Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Alexis de Tocqueville claim.

Hmmm - is this true - or is it WP:OR?

The title refers to a passage from Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.[1]

I couldn't find any immediate sources for it on Google. Anyone else have an idea? After all it might be correct. --Kim D. Petersen 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I found that suspect as well. Even if such a passage exists, that doesn't mean that the title is a reference to it. Leave it out until a source is found that claims that's where the title comes from. Oren0 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Concur, plus I dont find Tocqueville much compatible with Kyoto. --Childhood's End 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I've unprotected this page, having blocked Zeeboid and Greenjoe (for 3RR/edit warring) who seem to have caused the protection in the first place William M. Connolley 08:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WMC. Protecting this page for 5 days based on the edit warring of those two seemed inappropriate to me given the large number of editors who have been working constructively on this page. I agree with your decision. Oren0 16:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I see 3 other people edit warring, and one of them isn't me. GreenJoe 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"redundant text"

Please don't make changes like that without discussing them here first. Using "exaggerated and erroneous" data and sensationalizing the threat of GW are two different things. The first refers to facts and figures he uses while the second refers to the conclusions drawn from those facts. Numerous criticisms from Exposed, TGGWS, or articles can go here, I think a summary of two points is a reasonable number. If you prefer, we can change it to Some skeptics have claimed that some of the film's "central points are exaggerated and erroneous" and that the film ignores dissent in the scientific community. (a ref here could be any number of things, I'd probably stick Exposed back in there). Given the decent volume of criticism, I don't think a sentence with two criticisms is unreasonable (remember, according to you, "controversial" is not a negative, leaving the current rv with only one). Oren0 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oren0 - its the same basic critique, so its rather redundant. The text in the above has not been discussed here in detail - so there is no specific reasons for assuming that anyone feels deeply about it. We all agree that "controversial" should be mentioned and that the sceptic view should also be mentioned as per WP:LEAD - but you are going a bit too far and giving WP:Undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight? Several articles and documentaries that criticize this film exist, and you call mentioning two criticisms in one sentence undue weight? They are different: one regards the data and figures used and one regards the conclusions and predictions based on said data. Oren0 17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You are giving WP:Undue_weight to the sensationalizing part - without putting to much faith in Google - the terms "sensationalized" (both z and s) combined with the topic gives 1020 hits.[1] while hype gives 117,000[2]. So i've changed the lead to a compromise that i hope you can accept. --Kim D. Petersen 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to spoil all the fun

...but this article barely discusses the documentary, in particular: Gore's opinion about the importance of nature; his life-long interest in global warming which began at his University; his son's accident which led him to change his paradigm, his campaign to get the world to take the issue more seriously; his failure to win the Presidency and the implications of that defeat; in other words, this article fails to address this topic at the most fundamental level of importance: in human terms. —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more meat about the movie itself, currently the article is more critique than content. The items that you mention, while important, should only have focus proportionally to the amount in the movie (ie. around 1/20th or so), deeper focus on this can be done on the Al Gore article. --Kim D. Petersen 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The human terms are 50% of the film, both in relation to Gore, and to people in general. The other 50% involve non-human aspects such as science and technology. —Viriditas | Talk 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what you take as human terms. My comment on proportionality was about the biographical items in the movie. ie. the "fillers" between segments of the slideshow. --Kim D. Petersen 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sight & Sound gets it right: "The film-makers also accompany Gore on the road, recording his musings about his near 40-year engagement with environmentalism and his moral commitment to communicating the message that humanity is facing nothing less than a "planetary emergency". These informal conversations and scraps of autobiographical material are used as cutaways from the public forum. Although about two thirds of the film is devoted to the lecture itself, it is the back and forth between Gore's public and private faces that drives the narrative." [3] Bingo. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Viriditas is exactly right. The content of the film is largely interspersed with biographical material about Gore and so is an important core element that needs to be addressed in the article. And as Kim also says, the bulk of the article should be about content (not critique). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Viriditas - you are right. And i'm surprised, i've seen the movie a couple of times, and it didn't strike me as that long. (so much in fact that i had to find the exact number: 31.58%). --Kim D. Petersen 10:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"bulk of the article should be about content (not critique)?" Are you willing to apply that same standard to TGGWS, or other controversial films?--Zeeboid 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid - this article is about AIT - its edited in the context of AIT - other articles are absolutely 100% irrelevant in this context. So stop you "TGGWS this..", "TGGWS that..." - since this meta-discussion is absolutely irrelevant here. Argue on merits. --Kim D. Petersen 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply add the pertinent biographical data to the synopsis section? It seems perfectly fine to me. BTW-- I removed tortuous from life story. It's just an edit war waiting to happen, and really doesn't add anything to sentence, except the appearance of editor opinion without citation.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section

It really needs to be trimmed down. Wikipedia isn't a directory. GreenJoe 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Curious that your first removal is Exposed: The Climate of Fear, a special which devotes a significant portion of its time to AIT, yet you leave the link to polar bear. Of course no link to E:COF is the status quo, the page didn't exist two weeks ago! Since it's been created, however, there's been a link to it on this page pretty much continuously. Oren0 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Erm - are you selectively reading the history of the page? It has been consistently removed, every time it appeared. Specifically because Z. was trying to get an entire summary here. --Kim D. Petersen 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what gets removed, but both "pro" and "anti" AI links need to be cleaned up and that list narrowed down to 4 or so "see also" links. GreenJoe 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So who decided that The Planet stays but Exposed goes? Exposed is easily more relevant to this page. Oren0 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well now, thats a good question... because removing an easily more relivent addation to the page while using reasoning that removes many other items on the page, without actually doing so screams of bias... which realy is what these Global Warming related articles are all about lately, aren't they?--Zeeboid 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Influences on Popular Section

I believe WP:TRIVIA calls for the merge of the information in this section into other article section. From the guideline: Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, often grouped into their own section labelled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc. As many of the items listed in this section is not critical to this article and can be placed elsewhere, we should remove this section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that bulleted lists like this tend to be unencyclopedic, but it's very well referenced, and it seems a shame to remove it wholesale. In general, what do others think of the recent edits by the multi-IP anonymous user? I've removed the word "tortuous," because it also seemed out of place to me, but I'm not sure about the others. Regardless, I've s-protected the page, because the anon's method of enforcing his viewpoint was innappropriate to the point that it was vandalism. Canderson7 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually have the text on my clipboard, and was planning to add a lot of the things to different articles throughout Wikipedia. But I got busy with other things and never got around to actually doing it. It's my fault for not making this clear in my edit summary. I was not supporting deletion, just moving it around to make it more encyclopedic. For example the commercial mentioned should go into the criticism section. The blurbs on Colbert and Stewart can go into their articles, etc. But if there is a consensus to keep it, that's fine. As for the anon's edit, placing controversy at the top of the article is misleading as it makes it seems this movie is along the lines of the "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "Bonnie and Clyde" where people wanted to stop it from getting to the theaters. This is different the controversy comes from the science used in the film, and the protagnist. I believe the last sentence of the lead is adequate. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding your original message. I agree that redistributing this information is a good idea, and I also agree that "controversial" is an unnecessary remark. Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Claims that the diminishing glacies on Kilimanjaro are not due to global warming seems to be getting more credibility. See for example [4]. Should we add a note about this to the article? JoshuaZ 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a new thing: these people are part of the published-research disagreement; I think they are just putting forward the same views again William M. Connolley 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are right. This is a long running controversy, and not something that (imho) is going to be resolved quickly. The main culprit here (iirc) is that the other variables that the scientists are mentioning may be caused/partly caused by global warming. The solar aspect is doubtfull for the last couple of decades though (where the melting has accelerated, and solar rad. has fallen). Here's a link for another researchers page on this--Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you watch the docimentary closely, you'll notice that the old picture of Kilimanjaro's glaciers is actually a painting, not a photograph that would constitute scientific evidence. Just another way in which Gore is a liar. 01:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Prevailing Consensus

"The Great Global Warming Swindle. ...brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming."

There is no prevailing consensus, the consensus of human-caused global warming is highly debated in the scientific community. This should be removed or cited because of the obvious bias----DaDrake
No. BTW, you should "sign" talk page contributions using 4 tildas: ~~~~. It expands to a signature like mine here. --Stephan Schulz 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, like this DaDrake 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I am new to wikipedia so don't hate =)

I think you'll find that, ExxonMobil's scientists and George W. Bush's toadies and benefactors aside, there's really no debate left in the scientific community about the consensus. Of course, if you have a referewnce, please feel free to present it here.

Atlant 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The scientific community does not agree to what degree human-caused global warming exists. There is consensus on global warming, as trends have been showing .... but the affect that humans have on global warming is highly debated. Do not confuse the IPCC version of "scientific consensus" with actual consensus. More scientists, including the original "alarmist" have been speaking against the IPCC and other politically modivated organizations. Most of what has been published on global warming is oversimplification of scientific journals that draw different conclusions than the author's intentios (Oreskes work shows that). Even Mann is retracting some of the media's inference about his hokey-stick-plot once his work became public so it could be peer-reviewed. There was no doubt major flaws in his work, and he is now trying to savage some of his credibility among his peers.
DaDrake 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you follow the link I provided, you will see that the IPCC position has the support of all major scientific societies, and most minor ones. The one exception is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Of course, the IPCC position is not the same as that of some alarmist newspapers... Stephan Schulz 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone consider the difference between the IPCC "human contributed" position versus "human caused". Most scientist believe global warming is natural, the question is if and how much humans are accelerating that process and to what degree that harms the environment. That statement is simply bias. 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Global Warming is natural but what's not natural is for Global Warming to go unabated. Usually, after a global warming, global cooling takes place. But it hasn't happened yet. The last time it happened, and for just a very short period and effect, was when Mount Pinatubo erupted and covered the Earth with ash plumes and smoke. And natural global warming does not reach temperatures such as we have now in all the records of global warming in Earth's past.
There is no difference between "human contributed" and "human caused" except that for the former, we are not the sole cause. Of course it's human contributed, because we are not the only organisms and forces in this world that can affect global temperature. There are other animals, trees, oceans, microorganisms, and outer space variables. But the correlation between the rise of human activity and higher temperature is the foundation of the consensus for attributing the current extreme and unnatural global warming to humans! ^_^ I hope George Bush and skeptics will just shut up and sing coz they ain't go no arguments against Global Warming being the responsibility of man. =P Berserkerz Crit 08:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"And natural global warming does not reach temperatures such as we have now in all the records of global warming in Earth's past" - quite trivially falsifiable. Yawn. - Merzbow 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the article? Methane gas. Nuff said. Berserkerz Crit 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So who had a calibrated thermometer in 1000AD during the Medieval warm period? Preumably you ignore results which contradict the current dogma. You are beginning to sound like a religious revival. Peterlewis 11:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And what results contradict the current dogma? What is your argument exactly? ~_^ A link or expound. Berserkerz Crit 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the infamous hockey stick graph is based on estimates of past temperatures, not ones made using calibrated thermometers. This makes the exercise one of futility rather than reason. It is possible, indeed, likely that temperatures in the Medieval warm period were actually higher than now, judging by the presence of trees in Greenland, which may have been free of permanent ice. The Vinland map shows a separate island, so must have been sailed around by the Vikings. Peterlewis 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not a rocket scientist but here's what I do believe. Global warming is real, and it is caused partly by humans. Just the greenhouse effect is enough to convince me of man's role in global warming, since man has released a lot of carbon dioxide in the air since the industrial revolution and there after. I live in the Philippines, where the proof of global warming is real. We've had more typhoons in 2006 than the typhoons in the years before that combined. It's more intense and damaging. The climate here has changed, where usually summer begins in March, it has only begun now middle April. The cool season started late during 2006, the cool breeze felt only starting December and not during late October or early November. Some Islands here in the Philippines have already disappeared, even during low tide when it should be visible and be able to be landed on. And so many more. Berserkerz Crit 08:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess I should have read the talk page first before I edited... I recently changed the line "brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming." to read “brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the idea of human-caused global warming." My edit was reverted back in 2 minutes. There shouldn't be any reference to there being a "prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming" without reference and citation. The editor that reverted my edit simply stated "it is the consensus". Clearly there is a consensus on this talk page, but I can't find one in the scientific community. All searches I've done have yielded equal results saying there is a consensus and results saying there is not a consensus. This clearly shows there is no consensus, I mean there isn't even a consensus on whether or not there is a consensus (hopefully that makes sense). I think this line just smacks of POV the way it is written now. I think my edit still conveys information fairly and accurately without sounding biased and I don't think anyone would even be able to make the argument that it is biased. I guess what I'm trying to get across is as the line currently stands the article reads like a piece of journalism. Wikipedia is supposed read like an encyclopedia, not a journalism article. There is a reason that encyclopedias avoid things like consensus because consensus changes constantly over time and even talking about it runs the risk of making the article sound dated later on down the road. I think if everyone could just look at this from the perspective of someone putting together something that is supposed to be timeless and NPOV then we would all agree that editing this line a little will do nothing but improve the tone, quality, and encyclopedic value of the article. Let me know what everyone thinks. I mean I guess I could just be misunderstanding exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but I hope not because that would be very disappointing. Elhector 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find one in the scientific community. - Yes, there is consensus, both on this talk page to keep it as is, and in the scientific community regarding global warming. Raul654 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, where to start… Let’s start with the one argument of mine that you addressed. The article you site is not a scientific paper, it’s an essay. Also, it’s an essay that is almost 3 years old at this point. The essay you site purports to show a consensus on human caused global warming in the scientific community by using a method that seems flawed. The essay states they took a sample of 928 abstracts with the key term “climate change’. 928 is a very very small fraction of the total. Also, choosing to only use the key term “climate change” is problematic. What about “Global Warming” or “anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. Now that the list of abstracts has been cherry picked they divide them into 6 catagories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. The article then goes on to state that 75% of them fell into the first 3 categories and the remaining 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate. It then goes on to say “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” So even the essay says that the results of the research are surprising. And why wouldn’t they be, the data has been cherry picked so much the results were a forgone conclusion. You and the article also site findings from the IPCC. The IPCC is only made up of member states of the WMO and UNEP. How do you claim consensus when the source of the consensus does not include views from scientists and researchers from nation states that are not members of the above listed organizations. I think you can see where I’m going with this. Consensus on this issue is pretty much impossible to prove because of the politics and passions involved. I’ve read far more then 928 scientific peer reviewed items on this issue, probably triple that amount and haven’t seen any consensus. It’s actually been pretty interesting and I’ve encountered a whole myriad of scientific opinions in what I’ve read, some things that are so insane that I think both sides of this argument would be left scratching there heads. As you can see though, I’ve listed several other arguments against this line in the article that nobody has addressed yet. Even if there is a “prevailing scientific consensus” on man made global warming, the line as it stands does nothing to add to the value of the article except make it look like it’s questioning the veracity of the arguments of the people involved with The Great Global Warming Swindle. Even if you disagree with my point about the info claiming there is consensus being flawed, you have to admit the line as it stands now does make the article look like it’s questioning the validity of the arguments that the other side is making. Anything that even makes it look like an article is taking a side must be removed immediately. I’m sure you can agree with that. Lastly I’d like to address your argument about there being consensus on this talk page about the line staying as is. Wikipedia policy states clearly to “be bold”. I will not edit the article for now, but the fact that there was a consensus reached on this page months ago about the line staying the way it is written is really meaningless. Just because a consensus was reached in the past doesn’t mean the article is locked forever and can’t be changed. I wasn’t involved with argument back then so I’m trying rekindle it from a different approach. Just to reiterate, I’m really not so much concerned about whether someone can or can’t prove there is a scientific consensus, it’s pretty much impossible to prove it here one way or another. What I’m saying is the information in the line as it stands is not necessary and does nothing good for the article; it only helps to make it seem biased. Elhector 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So what about the UN IPCC report which involved scientists from around the world? Berserkerz Crit 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of my argument. I'm not really concerned with whether or not there is a scientific consensus. I'm not hear to argue that. If you read the article you sited though it says how many countries and scientists participated in each of the work groups. I don't think those number represent a consensus since clearly not everyone was involved. Also, let's all just remember that at one time there was scientific consensus that the earth was flat and that landing on the moon would be impossible because the lander would sink in the loose dirt. We could go back and fourth arguing over whether or not there is a scientific consensus but that's not really going to solve anything. I'd much rather move this discussion in a more productive direction though. I believe my above comments explain my concerns outside of the scientific consensus issue already. Elhector 06:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're the one missing the point. There is a consensus already. By credible, official, and global commissions of scientists. Majority of those who do not agree with the idea of human-caused global warming have been shown to be paid hacks of ExxonMobil or other groups with vested-interests to keep the public confused. No there was no scientific consensus that the earth was flat, there was a religious consensus. Yes consensus can change, that is why, since the 1st IPCC report, the consensus has changed. From uncertainty over the mere idea of global warming to 90-95% certainty of human-induced global warming. You cannot argue that the IPCC is not a clear case of consensus as it is an official UN body, with the UN a global body. Scientists from all over the world worked on that report, using different evidences to support their conclusions. Berserkerz Crit 12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You might want to check out scientific opinion on climate change, which lists a long list of prominent scientific organizations, several of which explicitly use or endorse the term "consensus" to describe the position summarized by the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Again I think your missing my point. I'm not concerned with whether or not there is a scientific consensus. The line "...brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming." Make's the article read like it's taking the side against the people involved with the The Great Global Warming Swindle. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to take any sides. This line does the way it's written. It's mentioned like 10 other times already in the article there is a "scientific consensus". I think removing 1 reference of it in 1 line that sounds like it's taking a side won't hurt anything. It will make are article sound more encyclopedic and neutral. Do you guys really think it's necessary? Please don't respond back telling me there is scientific consesnsus. Every scientist in the world could agree that global warming is human caused, but that still wouldn't change the fact that this particular line in the article is choosing a side. Elhector 17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles don't have to NOT take sides. A lot of articles in WP take sides, all that WP demands is NPOV, which means to present all sides or viewpoints. This article, and that line, is pretty much NPOV, presents the viewpoint of those for and against. I don't see why you want to change the words "prevailing consensus regarding" with "idea of". The ref is not needed because the main article of GWS states in its first paragraph the same idea. Berserkerz Crit 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How does one choose a side without pushing a point of view? Doesn't make much sense to me. The fact of the matter is the line reads like a snub against that group. It's clearly evident that when the author who wrote that section put that line in he had a bias against that group and questions there credibility. I think it's a bad thing when readers are able to discern the personal beliefs, biases, and politics of an author simply by the way someting is written on here. It goes agaisnt the pillars of Wikipedia. I guess I just don't understand why you are all so opposed to changing it. I mean I'd even be happy if it read "The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK on March 8, 2007, brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the scientific theory regarding human-caused global warming." Scientific theory is pretty much fact in science until it's disproved. The line still retains it's strength and doesn't show any bias written that way IMO. Let me know what you guys think. Elhector 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well no one has objected to my suggestion above since I posted it on August 18th so I'm going to go ahead and throw this change up on the wall and see if it sticks. Elhector 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that didn’t take very long to get reverted. The edit summary said the word "theory" is not used because it's ambiguous. I did not use the term theory. I used the term scientific theory which is not ambiguous at all. The term scientific theory has a very clear cut definition and is used all over the place in Wikipedia, correctly I might add. The edit summary also stated "that you had the last word is an indication that people got tired of repeating themselves". I made a completely different proposal on this talk page for the article and no one responded with an opinion after over a week so I implemented it. People repeating themselves over and over again and not actually addressing the issues I raised should have no bearing. If editors keep repeating straw man arguments and then stop after someone makes a new suggestion to try and reach a middle ground I would take that as a good thing and worth trying. It just seems like the status quo over at this article is to let agendas run it. I’m just trying to get this article to sound less like an advertisement for the film and its ideas. This film is a very important part of our culture right now and I think it’s horrible that it’s not up to good article status. Maybe we can get it there by making it sound like an actual encyclopedia article. Elhector 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I’m going to try again to make this section sound less biased again. I’m going to replace the line “…skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming” to “skeptical scientists who disagree with the scientific opinion on climate change regarding human-caused global warming. This sounds completely unbiased in the article and also provides a wiki link to the article scientific opinion on climate change. I think with it written this way it actually provides the reader with potential to find even more info regarding all the studies that have been done and how each study that was done reached a consensus on human caused global warming. Since it seems so important to everyone here to point out in this section that there is a “prevailing consensus” I think this is a good compromise. It takes out any worry that the section is disparaging this particular group but also presents the info regarding the “prevailing conensus”. Not only does it still show there is a “prevailing conensus”, it allows the reader to go and find exactly how the conensus was reached, by what groups, and how many studies reached there results. That should be fair to everyone I think. Elhector 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That didn't take long, reverted in less than 5 minutes without so much as a reason given for the revert in the edit summary by User:GreenJoe. Not even a comment on the talk page regarding the revert. I'm going to go ahead and setup a WP:RFC at the bottom of this page concerning this. I feel like at this point any edits I make to this page will just be swiftly reverted without any due diligence or discussion. At least with an RfC we can get some outside input here instead of me editing against everyone else here. Elhector 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Majority of those who do not agree with the idea of human-caused global warming have been shown to be paid hacks of ExxonMobil or other groups with vested-interests to keep the public confused. ... says who? Please show me a source that says that the majority of the scientists here or the thousands of signatories of the Oregon Petition or the Heidelberg Appeal have been bought. Anyone that questions the fact that there's significant scientific dissent on anthropogenic GW from credible scientists is in denial. That being said, it's clear that a majority of scientific groups that have taken a stance on the issue have used the term "consensus" and therefore we should use it as well. Oren0 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is going to make any difference in this discussion at this point, but i just found this today: [5] Check it out. I'm sure it will just get dismissed here as crap though and oil company/Bush propaganda. Everyone should read it though, it's interesting and it helps explain why there are issues with throwing the "prevailing consensus" terminology around so lightly. Elhector 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not much difference. . . (link to disinfo alert at global warming talk page). R. Baley 19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. p. 302 of the Penguin edition.