User talk:Muffin of the English/Archives/2019/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Muffin of the English. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Piers Corbyn
Hi, I'm the person having made the edits on the Piers Corbyn page today.
I am yet to understand how a single BBC article (from 12 years ago!) quoting one single study without ever stating any notion of "mainstream science" can be used to back the two passages which I have removed.
The way I see it is that this BBC article objectively says that ONE study has been shown to contradict Piers Corbyn's views. And the passage I have removed use this article to state that Piers Corbyn's views contradict mainstream science, and to state that "meteorological studies show that..." (instead of stating "ONE meteorological study shows that...").
It appears to me that the BBC article is misused. Either additional or different articles should be used as references if these passages are to be kept.
Also, the mention "climate change denial", and especially the word "denial", sounds like a very ideological statement and it shouldn't have its place in a section dealing with a scientific topic. The word "skepticism" which I've restored is much more neutral and appropriate. How can we be sure that something is "denial" versus "skepticism"? If the BBC states (which it doesn't, by the way), that it's "denial", then Wikipedia is just going to go with it? How about the multitude of scientists that expressed reserves on the climate change topic? Are they all "deniers"? Again, this word is way too loaded to be adequate here and it doesn't serve Wikipedia to keep it that way.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:103F:EACB:F40A:A337:C644:E0E0 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @2A01:4C8:103F:EACB:F40A:A337:C644:E0E0: First of all please make sure to sign your replies with 4 of these ~. I am busy right now and will try to get back to you within a couple of hours/days. I need to do a bit more research to see if the evidence in the study is widespread. Thank you for remaining civil while I try to figure this out. Muffin of the English (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Looks like his sun theory is not widespread (see this article from nasa https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/). If you would like to, you most defiantly can challenge my theory, but then the burden of proof would be on you. If you have any questions please ask me! Muffin of the English (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying in any way that his sun theory is widespread, or mainstream, or whatever. My point is to say that the article from the BBC used as a reference is not enough to justify mentioning that "Corbyn's views are against mainstream science". You probably very well know that for a field as complex as meteorology and climate, different studies can and often do contradict one another and it's hard to establish a definitive truth. Therefore, we should stay away from considerations like "mainstream science", or even worse, "denial". And if we do want to talk in those terms, then it should take more than a 12-years-old article from the BBC quoting a single anecdotal study to back that (and just saying that "the BBC is an accepted reliable source" should not come into play there, yes ok they have more money than a lot of other medias, how does that make them less biased exactly?). Does it make sense or not? 95.145.128.82 (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Somebody
- I cited NASA along with just the BBC. If NASA and the BBC are saying the same thing it generally reflects general opinion. I would also like to point out that you have not provided any articles supporting your point. Muffin of the English (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying in any way that his sun theory is widespread, or mainstream, or whatever. My point is to say that the article from the BBC used as a reference is not enough to justify mentioning that "Corbyn's views are against mainstream science". You probably very well know that for a field as complex as meteorology and climate, different studies can and often do contradict one another and it's hard to establish a definitive truth. Therefore, we should stay away from considerations like "mainstream science", or even worse, "denial". And if we do want to talk in those terms, then it should take more than a 12-years-old article from the BBC quoting a single anecdotal study to back that (and just saying that "the BBC is an accepted reliable source" should not come into play there, yes ok they have more money than a lot of other medias, how does that make them less biased exactly?). Does it make sense or not? 95.145.128.82 (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Somebody
- See, I'm not the person having made the edits performed yesterday. It seems that I started something, though, and I believe this is right simply because using "Climate Change Denial" as a title for a section is just plain stupid, heavily biased and you perfectly know it. Science cannot be mainstream by definition, my friend. Plus, even if it was, there's no point in insisting that some views "are against the mainstream science". This point can be made in a proper section dedicated to the controversial nature of these views, instead of just repeating it like a obsessive mental all through the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.188.135 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Using the word "denial" in this context is insulting, aggressive and absurd, and a clear offense to everyone who doesn't share the views that you call "mainstream". Why don't you simply accept removing it and change it to something more neutral and scientific? What is the problem with changing the word "denial" to "skepticism"? The problem with the word "denial" is that implies that the author (Corbyn) would know that he is wrong and deliberately "denies" it in an act of bad faith. What if the author (Piers Corbyn) is wrong but still of good faith? That wouldn't be "denial" then but just error or poor judgment. See my point? This word "denial" has nothing to do there, so please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.188.135 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- The main stream view makes up 97% of the scientific community. It is not wrong to call beliefs that fall outside of the consensus to be considered fringe. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#Q1 for more information. Also please make sure to sign your name using 4 of these ~ so that others know who you are, and make sure to make clear which IPs are yours and which are not, otherwise you could be investigated for sock puppetry (See WP:SOCK)[just for the accounts, not for omitting your signature]. Muffin of the English (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Using the word "denial" in this context is insulting, aggressive and absurd, and a clear offense to everyone who doesn't share the views that you call "mainstream". Why don't you simply accept removing it and change it to something more neutral and scientific? What is the problem with changing the word "denial" to "skepticism"? The problem with the word "denial" is that implies that the author (Corbyn) would know that he is wrong and deliberately "denies" it in an act of bad faith. What if the author (Piers Corbyn) is wrong but still of good faith? That wouldn't be "denial" then but just error or poor judgment. See my point? This word "denial" has nothing to do there, so please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.188.135 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I take note that you still don't answer my point about the word "denial", but nevermind. Concerning the 97% figure, industries will only ever fund research projects by scientists who openly claim they assume that man-made climate change is real, and starting from this assumption is usually a condition for funding, and oh surprise, 97% of papers stating a position on human-caused global warming agree! What a coincidence. Of course all papers agree, because those who don't agree never manage to get funded and find no significant publication accepting their papers. Need I explain the financial interests behind this? No need to reply by the way, it's pretty clear at this stage that you're acting either in bad faith or out of blind religious belief, focusing on what the big media (funded by the same industries who fund research, another coincidence) tell you and without ever using your brain. And now your friends at Wikipedia blocked the article, just because several people (like me) wanted to make the article slightly more neutral. Wikipedia has become disgusting because it's become a mere repetition of what the big industries and media say, and you're part of the reason why this is the case. Use your brain.
- Please sign your messages as it will make it much easier for me to follow who is saying what. In regards to Denial: "Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true. The same word, and also abnegation (German: Verneinung), is used for a psychological defense mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. An individual that exhibits such behavior is described as a denialist or true believer. Denial also could mean denying the happening of an event or the reliability of information, which can lead to a feeling of aloofness and to the ignoring of possibly beneficial information." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial#cite_note-OED_denial-1). Piers Corbyn fits this definition, rejecting information which is regarded as true by the consensus of the scientific community. I would like to say that personal attacks on me are not compelling arguments and I would appreciate if you dropped them. Also, the people who blocked the article are not friends of mine (this is the first time I have even seen their username). Finally I would like to point out that all research that is funded by interested parties IS REQUIRED TO disclaim both the possibility of any conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest, and looking through all the articles I could not find anything that at all indicated that any of the researchers have been funded by industry or media. I know this is the 3rd or 4th time I have said this but please sign your messages. I will be archiving this conversation if you respond to it since I have a feeling that continuing it will not bring about any change in either of us. Best regards, Muffin of the English (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC).
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| For repeatedly reverting a determined IP vandal. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Muffin
I did adequately explain why I made that edit. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_stress_card#Military_stress_card Thank you
- Please make sure to sign your comments using 4 of these ~ at the end of the post. It appears like I made a mistake on the revert, when I looked before I could not find the section on the talk page about deleting that portion, but with your link I was able to confirm that your edit was good. Looks like you have already reverted the edit, if you have any more questions please ask them on this talk page. Muffin of the English (talk)