User talk:ScottyBerg/Climate Change

I'll bite. Much of what you say is true, though some needs quibbling. Let's not worry about that for the moment (please don't assume I agree with everything I don't object to), but let me pull out a few things:

• The battle involves longstanding contributors - actually, there are very few longstanding folk on the "skeptic" side. Offhand, I can't think of any substantial long-term skeptic contributors to GW. This isn't too strange - they turn up, push their POV, this fails (because eventually their wrongness becomes obvious), they blow up, and leave.
• most people don't have the technical expertise - you under-emphasise this. None of the "skeptic" side have any technical expertise, but it doesn't stop them editing.

Another point you don't make is that many of the (technical) articles are fairly mature. They don't chnage much, because there is little reason for them to change. That doesn't stop people trying to change them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, William. I was including in the "battle" some of the administrators who aren't technically article contributors. I was interested in trying a bit of "think tank" thumb-sucking on this protracted battle, outside of normal channels, and so far it's very interesting. I'd like to hear more from the "sceptic" side. Shouldn't that be "skeptic," by the way? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

admins

I disagree several admins are considered reasonable by people on "both sides". However, I think having a small group of admins policing the whole thing is a terrible development which has been brought about by this ill conceived enforcement and only leads to disaster. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree with your second point. I'm not sure about the first, as I just haven't seen that, but I hope it's so. My remark wasn't addressed at any particular administrators, by the way. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion

Here's my opinion:

• The science portions of the AGW articles are fairly good. WMC, Stephan Schulz, Short Brigade, etc share most of the credit for that.
• The wider cultural, political, social portion of the AGW debate is not represented well in Wikipedia. Attempts to present criticims of the human-caused AGW theory by economists, journalists, dissenting scientists, etc into articles is often not received very well by the "science" group of editors. The socio-political arena of the AGW debate is just as important as the scientific, IMO, but Wikipedia so far poorly reflects this.
• New editors who suggest changes to the AGW articles, especially the global warming article itself, have, especially in the past, been treated extremely rudely. I invite you to go to the global warming talk page archives and choose any month at random from 2006-2009 to see what I mean. There is no good rationale for the bullying and incivility that experienced editors have engaged in on that talk page towards new editors. In my opinion, it is very shameful and reflects poorly on Wikipedia's administration that it was allowed to go on. Although a good percentage of those newcomers are/were trolls or Scibaby socks, many of them were not and did not deserve to be treated the way that they were.
• Just as shameful to me is the way that BLPs on AGW figures have been treated. IMO, a certain group of editors have blatently and repeatedly violated the BLP policy in attempts to discredit people who don't support or have criticized portions of the human-caused AGW theory, while at the same time wikilawyering to keep any negative information, no matter how reliably sourced, out of AGW supporter BLPs.
• One of the AGW "science" editors was one of the founding members of the RealClimate blog. That blog, from what I've read, was started by Michael E. Mann and his close colleagues, at least in part, to help defend his research which had produced the "hockey stick" graph. Mann's research has come under severe attack as hinted at in that article. RealClimate's staff have developed a reputation since then for aggressively defending Mann's research against criticism. If you check the list of sources listed on the RealClimate talk page, I think you'll see what I mean. In my opinion, one or more of the AGW editors have brought this battleground mentality to Wikipedia. Evidence of this is the continued attempts to use RealClimate as a source in AGW-related articles, including in BLPs which is a violation of the BLP policy. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your views. I want to read them through and see if I have any particular reaction. You know, it seems to me that's what's lacking is "brainstorming" in a neutral setting to get a handle on what's going on. Thanks again, ScottyBerg (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. I believe many if not most of the admins in Wikipedia accept the theory of human-caused climate change as true and that it is a crisis as protrayed by many politicians, scientists, journalists, etc. Therefore, I believe this is one reason why many of the abuses in this topic area by one side have been allowed to take place without being corrected. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, appreciate your comments. I think that of all the problems you raise that require most immediate correction is incivility. I see that on both sides. Some of the scientific types remind me of my teachers in school, that is creating problems by an arrogant attitude. This creates a cultural problem in the Internet, which has a more free-wheeling and egalitarian culture. Everyone needs to show more self-restraint. I think that this aspect has been neglected by all sides. To be frank, the scientific side has the burden of cleaning up its act in that regard.

Your comments on the socio-political aspects of climate change are interesting, and I think perhaps get at the root of the problem. When there is a controversy surrounding science, non-scientists questioning science, how should that be dealt with? Do we lean toward the scientific consensus or do we give equal weight to all points of view? That seems to be at the root of a lot of the issues that we see in global warming. I can understand both positions, but I lean in the direction of the scientific viewpoint outweighing the position of well-intentioned non-scientists.

I might feel differently if this was an area that dealt more with metaphysical and unknowable issues, like the existence of God. Most scientists would tell you that there is no scientific proof of that. I think climate change seems more concrete and less prone to dispute.

I'm watching this Lar arbitration case as I'm very interested to see how Wikipedia's internal mechanisms handle such disputes. So far, what bothers me in general has been a tendency to be legalistic without taking a long view.

On your last point, administrator bias, what I see is a general tendency to allow latitude toward experienced editors, especially those with scientific credentials. As I said earlier, there is a definite tendency of some of the scientific editors to behave as if this were a classroom addressing wisecracking students, and not an egalitarian internet society. Yet, to be fair, there is a credible argument of administrative bias directed at such editors.

Thanks again for your thoughts. I'd really love to see more discussion in a nonprosecutorial and neutral forum on this very interesting issue.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

One other thing: your point on BLPs is important. I don't really know enough about them to comment, but I'll look in on Fred Singer, which seems to be the current controversy. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughs. My addition:

We don't decide which opinions, scientific vs social, get more weight, the sources do. The media gives equal weight, or close to it, to opinions from economists, journalists, politicians, and celebrities (like Al Gore or Michael Crichton), so we should also.

My father was a social science (anthropology, sociology, psychology) professor. He told me that academics often acted very hypocritically, such as demanding free speech while at the same time often trying to censor views that were contrary to their own. Perhaps the same thing is occurring in Wikipedia. Remember Dr. Michael E. Mann's infamous Climategate email to Dr. Jones at the CRU (my paraphrase), "DO NOT share data with this guy, he is the enemy."

The vested contributor problem is a long-running issue with Wikipedia and effects many organizations and websites. It's a difficult problem to deal with. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement "he media gives equal weight, or close to it, to opinions from economists, journalists, politicians, and celebrities (like Al Gore or Michael Crichton), so we should also." Is not policy, which states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." You have defined "prominence" by "media reference." I believe prominence also includes the acceptance by other avenues of publication - peer-reviewed journals, specifically. In fact, with reference to scientific topics, the balance of weight should be defined by peer-reviewed journals. Why are you disregarding peer reviewed journals when evaluating prominence? Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am including peer-reviewed journals when I say the media. I'll repeat it again, the AGW debate includes climate science, economics, social science, statistics, politics, cultural aspects, etc etc,. All of this needs to be included in articles on the topic according to how they are discussed in the media. Cla68 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The media does not give equal weight "to opinions from ... journalists, politicians, and celebrities." You will not find them in the peer reviewed literature at all. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "We don't decide which opinions, scientific vs social, get more weight, the sources do." We seem to do that all time. In Fred Singer, as you know, there is a current dispute over whether to use the Times blog. Editors are always making interpretations of policy, and also deciding which belong and don't belong in an article. I happen to agree with you on the Tierney blog. I also don't believe that we should be swayed on the tenor of this or any scientific issue based on the latest trends in the media. I disagree with including "peer reviewed journals" in the "media" category. The media is often illiterate or sensational as you know. If we use a broad definition of "media," we risk making the CC articles overly deferential to fringe views. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Might want to be careful on your conclusion, there... [1] Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure I see you're point. But keep in mind that I'm a scientific illiterate. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You write "may not happen until the last iceberg melts, which would be a long time." Thus, you state it "would be a long time" until the last iceberg melts. This assumes facts not in evidence - in fact, it assumes facts that are currently debated. It may be "not very long" before the last iceberg melts. Hipocrite (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I'll see what I can do to fix. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)