Talk:Global warming skepticism: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:: I'm working on NPOV, but someone keeps blasting the changes instead of improving them. I'm untangling the facts from the arguments, which of course is more pro-skeptical than the present anti-skeptical POV. If you have a contribution, please do weave it in. - [[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 14:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
:: I'm working on NPOV, but someone keeps blasting the changes instead of improving them. I'm untangling the facts from the arguments, which of course is more pro-skeptical than the present anti-skeptical POV. If you have a contribution, please do weave it in. - [[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 14:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
||
:: Aww, you marked it NPOV while the neutrality was being fixed. - [[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 05:48, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:48, 12 August 2003
The PR angle seems to have been adequately covered. Would someone now expand the one-line entry on the SCIENCE of global skepticism into a paragraph or two? --Uncle Ed 19:52 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
Sheldon, while I'm impressed by the fact that you can whip up a high-quality page in such a short time, I'm not sure this article is the best way to organize things. First of all, I think there's a reasonable amount of healthy skepticism within the fold of the scientific community (like Lindzen), and it should remain that way. Even Singer participates in debates in scientific journals, if he isn't actually doing any of the science. Setting all this aside as "these are the skeptics" creates a division that I don't think should necessarily be created in terms of science.
I do think some of what you've written has a place (the propaganda efforts by oil & gas groups), but I don't think it's fair to call this "skepticism" and put the likes of Lindzen in with them. Oil & gas groups don't give a fuck about the science - true or not, they want to see the global warming debate buried, and this is different from people who are interested in engaging in the debate, but are skeptical about anthropogenic warming.
I understand this is complicated by scientists who allow themselves to be used (or actively prostitute themselves) by oil & gas groups, but I think we should still make an effort to distinguish between these two categories of global warming opponents. Graft 20:17 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
The attacks at the beginning are mostly based on poor arguments. Particularly as this is a document about skeptics, not opponents. If a list of opponents is wanted, it should be on a different page.
SEWilco 13:53, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The article should present the skeptical view in a neutral way, not adopt it itself. The thing about the fallacies shows a decidedly pro-skeptical POV. --Wik 14:00, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm working on NPOV, but someone keeps blasting the changes instead of improving them. I'm untangling the facts from the arguments, which of course is more pro-skeptical than the present anti-skeptical POV. If you have a contribution, please do weave it in. - SEWilco 14:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Aww, you marked it NPOV while the neutrality was being fixed. - SEWilco 05:48, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)