Disreputable source?
Ed, your reference [1] looks just like advocacy. Could you please give some citations of articles of Fred Singer in scientific journals.
Okay, I'll look around. It might take a few days, okay? Ed Poor
- Great, thank you! --HJH
Global warming vs. anthropogenic global warming
For future reference, we may wish to distinguish between "global warming" as a temperature trend and "manmade causes of global warming;" the second is in more dispute than the first, if I understand correctly. -- April
The three main global warming disputes are:
- How much and where is the earth's atmosphere warming?
- How much are human activities the cause of this?
- What will happen if we do or do not reduce our burning of fossil fuels?
A related issue is the use of carbon taxes as a means of redistributing wealth from the West to devoloping countries (a kind of global socialism).
Ad hominem attacks on Singer
The central theme in the opposition to Singer and his views seems to be that (a) he accepted support from the "Moonies", so he must be a crackpot or in collusion with the Dark Side of the Force; (b) he just makes everything up; (c) no one really agrees with him anyway -- therefore, we just all just ignore him.
I think these ad hominem arguments are a deliberate distraction from the points Singer brings up, and I sincerely hope that Wikipedia editors will stop trying to muddy the waters with such irrelevancies.
The SEPP article and others relating to the global warming controversy should present scientific facts and the results of scientific research, as well as the views of scholars who draw conclusions from the available information. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- It's the SEPP page; arguments about Singer's various ideas have other locations. If it's a SEPP page, it should be about the organisations, history, funding, alliances, staff etc Longneck
- Singer says SEPP never funded by Moon. — SEWilco 22:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Endorsing" a quote?
(William M. Connolley 21:34, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Ed: you've added "nb: wikipedia doesn't endorse or dispute gristss quote". I don't think this makes sense: direct quotes are quotes, and are implicitly neither endorsed nor not, but deemed worthy of inclusion. If we're going to qualify every quote that way, there are several from singer/sepp in the same article that need the same. I think thats a bad road to go down. This may or may not be a policy matter: it probably is: if so, you would know better than I the appropriate place (village pump?) to discuss it more widely.
- Good catch, Dr. C -- I'm glad you deleted that useless text. You inspired me to attribute SEPP's POV further above that point. After all, an article about SEPP should say something about its point of view. --Uncle Ed 15:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I didn't, someone else got there first. I've accepted your challenge to find scientific criticisms of Singers pov, and added it to the page. I think you'll agree that I've carefully sourced all my comments, whereas all of Singers are completely unsourced. Which climate models does he mean, for example? Which T record does he get 2/3 out of? These are all mysteries. BTW: have you read the top of this page recently? ;-)) --William M. Connolley 18:40, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I left that comment (and my response) on purpose. I have no wish to conceal the fact that I'm not particularly good at conducting research. I just search on-line for stuff that looks well put-together, and cite it. I never go to the library, read journals, and hardly ever buy science books.
That's why I'm so glad there's a real scientist around here. I never learned how to do a proper citation. By the way, I've always agreed that you've sourced everything properly -- I just think you pick the wrong things to source ;-) Hoping you can take this bit of cheekiness with good humor, I beg to remain,
Your most obedient servant,
Uncle Ed 19:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- [WMC] That seems fair enough... it can be hard to remain polite across projects like this (hardly a novel observation) but with Good Humour (and English Spelling) we will march hand-in-hand towards a Glad Dawn of improved articles.
I'm just glad you don't read the mailing list. I had an awful tussle with your buddy Sheldon Rampton last week. He seemed to think I was "attacking" you and that you needed "defending" -- merely because I dared to call into question the "neutrality" of one of your edits.
You know, I think it's a good day when as many as 50% of my edits (on subjects I feel strongly about) can conform to NPOV, so I really shouldn't be throwing stones at others. Now, when I get up to 90%... ^_^
Well, have a good weekend, old chap :-) --Uncle Ed 20:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Connolley as source
From article:
- SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of Ozone depletion, making the assertion that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial [2]. Climate modeller William Connolley calls this assertion "clearly false".
I think William Connolley should be a source for the POV that SEPP's assertion is "clearly false". Otherwise, Wikipedia is endorsing William's POV that the CFC statement is NOT controversial. What's wrong with a scientific expert being both source and contributor? --Uncle Ed 19:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:16, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)) I'm going to revert it, because you're being silly: some statements are sufficiently obvious to need no source. Alternatively, if you insist on it being fully justified, I'll copy some/all of the argument below to the page.
BTW, the same text you object to is on the ozone hole page.
Lets consider:
"CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine."
The question is: is this controversial (as SEPP assert). Lets break it down:
- CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer
- become well-mixed in the atmosphere
- percolate into the stratosphere
- and there release chlorine.
Now, SEPP don't say which of 1-4 they consider controversial. 1 is commonplace - its on CFC for example. 2 also: e.g. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/, section 1.3 documents this. 3 ditto source, or even the SEPP page http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html. 4 ditto, "The situation changed in 1991, however, when NASA scientist C. Rinsland published data showing HCl increasing at about half the rate of HF, suggesting both natural and man-made sources (13)" says even SEPP, or the ozone depletion page.
So, come on Ed: which if 1-4 do you consider controversial?
- If SEPP doesn't say, how can I say? Anyway, I refuse to have an edit war with you; it takes two to tango, and I don't want to dance. You clearly want to discredit SEPP, and if that's what you want I won't fight you. The article really needs a full rewrite anyway. When I have time, I'll start afresh. For now, say what you want. --Uncle Ed 20:20, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)) I've added points 1-4 to the article to make it nice and obvious for non-specialists.
Paragon House book
6. Rowland, F. S. Chlorofluorocarbons, stratospheric ozone, and the Antarctic "Ozone Hole". Singer, S. F., ed. Global Climate Change. New York, NY: Paragon House; 1989.
Zing! Ya got me, boss! I have to admit a conflict of interest: I used to work for Paragon House as a proofreader, because -- hold on to your seat -- it's 'linked' to the Unification Movement.
Furthering the irony, over the weekend I discovered that Rev. Moon himself buys into the ozone depletion thing somewhat, putting me at odds with yet another authority.
I'm really in trouble, now! --Uncle Ed 20:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:53, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)) Oh dear, you'll have to decide who to believe: the science, SEPP, or Rev Moon. I know who I'll go for...
- Well, I can't in good conscience cite Rev. Moon as a "scientific authority", since his field of study was electrical engineering and I don't think he ever got a degree. The real controversy is whether SEPP or IPCC is more accurate in reporting what "the science" says.
- Did you read the latest paper on Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph? Turns out he got caught "selecting" and even "fudging" data that proved his point. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Well done Ed, only about 3 weeks late...
- If you've known for three weeks that Mann was wrong, why didn't you correct the article yerself? Try to be a "bit" neutral, would ya please? --Uncle Ed 23:01, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Because the M&M study itself is probably deeply flawed an likely no more than muddying the waters. See Quark Soup.
(William M. Connolley 23:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)) ps: can't say i much like eds recent changes - smacks of supressing the 3 corpses and much else. MRD?
Can't say I'm an expert at the subject you two are debating, not even a student really. But I DO remember some highschool chemistry. Especially the part in which the teacher said that CFC's decompose in the atmosphere and produce chlorine which destroyed the ozone. I don't remember the book or the teacher telling me that that was in any way controversial. BL 10:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Massive deletes
The huge chunks of text I took out really need some massaging and could go back in as properly attributed criticisms. Dr. Connolley, would you like to try something along these lines?
- CLAIM: That CFCs released into the atmosphere do not lead to significant increases in cancer.
- REBUTTAL: According to Prof. Soand Sough at Thusnsuch University, Singer's argument has the following flaws...
I don't want a whitewash, I just don't want Wikipedia taking a side in the controversy -- including the "side" that there's "no controversy". --Uncle Ed 12:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I'm back... and so is the text Ed removed :-) Lets look at it:
- Ed attempts above to sidetrack us with claims about cancer. There was nothing about cancer in the text Ed removed.
- Ed removed: Note that the claim about "at least 2/3 of the warming" does not appear to be supported by the temperature record http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm. Further, the claim about no warming from the satellite record is currently wrong: the rise to-date (mid 2003) is 0.07-0.26 oC/decade, depending on which satellite record is used (see satellite temperature record); and climate models reproduce past temperature history quite accurately [3] (contrary to SEPPs claim here, (point 4)). All of this appears to be factual info contradicting the SEPP statement. Do you disagree with the facts, or including the info?
- Ed removed: The claim that there is "no indication" of anything other than natural fluctuations is odd: most recent research (see anthropogenic climate change) suggests that recent warming is anthropogenic. Even Patrick Michaels, a well-known "skeptic", has said: it is "proven humans are warming the atmosphere" [4]. Attempting to refute warming by quoting cooling in any one year is to confuse weather with climate. Err, well, ditto the comments above.
- The statements 1-4 stuff... well, which bit does Ed disagree with?
- Ed rewrote the criticisms bit so it emphasised the religious stuff, which is trying to set up a strawman.
- Ed removed SEPP's views are either self-published or appear in the mainstream press rather than in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a result, scientists who publish in the peer-reviewed literature have had little comment about SEPP's claims. This is relevant stuff - it explains why most sci don't trouble with SEPP, so needs to be in there.
SEPP does (not) have both peer credibility and political influence
The fact that Singer is the prodominate coordinator and voice does not mean SEPP is a one man band and does not mean they don't raise issues both in peer reviewed publications and in informal press that peers must address, even it only to "correct". A lot of people collaborate with Singer, even in SEPP's weekly newsletter, with permissions to reprint, etc. and SEPP provides a means to make sure that signifcant minority opinions get distributed to a community. Even if all SEPP contributes to a peer reviewed publication is Singer's services as a co-author, there is no reason to dismiss it as a sponsor of research or to minimize Singer's role.
- (William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) There is no evidence that SEPP sponsors anything. There is good evidence that SEPP is a one man band: whenever Singer goes off travelling, the weekly column doesn't appear. SEPP is an advocacy organistation, not a science one. I don't agree with your assessment, above of Singers value.
The first three author's in both 2004 papers cites are in alphabetical order anyway. Singer may also be generous in allowing others primary authorship at this stage (or perhaps even earlier stages) of his career.
- (William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) But the last two aren't.
I haven't objected to the ad hominem Moonie and exxon stuff, because they are presumably factual, and also a sign of desparation or weakness, since they are cited instead of more substantive arguments. But lets at least get the facts straight.--Silverback 16:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I didn't put them in either, but since they do indeed seem to be (a) true and (b) about SEPP, their presence does seem defensible.
(William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Finally, could you avoid POV headers for the sections? "A discussion of SEPPs credibility" would be fine; "Silverback thinks..." would be fine. But asserting something which many others (me, in particular) disagree with is stirring up trouble for no good reason.
- This header on a talk page, was no more POV and, in fact, mirrored a statement in the article which should be of far more concern. Also the proposition, was not merely asserted, but also defended, which is more than has been done for the mirror statement in the article.--Silverback 08:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Page move
I'm surprised this page kept an acronym as a name for over three years! Wikipedia policy is to have acronyms be redirects. —Simetrical (talk) 05:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Singer devised the satellite instrument that monitors the Antarctic Ozone Hole.
(William M. Connolley 09:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I removed this. Its not totally false, but I don't think its true as it stands either. It also doesn't belong in the crit section either. As far as I can tell, Singer did some early work on instruments of this type.
- I too don't think the crit section was the right place, however, I was just restoring it to where it was. Here is the salient Singer quote: "I devised the satellite instrument that monitors the Antarctic Ozone Hole."[5] I don't think he would make so easily disputed a claim, unless it had good foundation. Perhaps the original poster can find an appropriate section for it.--Silverback 09:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 10:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I think Singer makes any number of easily disputed claims :-). I don't know the detail of this one.
- (William M. Connolley 10:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Errrmm... and unless we really are accepting the total identification of Singer and SEPP, it doesn't really belong on this page at all, but on the Singer page. And the intro there indeed says: He was involved in designing on of the first instruments used in a satellite to measure ozone (I suspect I wrote that).
- I dropped the instrument down there because it seemed relevant to the criticism of his ozone scientific expertise (in the adjoining pile of criticism). — SEWilco 18:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the page puts a little too much equality on the identity of the SEPP and Singer. I find the establishment of Singer's expertise to be unnecessary in an article about an organization he founded, unless as a direct response to a criticism someone has made that he is unqualified to form such an organization. — Cortonin | Talk 19:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"claim seen to be false"
You can't follow someone's statement with the "claim can be seen to be false". This implies the editors have knowledge of what the objective guaranteed truth is, which is strongly against Wikipedia's concept of NPOV. This section should be erased without even having to consider the topic it's about. The justification for the claim of objective truth is that the probability truth values of "commonplace" * "commonplace" * "commonplace" * "suggested" == "guaranteed truth". That's just so far of a stretch that there's no sense in having it there. The section also reads more like a condescending angry rant that's trying to explain something to what it views as children than it reads like an encyclopedia. If you're going to include something on that topic, then please completely rewrite it from scratch. — Cortonin | Talk 19:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 20:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Some things are in dispute, some aren't. If you try to put "the world is flat" on a science page, it won't work. Thats effectively what Singer is trying to say. Please don't remove the material just because you dislike it.
- Please read this. You frequently seem to use some other definition for the word outside of common use. I don't care one bit about CFC's pro or con, so there's no like or dislike involved with the issue. It's simply what I said, that this section is completely against any NPOV. If you want to provide a counter to his statement by linking to the evidence which is commonly used to support CFCs triggering chlorine release, then by all means please do that, but it needs to be worded completely differently than that section. (It would also be helpful if this linked evidence addressed the issue as a whole, rather than in pieces. Deconstruction/reconstruction arguments are extremely weak in comparison.) — Cortonin | Talk 04:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In the document WMC cites, Singer goes on to discuss what he means, and that does seem to be a fair assessment of the evidence at that time. I don't know to what extent it has changed since, but there is recently evidence of a very strong influence on ozone levels by the solar wind. I haven't read the original research, but it is discussed in this Nature News article, Solar wind hammers the ozone layer.--Silverback 10:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 11:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Sb's link is fine, but not relevant to the long-term Antarctic ozone loss. As for C: why don't you consider addressing the science? Or, if you really don't know or care about CFC's, why not edit something that you do know about?
- I thought the ozone loss was seasonal, this solar influence is unlikely to be confined to the artic, although this particular study was about an event that occurred in the artic winter, similar events in the antartic winter are likely responsible for increased natural variability, which may make human influence less frightening or significant.--Silverback 13:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Listen to what I'm saying here: I'm not disputing, debating, or concerned with the science on this issue. I'm disputing the structure and format of the argument. If you want to dispute his statement by adding a criticism, then rewrite the section, because that section is poorly constructed (for being a deconstruction/reconstruction argument), and extremely POV by stating something "false" rather than simply documenting who says otherwise or what the counter-evidence is. You should reread the subsection here, as this explains why you cannot write "this is false" here about someone else's claim, regardless of how well you "know" it to be false. — Cortonin | Talk 03:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think WMC's inline argument would normally be considered "original research" on wikipedia. I also think the analysis is wrong. CFCs fall into one of the exceptions to the well mixed atmosphere, chemical change. Note that CFCs were not found in the stratosphere, rather HCl and HF, the chemical products expected from the breakdown in CFCs. The difference in concentrations between these two suggest a significant natural contribution to one of them. Ozone itself is another exception to the well mixed atmosphere, due to differential production at different levels in the stratosphere. Additionally, this latest Nature news article discusses differential creation of nitrogen oxides by the solar wind, that gets mixed down into the ozone layer by particularly strong polar vortices.--Silverback 13:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, I should note that I don't agree with the overly strict and pickyune (sp?) interpretation of the "original research" objection to additions sometimes put forward here on wikipedia. I think fairly straight forward arguments, or noting of errors in arguments are OK. I just don't think WMC makes his case, or if he does, that steps in his case are not clear, or Singer's own argument is being unfairly represented out of context. Singer explains what he means immediately after his breakdown into the components that WMC presents, on the page WMC references.--Silverback 16:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment there, Silverback. (Although I will postpone judgment on which side is "right" or "wrong".) In order to remove concerns about taking an argument out of context (especially considering that Singer is mostly using the first argument to support the argument that hasty action is taken ahead of science), I have reduced the section to the more general argument that he is making, as a more general representation of the views of SEPP, rather than extracting a singular phrase. This is more meaningful as an encyclopedic description of the SEPP's views. In fact, I'm leaning toward the idea that the section "Views of the SEPP" should simply be a simplified form of these views (which are well understood to be opinions of a single organization), and then rebuttals should be contained in pages like ozone depletion which would more thoroughly cover the existing science. — Cortonin | Talk 18:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)