WikiEN-l November 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

69 participants
251 discussions

Enviornmentalism vs. Science (was: William Connolley a rational contributor)
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

> Ed > It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of > Ed > environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with > Ed > Singer. Cunctator replied to Ed: > Actually, it's "people who believe in science" vs. Singer. Mere POV. This is one of the most common arguments of enviromentalists. They claim their position on GW is "the scientific position", hence anyone who disagrees with their position is "unscientific". They bolster this position with their incessantly repeated claim that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of GW theory. There are 2 logical errors with this POV, either of which is sufficient to demolish it. Anyway, it's their POV and should be labelled as such in Wikipedia articles, which is all I've ever asked for. 1. There is no scientific consensus. They just made it up. The IPCC's contributors, when polled, were split 50-50 on whether human-caused emissions were contributing to GW. 2. Even if an overwhelming majority of people believe something, this doesn't make it true. All the experts were against Copernicus, until one solitary observer (Galileo) pointed his telescope at the Jupiter and discovered 4 moons revolving around it. The POV that the debate is "science" vs. the skeptics might be held by the editors of ''Scientific American'' magazine, but that is a popular magazine for laymen, with a long history of taking political stances on scientific issues. SciAm is hardly representative of the world's scientists. Uncle Ed

3 2

Nasty Gareth, Mean Gareth
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

Gareth, I asked you to stop calling me "dishonest". I offered the possibility that I had made a mistake. Yet you persist in your attack on my character. "Your representation of those figures is flagrantly dishonest." There's only one thing I can do in retaliation: I'm crossing you off my Christmas card list. So there! Disappointedly, Ed Poor

2 1

Surveys and consensus
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

There's been too much discussion about this one point, so I'll just say one last thing, and then shut up until the dust clears. Look at the survey quoted in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change It asks a number of questions. Answers are scored numerically, then averaged. The scale of answers ranges is: 1 = agree . . . 7 = disagree I would venture to say that any question with an average (i.e., "mean") of 2 or less indicates a consensus of agreement, and an average of 6 or higher indicates a consensus of disagreement. I think everyone on this list is with me, so far. But what about scores between 2.0 and 6.0? Okay, I'll be nice and even grant that 2.0 indicates stong enough agreement for consensus, and even 2.5 -- but at 3.0 the 'consensus' is less than complete, and really anything between 3.5 and 4.5 can't be called anything other than a 50-50 split. So let's take another look at the survey. What is each question, and what is its average (or "mean") answer? Which questions indicate a consensus, and which a "near consensus", and which a "split leaning one way" and which a "50-50 split"? You tell me what are your criteria for judging survey results, and I'll meekly abide by them. Humbly and peacefully, Uncle Ed -----Original Message----- From: Poor, Edmund W. Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:22 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Surveys have been taken (was: William Connolley no longer neutral contributor) > >Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, > >we could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on > >evolution: 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed > >support > >Darwin's theory, and well over 99% of biologists. > > Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists > about global warning, so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded > until then". Stan, this is simply incorrect. There have been at least 2 different GW surveys, and one of them was added to the Wikipedia by someone other than me: The survey shows an even split among scientists on whether the GW theory is true. This is far from the "consensus" that some GW theory proponents claim exists. The fact that a survey contradicts the political views of the Clinton administration and of the UN climate panel, should be in the Wikipedia. ...unless, of course, someone genuinely feels that a mean score of 4.8 on a scale from 1 (agree) and 7 (disagree) represents a "consensus" of agreement! Uncle Ed

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

We cannot allow spelling bots unless: A. The bot is registered B. The bot draws from an approved list A word like /thier/ can safely be changed to "their", since it's almost always a misspelling. However, there are many misspellings which can't be automatically corrected. I don't mind HUMANS whiling away their time doing a bit of spell-check work; I do it myself, when I want to relax. But if a machine can do it, then it probably shouldn't be done as a logged-in contributor (robot or "bot"). Rather, let's have our zealous programming staff write a custom spell-check program. Uncle Ed

4 4

RE: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

Gareth wrote: > They may be wrong, but thats what most > environmental scientists believe. > Trust me, I work in the area. Most of your colleagues might believe it, but I'd prefer to go by a national or international survey. Otherwise, the most a Wikipedia article could say is that most scientists working at XYZ Institution believe CO2 is warming up the atmosphere. This hardly proves there is a worldwide consensus. Ed Poor

1 0

Shebs re: creationism (was: William Connolley no longer neutral contributor)
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

Stan compared my presentation of the Singer-Connolley conflict in terms of "creationists". I hope what he meant by 'creationists' was "advocates of creation science" - a subset of the larger group of Creationists. Creationists believe that God created (a) the universe (b) all living things and (c) human beings: their view is called Creationism. Some creationists espouse a POV they call "creation science", which ASSERTS THAT creationism is compatible with (or even supported by) geology and biology. The former view, creationism, is beyond debate: it's just something a lot of religious folks believe. Wikipedia isn't going to say they're wrong, no matter how many of us are atheists. The latter view, so-called "creation science", is highly controversial: a lot of creationists believe it, but most scientists do not. The Wikipedia article says (or should say): * Most scientists dismiss "creation science" as [[pseudoscience]] (I think I wrote that line myself!) The conflict over environmentalist ideas -- like (1) CFC damage to the ozone layer leads to human skin cancer or (2) CO2 emissions make the atmosphere heat up too much -- is not parallel to "creationism" vs. evolution but rather to "creation science" vs. evolution. However, there is nothing about Singer's views that is like so-called "creation science". He's not dressing up his faith in scientific clothes: he's reporting genuine dissent WITHIN the scientific community. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen (an IPCC leader!) and Harvared's Sallie Baliunas DISAGREE with other scientists. All I'm saying is that the controversy should be REPORTED in Wikipedia articles. Uncle Ed

3 2

Surveys HAVE been conducted, and they indicate LACK of consensus on GW theory
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

Gareth, Perhaps you agree with the popular laymen's POV (espoused by liberals, Democrats, environmentalists, etc.) that there is a massive majority of informed scientific opinion that believes in anthropogenic global warming. But YOUR AGREEMENT with that viewpoint is insufficient reason for the Wikipedia to endorse it. Rather, we should consult surveys to see whether or not such a "massive majority" exists. Some people, such as you and Fred (if I recall correctly) seem to believe two apparently contradictory things: (a) that no surveys of scientists' GW theory acceptance have been conducted, and (b) that there's a "consensus" of scientists who accept GW theory You can't have it both ways. But if there is some prominent figure or organization which holds both those beliefs, we can mention that in the appropriate article. The same article, however, should mention the EXISTENCE of surveys - even if this makes holders of the "no surveys conducted" POV look foolish. It's kind of like the flat earth thing. We mention believers in flat earth, where appropriate, but we point out that their belief has been discredited. Ed Poor

1 0

Gareth, don't call me dishonest
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

Gareth, Please do not call me dishonest. At worst, I might be mistaken. In this case, I believe it is you who are mistaken. There were several questions on the survey. You are presenting one question, then giving the score for the answer to another question. Assuming good faith, you are simply making an honest error. Later on today, I will explain this further. But for now, please do not accuse me of dishonesty over this. If you think I'm mistaken, just explain the mistake. Accusations of dishonesty are in poor taste, as Jimbo recently said. Stunned, Ed Poor

2 1

Quote me as saying I was misquoted
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

Gareth thought: --> > He's not dressing up his faith in scientific clothes: he's reporting --> > genuine dissent WITHIN the scientific community. Scientists like --> > MIT's Richard Lindzen (an IPCC leader!) and Harvared's Sallie Baliunas --> > DISAGREE with other scientists. --> --> On certain issues. --> Certainly not on CFC atmospheric chemistry, as you seek to make out. Yes, on GW theory -- as I stated. No, not on the ozone depletion issue -- I never said they did. Lindzen and Baliunas have repeatedly expressed their disagreement with environmentalists over the GW theory. I cannot recall Baliunas expressing ANY opinion on ozone depletion. Lindzen might have, but don't recall mentioning that in recent letters here -- let alone in a Wikipedia article. --> > All I'm saying is that the controversy should be REPORTED in Wikipedia --> > articles. --> --> No. You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted. And you called for the idea that CFCs deplete the ozone layer to be considered controversial. That is incorrect. I did NOT call for WC's edits to be reverted. It's just the opposite: I promised not to enter into an edit war with him, and I'm leaving his edits AS THEY STAND. Fred Bauder called attention to the fact that I DID NOT revert WC's latest edit. Please read more carefully. Ed Poor

1 0

UV-A (not UV-B) causes deadly skin cancer (was: William Connolley no longer neutralcontributor)
by Poor, Edmund W 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

> There may be some serious scientists that > doubt that global warming exists or has a > human cause, but there may not be any that > side with Singer on the ozone question. Who, > for example, seriously thinks UV radiation > doesn't cause skin cancer? Sorry about the "shifting ground" confusion. Let's try to straighten it out. Singer does NOT doubt that CERTAIN BANDS of ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer. Rather, he says argues that the chain of causation, beginning with increased CFC emissions, and ending with increased human skin cancer, is faulty. There are 2 relevant bands of ultraviolet: UV-A and UV-B. UV-A causes "malignant melanoma", an often fatal form of skin cancer. UV-B causes the non-malignant form of cancer: i.e., you don't die from it. Singer's points out that UV-A (the ultraviolet radiation which causes deadly cancer) is UTTERLY UNAFFECTED by ozone. The hole he pokes in the EPA argument for the Montreal Protocol is that: * ozone depletion, if it were to occur, will not make more UV-A reach the earth's surface * if no more UV-A reaches the earth's surface, people won't be exposed to more of it and thus people WILL NOT die more often from skin cancer. Hope this clears this up. This info should go into the [[ozone depletion]] article, if it's not there already. Ed Poor

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l November 2003