[WikiEN-l] Re : anti-scientific biais

Wed Oct 8 13:43:33 UTC 2003

From: Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com>

tarquin wrote:

> Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>
>> (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).
>

Tarquin

>> it seems to me that most global warming skeptics
are from the US.
>> For example, all the major political parties in the
UK support Kyoto.

Delirium
>This is getting off-topic, but one should be careful
>not to automatically link treaties like the Kyoto
>protocol and the scientific debate over global
>warming.  The consensus that global warming occurs is
>fairly strong, but the consensus that the Kyoto
>protocol is the right thing to do about it is
>significantly less strong--that is, there are people
>who think global warming exists who nonetheless think
>that the Kyoto protocol is not the right way to fix
>it.  This is, notably, the official US position on
the >issue ("we need to do something about global
warming, >but this isn't that something"), mostly due
to >concerns that Kyoto gives developing countries a
free >ride, and so just encourages moving polluting
>factories out of 1st-world countries, resulting in no

>net benefit to the global ecosystem.

>(Note that I'm ambivalent on the issue myself, just
>noting that this distinction does exist.  Perhaps
Bush >is a bad example to pick since you may or may
not >believe the sincerity of his views on this issue,
but 
>there are more legitimate scientists who hold similar
>viewpoints.)

Yes ? Is it an affirmation or is it an assumption you
are making ?

Do you have names of legitimate scientists who hold
the viewpoint that Kyoto is not a good solution to
provide ?

In particular, do you have names of non-american
"legitimate" scientists who hold that point of view ?

Then, if there are many (?) american scientifics who
hold that point of view, but none non-american, how do
you define "consensus" ? Compared to say, many indian
scientifics who hold while no american do ? 

The above argument you provide against Kyoto is
political. Where are the scientific arguments 

When you write "The consensus that global warming
occurs is fairly strong, but the consensus that the
Kyoto protocol is the right thing to do about it is
significantly less strong", are you talking about a
poorly significant consensus among politicians, or are
you talking of a poorly significant consensus among
scientists ?

"that is, there are people who think global warming
exists who nonetheless think that the Kyoto protocol
is not the right way to fix it."

Yup. There are people...
people...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com