Replacing a sourced claim with an unsourced one?
I cringe at the removal of the "protection" bit (it's right there in the source - if you don't like what it says, don't use it) and the immediate insertion of the "scientifically unsound" bit without ANY source. This isn't driven by ideology, but rather by my natural curiosity. I sit here, going all "Why? Who? How? When?"
I'm sorry if I'm trampling on conservative truisms here, but could I pretty please have a source there so we can see who claims what? Or a link to an article that explains it? Right now, it looks like pure opinion, sorry.
This isn't just about this article (and I have nothing against Ed, it just happened to be this article that made me post this), but I think I fairly often saw "Liberals claim that x, but in reality, we all know that truth-because-it's-not-liberal statements here on CP. It's just now that I notice the pattern (although I'm sure it's not a deliberate act, just conservatives forgetting to mention sources for something they learned long ago and now take for granted).
Any opinions? Am I just seeing things? --Jenkins 19:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Your observations are helpful. I need to flesh out my contention that this protocol is junk science. You can help me google Fred Singer and other scientists who disagree with the politicized, biased, liberal & environmentalist view.
- Well, global warming is way out of my league right now, and time is not on my side these days (at least not in large chunks). So I limit myself to drive-by observing and filling in the occasional Most Wanted page until I get a proper window to edit in. If the article stays this way until I do, I'll try to look into it (I like to learn new things), but I assume you have a head-start in terms of knowledge, especially when it comes to sorting out who made what claim. :) --Jenkins 20:16, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- (bows modestly) I am the Internet encyclopedia community's leading expert on environmentalist junk science. --Ed Poor Talk 20:19, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- I removed the statement: "Flushed by their success in passing this scientifically unsound treaty, environmentalists then turned their attention to global warming." There is a lot of material in that sentence, and it should be fleshed out instead of thrown at the end.
- Also, the science of the theory is actually pretty sound; it's the politics that are arguably unsound. By the way Ed, you might be the leading expert on environmentalist junk science, but I'm not so bad myself at environmentalist real science ;-) HelpJazz 20:42, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- By "theory" I meant not a specific proposed mechanism, but the science behind the mechanism. In other words, I didn't mean that "ozone depletion catalyzed by atmospheric halides is causing an increase of skin cancer," I meant "halides, when exposed to high-energy radiation catalyze ozone". The former is controversial, but the latter is not and can be derived from other theories (such as quantum mechanics) as well as shown in the lab. Similarly, I meant not "CO2 emmissions are causing global warming," but, "CO2 absorbs energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the earth, while passing energy in the wavelength of that emitted by the sun."
- I'm not sure I'd say that the mechanisms (that is, the first clauses of my two sentences above) aren't "mainstream science;" they very clearly are. They are also highly debated, highly controversial, and highly political. HelpJazz 22:40, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, okay. Sorry for that typical conservative reaction. ;-) Please feel free to write about climate science, i.e., mechanisms which are known to exist and are not in any way controversial.
- For example, we know that heating up your brain is bad for you. That can be established statistically, with the amount and duration of heating compared to the incidence of brain tumors. What we don't know is whether cell phone usage (with its tiny 10th of a degree heating) has actually caused a brain tumor in anyone.
- Likewise, we know that overexposure to nuclear radiation causes cancer. What we did not know after Chernobyl is how many people would die. It turned out to be spectacularly less than "feared" (not to say "estimated", i.e., "guessed"). One of the biggest news stories of the century would be the immense relief people had when they found out that estimates of 10,000 to 100,000 deaths were not borne out by facts.