 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AngelAlice Great Old One Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Total posts: 723 Location: marshy middle ground Gender: Female |
 Posted: 23-06-2012 13:00 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Not really wanting to get involved in this particular "debate", but it's undeniably true that certain Wiki pages can become colonised by one prevailing view. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it can be misleading when issues are complex and one side is under-represented. The skeptical view of AGW - which ought really to still be the mainstream position, given the lack of confirming data - is horribly understated on the pages devoted to it on Wiki. And this reflects a popular bias, not a scientific position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 13:08 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Poptech wrote: | | kamalktk wrote: | | As I said, you seem to prefer sources which only you can edit, instead of a source repeatedly shown to be highly accurate, but which you do not control. |
Wikipedia has never been shown to be highly accurate |
You mean other than all the studies cited above?
This is a central problem here, you only accept citations you wrote. The apparent reason is that other sources disagree with you.
You do seem to value Encyclopedia Britannica. However, I have also cited that Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with your thesis of global warming, and again since you did not address it http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming. Remember, you are the one to have stated that Encyclopedia Britannica is highly accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 13:12 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AngelAlice wrote: | | Not really wanting to get involved in this particular "debate", but it's undeniably true that certain Wiki pages can become colonised by one prevailing view. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it can be misleading when issues are complex and one side is under-represented. The skeptical view of AGW - which ought really to still be the mainstream position, given the lack of confirming data - is horribly understated on the pages devoted to it on Wiki. And this reflects a popular bias, not a scientific position. |
The wikipedia page is quite long and comprehensive, with nearly 250 citations. Perhaps you can improve it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| AngelAlice Great Old One Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Total posts: 723 Location: marshy middle ground Gender: Female |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 13:23 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| kamalktk wrote: | | AngelAlice wrote: | | Not really wanting to get involved in this particular "debate", but it's undeniably true that certain Wiki pages can become colonised by one prevailing view. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it can be misleading when issues are complex and one side is under-represented. The skeptical view of AGW - which ought really to still be the mainstream position, given the lack of confirming data - is horribly understated on the pages devoted to it on Wiki. And this reflects a popular bias, not a scientific position. |
The wikipedia page is quite long and comprehensive, with nearly 250 citations. Perhaps you can improve it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy |
I'm not disputing the citation. Both sides can claim citation. I'm just saying one side of the argument is under-represented on Wiki is all.
I'm pretty sure lots of people have tried to even it up - but in Wiki Wars the victory can tend to go to the more numerous and persistent rather than the most fair-minded can't it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 14:04 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AngelAlice wrote: | | kamalktk wrote: | | AngelAlice wrote: | | Not really wanting to get involved in this particular "debate", but it's undeniably true that certain Wiki pages can become colonised by one prevailing view. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it can be misleading when issues are complex and one side is under-represented. The skeptical view of AGW - which ought really to still be the mainstream position, given the lack of confirming data - is horribly understated on the pages devoted to it on Wiki. And this reflects a popular bias, not a scientific position. |
The wikipedia page is quite long and comprehensive, with nearly 250 citations. Perhaps you can improve it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy |
I'm not disputing the citation. Both sides can claim citation. I'm just saying one side of the argument is under-represented on Wiki is all.
I'm pretty sure lots of people have tried to even it up - but in Wiki Wars the victory can tend to go to the more numerous and persistent rather than the most fair-minded can't it. |
Ok, because the controversy page is both longer and with more citations than the warming page itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. Does this mean the "more numerous and persistent rather than the most fair-minded" are those that support controversy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 14:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I find it highly amusing the Britannica's self defense amounts to "we don't have to be accurate". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| AngelAlice Great Old One Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Total posts: 723 Location: marshy middle ground Gender: Female |
| Posted: 24-06-2012 12:20 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| kamalktk wrote: | | AngelAlice wrote: | | kamalktk wrote: | | AngelAlice wrote: | | Not really wanting to get involved in this particular "debate", but it's undeniably true that certain Wiki pages can become colonised by one prevailing view. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it can be misleading when issues are complex and one side is under-represented. The skeptical view of AGW - which ought really to still be the mainstream position, given the lack of confirming data - is horribly understated on the pages devoted to it on Wiki. And this reflects a popular bias, not a scientific position. |
The wikipedia page is quite long and comprehensive, with nearly 250 citations. Perhaps you can improve it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy |
I'm not disputing the citation. Both sides can claim citation. I'm just saying one side of the argument is under-represented on Wiki is all.
I'm pretty sure lots of people have tried to even it up - but in Wiki Wars the victory can tend to go to the more numerous and persistent rather than the most fair-minded can't it. |
Ok, because the controversy page is both longer and with more citations than the warming page itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. Does this mean the "more numerous and persistent rather than the most fair-minded" are those that support controversy? |
I don't get what the controversy is - everyone can see the skeptical side isn't equally represented on Wiki. if you think that's justified then fine, but it's still obviously true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 24-06-2012 12:24 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AngelAlice wrote: | ...
I don't get what the controversy is - everyone can see the skeptical side isn't equally represented on Wiki. if you think that's justified then fine, but it's still obviously true. |
That's probably true. The Tobacco industry's bullshit artists probably get a thin time of it, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 24-06-2012 14:57 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AngelAlice wrote: | | kamalktk wrote: | | AngelAlice wrote: | | kamalktk wrote: | | AngelAlice wrote: | | Not really wanting to get involved in this particular "debate", but it's undeniably true that certain Wiki pages can become colonised by one prevailing view. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it can be misleading when issues are complex and one side is under-represented. The skeptical view of AGW - which ought really to still be the mainstream position, given the lack of confirming data - is horribly understated on the pages devoted to it on Wiki. And this reflects a popular bias, not a scientific position. |
The wikipedia page is quite long and comprehensive, with nearly 250 citations. Perhaps you can improve it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy |
I'm not disputing the citation. Both sides can claim citation. I'm just saying one side of the argument is under-represented on Wiki is all.
I'm pretty sure lots of people have tried to even it up - but in Wiki Wars the victory can tend to go to the more numerous and persistent rather than the most fair-minded can't it. |
Ok, because the controversy page is both longer and with more citations than the warming page itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. Does this mean the "more numerous and persistent rather than the most fair-minded" are those that support controversy? |
I don't get what the controversy is - everyone can see the skeptical side isn't equally represented on Wiki. if you think that's justified then fine, but it's still obviously true. |
They have a longer, and more sourced article, and this is lack of equal representation?  There's obviously no pleasing some people.
But anyway, since Wikipedia is open to editing, you should remedy the situation to your satisfaction. If you don't, you're simply contributing to the suppression you decry through your lack of action. And then we're forced to ask why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-06-2012 07:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wikipedia is not very accurate.
I don't presume to edit it on Global Warming, but on some subjects that I do know about and can cross check facts, it has a tendency to error. And its very difficult to get errors permanently corrected since in the internet age there is a tendency to cite other internet sources also in error. In some cases I've checked back reports of certain events against original official reports and been 'unedited' on the basis of some second-hand or tabloid newspaper source elsewhere. There is clear evidence of some editors using Wikipedia to promote a point of view by inserting dubious 'facts' into otherwise unremarkable articles - it takes a lot of time and determination - more than I have of either - for a neutral person to keep putting things back to the known verified facts. I repeat, I'm not talking about the Global Warming articles, just making a point about some areas that I do know about and have access to considerable research.
I have nothing whatsoever against speculation or alternative interpretations as long as the points of issue are clearly brought into the open - for someone who reads Wikipedia without a certain degree of caution this is a potential trap. I'd rather see it have a more open attitude to debate and more commonly have a section in its articles on 'controversies' or 'disputes'. It would make its coverage of Fortean issues better, for a start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 08-07-2012 14:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Myth-busting climate change website wins global award
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-myth-busting-climate-website-global-award.html
July 5th, 2012 in Space & Earth / Environment
(Phys.org) -- Myths circulating online about climate change cause misplaced apathy or alarm. A website built to be the antidote has won a major global award for a team from the University of Southampton.
Globe-Town.org won third prize in the first international 'Apps for Climate' competition (#Apps4Climate) held by the World Bank, presented at a ceremony in Washington DC. By opening up the facts of climate change in different countries, Globe-Town shows how no one is isolated from the consequences in an interdependent world. The site also reveals how responding to climate change presents a world of opportunities to inspire individuals and entrepreneurs.
The application was conceived by web science and sustainability researcher Jack Townsend and developed with a team including four other PhD students from the Web Science Doctoral Training Centre in Southampton's prestigious department of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS).
It was funded by the Research Councils UK Digital Economy Theme which is led by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Jack says: "The World Health Organisation has estimated that climate change is killing 150,000 people a year. In order to tackle this challenge, we all need to know how it affects us personally and what we can do about it. Globe-Town does this by connecting the global with the local, so we can explore the risks, responsibilities and opportunities of climate change in an increasingly interconnected world."
Globe-Town is an easy-to-use web application where people can learn about each country's environment, society and economy, so they can understand the challenges and opportunities that it faces in a changing world.
Moreover, they can explore the connections between countries through relationships such as trade, migration or air travel. Stories can then emerge of how climate risks can be transmitted between distant countries, for instance the impact of the 2011 Thai floods on the Japanese economy.
Similarly, the user can learn about shared responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions through the things we import, or opportunities to act to mitigate and to adapt, such as investing in renewable energy projects abroad.
Jack continues: "I'm fascinated by the potential of web technologies and openness to tackle global challenges and advance sustainable development for all. "Globe-Town is just one example of how they can contribute."
Provided by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
"Myth-busting climate change website wins global award." July 5th, 2012. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-myth-busting-climate-website-global-award.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 30-09-2012 13:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Scientist who saw drowned polar bears reprimanded
September 29th, 2012 in Other Sciences / Other
(AP)—An Alaska scientist whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement has been reprimanded for improper release of government documents.
An Interior Department official said emails released by Charles Monnett were cited by a federal appeals court in decisions to vacate approval by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management of an oil and gas company's Arctic exploration plan.
The official, Walter Cruickshank, deputy director of BOEM, said in a memo that an inspector general's investigation contained findings that Monnett had improperly disclosed internal government documents, which he said were later used against the agency in court. He also said the investigation made other findings in regards to Monnett's conduct, but he wasn't taking action on those. He would not specify those findings.
Cruickshank called Monnett's "misconduct very serious," and said any future misconduct may lead to more severe discipline, including removal from federal service.
Monnett was briefly suspended last year during an inspector general's investigation into a polar bear research contract he managed. The inspector general's report, which was released Friday, said its investigation was set off by a complaint from an unidentified Interior Department employee who alleged that Monnett wrongfully released government records and that he and another scientist, Jeffrey Gleason, intentionally omitted or used false data in an article they wrote on polar bears. During that investigation, authorities also looked into the procurement issue.
Jeff Ruch, executive director of the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has been involved in the matter on Monnett's behalf, said Friday that the issue of the document release did not even come up in investigators' questioning of Monnett.
He called the outcome "completely unexpected," and said Monnett is confused by it.
PEER, in a news release, said the email disclosure had nothing to do with polar bear research but that it embarrassed the agency.
"We think he's owed an apology, but we're not going to hold our breath until he gets one," Ruch said.
Federal investigators had said that Monnett helped a polar bear researcher prepare a proposal even though he was the government official who determined whether the proposal met minimum qualifications. PEER has said that Monnett's handling of the study was proper and that Monnett, instead, was being targeted for a 2006 article on drowned polar bears.
The article was based on observations that Monnett and Gleason made in 2004 while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales. They saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm.
In the article, they said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of the bears floating dead and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances. They wrote that while polar bears are considered strong swimmers, long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.
They said their findings suggested that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future "if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."
The article and related presentations helped to make the polar bear a symbol for the global warming movement.
According to the inspector general's report, investigators found that Monnett and Gleason used an incomplete database as their primary source of information to write the article, made conflicting statements to investigators regarding the writing and editing process and understated data in the manuscript. However, they found that the article had "little or no impact" on a federal decision to extend special protections to polar bears under the Endangered Species Act, according to the report.
A BOEM spokeswoman, Theresa Eisenman, said the findings in the report do not support a conclusion that the scientists involved engaged in "scientific misconduct."
Monnett's reprimand could be removed from his record in two years or less.
Ruch said Monnett has been told he will return to scientific work.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
"Scientist who saw drowned polar bears reprimanded." September 29th, 2012.
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-scientist-polar-reprimanded.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 13-11-2012 15:52 Post subject: |
|
|
|
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/
Note the number of lobbyists vs the number of actual scientists. Note also the connections with the Climategate emails, which make even more sense read in this context. This was the group that decided, as far as the BBC was concerned, that the BBC was justified in regarding any opponents of AGW as - I forget the word they used, but wild-eyed lunatics would not be far different.
I am aware that Watts Up itself is from one side of the argument, there is no need to point that out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
