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

Thu Oct 9 04:03:55 UTC 2003

Jimbo wrote:

>And of course, as I've said, it would be inappropriate to ban people
>without due process, and I tend to suspect that this case if studied
>carefully would reveal the healthy debate that gives rise to NPOV
>rather than any actual bannable offenses.

I agree completely. I would not have bothered criticizing Ed as 
strongly as I have if Ed had not announced his intention to ban 
people unilaterally. To Ed's credit, he announced his intention 
publicly before carrying through with it, thereby enabling people 
such as myself and Jimbo to cry foul before harm was done. For the 
record, I don't think Ed is a total jerk; he's just hot-headed and 
irrational about this particular topic (global warming).

Ed wrote:

>Sorry about my "false claim", Sheldon. Perhaps I was wrong to believe
>Lowell Ponte, who attributed the "ice age" prediction to the NAS:

[Ponte quote snipped]

>Or maybe I was wrong to believe that S. Fred Singer was quoting Ponte
>correctly.

Singer correctly quoted Ponte, but it was deceptive for him to 
suggest that Ponte's book represented the "then-prevailing mood" of 
scientists and environmentalists in the 1970s. Actually, Ponte is not 
and never was an environmentalist or a scientist. To the contrary, 
he's a former Reader's Digest editor and Hollywood publicist who 
writes nowadays for conservative websites such as GOPUSA.com and the 
David Horowitz website FrontPageMagazine.com. (Do a Google search on 
his name, and you'll see what I mean.) Like Ed, Ponte is a global 
warming skeptic. In other words, the guy who was hawking an alarmist 
book titled "The Cooling" in the 1970s is actually a member of Ed 
Poor's own clan. It's really laughably absurd that Ed (parroting Fred 
Singer) would quote Ponte now as an example of what "environmentalist 
fearmongers" were supposedly saying in the 1970s.

>Or maybe I just misunderstood the quote. You're an expert on
>disinformation, and you probably have Ponte's book on your shelf.

Actually, I don't have Ponte's book, but William Connolley has read 
it and critiqued it in some detail. Those who are interested can read 
his critique at the following URLs:

http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/iceage/ponte.html
http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

As Connolley demonstrates, Ponte misrepresented the conclusions of 
the 1975 report published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 
titled "Understanding Climatic Change." The NAS report merely said 
there was a "finite" (and small) chance that an Ice Age could begin 
"within 100 years" -- hardly a "shocking" statement (as Ponte hyped 
it at the time), certainly not "hysterical" (as Singer claims now), 
and not at all a prediction (which is how Ed characterized the NAS 
report that he obviously never read).

Here I should remind people that Connolley, a climate modeler for the 
The British Antarctic Survey, is the very same climate scientist whom 
Ed mentioned by name as an example of someone  he wanted to ban from 
the Wikipedia. The irony here is that unlike Ed, Connolley has 
actually taken the time to read both the 1975 NAS study AND Ponte's 
book. Connolley went back to original sources, whereas Ed carelessly 
relied for his conclusions on a quote of a quote of a quote. This is 
only one example of how Connelley's scholarship is superior to Ed's. 
Any serious scholar knows the importance of looking at primary 
sources whenever possible. If you want to know what someone ACTUALLY 
said, you should go back and read the original rather than play 
Chinese Whispers. If anyone here is unfamiliar with the game of 
"Chinese Whispers," (sometimes called "Telephone"), here's a web page 
that explains it:
http://www.indiaparenting.com/funtime/partygames/cp001.shtml

For an example of how this sort of thing can get out of hand 
regarding serious issues, here's another URL:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa011701a.htm

Ed continued:

>On the other hand, if Singer correctly quoted Ponte, and if he in turn
>correctly characterized the views of the NAS, then maybe my mistake lay
>in knuckling under to pressure from a biased, axe-grinding
>environmentalist.

I assume that Ed had me in mind with his reference to a "biased, 
axe-grinding environmentalist." This is a fairly typical example of 
what he calls his "cordial" and "affable" approach to discussing this 
topic.

For those who think I'm wasting too much bandwidth on this or who 
don't like to see me bashing Ed, I apologize. Normally this level of 
detail belongs on a Wikipedia talk page rather than on wikien-l. If 
Ed will promise to comply with Jimbo's pronouncement against banning 
people without due process, I'll happily drop the topic so we can all 
move on.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  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
--------------------------------