From there, Singer achieved fame in space science. Some of his major accomplishments
include using rockets to make the first measurements of cosmic
radiation in space along with James A. Van Allen (1947-50); designing
the first instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone (1956);
developing the capture theory for the origin of the Moon and Martian
satellites (1966); calculating the increase in methane emissions due to
population growth that is not key to global warming and ozone depletion
theories (1971); and discovering orbital debris clouds with satellite
Singer is exceedingly
modest about his career. Although I have known him for more than a
decade, I only inadvertently learned of his earlier achievements last
year while reading "Sputnik: The Shock of the Century" (Walker &
Company, 2007), which chronicles the development of the U.S. Space
The book described Singer, along
with Van Allen, as a "pioneer of space science." The author also wrote,
"America’s journey into space can arguably be traced to a gathering at
James Van Allen’s house in Silver Spring, Maryland on April 5, 1950.
The guest of honor was the eminent British geophysicist Sydney Chapman…
The other guests were S. Fred Singer…"
his many prominent positions, Singer was the first director of the
National Weather Satellite Center and the first dean of the University
of Miami’s School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences. He’s also
held many senior administrative positions at federal agencies,
including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Transportation and Department of Interior.
this illustrious bio, ABC News’ Harris apparently was too busy
swallowing the Greenpeace caricature of Singer to do any research on
the actual man.
In a letter to ABC News,
Singer complained that "Dan Harris also referred to unnamed scientists
from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced what I do as
‘fraudulent nonsense’… They are easily identified as the well-known
global warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer and Steve
Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their
mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. I suspect they’ll
chicken out. They surely know that the facts support my position — so
they resort to anonymous slurs."
most comical part of Harris’ hit piece is the Greenpeace contribution.
In the eco-activist tradition of willful ignorance and ad hominem
attack, Greenpeace’s Kert Davies said of Singer, "He’s kind of a career
skeptic. He believes that environmental problems are all overblown and
he’s made a career on being that voice."
Kert. Singer is just now making his career. And just who is Kert
Davies, described by Harris as a "global warming specialist," and what
exactly qualifies him to pass any sort of judgment on Singer? I
e-mailed Kert a request for his resume in order to learn precisely what
a "global warming specialist" is. I received no response as of the
writing of this column.
qualifications and lifetime of accomplishment are readily available on
the Internet for all to see. What about Davies’ qualifications and
accomplishments? I couldn’t find them on the Greenpeace Web site; I
couldn’t find them through a Nexis search.
it possible that their Internet absence is indicative of their general
nature? All that I could find out about Davies is that the media often
has used quotes from him in the role of a spokesman for various
eco-activist groups since the mid-1990s.
than Davies is ABC News’ Harris. Although he didn’t need any particular
qualifications or expertise to fairly report the interview with Singer
other than perhaps some basic journalistic objectivity, he couldn’t
even manage that as he allowed the distinguished Singer to be smeared
by a rather undistinguished blowhard.
column recently reported on another recent mainstream media effort to
marginalize those who question global warming alarmism. It’s a
fascinating phenomenon given that available scientific evidence
on the all-important relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide
and global climate indisputably supports Singer’s point of view rather
than the alarmists.
Apparently the activists
have decided that since they can’t destroy the facts, they’ll instead
try to destroy anyone who dares mention them.