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(a)apple.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:49:14 -0800
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l