Ed Poor wrote: 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 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). 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 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 | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception --------------------------------