Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Well, sure, but keep in mind that I'm essentially sympathetic to what Ed is saying. I think that there is a lot of politically driven junk science in this area, unskeptically reported by people who like the political implications, and that a skeptical voice about that is healthy.
Well, I hate to speak out on something of which I'm personally knowledgeable and involved, because its only a recipe for trouble.
But .. as a working environmental scientist (funded by the UK equivalent of the NSF) I don't think thats really fair.
There is *some* politically motivated junk science being done, certainly. And most of it is not funded by environmental groups (don't have a lot of cash to throw around) but by oil companies (who do).
What there is, however, is a fairly well developed environmental spin-machine who take moderate, cautious, *good* science, and spin it in their favour, and an equally out-of-control Blomberg inspired crowd (libertarians mainly) who are convinced -- almost to the point of religious princple -- that global warming is a giant left-wing conspiracy and that Kyoto was an anti-american plot (amongst whom, sadly, I number Ed Poor).
In my personal experience of attending large Earth Science meetings, I have gained the impression that: The vast majority of working earth scientists, believe that global warming is a fact, and that present global warming is, at least in part, anthropomorphic in source.
(There is a peculiar myth grown up that we're all in some big conspiracy to talk up global warming to protect our funding; if this is the case, I wasn't invited to the planning meetings. And besides: i, the anti-Kyoto lobby pay better ii, all the real money is in short- and medium-term weather forecasting, which the military just *love*)
Now, given that the stated role of science-wiki is to reflect present consensus thinking, I feel that it is Ed who is seriously breaching this policy, in continually removing edits that -- without prejudice as to whether they're right or not -- does reflect that which might accurately describe the present state of scientific thought.
Certainly, a skeptical voice is healthy, but lets remember that oil companies have agendas too.