> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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