|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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:
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).
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)
( 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.
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)
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)
From article:
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:
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?
( 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.
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...
( 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)
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?
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:
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.
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.
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)) 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.
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)
( 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.
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)
WMC, I have taken a close look at your analysis and it is correct, except possible weakness at step 3, where it was only the new study which established it. Perhaps Singer is considering it controversial because of the limited confirmation so far, or perhaps because this important link in the chain was only established AFTER expensive international action had been taken, so making the premature political action point for him. I don't see why you want to focus on just this first of his statements, and consider it important enough to include in the article. I think he made a case at least, that the statement would have been controversial at the time political action was taken, and he definitely concedes that the evidence is shaping up and backing this statement. I don't think you make a significant point by including this. Thus my revert, because you word it almost as a refutation. -- Silverback 13:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Please stop this patrionising rubbish, take your own advice, and read the SEPP page, which was published in 1995, and states:
For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly, the steps are postulated as follows (6):
1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.
2. Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.
3. A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.
4. Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.
Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science.
Note the is (emphasis added), on a docuemnt written in 1995, and please stop these spurious reverts.
The paper, and the view it expresses, is clearly focused on the idea that policy preceded action. The section being argued about clearly begins with, "If one examines the history of governmental CFC policy," indicating that it is discussing history. Then it proceeds to set the timescale by saying "starting in 1988", then referencing two papers from 1989, research from 1987, and then says it changed some in 1991. Right after setting the timescale as around 1988, in the section about the history of governmental CFC policy, and in the very sentence that references the two papers from 1989, while discussing historical events, Singer writes, "Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect." Now you try to draw extra emphasis to the "is", but apparently you're unfamiliar with the mode of speaking in which present tense can be used to describe events through a historical description. For example, "Two years ago I was walking along Elm Street, and saw a house. My house is made of red brick, but this one is made of logs. This isn't my house, but I like it. Then last year I went back and bought that house, and now here I am." The word "is" in there is used to put one mentally in the time period being discussed, yet clearly it is a historical description given the multitude of surrounding contextual clues. — Cortonin | Talk 22:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) That is why it is generally NOT productive to take singular quotes out of a paper, and try to dispute them in isolation. The paper is about government action preceding science, and this is the point he argues. The section you're quoting essentially IS about the Montreal project (and more generally about any similar proposals in that time period), yet your dispute is not focused on what he's talking about. Let's keep the Wikipedia article focused on the major points he's trying to make. What would you think if you opened the Encyclopedia Britannica and an article extracted an out-of-context excerpt from someone and then tried to rhetorically beat him over the head with it? It's a disgraceful thing for an encyclopedia to try to do, and it makes the article look like a diatribe written in an angry and bitter fashion, rather than a respectable encyclopedia which seeks to inform. — Cortonin | Talk 22:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following. It doesn't make sense. A $10,000 donation 6 years ago is not significant, particularly if all those big companies have "extensive ties". SEPP is modestly funded, and it sure don't look like someone is paying it to be a flashy public relations activity. The rest of the article also indicates there isn't a big, well funded, staff. ( SEWilco 05:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Bruce Ames is still active as a biochemist [8], Henry Linden is still actively publishing on energy and the environment [9], Sir William Mitchell is still actively publishing about glaciers, and Chauncey Starr is still actively publishing on the dynamics of risk analysis. Now I think calling someone "retired" in the attempt to call them out of touch is a pointless ad hominem, since in my experience retired and older professors tend to have a lot more wisdom and ability to objectively evaluate the larger scope of a field, but it definitely shouldn't be presented as if they're all retired. I also think that it's difficult to remain active in analyzing and lecturing on the larger-scope of a field, while still actively pursuing research in a focused area, so it is quite natural that the active figures working on analyzing the larger-scope would find their work primarily focused on that. There are a number of people on the list for which most of the information is in languages I don't read. Someone else will have to evaluate their publishing activity level. — Cortonin | Talk 22:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added the Unification Church category because the SEPP was founded as an offshoot or affiliate of a think tank of theirs, the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, of which Singer was the founding president. [10] This linkage eventually should be documented in the text of the article- I'm just explaining the edit for other editors. Cheers, - Willmcw 09:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
The author(s) of the article here appear to be directly and indirectly arguing that the claims of SEPP are false. That's improper if one wishes to maintain NPOV. I'm not sure why the reader of the article cares whether or not all parts of the web site are kept up to day; with an external link, they can see that for themselves, anyway. The purpose of mentioning it here seems to be to provide indirect evidence that SEPP is ignoring more recent evidence which disfavors its position. Which may be true, but saying so in this way does not seem neutral. It might be good to mention the article satellite temperature measurements in some other way. In the meantime, I'm making a See Also link there. -- Beland 05:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In this section, the encyclopedia author(s) once again appear to have taken up the task of directly refuting the claims made by SEPP. Again, this is inappropriate, given NPOV. It is, however, important to note opposing claims. These should be framed as the claims of third parties, not simply reported as fact. It should be made clear which claims have the status of scientific consensus (cite sources, please), and which there is still considerable debate about. If the claims of the SEPP are hooey, readers should be able to figure that out for themselves after reading the article and its references. It's fine to say that SEPP's claims are contradicted by other (possibly very well substantiated) claims; it's not OK to say they are contradicted by The Facts, even if we would all agree that's the case.
There are plenty of contradictory claims out there to be had, even if they don't directly address SEPP's claims, as the "Criticisms of SEPP" says. -- Beland 06:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Views and criticisms are currently comingling in both sections, so I (at least temporarily) merged them.
While we're talking about NPOV...
This may be accurate, but it makes it sound like criticism of SEPP is non-substantive or generally unfounded. It probably wouldn't come across that way if specific sources could be quoted, which we should do anyway. But it sounds like there is a fair bit of indirect "criticism" out there, in the form of factually contradictory claims. -- Beland 06:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The section was at least difficult to read. I reformatted to make the topics easier to spot. ( SEWilco 06:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))
( William M. Connolley 13:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Increasingly, people seem to be defending SEPPs weird and wacky views by saying "ah, but thats what they thought in 1996...", or 1995, or whenever. Does SEPP have no current views at all?
That style is not a particularly good way to write an encyclopedia article about an organization, but it is only emerging because description of the SEPP keeps turning into a content debate. I think the article should simply describe the organization, its members, its goals, and its views, with wikification naturally interlaced for more information, and if there are related content issues which should be addressed, they should be in the form of a "See also" at the bottom. No one comes to the SEPP page to read a debate about what percentage of temperature rises in which portion of the 20th century are due to which percentage of anything. Just describe the views of the SEPP as what they are: "views". Readers are smart enough to take views as views when they are described as such, and then we can cut out all the cluttered and out-of-place content debate. "Criticisms of the SEPP" has evolved into microscopic debate over specific views of the SEPP, which is really detached from the set of more meaningful and general criticisms. — Cortonin | Talk 02:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the easiest thing to do would be to duck the question of whether any given thing represents a current view. When talking about a particular view, cite the source in the article itself, give the date of publication, and leave it at that? -- Beland 04:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We will show later in this paper that it is likely that our conclusions would change little had we been able to use data though 2003." You think every year is now an El Nino year? … and just before that they stated R2-2m data change was their primary reason for stopping before 1998. [17] ( SEWilco 20:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Criticism of SEPP centers on attempts to discredit the organization or its founder by linking it to religion and free-market capitalism, implying that its science is tinged by lunacy or a profit motive. 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. Since "views" and "comments" are more easily published elsewhere this is not surprising.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of any of this, because there are no examples given and no sources cited. It seems like instead of a neutral characterization of SEPP's activities, we have here a little fight between two non-neutral authors who have been forced to finish each other's thoughts. I can try to fix this so the relevant information can be re-added to the article, but I need some examples to work with. -- Beland 03:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The rebuttal section appears to be WP:NOR as there none of the sources for the “rebuttals” specifically mention the Science & Environmental Policy Project. These appear to be specific editor’s rebuttals to the ideas propagated by the SEPP and not any WP:RS’s “rebuttals”.
As such, I have removed them. BluefieldWV ( talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here. Apols if it's already been discussed: "Candace Crandall, a policy research associate with the Science and Environmental Policy Project of Fairfax, Va., assailed the study, describing the National Environmental Trust as 'a propaganda mill, not a research organization'." NYTimes ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any sources for the rebuttals section of this article. IF a source claims A and SEPP claims B, for an editor to combine them into "Source A is criticizing SEPP" is a textbook case of WP:Synthesis.
There's a secondary layer of synthesis on some of the sources as well, such as a link to a graph of world temperatures compared to model predictions, with the editor claiming this is a rebuttal of "models don't correlate to actual temperatures". This needs to be sourced with an actual statement by someone actually criticizing SEPP. FellGleaming ( talk) 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
SEPP lists Seitz as chair of directors still [18]. Quite why Singer thinks this is a good idea is unclear, but there you go, ours is not to reason why.
Also, SEPP isn't a research organisation. In fact it isn't really an organisation at all, but never mind we don't need to bother with that bit.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Happened to come across this mention of the SEPP website; might be useful: [19] -- JN 466 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
For some reason an editor name William Connolley has removed the words "research analysis" from the opening paragraph. As this seems to be a core operation of the group I'm not quite sure what he's up to. According to the group's website, for example: "1. Two research papers were published in Geophysical Research Letters (9 July 2004). We analyzed atmospheric temperature data (3 data sets) and concluded that they do not support the predictions of any of the leading climate models. In particular, models predict increased warming trends in the troposphere while observations show the opposite. We are following up on this finding and expect more papers to emerge." So this seems good evidence that they are in fact involved in research analysis. If there is evidence to the contrary please provide it. I also notice he is knowingly trying to disparage the group by suggesting its board is made up of dead people. Is it normal for someone like William Connolley who has such a clear conflict of interest to be actively vandalizing an article on a subject he dislikes? This seems a clear conflict of interest and I would think there must be policies to prevent his abuse from continuing. Freakshownerd ( talk) 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
SEPPs board of directors is given here [21]. As said, the link is in the article (as well as in the section I created above some while back to discuss this). It says (since you seem to be having some problems reading it) SEPP Board of Directors. The following serve on the Board of Directors of The Science & Environmental Policy Project: Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. (Chairman). Note the use of the present rather than the past tense. If you doubt that Seitz is pushing up the daisies, you can click on the link William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
For some reason an editor name William Connolley has removed the words "research analysis" from the opening paragraph. Not quite. As an editor, I'm William M. Connolley. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference. As for for some reason I refer you to my post above of 10:02, 25 May 2010, which you could have read. Or the one of 21:11, 18 June 2010. SEPP doesn't do research. Two research papers were published in Geophysical Research Letters (9 July 2004) - even if these were SEPP papers (which isn't clear) that would then leave you with nothing for the last 6 years. If you mean [22] - that isn't a SEPP paper (in fact that isn't a real paper, only an arxiv preprint. I don't know which paper you mean). Singer is third author and lists his affiliation as SEPP, since he has no other William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed some OR [23]; we have no evidence that he has been replaced William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the objection to SEPP's think tank status. Groups -- especially those founded by scientists -- that exist to generate policy-influencing papers are, by definition, think tanks. This is the standard definition. Fell Gleaming talk 15:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised you have such a shockingly poor grasp of the meaning of the word research. If a college freshman googles two newspaper articles and pastes them together into a term paper, he's done research -- even if his final version gets every fact in the original reports wrong. Fell Gleaming talk 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Science & Environmental Policy Project. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Science & Environmental Policy Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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:
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).
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)
( 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.
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)
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)
From article:
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:
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?
( 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.
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...
( 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)
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?
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:
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.
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.
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)) 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.
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)
( 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.
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)
WMC, I have taken a close look at your analysis and it is correct, except possible weakness at step 3, where it was only the new study which established it. Perhaps Singer is considering it controversial because of the limited confirmation so far, or perhaps because this important link in the chain was only established AFTER expensive international action had been taken, so making the premature political action point for him. I don't see why you want to focus on just this first of his statements, and consider it important enough to include in the article. I think he made a case at least, that the statement would have been controversial at the time political action was taken, and he definitely concedes that the evidence is shaping up and backing this statement. I don't think you make a significant point by including this. Thus my revert, because you word it almost as a refutation. -- Silverback 13:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Please stop this patrionising rubbish, take your own advice, and read the SEPP page, which was published in 1995, and states:
For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly, the steps are postulated as follows (6):
1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.
2. Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.
3. A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.
4. Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.
Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science.
Note the is (emphasis added), on a docuemnt written in 1995, and please stop these spurious reverts.
The paper, and the view it expresses, is clearly focused on the idea that policy preceded action. The section being argued about clearly begins with, "If one examines the history of governmental CFC policy," indicating that it is discussing history. Then it proceeds to set the timescale by saying "starting in 1988", then referencing two papers from 1989, research from 1987, and then says it changed some in 1991. Right after setting the timescale as around 1988, in the section about the history of governmental CFC policy, and in the very sentence that references the two papers from 1989, while discussing historical events, Singer writes, "Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect." Now you try to draw extra emphasis to the "is", but apparently you're unfamiliar with the mode of speaking in which present tense can be used to describe events through a historical description. For example, "Two years ago I was walking along Elm Street, and saw a house. My house is made of red brick, but this one is made of logs. This isn't my house, but I like it. Then last year I went back and bought that house, and now here I am." The word "is" in there is used to put one mentally in the time period being discussed, yet clearly it is a historical description given the multitude of surrounding contextual clues. — Cortonin | Talk 22:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) That is why it is generally NOT productive to take singular quotes out of a paper, and try to dispute them in isolation. The paper is about government action preceding science, and this is the point he argues. The section you're quoting essentially IS about the Montreal project (and more generally about any similar proposals in that time period), yet your dispute is not focused on what he's talking about. Let's keep the Wikipedia article focused on the major points he's trying to make. What would you think if you opened the Encyclopedia Britannica and an article extracted an out-of-context excerpt from someone and then tried to rhetorically beat him over the head with it? It's a disgraceful thing for an encyclopedia to try to do, and it makes the article look like a diatribe written in an angry and bitter fashion, rather than a respectable encyclopedia which seeks to inform. — Cortonin | Talk 22:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following. It doesn't make sense. A $10,000 donation 6 years ago is not significant, particularly if all those big companies have "extensive ties". SEPP is modestly funded, and it sure don't look like someone is paying it to be a flashy public relations activity. The rest of the article also indicates there isn't a big, well funded, staff. ( SEWilco 05:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Bruce Ames is still active as a biochemist [8], Henry Linden is still actively publishing on energy and the environment [9], Sir William Mitchell is still actively publishing about glaciers, and Chauncey Starr is still actively publishing on the dynamics of risk analysis. Now I think calling someone "retired" in the attempt to call them out of touch is a pointless ad hominem, since in my experience retired and older professors tend to have a lot more wisdom and ability to objectively evaluate the larger scope of a field, but it definitely shouldn't be presented as if they're all retired. I also think that it's difficult to remain active in analyzing and lecturing on the larger-scope of a field, while still actively pursuing research in a focused area, so it is quite natural that the active figures working on analyzing the larger-scope would find their work primarily focused on that. There are a number of people on the list for which most of the information is in languages I don't read. Someone else will have to evaluate their publishing activity level. — Cortonin | Talk 22:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added the Unification Church category because the SEPP was founded as an offshoot or affiliate of a think tank of theirs, the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, of which Singer was the founding president. [10] This linkage eventually should be documented in the text of the article- I'm just explaining the edit for other editors. Cheers, - Willmcw 09:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
The author(s) of the article here appear to be directly and indirectly arguing that the claims of SEPP are false. That's improper if one wishes to maintain NPOV. I'm not sure why the reader of the article cares whether or not all parts of the web site are kept up to day; with an external link, they can see that for themselves, anyway. The purpose of mentioning it here seems to be to provide indirect evidence that SEPP is ignoring more recent evidence which disfavors its position. Which may be true, but saying so in this way does not seem neutral. It might be good to mention the article satellite temperature measurements in some other way. In the meantime, I'm making a See Also link there. -- Beland 05:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In this section, the encyclopedia author(s) once again appear to have taken up the task of directly refuting the claims made by SEPP. Again, this is inappropriate, given NPOV. It is, however, important to note opposing claims. These should be framed as the claims of third parties, not simply reported as fact. It should be made clear which claims have the status of scientific consensus (cite sources, please), and which there is still considerable debate about. If the claims of the SEPP are hooey, readers should be able to figure that out for themselves after reading the article and its references. It's fine to say that SEPP's claims are contradicted by other (possibly very well substantiated) claims; it's not OK to say they are contradicted by The Facts, even if we would all agree that's the case.
There are plenty of contradictory claims out there to be had, even if they don't directly address SEPP's claims, as the "Criticisms of SEPP" says. -- Beland 06:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Views and criticisms are currently comingling in both sections, so I (at least temporarily) merged them.
While we're talking about NPOV...
This may be accurate, but it makes it sound like criticism of SEPP is non-substantive or generally unfounded. It probably wouldn't come across that way if specific sources could be quoted, which we should do anyway. But it sounds like there is a fair bit of indirect "criticism" out there, in the form of factually contradictory claims. -- Beland 06:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The section was at least difficult to read. I reformatted to make the topics easier to spot. ( SEWilco 06:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))
( William M. Connolley 13:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Increasingly, people seem to be defending SEPPs weird and wacky views by saying "ah, but thats what they thought in 1996...", or 1995, or whenever. Does SEPP have no current views at all?
That style is not a particularly good way to write an encyclopedia article about an organization, but it is only emerging because description of the SEPP keeps turning into a content debate. I think the article should simply describe the organization, its members, its goals, and its views, with wikification naturally interlaced for more information, and if there are related content issues which should be addressed, they should be in the form of a "See also" at the bottom. No one comes to the SEPP page to read a debate about what percentage of temperature rises in which portion of the 20th century are due to which percentage of anything. Just describe the views of the SEPP as what they are: "views". Readers are smart enough to take views as views when they are described as such, and then we can cut out all the cluttered and out-of-place content debate. "Criticisms of the SEPP" has evolved into microscopic debate over specific views of the SEPP, which is really detached from the set of more meaningful and general criticisms. — Cortonin | Talk 02:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the easiest thing to do would be to duck the question of whether any given thing represents a current view. When talking about a particular view, cite the source in the article itself, give the date of publication, and leave it at that? -- Beland 04:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We will show later in this paper that it is likely that our conclusions would change little had we been able to use data though 2003." You think every year is now an El Nino year? … and just before that they stated R2-2m data change was their primary reason for stopping before 1998. [17] ( SEWilco 20:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Criticism of SEPP centers on attempts to discredit the organization or its founder by linking it to religion and free-market capitalism, implying that its science is tinged by lunacy or a profit motive. 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. Since "views" and "comments" are more easily published elsewhere this is not surprising.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of any of this, because there are no examples given and no sources cited. It seems like instead of a neutral characterization of SEPP's activities, we have here a little fight between two non-neutral authors who have been forced to finish each other's thoughts. I can try to fix this so the relevant information can be re-added to the article, but I need some examples to work with. -- Beland 03:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The rebuttal section appears to be WP:NOR as there none of the sources for the “rebuttals” specifically mention the Science & Environmental Policy Project. These appear to be specific editor’s rebuttals to the ideas propagated by the SEPP and not any WP:RS’s “rebuttals”.
As such, I have removed them. BluefieldWV ( talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here. Apols if it's already been discussed: "Candace Crandall, a policy research associate with the Science and Environmental Policy Project of Fairfax, Va., assailed the study, describing the National Environmental Trust as 'a propaganda mill, not a research organization'." NYTimes ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any sources for the rebuttals section of this article. IF a source claims A and SEPP claims B, for an editor to combine them into "Source A is criticizing SEPP" is a textbook case of WP:Synthesis.
There's a secondary layer of synthesis on some of the sources as well, such as a link to a graph of world temperatures compared to model predictions, with the editor claiming this is a rebuttal of "models don't correlate to actual temperatures". This needs to be sourced with an actual statement by someone actually criticizing SEPP. FellGleaming ( talk) 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
SEPP lists Seitz as chair of directors still [18]. Quite why Singer thinks this is a good idea is unclear, but there you go, ours is not to reason why.
Also, SEPP isn't a research organisation. In fact it isn't really an organisation at all, but never mind we don't need to bother with that bit.
William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Happened to come across this mention of the SEPP website; might be useful: [19] -- JN 466 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
For some reason an editor name William Connolley has removed the words "research analysis" from the opening paragraph. As this seems to be a core operation of the group I'm not quite sure what he's up to. According to the group's website, for example: "1. Two research papers were published in Geophysical Research Letters (9 July 2004). We analyzed atmospheric temperature data (3 data sets) and concluded that they do not support the predictions of any of the leading climate models. In particular, models predict increased warming trends in the troposphere while observations show the opposite. We are following up on this finding and expect more papers to emerge." So this seems good evidence that they are in fact involved in research analysis. If there is evidence to the contrary please provide it. I also notice he is knowingly trying to disparage the group by suggesting its board is made up of dead people. Is it normal for someone like William Connolley who has such a clear conflict of interest to be actively vandalizing an article on a subject he dislikes? This seems a clear conflict of interest and I would think there must be policies to prevent his abuse from continuing. Freakshownerd ( talk) 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
SEPPs board of directors is given here [21]. As said, the link is in the article (as well as in the section I created above some while back to discuss this). It says (since you seem to be having some problems reading it) SEPP Board of Directors. The following serve on the Board of Directors of The Science & Environmental Policy Project: Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. (Chairman). Note the use of the present rather than the past tense. If you doubt that Seitz is pushing up the daisies, you can click on the link William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
For some reason an editor name William Connolley has removed the words "research analysis" from the opening paragraph. Not quite. As an editor, I'm William M. Connolley. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference. As for for some reason I refer you to my post above of 10:02, 25 May 2010, which you could have read. Or the one of 21:11, 18 June 2010. SEPP doesn't do research. Two research papers were published in Geophysical Research Letters (9 July 2004) - even if these were SEPP papers (which isn't clear) that would then leave you with nothing for the last 6 years. If you mean [22] - that isn't a SEPP paper (in fact that isn't a real paper, only an arxiv preprint. I don't know which paper you mean). Singer is third author and lists his affiliation as SEPP, since he has no other William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed some OR [23]; we have no evidence that he has been replaced William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the objection to SEPP's think tank status. Groups -- especially those founded by scientists -- that exist to generate policy-influencing papers are, by definition, think tanks. This is the standard definition. Fell Gleaming talk 15:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised you have such a shockingly poor grasp of the meaning of the word research. If a college freshman googles two newspaper articles and pastes them together into a term paper, he's done research -- even if his final version gets every fact in the original reports wrong. Fell Gleaming talk 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Science & Environmental Policy Project. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Science & Environmental Policy Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)