[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor(Re: toJimbo)

Tue Nov 25 03:52:47 UTC 2003

Still have confusion about the topic in this comment. The passage under
discussion relates to ozone depletion, not global warming. Other than that
it seems right on.

>> It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
>> environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
>> Singer.

Is simply a false statement. There may be some serious scientists that doubt
that global warming exists or has a human cause, but there may not be any
that side with Singer on the ozone question. Who, for example, seriously
thinks UV radiation doesn't cause skin cancer? But what Ed says is even more
insidious, he says "lots of environmentalists (or is it others, what
others?) side with Singer.

The worst thing about this for me is that Ed makes absolutely no claim to
any knowledge or expertise on the underlying facts yet he advances a
position seemingly utterly without factual basis.

Fred

> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:49:14 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor(Re:
> toJimbo)
> 
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> 
>> It's basically Singer's POV vs. Connolley's POV. Lots of
>> environmentalsts side with Connolley, and lots of others side with
>> Singer. 
>> 
>> 
> This sounds just like creationists working to bolster their position by
> saying
> it's just one POV against another.  It is a sneaky tactic; once you've
> gotten
> people to admit the discredited theory might just possibly conceivably be
> valid in some alternate universe, then jump on it and demand equal time.
> 
>> Many of the environmentalists try to bolster their argument by saying
>> that "the consensus of scientists" agrees with them. But I don't think
>> Wikipedia ought to support the claim that such a "consensus" exists.
>> 
>> Now if someone did a survey, and 95% of scientists agreed on a point, we
>> could arguably call that a "consensus" (as we have done on evolution:
>> 95% of all scientists (not just biologist) surveyed support Darwin's
>> theory, and well over 99% of biologists.
>> 
> Another sneaky tactic; it's unlikely anyone will survey scientists about
> global warning,
> so you can safely say "we have to be open-minded until then". The
> scientific consensus
> is normally defined by the peer review and publication process, so
> that's all that's necessary.
> If there are no peer-reviewed articles anywhere, that's a sure sign of
> crackpot theory.
> 
> Although the global warming hypothesis is controversial, many of the
> specific
> processes are completely straightforward and no longer a matter of
> scientific dispute.
> It would be very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility if solid theories
> were to be called
> into question in the name of NPOV, just because they are used as
> supporting arguments
> for theories that are controversial. What if data about animal evolution
> unequivocally
> supports the global warming hypothesis, are we going to back off and say
> "well, it may
> be a consensus, but the scientific community has been wrong before, we
> need to go put
> creationism mentions in every evolution-related article".
> 
> Stan
> 
> 
> Stan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l