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
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:
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.
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.
Both sides of the debate about Global Warming are represented quite well in wikipedia. After a definition, the [[Global warming]] article continues : "Depending on what data one chooses to emphasize, different conclusions are possible ... The difference between the interpretations of the historical record affects how the most recent warming trend is viewed: the quantitative records show the recent warming trend, and the current warmth, as unusual; from the qualitative record, many "skeptics" believe that the recent trend is not unusual"
And thats before we get to [[Global warming controversy]]... "A number of scientists with backgrounds in climate research -- notably Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and Sherwood Idso -- dispute the global warming theory (see [[global warming skepticism]]). Also, a number of conservative think tanks oppose the theory, some implying that fraud has been involved in advocacy for it (see Science and Environmental Policy Project)."
It is REPORTED.
You started this thread with specific complaints. Don't now retreat behind generalities.
Gareth Owen wrote:
No. You called for William Connolley's edits to be reverted.
In the interests of accuracy, Ed said absolutely no such thing. He's very supportive of those edits, in fact, and has additionally suggested that it would be appropriate to cite Connolley as a source.
--Jimbo