Ed Poor wrote:
I'm getting awfully tired of watching environmentalists inject their junk science POV into articles. They palm off their own prejudices as scientific fact far too glibly for me to remain patient any longer.
We need to start cracking down on contributors who do this.
I'm talking about the dozens of places in which environmentalist contributors keep inserting their unattributed claim that there is a CONSENSUS that supports their POV. I'm talking about PhD scientists like William Connolley who insert statements like "Singer is wrong" into articles instead of NAMING the scientists who disagree with Singer and saying WHY they disagree.
It is ironic, to say the least, that Ed Poor equates a scientist like William Connolley (whose actual research field is climate science) with "environmentalists" engaged in "junk science," even though Ed himself is not a scientist. I think anyone who carefully reads the history of the global warming article will see that Connolley has brought a wealth of detailed knowledge to the topic, while Ed on the other hand has thrown in simplistic generalizations and numerous factual errors that others have had to correct. If anyone doubts that this is the case and wants me to prove it, I can list some of those errors here. To give just one example, Ed falsely claimed (on the global warming talk page) that the National Association of Science predicted a looming ice age in 1975. I corrected him, and to his credit he backed off of his error. One again, however, it illustrates his pattern of factual sloppiness mixed with disdain for leading scientific voices and organizations. (The NAS is the most prestigious scientific body in the U.S. and arguably the world).
As for the complaint that William Connolley inserted the statement "Singer is wrong," I haven't seen that particular statement. It doesn't appear in the current version of the global warming article. If Connolley did insert it previously, someone else has already removed it, which would suggest that if there was indeed a problem, it self-corrected in the usual wiki way.
I've tried being cordial affable. I've tried patiently explaining NPOV. Nothing works. These advocates keep injecting their POV back into the articles, even using smear tactics against scientists who report findings which disagree with environmentalist POV.
I've followed enough of Ed's involvement in the global warming article to conclude that:
(1) He hasn't been very "cordial" or "affable." He attacked me personally over the global warming article, for example, at a time when I hadn't even made any contributions to it. In fact, his habitual use of abusive language like "junk science" is itself a "smear tactic."
(2) Ed has tried, repeatedly and aggressively, to inject his own point of view into the global warming article. Accusing others of doing this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
(3) In a number of cases, Ed has inserted claims that are clearly false and misleading, such as his statement awhile back that "Environmentalists and atmospheric scientists are at odds over the global warming hypothesis." This statement (which has since been removed in the usual self-correcting wiki way) deceptively suggested that the debate over global warming is between "environmentalists" vs. "scientists," when in fact the debate is between "proponents of the global warming hypothesis" (a group that includes most environmentalists and most atmospheric scientists) vs. "global warming skeptics" (a group that includes mostly non-scientists such as Ed himself).
I can't stop three dozen other contributors from injecting bias into the scientific articles relating to the environment. Not by myself -- not by slowly and patiently undoing each mistake and explaining it. I'm outnumbered and outgunned.
Ed seems to think that his lone voice is somehow entitled to outweigh the voice of "three dozen other contributors." On what basis? It certainly isn't on the basis of Ed's possessing superior credentials regarding the topic under discussion. Credential-wise, William Connolley has Ed beat all to hell. I'd like him to explain what he thinks makes him so damn special that he is entitled to "outgun" the overwhelming majority of contributors to that article.
I'm going to start issuing official warnings to NPOV violators. If that doesn't slow them down, I'm going to suspend them -- give them a temporary ban.
Jimbo keeps saying he's sorry to see me go and happy to see me back. Well, I call on him to back me up -- or fire me.
I call on Jimbo to make sure that Ed doesn't abuse his powers to inject his own minority point of view into an article about which he clearly feels very passionate while lacking sufficient knowledge or perspective to serve as any kind of arbiter of what constitutes fairness and balance.
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
(3) In a number of cases, Ed has inserted claims that are clearly false and misleading, such as his statement awhile back that "Environmentalists and atmospheric scientists are at odds over the global warming hypothesis." This statement (which has since been removed in the usual self-correcting wiki way) deceptively suggested that the debate over global warming is between "environmentalists" vs. "scientists," when in fact the debate is between "proponents of the global warming hypothesis" (a group that includes most environmentalists and most atmospheric scientists) vs. "global warming skeptics" (a group that includes mostly non-scientists such as Ed himself).
it seems to me that most global warming skeptics are from the US. For example, all the major political parties in the UK support Kyoto.
tarquin wrote:
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
(3) In a number of cases, Ed has inserted claims that are clearly false and misleading, such as his statement awhile back that "Environmentalists and atmospheric scientists are at odds over the global warming hypothesis." This statement (which has since been removed in the usual self-correcting wiki way) deceptively suggested that the debate over global warming is between "environmentalists" vs. "scientists," when in fact the debate is between "proponents of the global warming hypothesis" (a group that includes most environmentalists and most atmospheric scientists) vs. "global warming skeptics" (a group that includes mostly non-scientists such as Ed himself).
it seems to me that most global warming skeptics are from the US. For example, all the major political parties in the UK support Kyoto.
This is getting off-topic, but one should be careful not to automatically link treaties like the Kyoto protocol and the scientific debate over global warming. The consensus that global warming occurs is fairly strong, but the consensus that the Kyoto protocol is the right thing to do about it is significantly less strong--that is, there are people who think global warming exists who nonetheless think that the Kyoto protocol is not the right way to fix it. This is, notably, the official US position on the issue ("we need to do something about global warming, but this isn't that something"), mostly due to concerns that Kyoto gives developing countries a free ride, and so just encourages moving polluting factories out of 1st-world countries, resulting in no net benefit to the global ecosystem.
(Note that I'm ambivalent on the issue myself, just noting that this distinction does exist. Perhaps Bush is a bad example to pick since you may or may not believe the sincerity of his views on this issue, but there are more legitimate scientists who hold similar viewpoints.)
-Mark
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I call on Jimbo to make sure that Ed doesn't abuse his powers to inject his own minority point of view into an article about which he clearly feels very passionate while lacking sufficient knowledge or perspective to serve as any kind of arbiter of what constitutes fairness and balance.
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.
But content is not my job, procedure is.
And of course, as I've said, it would be inappropriate to ban people without due process, and I tend to suspect that this case if studied carefully would reveal the healthy debate that gives rise to NPOV rather than any actual bannable offenses.
--Jimbo
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.
Gareth Owen wrote:
Certainly, a skeptical voice is healthy, but lets remember that oil companies have agendas too.
Of course. Any discussion of content should move to talk pages, and my own thoughts about the content should be pointedly ignored by everyone. :-) I only care to address policy and process, and trust the users to work out the content over time.
What we can all agree on, of course, is the process and the desire for NPOV, which means: a presentation of the topic that people on all sides of the debate can agree with.
We achieve that most of the time, but sometimes we don't. I was just reading the article on Hugo Chavez of Venezuela yesterday, and I don't think it lives up to our standards -- it is almost pure hagiography, and it omits or glosses over much that Chavez opponents would consider essential. EVEN SO, it was the most even-handed presentation of the issue that I could find. Nearly everything else was transparent advocacy one way or the other.
So, if I were to edit, I would have edited that article. But I find it best for me to not edit, because I am currently judge, jury, and executioner, a job that I don't particularly enjoy. After we move to a committee system, perhaps I will sometimes be able to edit without people fearing that my edits are an expression of policy, rather than just one more person trying to help out.
--Jimbo
Gareth Owen wrote:
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.
Anthropogenic perhaps! Anthropomorphic conjures up visions of the movie "Godzilla Meets the Smog Monster". :-) I know that's it's not polite to criticize on the basis of language or grammar, but some misuses are really funny.
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net writes:
Anthropogenic perhaps! Anthropomorphic conjures up visions of the movie "Godzilla Meets the Smog Monster". :-) I know that's it's not polite to criticize on the basis of language or grammar, but some misuses are really funny.
No offence taken. I don't think there's any shame in such polysyllabic malapropism.
Gareth Owen wrote in part:
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean "anthropic", right? Or are you blaming this on the [[furry|furries]]? ^_^ ^_^ ^_^
("anthropic" = "human", "anthropomorphic" = "human-shaped".)
-- Toby