Talk:The science is settled

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Sheldon Rampton

I changed this article to merely redirect to the global warming controversy article. Almost everything in the article's original form is either POV or an outright lie (see my annotations below). This article is so sloppily written, laden with POV invective and unsupported by actual evidence, that I don't know how to redeem it. Whatever point it is trying to make would be better addressed within the global warming controversy article. --Sheldon Rampton 21:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

'The science is settled' is a slogan used by American political campaigns to advance the view that climatologists had reached a consensus in favor of the global warming hypothesis. Officials in the Clinton Administration, including Vice-President Al Gore repeated the slogan endlessly, in an effort to get the American public to support the Kyoto Protocol.

Calling this phrase a "slogan" is a point of view. There is no evidence of any political body ever having met to formulate this phrase as a "slogan." It doesn't appear on bumper stickers or other places where "slogans" appear.
Saying that Gore repeated the slogan endlessly is an outright lie. No one does anything "endlessly." It's a lie told for the purposes of hyperbole. I just did a search of the Nexis/Lexis news database and couldn't find a single example of Al Gore being quoted saying "the science is settled." If this were indeed a "slogan" that he has "repeated endlessly," it would be on record somewhere, within quotation marks. The mere fact that Gore believes the science on global warming is not the same thing as saying he has endlessly repeated this specific phrase as a slogan.
Finally, saying that the "science is settled" on the "global warming hypothesis" is misleading in another respect: It fails to appreciate the nuance with which groups like the IPCC have discussed the global warming hypothesis. They do not say that "the science is settled" and in fact say that a great deal more research should be done. What they do say is that the evidence is strong regarding certain specific aspects of climate theory: the fact that human activities are increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; the fact that global temperatures have risen, etc. However, there are other pieces of the theory on which scientists still disagree (such as the rate of projected future warming, or the degree of causal link between increased greenhouse gas levels and the rise in global temperature). It would be reasonable to say that Gore and many other people believe the science is sufficiently settled to warrant action including the Kyoto Protocol, but to simply characterize their views as a "slogan" is deeply misleading.

Advocates cited the findings of a United Nations organization called the IPCC as proof that scientists worldwide had largely approved the global warming theory.

Attributing this statement to "advocates" is POV.

Opponents attempted to cast doubt on the IPCC's findings, but were shouted down or ignored by the media, which was sympathetic to the Democratic Party's view. (See journalism and politics in America, which when it is written will show that well over 85% of American journalists vote Democrat and/or support the Democratic Party line in their reporting).

Saying that "the media" "shouted down" opponents is also a lie. Ed can't cite one documented instance when someone was "shouted down." Moreover, the claim that 85% of journalists vote Democratic is not proven and doesn't in any case prove that those journalist would have slanted their coverage on global warming for political reasons. This entire paragraph is just more POV nonsense from Ed.

[edit] Clinton Administration officials who said it

[edit] Tim Wirth

  • In preparation for Kyoto, U.S. Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth (now working for Ted Turner's anti-global warming campaign) repeatedly declared that "the science is settled." -- cited by Patrick Michaels [1]
  • Dr. Singer projects on a screen a quote--Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth saying that global warming science is "settled." [2]

[edit] Stu Eizenstat

  • Undersecretary Eizenstat repeated the Clinton administration’ws shopworn claims: the science is settled and recent weather is proof that global warming is upon us. [3]

In an attempt to keep the peace between you two, I've edited the article to try to reflect what you both can agree on, absent the inflammatory remarks. I'd say that the best way to improve the article from here would be to go out and find mainstream references (newspaper articles, books, journal articles, television transcripts, whatever) which can confirm or disconfirm that the administration officials actually said these things.

One thing that I found in my own research for the article is that it is in fact true that virtually every example of the slogan being used is an example of an opponent of Kyoto attributing that view to the other side. I think it is true, by the way, that proponents of Kyoto have tended to overstate the science and attempt to generate a picture of consensus that doesn't exist. However, I can't find them using this exact phrase very much (or, at all).

I'll take it that Sheldon was only trying to be funny by writing a version of the article that treated Ed as a prominent spokesperson or something like that. I didn't find it funny, myself, but trust that Sheldon didn't mean any actual harm.

Jimbo Wales 21:38, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article merge

I think this should be merged with scientific consensus.—Eloquence

Not that this is relevant to anything, my first reaction to the edit of Jimbo the Great was, why did the edit 'diff' show that our Great Leader made the article get shorter, instead of making it longer and demonstrating the Divine Goal of spreading all human (and perhaps at a later date, also alien) Knowledge. My second reaction was to wonder why the ‽ did the previous version of the article start with "According to global warming skeptic Ed Poor,"... (Reaction #2 overrides reaction #1 a bit.) (I haven't read any of the article other than that particular sentence, nor seen any other 'diff's, hence the "Not that this is relevant to anything". And also, I'm guessing certain wordings in my comment also express a certain POV, the preaching of which is not especially encouraged by some of the relevant parties. Therefore, everyone please just ignore this comment of mine.) Κσυπ Cyp   22:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer someone who says that we should ignore his or her comments, but you know, I'm a wordy fellow and can't help but try.

My intention in the edits was not really to omit any information relevant to the article, and of course I would welcome anyone adding back anything that I removed. Most of the text in the article was Sheldon playing around with Ed, or anyhow that's how I interpreted it. Sheldon surely never intended most of that to survive subsequent edits, he was just using the article space as talk space, in a sense.

I did omit one (or two?) examples that Ed had included, and I substituted another example (Cato) that I felt showed the slogan in question more clearly. Ed's AEI example didn't really use the slogan directly at all, so it didn't really illustrate how it has been used.

My own suspicion is that the sources cited in the article didn't just make this up. I suspect that thorough research would reveal that, indeed, Gore did say it, on more than one occassion, and that, indeed, various other Clinton administration officials said it, too. When I started work on the article, I expect to be able to find those quotes in newspaper articles or whatever. But I didn't. So the article ended up different from what I thought it would be when I started.

Jimbo Wales 06:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

By saying to ignore my comment, I meant it wasn't completely serious. It was intended that people reading my comment would possibly laugh for a moment, before ignoring it. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that any explanation at all was needed for the edit. My post was not in any way intended as a complaint. First I saw that the article length was reduced. For the next 100 or so miliseconds, I was rather sure that there was a good reason for it. After the 100 miliseconds (or so) it took for my eyes to focus on the computer screen and see "According to global warming skeptic Ed Poor,", I was completely sure there was a good reason for it. I certainly agree that it appeared to be playing around with Ed, and am rather sure that if I had actually spent more than a total of 2 seconds looking at the article, that I would agree with everything else. The only reason I wrote anything at all is because my currently unreliable sense of humour determined that my post might be funny. I think an above average proportion of my edits appear on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. I'm embarrased that someone took the time to write a serious reply to my comment. Anyway, sorry... Κσυπ Cyp   14:47, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's the history of this article:

  1. Ed created it and put in a bunch of nonsense that isn't true. This so-called "slogan" has never been used as a "slogan" by proponents of the Kyoto Protocol. In my opinion, that means that this article shouldn't even exist.
  2. Accordingly, I changed the article into a redirect to the global warming controversy article, and put a fairly detailed critique of the original article on this talk page.
  3. Ed then simply reverted my changes, without contacting me or acknowledging in any way any of the points that I made in my critique on this talk page.
  4. On the assumption that simply reverting back to my redirect wouldn't fly, I turned this into an article about allegations by global warming skeptics that this so-called "slogan" exists. At this stage of our little edit war, I didn't put Ed's name into the article.
  5. Ed was the one who then went personal, sticking my name into the article and citing three industry-funded global warming skeptics as the only source for his false claim that Al Gore specifically had "endlessly" repeated this "slogan."
  6. I responded in tit-for-tat fashion, taking my name out of the article and putting in Ed's name instead. I wouldn't characterize this as a "joke" on my part, but I didn't expect this version to survive. I just wanted to make the point that Ed shouldn't go personal when he's in an edit war by sticking the person with whom he disagrees into the article as a spokesperson for the "other side."
  7. Jimbo then stepped in and came up with a compromise that I consider adequate, although I still don't think there's any real reason for this article to even exist. Jimbo thinks that proponents of the Kyoto Protocol have overstated the science, as does Ed. Fine, they're entitled to that opinion, and I think the place to have that discussion is in the global warming controversy article, not in a separate article inventing a nonexistent "slogan" that has rarely, if ever, been used by proponents of the Kyoto Protocol. I happen to think that the Bush administration overstated the case for war with Iraq, but I don't think that entitles me to create an article about some anti-Saddam slogan that the Bush administration never actually used. The issue here isn't whether the science is or is not settled, it's whether we are willing to be historically accurate about what was actually said.

Jimbo and others might reasonably wonder why this all had to happen in the article space rather than in the Talk space. The answer is that Ed seems to have missed or ignored what I put on the Talk space initially. --Sheldon Rampton 20:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My original point was that opponents of Kyoto and the GW theory HAD THE POV THAT the slogan the science is settled was being used by Kyoto supporters, particularly officials in the Clinton administration.

If some other advocates believe that these K & GW opponents are mistaken, then we should give them a mention.

If I over-emphasized Gore, then I am guilty of sloppy writing -- no longer a capital offense in this jurisdiction, thank God -- and the article should be changed to de-emphasize Gore. Apparently only Fred Singer claims that Gore used the slogan.

Whether or not funding is relevant to the discussion is an interesting question. Given that many people believe that public speakers are prone to make statements that favor the cause of someone paying them, it probably would be a good idea to disclose funding sources for ANYONE making a statement about climate science.

And not only those tied to special interest by purse strings, but those with political or ideological ties.

Why is it that US Democrats like Clinton; Gore; Clinton's EPA administrator; a Clinton undersecretary of state; etc., all favor the Kyoto Protocol and say something like:

  • the science is settled
  • there is a scientific consensus
  • the evidence is strong enough that we should take action

I'd like the Wikipedia to address this. I only hope partisans like published author Sheldon Rampton aren't permitted to sabotage the neutrality of this and related articles.

Sheldon's main mode of operation is discredit his opponents and to intimidate critics into silence. I'm getting tired of this. --Uncle Ed 16:00, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, that wasn't your original point. Your original article never mentioned or suggested in any way that "opponents of Kyoto" had the POV you describe above. You simply declared that Al Gore and others "endlessly" repeated this so-called "slogan" and that they "shouted down" anyone with a contrary opinion. None of this was true. I'm not trying to "intimidate" you, but it would be nice if you'd adhere to some standards of accuracy and evidence. You say that you're getting tired of my actions. Well, I'm tired of yours. I'm tired of your sloppy inaccuracy, fabricated facts and partisan editing. I'm tired of your cavalier reversion of my editing, without anything resembling an honest effort to determine whether any of my criticisms of your original article had merit. (Everyone now knows they did.) I'm tired of having you personalize things by sticking my name into the text of the article itself. I'm tired of having to prove you wrong about things and then have you respond with this kind of graceless bellyaching.

I'm open to suggestions for a way to improve the tone of our exchanges. Here are some possibilities that have occurred to me:

  • A policy of no complete reversions of each others' edits without contacting one another first to discuss it.
  • Arbitration.

--Sheldon Rampton 16:57, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, let's just meet after school and settle this once and for all! ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, how about under the bleachers? Let's just hope that Mr. Weatherbee doesn't catch us. --Sheldon Rampton 03:10, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Which one are you, Dilton Doiley, or Moose? I've always identified with Jughead: funny hat, shy around girls, really like hamburgers... --Uncle Ed 21:34, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Needs attribution

Some opponents of the Protocol allege that members of the Clinton administration used the slogan "the science is settled" in an effort to advance the claim that climate scientists had reached a scientific consensus on the matter.

Which opponents? When did they allege this? A web link or a specific page in a book would be nice. --Uncle Ed 13:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Which opponents? Well, for example: Sovereignty International, SEPP, the Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and, of course, Ed Poor). As for when they alleged this and the web links, that information already appears further down in the article. --Sheldon Rampton 16:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] My changes

(William M. Connolley 18:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I've made some fairly extensive changes. I have asserted "There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press" because... no one has managed to find any. I've called it a strawman and explained why. Etc.

[edit] Pointless article?

What is the point of this article? It seems to say that noone said "The science is settled" in those words, but did say similar things. What makes this encyclopedic? --Audiovideo 01:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)) This is one of those ones where someone thought one thing was true, but it turned out not to be... check the article history. Its part of the Global Warming Wars.
Normally in wikipedia, if something minor is not true it gets deleted. If it almost but not quite true then it is changed. But Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Nothing links here except Politicization of science and Tim Wirth, both of which use the link badly. --Audiovideo 14:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 17:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Well maybe... but the article *has* been changed to fit reality. The point (which I would have hoped was clearer from the article) is that this is a phrase that has been misattributed in an attempt, efectively, to smear the GW theory. I'm not strongly in favour of it, but I'd vote against on VFD on the grounds that it is useful, somewhat, and people have spent quite some time tracking down the info on this page.
Sheldon Rampton 17:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Actually, my original response to this article was to delete the text and turn it into a redirect to global warming controversy. However, Ed Poor refused that solution and reverted my edit. (See my edit on 19 December 2003 and the subsequent edits on 8 and 9 January 2004.) As for whether the article in its present form should be retained, I have no opinion.

[edit] Added some examples of "science is settled" rhetoric

Although I fully expect Bill Connelley or his array of sockpuppets to invoke one or more obscure rules from Wikipedia which are only invoked when facts are cited that Bill Connelley doesn't like or pretends does not exist, with a view to reverting "vandalism" or even more ludicrously that I am mysteriously a sockpuppet for a banned user or some such nonsense. The alternative is of course for Connelley to try and get the article VFDed or otherwise drastically altered so that it doesn't say what Connelley claims.

Oh and by the way, I have a perfect right to edit any Wikipedia article as I see fit, without asking Connelley's permission. --86.142.246.231 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted these changes. None of the examples that 86.142.246.231 cited involved the specific phrase, "the science is settled," and nome of them come from individuals in the Clinton administration. (The quotations cited, in fact, come from 2005 and 2006, long after Clinton left office.) The article already makes it clear that many people, including members of the Clinton administration, regard the science as clear and compelling showing that human activities are driving global warming. The fact that they believe this is not at issue. The question, however, is whether the specific phrase, "the science is settled," was coined by the Clinton administration and used as a slogan.
Since the anonymous individual who wrote this nonsense is blathering about "sockpuppets," I'd like to point out that Bill Connolley edits under his actual name, as do I. A sockpuppet is someone who uses the cover of anonymity to disguise his or her identity. There is no evidence that Bill Connelley has ever done this. --Sheldon Rampton 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well Shelly the answer is that in the text of this atrocious article it has a headline of "Uses of the slogan, or things somewhat like it", so the answer is that unless you want to make the article unfalsifiable by demanding that people use the exact phrase, then you're going to have to accept that politicians and some climate scientists and economists make near constant use of this particular rhetoric in order to forestall debate, while not using exactly the phrase "the science is settled". Note of course that Connelley doesn't mention a single person who has made the claim that people have said "the science is settled" - he just airily makes it axiomatic and starts from there. Perhaps I should start putting [citation needed] in the article to see whether Connelley can back up his assertions by reference to checkable facts. You never know.
Oh and Bill? I've taken pictures, so if you keep deleting discussions and text in the way you have already in defiance of any ruling by Wikipedia on how admins should behave, I'll present all of the evidence to Jimbo and let him work out what to do next.

[edit] What is the point...

Of adding a fact tag "There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press[citation needed] " when the article itself documents that. If there *are* any known examples, add them. But *of the slogan itself* - not of random examples of people talking about IPCC science William M. Connolley 11:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I keep adding examples of people saying the same thing and you keep deleting them. And when I try to ask you why these things keep getting deleted on your talk page, you delete them as well claiming that I'm not being "polite". Politeness of course, seems to mean agreeing with whatever WMC decides is the truth.

--86.142.246.231 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you've found no examples of people saying this thing, you've found examples of people saying something vaguely like it. But is it a slogan, or not? If it is, its used. But it appears to be no more than a strawman invented by skeptics William M. Connolley 14:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You've yet to demonstrate that
  • because two people have used the phrase therefore it is "a slogan"
  • there is such a thing as "the skeptic press" (as opposed to what? the gullible press?)
  • that there is something so sinister from just two people that it requires a Wikipedia article to oppose it.
And besides what you regard as "something vaguely like it" is in the eye of the beholder. Even Jimbo regards these near quotations as significant. The only person creating the straw man is you. --86.142.246.231 09:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It hardly seems worth talking if you're not going to try to make sense. If you think that the entire page needs to be deleted - which is the only possible repsonse if you think it isn't used as a slogan - then put it up for AFD William M. Connolley 10:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should I? I'm not the one who created the straw man. By the way, people making the approximately the same statement are getting more numerous.
--86.142.246.231 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Difficulty finding examples" section deleted

The "Difficulty finding examples" section has been deleted as per WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY which clearly state that original research by an editor which cannot be verified and does not come from a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, cannot be used in Wikipedia articles.

If the editor involved would like to point to where this research on Media Libraries has been done by historians and written up in a peer-reviewed journal of historical matters, then this should be restored - otherwise it looks like the editor is promoting his/her POV violating WP:NPOV as well.

--Tillotson 13:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating. However Connelley simply reverted it without even responding. Obviously using Wikipedia's own procedures and talk pages appears to be beneath him --86.142.246.231 21:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_science_is_settled_2c78.html"