The Cunctator wrote:
> The problem is that Ed Poor has been editing
> articles on climate science to give equal weight
> to opinions outside of mainstream science, and
> describing the different sides as "environmentalists,
> liberals, Democrats and some scientists" and "other
> This isn't a dispute over generalities or a philosophy
> of neutrality; it's a specific dispute over the
> presentation of particular scientific issues.
The question is: What is "mainstream science"?
Is it determined by where the bulk of the money is spent on research? If
so, then all we have to do is find out which hypotheses and/or
conclusions are winning the most research grants, and so on.
For argument's sake, let us grant that the environmentalist positions on
the (A) "CFCs cause deadly cancer" issue and the (B) "carbon dioxide
heats up the air too much" issue are getting $5 billion per year.
Further, let us suppose that the contrary positions are getting less
than 5% of that, say, $200 million.
This would mean that mainstream science supports the environmentalist
positions on the (A) and (B) issues.
2. Journal Articles
Is mainstream science defined by what the overwhelming majority of
peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals say?
Then all we have to do is review those articles, or for those not
familiar with the language of science, maybe just the article
"abstracts" (the summary at the beginning of the text).
If the overwhelming majority of these articles report that their
research supports the environmentalist positions on the (A) and (B)
issues, then our Wikipedia articles should say so.
And if our "Wikipedia definition" of "mainstream science" is "whatever
the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed articles in scientific
journals say", then we can say:
* The viewpoint of [[mainstream science]] is that the [[global warming]]
theory is true.
However, the link to "mainstream science" should provide either the
money definition given above, or the journal article count one.
I for one would trust someone like William Connolley to tell me what the
journal articles say, and perhaps we could cite Sheldon Rampton as a
source for where what views the bulk of the research funds is
This is to recommend you to keep an eye on the
contributions of user Sayeya. He has written before in
the Spanish wikipedia and before that in Enciclopedia
Libre, and has been regarded in both as a, at least,
problem user with serious POV issues.
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now