[WikiEN-l] Re: Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!

Tue Oct 7 22:39:06 UTC 2003

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
|  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
--------------------------------