, the quote within the reference is: " ""My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.""."
- Assuming this is accurate, he hasn't expressed anything definite, and clearly has serious doubts about the data. And if its not accurate, why is it even in the article?
- And of course, the larger issue is notability. Why is this even in the article, if not for well-poisoning? A brief offhand remark that attracted no notability 50 years ago, made by a person still alive today? How is this relevant to such a lengthy and varied career? FellGleaming (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- No one has weighed in to support this albatross of a paragraph. I intend to delete it if no one raises a cogent objection by tomorrow. Fell Gleaming 13:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the material. It's potentially a very interesting bit of history, so if someone can suggest how to readd it without BLP concerns, I would certainly favor it. In the meantime, the material is below. Fell Gleaming 23:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of significant third party coverage of this, I agree that it is a miscellany which shouldn't be there. If it looks like other people did or do discuss that opinion much we would need to reconsider. --BozMo talk 05:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
| Material removed |
|---|
|
In 1960, Singer was one of several scientists who speculated that the Martian moon Phobos was artificial in origin. The claim was based on the erroneous conclusion that Phobos was hollow. Later observations demonstrated conclusively that Phobos was not hollow, rendering the artificial origin speculation moot. |
At first glance, I thought the removal of the Phobos-as-hollow-artifact stuff was reasonable and well argued. But, I got curious, and did a little digging, and...nope, can't find any publication called Astronautics, can't find any evidence that Singer ever made any such statement. So, I removed this unverifiable material from the Phobos article as well.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent; thank you Curtis. Someone went to immense trouble to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to punish Singer for his CC views. Fell Gleaming 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I went looking for who did this, and guess who I found? . WMC, reinserting the bald faced claim that "Singer proposed Phobos is a space station built by aliens". Fell Gleaming 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- FG it is not a bald faced claim - it was reliably sourced then. Perhaps you forgot? You did remove it yourself (including the reference) a few days ago. You on the other hand are seriously out of order here by casting aspersions at another editor . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I went looking for who did this, and guess who I found? . WMC, reinserting the bald faced claim that "Singer proposed Phobos is a space station built by aliens". Fell Gleaming 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Curtis, you may want to look back in the archives - Astronautics did exist, and the article as well - you can even request a copy if you want (i can't remember if i still have it around) - but at the time of the insertion, the reference was found and distributed to those who (just like you) had trouble accepting it :)
- The thing to keep in mind here is the date, and the basis Singer had for this. Both taken into account there really isn't anything odious about it. It is only with todays eyes that it looks strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Relevant archive discussions - the first one is the one to read on Astronautics - the reason you can't find it is that the journal was renamed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- In this case the aspersions are highly warranted. The issue isn't the source. Even if the source exists, its a complete and utter mischaracterization of that source. Further, even had the source been correctly summarized, simply mentioning it prominently in the lede is still another abuse. I'm curious who actually had the gall to characterize Singer as simply "an electrical engineer" in those early versions. I'd look back through the records, but I'm afraid of what I might find. Fell Gleaming 23:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- May i ask you to refactor and remove everything that is a personal attack, or assumptions of bad faith in the above. Remove this comment when you do. Article talk space is not an acceptable venue for such- if you have a problem, you must take it to enforcement, ANI or another place where it is acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the Singer talk page is an entirely appropriate venue to discuss a pattern of tendentious edits to that article. Or are you claiming that beginning the intro of a scientist of Singer's stature with the claim "he's an electrical engineer who thought the martian moons were built by aliens" was done in the best interests of Misplaced Pages? Fell Gleaming 23:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- May i ask you to refactor and remove everything that is a personal attack, or assumptions of bad faith in the above. Remove this comment when you do. Article talk space is not an acceptable venue for such- if you have a problem, you must take it to enforcement, ANI or another place where it is acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- In this case the aspersions are highly warranted. The issue isn't the source. Even if the source exists, its a complete and utter mischaracterization of that source. Further, even had the source been correctly summarized, simply mentioning it prominently in the lede is still another abuse. I'm curious who actually had the gall to characterize Singer as simply "an electrical engineer" in those early versions. I'd look back through the records, but I'm afraid of what I might find. Fell Gleaming 23:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Fell - Any problem that may have existed in the lede was rectified long ago, and nowhere does the article claim "he's an electrical engineer." The central issue here is the Phobos-as-hollow-artifact stuff. I originally supported its removal, thinking, "If it ain't on the Internet, it doesn't exist." But, Kim has cleared that up for us. I agree that it isn't significant enough to be in the lede, but including it along side Singer's later views on Phobos is certainly appropriate, as it is a very interesting notion. Yes, Singer's statement was predicated with caveats, and those caveats were included in the material that was deleted from this article. Therefore, the material should be restored.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the restoral has several problems:
- Your new source still doesn't mention Singer.
- So far we have only Kim's word that any source mentions Singer, and that the source is accurately represented.
- The material is written to suggest Singer, among others, made the speculation and came to "erroneous conclusions", when Singer was openly critical of the data used to reach this conclusion (again, assuming Kim's source even exists)
- The new sources found, if anything, suggest that Singer had no real association with this hypothesis. If anything at all, he made one offhand, mildly critical comment on the subject. Unless he can be shown to have any real involvement with supporting or promulgating the idea, it does't rise to the notability of appearing in his bio.
- Given the lengthy history of tendentious edits and coatracking this article has seen, the inclusion appears designed simply to cast Singer in a poor light, rather than write a balanced, well-informed biography.
If you can find a way to rewrite the material and solve these problems, by all means do so. It's certainly an interesting bit of past history. But its inclusion in this particular bio, with its particular wording, has severe and what appears to be irreconcilable problems. Fell Gleaming 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This statement: "So far we have only Kim's word that any source mentions Singer" is utter nonsense, and a rather clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Do please read the archives. If you ask nicely it may even be that Raul still has a PDF of the reference, and will send it to you. Otherwise a library can be recommended. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are obviously failing to WP:AGF. Kim has provided the source reference for you - it is not "only Kim's word that any source mentions Singer, and that the source is accurately represented," you are required to assume that Kim is accurately presenting the source in the absence of a history of source misrepresntation. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Newsweek piece
I am very sympathetic to the view that the Newsweek piece is not sufficiently about Singer. It could possibly be in the Marshal Insititute article. Also the $10k from Exxon Mobil does not meet my understanding of BLP. I therefore propose deleting these two paragraphs. --BozMo talk 11:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm - to some extent i agree and disagree with that. The Newsweek front-page article is rather long - but 3 paragraphs (roughly 9% of the article) is about Singer, several other highly reliable sources talk about much the same thing (ABC,CBC) and have the same focus on Singer and the connection to an organized industry "denial" campaign. So there is at least 3 major news organizations who have focus on Singer in this regard, that would make it rather tough on us, to disregard it and not to mention it. (do note that the $10K is what Singer admits to - not what the references allude to)
- I can certainly see us compacting the information into a smaller section - but a complete removal is in my opinion against WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, As a result of your disagreement I have read through the article linked to in the footnote and can find no reference to Singer on the first, second, fifth or sixth pages 30 words about him on the third page, four sentences (80 words) on the fourth page. Plus one other mention of "Singer's group" in a list. As you say the article is rather long (about 1600 words) of which 120 well into the "padding" are about Singer. None of these sentences were linking him to the main title or allegation of the article, they are just background info on denialism. I think it is quite misrepresentative to say that this is an article about Singer or that mentioning him in this context amounts to notable coverage. I certainly can see no RS claim that he was other than a passenger and I think this is not appropriate or relevant for his WP article. --BozMo talk 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I went through it myself, when i read your comment :) First of all let me state clearly that i didn't say the article was about Singer (singular) - i said that around 9% focused on Singer. But let me try to explain my rationale, for stating that this is the case: page 3 paragraph 5 defines defines what "denial machine" means in the context for the next paragraphs (Singer is included, as you noticed) - and if we were in doubt then Singer is used as an example in 2 of the following paragraphs. I only counted the paragraphs where in Singer was mentioned by name - but most of the context on page 4 is related to Singer (by the def on p3para5 and by the examples and quotes).
- Btw. it should be noted that i'm not arguing for any expansion of the text in the article - in fact i'd be more than happy with a short text summarizing the issue raised in the various refs to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, As a result of your disagreement I have read through the article linked to in the footnote and can find no reference to Singer on the first, second, fifth or sixth pages 30 words about him on the third page, four sentences (80 words) on the fourth page. Plus one other mention of "Singer's group" in a list. As you say the article is rather long (about 1600 words) of which 120 well into the "padding" are about Singer. None of these sentences were linking him to the main title or allegation of the article, they are just background info on denialism. I think it is quite misrepresentative to say that this is an article about Singer or that mentioning him in this context amounts to notable coverage. I certainly can see no RS claim that he was other than a passenger and I think this is not appropriate or relevant for his WP article. --BozMo talk 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Propose cut to:
A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial implicated Fred Singer, Exxon and others with a $5m industry funded plan aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change, which was later abandoned. Singer has stated that his purported "connection" to ExxonMobil was more like being on their mailing list than to holding a paid position, pointing out that the single unsolicited donation of $10,000 actually received from ExxonMobil comprised a tiny fraction (1%) of all donations received. In the following week Newsweek published a contrary view which characterized the story's conception of an industry-funded denial machine as "contrived" and "fundamentally misleading". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs)
- Seems fine except for a weight issue - either take out some of Singers comments to this - or cut the contrary view. The weight in the literature we've found is towards the Newsweek story - not towards the rebuttal. (here 38 vs. (45 + 25 ) words). My suggestion is the Samuelson part - since it is incorrect (cherry-picked words out of context), since he is referring to a specific case about the AEI, and not the general picture with those words. It also saves us the trouble of attribution which should be done for opinions. Cut the Singer part down so that we have roughly 50:50:
- A 2007 Newsweek cover story implicated Fred Singer, Exxon and others with a $5m industry funded plan, which was later abandoned, aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. Singer has stated that his purported "connection" to ExxonMobil was more like being on their mailing list than to holding a paid position, having received only a unsolicited donation of $10,000 which comprised a tiny fraction (1%) of all donations received.
- Something like that. Stronger focus on abandoned - cutting down the Singer reply without losing arguments - and removing the incorrect Samuelson quotes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Samuelson is referring to the concept of a industry funded "denial machine" as contrived and fundamentally misleading. The quote is correct. Sameulson's remarks about AEI were "long ago discredited". FellGleaming (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Known for, etc
Re . Singer is "known", overwhelmingly, as a climate change denier (and an oznoe skeptic too).
Also, SV added that he "specializing in planetary science, global warming, and ozone depletion". I think that is misleading / wrong in the context of his professional career, which was ages ago, when he specialised in, oh, dunno really, the page says designing instruments for ozone (but that was in pre-ozone-depletion days). A an amateur (or perhaps semi-paid) denier he has indeed written lots about GW etc.
William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
SV's edits, and blind reverst, have broken this; hence the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
professor emeritus
As an intro, I'll self revert my recent sampsonite attempt on request. I'm concerned, however. Could someone reference that Singer is a professor emeritus? Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fair point. Will do? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, as it's self published. UVA dept of environmental science disagrees - http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/ Has other PE's listed, but not Singer. Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a source. Perhaps we could drop the dept a note to ask whether their list is up to date. SlimVirgin 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- He left UVA in 1994, according to his self-published CV (which does not list a emeritus position). That would be pretty out of date. Is the source you provided avaiable online, or do I need to go to the library? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is (available, that is), at . Where does this describe him as a PE? Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Google Books lets people in different places see different things, but I can see it here, p. 52 (scroll to the end), which I think is the last page, or possibly the back cover. SlimVirgin 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess that works. I'm very concerned that he's not a PE. Is it appropriate to ask UVA if he is, or is that harassing? Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Google Books lets people in different places see different things, but I can see it here, p. 52 (scroll to the end), which I think is the last page, or possibly the back cover. SlimVirgin 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's fine to ask them. I can drop them a note if you like. Or you can if you prefer. SlimVirgin 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Either way. No time now, but I'll do this evening. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW the reference appears to imply he was a PE in 2000. That does not mean he still is. These things often carry residence or other requirements and are not always until the grave. --BozMo talk 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- For virginia though implies it would be permanent. So its probably ok --BozMo talk 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW the reference appears to imply he was a PE in 2000. That does not mean he still is. These things often carry residence or other requirements and are not always until the grave. --BozMo talk 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Shklovsky, I. S.; The Universe, Life, and Mind, Academy of Sciences USSR, Moscow, 1962
- Öpik, E. J. (September 1964). "Is Phobos Artificial?". Irish Astronomical Journal, Vol. 6. pp. 281–283. Retrieved June 29 2008.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Unknown parameter|dateformat=ignored (help) - Singer, S. Fred (February 1960.). "More on the Moons of Mars". Astronautics. American Astronautical Society: 16.
"My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them."
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)