Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,206
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + + + + + +
→Rush Limbaugh: reply
::I think as far as possible we should avoid quoting non-experts in any articles like this. I don't expect that the reporter is an expert on polar bear behaviour and I'm pretty certain Rush Limbaugh isn't either, so whilst one or both may be making claims that are in fact true I don't think it's enough to simply take their word for it. It's not a question of conservatives OR liberals distorting science, politics distorts science full stop. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:02, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::I think as far as possible we should avoid quoting non-experts in any articles like this. I don't expect that the reporter is an expert on polar bear behaviour and I'm pretty certain Rush Limbaugh isn't either, so whilst one or both may be making claims that are in fact true I don't think it's enough to simply take their word for it. It's not a question of conservatives OR liberals distorting science, politics distorts science full stop. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:02, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:::I definitely see why the basis of your argument is important. Instead of commentary covering the subject, perhaps the article should utilize more quotes from the emails, code and data processing programs, and then let the readers make their own assertions about what it means for climate science? Keeping that in mind, I think for now, because Climategate is still a relatively new and breaking story -- and still unknown to many people (thank the media) -- it might be a benefit to the article (for now) by having noteworthy discussions on the subject at hand, even though some of the talk may or may not be from an expert. After all, many of the "expert" scientists are the ones under fire for manipulating and suppressing data.
:::On the one hand, take for example the noteworthy editorial by ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy. His quote is one of my favorites because he so clearly defines what the problem is that Climategate uncovered, and he also provides some interesting solutions as a result of the uncovered problems. I'm not sure exactly how much of an expert Murphy is on the topic of Climate science; however, his comment on the subject matter is very useful for understanding some of the main takeaways of Climategate. On the other hand, there is absolutely a lot of information out there by other scientists whom have done research which counters many of the false claims made about global warming. It's one of the reasons I added the "Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction" section, countering Michael Mann's hockey stick chart.
:::Another problem is that much of the "expert" data about Climate change is now debunked since it was using fraudulent data provided by the CRU scientists. So it may take some time before quality, reliable research is available to the public. There's a reason this scandal is so large, because of its impact on climate science, it truly uncovered one of the biggest frauds of our time; thus, it's going to take time before things get sorted out in an orderly fashion. The article as it is seen today is a real-time encyclopedic reference as an article discussing what is currently known. Some of those discussions about what is known happen to be from commentators pointing out some of the main takeaways. I don't mean to be wordy in my reply, but hopefully this provides some context and reasoning as to why the article is currently written the way it is. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:03, 10 December 2009 (EST)