User talk:Ed Poor

I guess it's "hypocritical" for me to suggest that environmentalists have been disingenuous about global warming. I trust that objective and knowledgeable contributors like user:Sheldon Rampton will set me straight, by correcting any bias or errors I have added to that article.

I realize that the overwhelming majority of opinion, in the Western world, is that the global warming hypothesis has been proved with so much certainty that advocates feel confident to call it a "fact". Yet my own countless hours reviewing research on both sides of the issue indicate to me that there is at least grounds to doubt the hypothesis.

I don't think the role of the Wikipedia is to get to the bottom of scientific controversies and take a stand, because taking a stand is not neutral. Regardless of the motives which some may impute to others who disagree with them, the "other side" does deserve to be included in this encyclopedia.

If not, maybe I shouldn't be here any more.

(signed)

the ever-dwindling "Uncle Ed"

Ever-dwindling indeed. You know it's not a good idea to make yet another permanent vacation announcement when there's a separate controversy brewing at the same time. Geez, you might get only half as much letters of sympathy this time ;-).

Seriously, Ed, I think you have done a good job on many - not all - of the articles you worked on. You also are a good communicator, at least online. But you have not answered my questions regarding your "open letter" - what was the purpose? It was entirely unprovoked and insulting -- uncharacteristic even, I got the impression I was not reading a mail from "Uncle Ed" but a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript. I think you should apologize to Sheldon. How about answering his challenge to make the UC articles more NPOV? Writing for the other side, as you called it?

I do not have a problem with well-researched additions, and so do few other people. Your recent additions to the global warming article were, however, not well-researched at all. They lacked references and violated NPOV. I also do have a problem with unfounded and unprovoked personal attacks. Is this what Sun Myung Moon teaches?

Maybe I should give you a phonecall. I'd really like to figure out what goes on in your head. --Eloquence 15:05 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

I agree, Ed. (And I am one of the more vociferous proponents of the anthropogenic change hypothesis.) I'd make two points:

(1) level of probability. The weight of expert opinion in any controversial matter is a difficult thing to assess. There is a potential range of "accepted view" vs "derided view" going all the way from "round earth theories" vs "flat earth theories" - yes, they still exist - through to complete 50/50 "don't know" questions like "were the Australian megafauna pushed over the edge into extinction by hunting or by fire?" We know that climate change played a part, and we know that it wasn't just climate change, but we just don't have enough clear evidence yet to decide if the final push was hunting, or fire, or a combination of the two. In the case of the first example, it is not appropriate to waste any breath at all on the "derided theory" (oh, you can have an article on the Flat Earth Society as a social group, but their ravings don't deserve a mention anywhere on the scientific pages). In the case of the second example, a 50/50 balance is appropriate.

Now consider a reasonable but nevertheless generally derided theory that sits somewhere in between those two example I gave first - let's say the "aquatic origins" theory of human evolution. It makes perfectly good sense, there is no evidence to speak of against it, but the vast majority of palentologists pay it little heed, and there is no direct evidence for it either. My take on this one is that an article on human origins should stick to the orthodox view for the most part, but devote a few lines (perhaps a single paragraph, or possibly just a reasonably prominent link) to the aquatic hypothesis. The weight of the coverage given to each theory, in other words, should reflect the weight of opinion by relevant experts. (Leaving aside the thorny question of how to determine those weights.)

Following this reasoning, on the weight of evidence (be this calculated on a popularity-amongst-relevant-scientists basis or more directly by looking at the evidence itself), I'd argue for a "global warming" vs "no global warming" balance weighted heavily towards the accepted view, but with a clear indication that this remains disputed by some and is not by any means a cut and dried 100% truth.

(2) Implications for action. Those of us who live in the parts of the world that are in the front line of expected global warming changes get very very upset at attempts to say "there is no problem, what are you worried about". Within the last month here in Australia, we have had the biggest bushfires since 1939 - they are still burning as I write. So far, we have lost 500,000 hectares of bush, and the severity of the fires is directly attributable to the severe drought, and the drought is exactly in line with CSIRO predictions for the effect of global warming on Australia. It is the worst drought ever recorded, and there are only two reasons why the fires have not also been the worst ever recorded: (a) there isn't very much bush left to burn these days (we've cut most of it down already), and (b) we have a fantastic array of high-tech resources to fight the fires with, including modern tankers, aircraft, huge helicopters, bulldozers, and specialist firefighters flown in to help out from the USA and New Zealand.

That's just one example: for another, consider the plight of creatures like the southern hairy-nose wombat.

That's just Australia, and just two examples out of many others. Are you surprised, then, to discover that most people (as evidenced by the actions of their elected representatives) believe that it is grossly irresponsible to continue to deny the obvious? There is indeed reason to question the conclusion that human action is responsible for global climate change, just as there is reason to question the pronouncements of medical researchers about tobacco smoking and cancer. (Let us not forget that the tobacco companies still continue to deny that smoking causes cancer, just as the energy companies and their supporters continue to deny that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes climate change.) But neither questioning should be allowed to interfere with prudent action, and in both cases, prudent action has useful fringe benefits: by stopping smoking you breathe easier and smell better, by reducing massive energy wastage and starting on the long, slow task of reaforestation, we can liver richer, more fulfilling lives and enjoy a higher sustained standard of living.

The assesment of a scientific theory - any scientific theory - is usually done on a number of scales. The extent to which it fits with and explains observed facts is prime amongst these, but by no means the only one. Second only to this is the extent to which the theory proposes useful alternatives for action - be this a matter of providing interesting hypothesis to test in the laboratry or (as quantum theory did well before it was accepted as scientific fact) a matter of proving itself useful as a guide to practical tasks (like inventing the transistor back in 1949).

In summary, I suggest that anthropogenic global warming is something to be taken very seriously on both counts. This does not, of course, mean that it is appropriate to consign "anti-global warming theory" to the Flat Earth Society category: there is still remaining doubt about the matter, and the view that global warming is a myth must be included in any reasonable summary. In the end, it becomes a matter of degree: just where on the scale between 50/50 controversy on the one hand and Flat Earth Society stuff on the other does the anti-global warming case belong, and what is an appropriate way to decide this question?

Tannin 15:51 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Sometimes the role of wikipedia is to get to the bottom of controversies: part of our purpose is to educate. When a controversy arises because of a lack of education, it's legitimate to provide education and thus solve the controversy. An example is the Monty Hall problem, which is a source of much dispute between probability students and normal people, where the wikipedia article successfully gets to the bottom of the problem.

The dispute over global warming is not one of those times, because getting to the bottom of the problem is, for us, impossible. Therefore, the views of dissenting scientists should be included. The question, as Tannin expertly says, is what weight should be given to the dispute, and how much space it should take up on the main global warming page, and to what extent it should be only summarised there, with the bulk of the discussion taking place in sub-articles. Martin

---

Hey, what's all this about a lawsuit? Heretofore, you were always so mild. Did someone around here say something upsetting to you? --Uncle Ed

Yes, and more than once, too. -- isis 18:38 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)