Talk:Oregon Petition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oregon Petition article.

Contents

[edit] May 2004

The first version of this article was listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup for being unwikified and POV. Additionally I considered it to be original research, and it was also written in the first person. I have completely rewritten it in what I hope is a neutral and encyclopaedic tone, with lots of wikification! John Quiggin, please feel free to continue editing but please read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Editing policy first. Securiger 16:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] August 2005

"Surface temperatures have shown small but steady increases since the 1970s, but the tropics had shown little atmospheric heating — and even some cooling. Now, after sleuthing reported in three papers released by the journal Science, revisions have been made to that atmospheric data."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm

By not including the source and revision of the data which the petition was based on your saying all the people who signed it were lying. The reader needs to understand they were looking at what at the time they though was valid data but has since been proven by "three papers released by the journal Science" to be invalid.

You can just say it wasn't true. We might know today that it wasn't true but they didn't at the time.

Darkroom Thu Aug 25 17:13:12 EDT 2005

Oh yes I can. Satellite temperature measurements will tell you about the current situation. But if you go back in the history a bit to the 5.1 data [1] you'll find that the trend to 1999 was .0579 oC/decade. Warming, not cooling. And that was true *before* the most recent revision of the S+C data to the 5.2 version. William M. Connolley 21:43:38, 2005-08-25 (UTC).

[edit] Comments removed from article for discussion

Why is the fact that the petition is often misrepresented present in the "criticism" section?

If unscrupulous people twist facts to fit their own agenda then it's hardly the fault of those who originally presented those facts.

The link [2] (accesstoenergy.com) is a site that intentionally looks similar to the www.osim.org site, but upon closer scrutiny it is revealed that it is not affiliated with it at all - it is a different organization completely.

This would be analogous to someone creating a site that looks identical to Wikipedia, and then that "copycat" site intentionally skews it's political slant, for instance to promote an extreme left wing Liberal agenda. In this example, people could then unfairly offer up the bogus site as "criticism" of Wikipedia as being a shill for extreme left wing causes. The case is the same with presenting accesstoenergy.com in the "criticism" section here.

Also, the original letter http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm was clearly not "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,”.

And while the fact that the "The National Academy of Sciences issued a statement that the petition had nothing to do with them" is interesting, it is hardly a criticism (or even a salient point).

Above posted by User:24.168.92.117 on 15 Sep.
Vsmith 15:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The petition was designed to be deceptive. It was accompanied by a letter (full of half truths etc etc)designed to look like a PNAS article, which is why the PNAS were obliged to make it clear that it was nothing to do with them. I'm glad you think SEPP and the std.septics are unscrupulous, though. William M. Connolley 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted some edits from an unregistered IP number who deleted material and inserted their own POV criticism JQ 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate Signatory Names

In the article there is a quote wondering whether two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins actually signed the petition or if the same person signed it twice. This is speculation, but with so many names (I'm not addressing whether all are legitimate or not, just the quantity), there could very well be two people with the same name (I don't know if there are other duplicates, these are the ones in the quotes). David Tompkins sounds like a pretty common name. Also, there is the possibility that as the list of signatories was compiled, the error is in entering it into the website. It is very common when copying to lose your place (I do a lot), and with such a long list it would not surprise me to see a few such errors. Sometimes even novels, after having been proofread and edited several times have sentences and entire paragraphs repeated. Professor Chaos 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The quoted passage lists numerous potentially problematic signatures, of which the duplicates are probably the least important. There's no appropriate way of quoting the passage without this. If there's a response from Seitz or others associated with the petition explaining the duplication in the way you suggest, it would be appropriate to include it. A quick Google "oregon petition eaglemans" produces nothing suitable. JQ 05:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More comments removed from article

[it actually is true: the average increase since about 1860 is accurate, but it wasn't uniform: increased greatly from about 1925 to 1945, and decreased a bit between about 1950 and 1970 or so.]

This needs to be sourced and is written as a kind of aside to the information already presented, thus needs to written in a more encyclopedic manner if put back in the article. Ask me if you need help. Thanks. Katr67 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The data being referred to was collected by satellites and weather balloons, which weren't around in 1860. Satellite data began around 1980. Obviously some confusion here, so removal was appropriate.JQ 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia?

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is an Op-Ed criticism. There is no summary or overview of the petition and everything that is written about it has some sort of criticism or opinion that undermines the validity of the petition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.38.232 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps you're reading a different article? The one I just looked at did have a summary, as well as the full text of the petition (which fit onto a postcard). Or perhaps, when you say undermines the validity of the petition, you're assuming that the petition was in some way "valid", and thus criticism of it is in some way "invalid". Please note that articles here are to follow the WP:NPOV policy, which includes no presumptions about anything being "valid" on its face. John Broughton | Talk 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment in this thread, this does not read like an encyclopedia article, it reads far more like an op-ed. There is certainly no question whether the writer believes in the validity of the petition. I take issue with the following:
1) "but provides no explanation of how this verification was done"
2) "The text of the petition is often misrepresented"
3) "catastrophic heating and disruption , not "global warming"."
4) "Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as "Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A."
5) "Both Baliunas and Soon have ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical position on global warming since the 1980s"
6) "22-year-old son"
7) "Raymond Pierrehumbert"
8) "Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed"
9) "The verification of the scientists is listed at 95%"
1) 8) & 9) "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated." Granted, they do not explain the methodology for their independent review, but they do claim that the verification was done independently. While this may not be the best explanation of how they reviewed it, it is an explanation. The claim "no explanation of how this verification is done" is a half-truth at best. The claim that "older signatures (submitted via the web) were not removed" has no source. Additionally, the petition site provides examples of names removed. See above Geri Halliwell. Finally the 95% verification number was for signers listing PHDs. Your claim is both wrong and misleading.
2) This is quite irrelevant. You write that the petition is misrepresented as if the pro-global warming crowd isn't misrepresented in the press as to the effects of global warming. Scientists are warning that the temperature could increase a couple of degrees over the next few millennia, but every particularly hot day the press chimes in about global warming. Even Hurricane Katrina was blamed on global warming. Scientist/pundits warned that the next hurricane cycle would be even worse... and what happened during the next hurricane cycle? Almost nothing: only one hurricane hit the US last cycle and it was a category one... little more than a tropical storm. The only purpose of pointing out how the petition has been interpreted is to undermine the credibility of the actual petition by implying, "look how these idiots interpreted it."
3) Global warming is largely understood to be a catastrophic heating and disruption. If not, then there would be no global warming hysteria, and people would instead be talking about how great it is that the farming cycles are getting longer and helping to feed the world's growing population.
4) Frederick Seitz either is or isn't a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University. You do not make this clear. You say he identifies himself as such, casting doubt onto the validity of this, but you do not provide evidence that he is or is not a former president of the national academy of sciences. If he is in fact what he claims to be, then you should identify him as such. Look at the difference in these two sentences A) The petition included a cover letter written by a man who served as former president of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A, and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, Frederick Seitz. and B) The petition had a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, who identified himself as "Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.; President Emeritus, Rockefeller University." Sentence A does not cast doubt upon the man's credentials while Sentence B plants a seed of doubt into the mind of the reader. This is evidence of the bias of the author of this article.
5) & 7) You point out ties between the article's authors and their affiliation with a group which has a long history of being skeptical of global warming, you do this to try to detract from their credibility. You then cite to a blogger for your damning quotes against the project on the whole.
6) Why is the age of the son relevant? You make a point of the fact that one of the authors of the article is 22 and a relative of another signer. So what? Why was this included if not to simply smear and attack the credibility of the petition?
Every comment in this article is written from a critical point of view. This article does an awful job of detailing what was in the petition, what was in the article, and what aspects of this petition project are credible. This wiki entry only serves to cast doubt upon the petition project.
Many of the criticisms are fine, and certainly should be part of an article about the project; however, at this point this is a terrible article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.188.94.196 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reference without information

This article refers to 'five prominent efforts intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming' but does not identify those 'efforts'. 69.153.250.231 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beefing up article

I have added information to this article and verified some of the sources under the Signatures section. the information that was listed before contradicted itself when you actually went to the sources it had listed. I am also currelty working on adding the names of the signers to either this list or the list of Global warming skeptics.--Zeeboid 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet, they (Connelley & co.) will delete it for some fabricated reasons. If they apply a set of standards to your text in their justification for deleting it then that standard should be applied throughout the entire article. They have high standards for opposing content and delete text rather than discussing it. The whole article should be handled in the same manner. Make it so. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is what I was assuming also, but So far, Connelley has added to instead of reverting something he didn't think was accurate, and justifiably too... but we'll see.--Zeeboid 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "independantly verified"

The informaiton you are changing is already implied by the text. Please look up the deffinition of "Independantly verified"

Also, the rise of temperatures is in question. Please refer to the link [2] of the Petition that displays this. there are multiple sources that state conflicting information when it comes to Warming or Cooling of temperatures. I will provide these to clairify the canges.--Zeeboid 17:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the information *has* been independently verified. The petition site merely states this; there is no hint as to the method; there is no mention as to who has done the verifiction. Therefore asserting that they are IV is unacceptable: the article should note that this is only an assertion of the petition. Its certainly not implied by your version of the text William M. Connolley 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As to the data: the description in the text of our article is wrong. Ref your link, figs 5 (which goes up to '96) and 6 (up to '97). Since the petition was done in '99, our text stating '99 must be wrong. Exactly what trend you do get depends on which version of the MSU data you use, so fair enough, I'll change this back till I've looked into it William M. Connolley 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Phrase "Independant Verification" is in it self, a warning to readers, thus your extra extra explination is not nessisary, and is only POV pushing. The "assertion of petition" i can go with, but yes, the Temperature part is in flux. As I said, multiple sources can be provided. If you have a copy of "State of Fear" lying around, that will help.--Zeeboid 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of anything useful you'd get from SoF. Anyway: temp data: the petition is dated Jan 1998, so they get to not worry about the 1998 enso. If you use the earliest version of the MSU data I have, the trend to 1997 is still +ve; but unfortunately S+C don't archive their very early data, and the internet archive doesn't do ftp sites, so we'll probably never know. So I'm content to leave the temperature bit.
However, I can't accept your interpretation of IV. IV means, in common English, was checked by a reliable, independent, external entity. There is absolutely no evidence for that at all; there is also no evidence for what standards were applied in the check. "IV" is not a warning: it instead an indication of quality, which is not jusified by the evidence William M. Connolley 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There is alot of useful information you would get from SOF. I would recommend reading the full 20 pages of scientific references. Though I know you would not discount the refrences because its in a Fiction book, but instead you would be one to review the refrences themselves and come to your own conclusion. Though Real Climate.org does not think much of it, but I'm sure you would agree with me on Real Climate.org's increadable BIAS.--Zeeboid 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take RC over SoF any day. Its incredible the number of people fooled by a reference list. But go on then: what is the first piece of useful (scientific) info you got from SoF? William M. Connolley 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I will put together multiple sources, and wether or not they were in a book that you don't agree with should be irrevialent. The data it self from an accurate origional source is all that should matter. Your desire to take one bit of information but not the other into account is a little scarry.--Zeeboid 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revision Needed

The following section needs revision:

The article that accompanied the petition [3] was written in the style of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article ... is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".[4]

The link brings you to a page where you can not see the article. I will try to find something linking to it, but if I am unable to, it, like other information that is listed without references, should be deleted.--Zeeboid 21:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you may not do this. The link brings you to an exact reference, which is to say, an article in Science. Just because its to something that you don't have immeadiate reference to is irrelevant. Its just like being given page and issue number of the paper copy. William M. Connolley 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is the definition of the phrase "half-truths"? From what I understand, something is either factually correct or incorrect. The statement "half-truths" wreaks of "opinion". This needs to be fixed.--Zeeboid 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The dictoinary deffinition of half-truths is: 1. a statement that is only partly true, esp. one intended to deceive, evade blame, or the like. 2. a statement that fails to divulge the whole truth.

If one is willing to assume the people who put this petition though are committing half-truths, then it is easially argued the same for any Pro-GW Data. I think it is best to remove the whole "half-truths" less it be used as a disclaimer everywhere else. (the An Inconvenient Truth article for example)--Zeeboid 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was an editor adding HT your claim might have some merit. Since its a quote from an external source there is no merit William M. Connolley 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There are quotes around part of that statement but the phrase in question is not in any conext. this is deceptive... in addation to the link not displaying anything about the statement in question. if the man said it, it should be quoted and properly refrenced. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.Zeeboid 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added information about Raymond Pierrehumbert, to help give backround to his leanings, much like wat was provided for other Drs in this article.--Zeeboid 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The link is an exact *reference* to the statement in question; it is a perfectly proper reference. In addition, some people will be able to read it online; others will have to go to the library. It is nearly equivalent, but more compact and more useful, to simply giving a ref to (Science, year, volume) William M. Connolley 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
are sources used for Wikipedia that are only available to "some people" acceptable? to all people? all we need here is a link that is available to all people. Until then, it is unverifiable.--Zeeboid 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course - there are many books and papers referenced in articles in wikipedia which are only available to people able to look up those paper sources. You seem to be under the curious impression that only online sources are acceptable. This is a half-way: for those with permission, its an online source. For those without, its a paper reference William M. Connolley 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
"are sources used for Wikipedia that are only available to "some people" acceptable?" An article in Science is accessible to most people - a trip to a good library should turn it up. A lot of acceptable sources are far less widely available than Science. "Verifiable" does not mean "accessible to anyone with an internet connection". Guettarda 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This sentance was taken out, and I'm looking for a more-grand explination becides the exp that was listed
At the time this Scientific American reporting was listed, this number was accurate, though has since grown to 2,660. [5]
Altered by Raymond arritt (Talk | contribs) (→Signatories - delete - not independently verified)
Are you saying that its removed because this number has not been Ind. Ver. by the Origion Petition Project like the 17000ish others?--Zeeboid 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see Zeeboid removing the reference to Science [6] on the spurious grounds that it can't be verified. It can be, obviously: it tells you the paper in question is: "CLIMATE CHANGE: Advocacy Mailing Draws Fire Malakoff Science 10 April 1998: 195 DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5361.195a". This is perfectly valid, as several people have pointed out above. Z appears to be suggesting that any reference must be to directly readable online sources, which is of course nonsense William M. Connolley 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You inaccurately assess the situation. I did not remove the refrence to Science, I only ask for it to be verified, as I can not access the site in question, however as you say, and as "several people have pointed out" its noncence to assume that "any reference must be to directly readable online sources" and the user who provided the quote, allong with you stating this to clear it up (allowing me to remember the days of actually going somewhere other then my computer to get the needed information) helps.--Zeeboid 13:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some edits, from an interview with Arthur B. Robinson, because the items in question, are accessable to the public. The changes are perfectly valid, as though they are not directly readable online, they can be viewed by contacting the OISM or Arthur B. Robinson.--Zeeboid 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - "you can get it by contacting Robinson" doesn't meet the requirement of "published sourced". In addition, there is no source which says this is so. Find a published source. Guettarda 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Prof. Robinson and the OISM, the OISM has this information published, and can be reviewed by anyone who would like to review it. This data is available to anyone who wishes to see it, not just by asking Prof Robinson, but by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine as well. Much like a souce not available to someone with an internet connection, all you need to do is ask for the information.--Zeeboid 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, it does meet the criteria as it is a freely available source. I reverted your change, then changed it back as I went a link deeper, and saw what your refering to as a "published" source. I will get this information published.--Zeeboid 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Good. It would greatly clarify things if you asked Robinson to publish the information on his oism.org website, or at least to publish directions on how to obtain the information. Otherwise all we have is a second-hand claim that information should be available, and such a claim doesn't meet any reasonable standard of verifiability. Raymond Arritt 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with this?

"The petition site asserts that total number of Independently verified signatures received is 17,800.[7] but there is no evidence of how this verification was done." Is there anything to show or allege thar the verification wasn't done? If not, it should stand without the snarky POV comments. •Jim62sch• 00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It says what it says. "There was no evidence of how this verification was done." I'd replace the word "evidence" with the more neutral word "explanation". A look at the OISM web site indeed shows there's no explanation of how the verification was done. If you can find details on the verification it would be helpful to include them. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for proof of verification -- were questions raised elewhere by someone other than yourself? Your POV is getting in the way of logic. •Jim62sch• 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say there was no "proof" of verification, but that there was no "explanation" of how the verification was done. Did someone glance at the list and say "looks OK to me"? Did they go through the names themselves? Did they hire an outside firm to verify the names? Did an independent academic team go through the list? They don't say. It would be helpful if they did. Raymond Arritt 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
To you it would be helpful. To me, you're just trying to push a POV. BTW: "it says what it says" is tautological bullshit. •Jim62sch• 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive remarks. Raymond Arritt 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Jim62sch isn't the only one that feels that way.--Zeeboid 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the article contains a fair bit of info suggesting that verification was pretty sloppy, so the fact that no details are given is relevant.JQ 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Forget it Jim, trying to get NPOV on Wikipedia is like a socialist trying to get NPOV on Rush Limbaugh. It will never happen...EVER. However, I am trying to collect evidence of the POV problems so I can bring them up when I interview Jimbo again, so please feel free to collect it...how to contact me (through the show) is on my user page. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, this was an interesting experiment, and the Wiki editors did a great job. I was playing devil's advocate to see if some of what has been said about us lately in the media and on departing users' talk pages was true. The answer is no: you've actually considered the arguments presented and the article reflects that. I apologise if this ruse offended anyone, but I knew we were better than some people have said and I just wanted to prove it. Thanks to all for reaffirming my faith in wikipedia. Feel free to go to AN/I if you wish, my only defense is that sometimes internal audits (even unofficial ones) are better than external audits. •Jim62sch• 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/e/Talk%7EOregon_Petition_bf79.html"