Re: "Singham lists climate denial, tobacco, anti-vaccination, and anti-evolution advocates as examples of how the prevalent idea of falsification in science has been used as a tool to undermine science. He argues that these anti-science advocates fund and/or conduct their own scientific studies with the intention of producing results that conflict with the scientific consensus in order to create doubt and allow them to “argue that they have falsified the consensus", I would like to see what actual concrete examples Singham presents as evidence for this. I'd be especially interested to see what countervailing/falsifying evidence has been presented to support anti-evolution. (I actually know of people who have entered science schools with this very aim in mind. But I very much doubt if they have had any success in their aims.)

Is Singham fearful that science is not robust enough to see-off such challenges?

Furthermore, I suspect Singham (and Kuhn too) is guilty of perpetrating a "strawman" fallacy, by misrepresenting/oversimplifying Poppers idea of falsification. Sure, the white swan / black swan illustration was a neat way of explaining what he meant by falsification. But by focussing on it, we risk losing sight of the main purpose behind it - which was to demarcate real science from the "heads I win, tails you lose" pseudoscience that was taking over in Vienna at the time. I doubt if Popper ever meant that a theory should be dropped like a hot potato and considered 'falsified' at the very first sign of a countervailing experiment. Of course there are failed experiments, wrong experiments, subtle calculation errors, and overlooked sources of error. (The OPERA/Grand Sasso superluminous neutrino saga springs to mind.) Not to mention blatant fraud forgeries. (The history of science and overzealous science advocates cannot avoid the fact that the Piltdown Man hoax really happened. And that the pages of "Retraction Watch" are full of cases of fraud and forgery.) https://retractionwatch.com/