Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

Greenpeace as a source

The following was recently added to the article:

"However, Fred Singer's independence has been questioned since his not for profit organisation has accepted funds from the oil industry (main article Fred Singer).[1]

  1. ^ Factsheet: S. Fred Singer. ExxonSecrets.org. Retrieved on 2007-02-26.

The source used for this is a Greenpeace run web site. Is Greenpeace considered a reliable source here? I'd be surprised if it's considered a reliable source. I'm not opposed to the line being added to the article, I'm just wondering if anyone has a different source for this besides Greenpeace. This is a group that participates in many activities that a lot of people view as being borderline terrorism. I just think it's a bad idea to use radical groups as a source. Anyone else have a better source for this? I'll look for one in the meantime. If I find a better source I'll replace it. Thanks! Elhector 23:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong approach. Is Fred Singer a reliable source? If so, the text stays, and the "questioned" text should be removed. If not, Singer's statements should be removed. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying any text should be removed... I'm completely fine with the text about him being accused of having ties to Exxon. I'm just asking if we all really think Greenpeace is a reliable source for the info. If it's true I'm sure there is more sources out there then Greenpeace reporting the info. IMO Greenpeace is simply not a reliable source for anything. Even the founder of Greenpeace who has since left the group will tell you that. I think the the section is fine the way it is if it's got a different source. Elhector 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverted Raul654's edit, to remove his POV.--65.107.88.154 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Actually, I have a problem with this ad hominem attack on Singer. How is the source of Singer's funding relevant to the scientific value of his conclusions? This text should be removed which would render the question of the reference moot. 71.79.70.16 01:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of Greenpeace being a credible source, consider the fact that Ted Turner's Turner Foundation has been a major contributor to Greenpeace, and considering that Ted Turner is investing in Solar Power he has a vested interest in promoting the global warming agenda and discrediting any one associated with Big Oil. --71.79.70.16 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is only semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make any changes, if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

High Court Finds Film to be Political and Erroneous

It sure didn't take long for someone to revert my report about the High Court findings. My list of errors found by the Court has been deleted, and replaced by a relatively mild statement, complete with Al Gore's content-free rebuttal. The list of errors itself is notable, not just the fact that there were errors, for the following reason: a few inadvertant errors do not discredit the film, but wildly misleading errors (such as drowning our cities in the near future) that were (or should have been) known to be unsupported by fact are absolutely inexcusable. A list of these errors makes it clear that the worst errors of the film are not in the former (innocent) category, but in the second. I automatically suspect the rightness of any cause whose advocates use falsehoods to promote it; my logic is, if the cause were just, there would be no need to support it with lies. I am surely not the only one who has the same reaction. Specifically, what discredits the movement (which has the noble goal of awakening the world to the serious issue of bad environmental effects of man's activities) is the fact that leaders of the movement continue to defend the film and its creator, after flaws which should sink both of them into permanent obscurity have been exposed. Vegasprof 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making your biases clear; I'm not too keen on the film either. However any text referring to the judges decision should make it clear that the judge also said that the film gets the science overall correct (I forget the exact words). In fact the judge has made mistakes (doing science in the courts is a bad idea): Gore did *not* say that sea level would rise 20 feet within a century William M. Connolley 11:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making your biases clear, though they were clear already. Interesting to see the attack on the judge has already started (I expect we will soon hear that he has links with Exxon and cigarette companies). The judge did *not* say that Gore said sea level would rise 20 feet in a century - in the versions I saw it said in the near future. I think the current brief summary with two of the criticisms and the link to the further details is a reasonable compromise. Vegasprof is right with his main point, which I have raised before. If man-made global warming is true, why do its proponents have to distort and exaggerate the truth? (William please take note - it is primarily thanks to you that I am a skeptic). Al Gore has many friends on wikipedia, as a glance at his ridiculous page will confirm. Paul Matthews 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Gore didn't say the statement that global warming could cause a sea level rise of 20 feet in the "near future," either. I'll ignore the rest of your nonsense William M. Connolley 12:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have a link to the judgement itself, rather than dodgy paraphrases of it? William M. Connolley 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
An exact quote from the Telegraph article: "Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". " If Gore didn't actually say that, then the Telegraph article is lying. Is that your claim, William? If so, are you claiming that the London Times also lied? They report the same thing. Are you, possibly, saying that Gore was warning that ice in Greenland or Antarctica could melt for some reason that had nothing to do with global warming? If not, what are you saying? BTW, I knew that the "dodgy paraphrase" attack would arise, which is why I was careful to repeat what the article said, as accurately as I possibly colud (and I would welcome anyone editing it to greater accuracy). Vegasprof 12:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The question is not you paraphrasing the press, but the press paraphrasing the judgment. --Stephan Schulz 13:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, which Telegraph article is this? The one attached to the paragraph in question is a mere abstract. This ref needs to be improved. Chris Cunningham 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a reference to the Times of London article, and altered my contribution slightly for accuracy. Vegasprof 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The attack on the judge's ability to do science misses the point (though it the underlying point being made is a good one--judges probably lack the proficiency at making scientific determinations that scientists have). The problem is that, on numerous points, the advocate trying to defend the film was simply unable to produce evidence justifying the contentions made in the film. One doesn't have to be a scientist to notice the absence of scientifically valid evidence. The skill of a scientist is useful primarily to recognize putative scientific evidence which is, in fact, flawed. For example, in order to recognize the methodological defects in the "hocky stick" theory, you almost have to be a professional statistician. On the other hand, you don't have to be a scientist to understand that the ice core data can't possibly be showing that CO2 causes global warming when CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases. Causes precede effects, not the other way around. User:QBeam 9:51 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.238.2 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment completely misses the point - and are off-topic. The hockey stick has methodological problems, but is still correct (as the NAS ruled). And noone has claimed that CO2 leads rather than lags, not even Gore (in AIT) who said "the relationship is actually quite complex" as the only comment to it. Please keep on-topic and to the point. --Kim D. Petersen 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The judgement is here William M. Connolley 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

High Court finds Film to be Political and Erroneous - thus controversial has been re-added.--65.107.88.154 14:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverted (2nd time) POV Edits, item is well sourced and meets wiki criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.88.154 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
reverted (third and final time within 3rr) back to Controversial, as the item is well sourced. I don't understand the longing for people here to hide information from people.--207.250.84.10 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No the higher court points out 9 errors and omissions, and agrees that "[AIT] is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". Reading the actual judgement that WMC included is rather interesting. (Add: and imho significantly more positive than the articles so far have described the judgement) --Kim D. Petersen 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont think we need a court judgment to find that this film is controversial in the broad sense of the term - the judgement simply adds to the controversy. It would likely not have gone to courts if it was not controversial first. Why is this even challenged here? --Childhood's End 15:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
All it takes to bring something to court is one person. --Kim D. Petersen 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Any action or case needs to have merit for it to make it to the hearing. Frivolous actions or cases without merit can always be dismissed prematurely. --Childhood's End 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Such as filing suit because you scolded yourself on a hot cup of Coffee? --Kim D. Petersen 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You're comparing apples to oranges here. The Mcdonalds case was tried in the US, this case was tried in the UK. 2 different court systems. Also, the McDonalds case is a different type of case. The plantiff in the McDonalds case was seeking monetary damages from a large corporation. We currently have a problem in our court system in the US with ambulance chasing lawyers pushing this kind of litigation. The AIT case is different in that it was not a case seeking monetary damages. It was a case to force a government run institution (in this case the public schools) to do something, not pay anything. The court systems in the US and the UK are much better at throwing frivolous cases of this nature out. I wonder if has something to do with government agencies actually being the ones name din the suit? It makes sense that the government would show a little bit more jurisprudence in these cases since they're the ones that these kinds of cases are focused on :-) Elhector 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have personnally dismissed the case, but there was still a minimally coherent rationale for the claim (serving beverages that are so hot - 82C - that they are dangerous). Also, the main problem with the result was the amount of the damages awarded, not the filing, and damages have been reduced significantly afterwards as a matter of fact. Anyway, it's good that you point out this case since you show your self-awareness of the existence of frivolous litigation, which has not been an issue in the Gore movie case. --Childhood's End 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"which has not been an issue in the Gore movie case" <- which is entirely your own personal assessment. I note from the case that: a) the claimant's case is dismissed (there was no ban) b) the judge is satisfied with minor corrections to the guidelines. c) the only major change is that the guidelines should be provided in hard-copy. d) no ruling was made - since DEFRA accepted to change and provide the guidelines in hard-copy. And i also note that the judge considers the main conclusion and science solid and a consensus view.(note that ;-)) --Kim D. Petersen 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Boy, where are you going with this anyway? If it wasnt of the amendments made to the Guidance Note, the judge makes it clear that his decision would have been different. Please read par. 44 since you obviously havent : "I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered." Cant get any better finding that the film is controversial, at least in the broad or political sense, and the fact that it is now the object of a court decision only adds to the existing controversy. As for the the existence of a consensus, this is at best an obiter dictum and is irrelevant to this discussion anyway. --Childhood's End 18:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically, I don't think it *is* the object of a court decision: read #46; In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of the changes to the Guidance Note which the Defendant has agreed to make, and has indeed already made, and upon the Defendant's agreeing to send such amended Guidance Note out in hard copy, no order is made on this application, save in relation to costs, on which I shall hear Counsel. William M. Connolley 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice try :) But no order has been made because of what the judge found and explained in his reasons, not because no decision had to be reached or because there was no case (as the quote you provided, "In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of"). Essentially, the judge tells us with his decision that an order would have been made if it wasnt of how the Defendant addressed the partisan issues of the movie. A movie can hardly get more controversial than that. --Childhood's End 18:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And once more you skim around the fact that its the showing in school and the guidelines (/lack of hardcopy) that were the controversy - not the movie itself. Which by all means is one-sided - but correct in its major conclusions and themes (per the judge). That it also shows a political side is not contested in any way or form here. One thing i noticed is that the judge considered it enough to just mention that a minority of scientists disagree without mentioning their point of view - but should keep to the AR4 in preference to Gore. (#40) --Kim D. Petersen 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Kim, the showing in school would not have been found controversial (in the absence of amendments to the Notice) if the movie was not controversial itself. I remember of being shown Apocalypse Now during a French class at high school, and even this has not been accused of being controversial (ok this is a quite different issue) --Childhood's End 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I should say that that would provide a major outrage and controversy, if it was revealed that AN would be shown to the same students that AIT is going to be shown to. (Hint: its being shown to 11 year olds. (KS/3)). --Kim D. Petersen 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just joking (using a true story). What you say is probably true, although that would not mean that AN is a controversial movie - it's just not a movie for kids due to content and violence. On the other hand, AIN has been found to require a proper notice and package for different reasons than that, indicative of its controversial character. --Childhood's End 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source for the errors as well as another source for 'controversial' and also 'alarmist'. --DHeyward 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to point out to you that "This is London" is not a reliable source - except to pub-crawlings, and other part time leisures ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the news and current affairs section. WaPo has entertainment sections as well. At least it's a secondary source, not a primary one like thge link to the acutal court ruling. --DHeyward 17:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought the London Evening Standard was a reliable source. Iceage77 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say no - just from reading its wikipedia page. (section on headlines and premature claims of strikes). But then its also rather moot, since as WMC points out we have the court papers. --Kim D. Petersen 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually no. The court papers are fine for see also, but secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. --DHeyward 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the court judgement itself is available [1] we should not be relying on inaccurate newspaper paraphrases for the judgement itself (though I guess they can be used for reactions to the judgment, if appropriate) William M. Connolley 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:No Original Research preferes secondary sources over primary ones. Since there is arguments over what the actual court reading is, it seems best to rely on secondary sources that describe it. --DHeyward 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless they mis-describe it, and most seem to. The judgment itself should be preferred when it contracdicts reports of itself William M. Connolley 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Lets see the Church of Global Warming discount all of these sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Re-added the sources (fourth time now) that Kim Peterson, WMC, and Green Joe keep removing. Also I want to add these: Associated Press, ABC News, Chicago Tribune, International Herald Tribune, Wired, Register, UK . It is quite clear, when searching google news, that this is quite the controversial issue. Perhaps the word "Innacurate" should appear in the opening paragraph also.--68.115.80.156 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Astounding. I must remember for the next Summer Olympics that winning times from the 100m sprint are to be sourced not to the official's watch, but to some magazine reporting on it. What a delightfully nonsensical extraction of WP:NOR that is. Chris Cunningham 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that all these "sources" are just magazines picking up the same wire services story - maybe with little bit of extra commentary or spin. --Stephan Schulz 07:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
William McConnolley and Chris Cunningham are spot on. WP:NOR:
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you."Trishm 13:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Combining duplicate reports of Dimmick case

Editors put reports of Dimmick case (2007 EWHC 2288) into two different places. I combined them and cut out a bunch crud. Rather than list every point of the case, linking to the actual case itself so readers can decide for themselves is smarter. The main points: the judge found the movie to be "broadly accurate" and requires the use of the Guidance. rewinn 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of an amended guidance notice has been required because the judge also found the movie to be partisan. --Childhood's End 15:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Who do we think we're kidding?

From beginning to end, this article is an embarrassement to NPOV. The opening paragraph reads like a promotional trailer--like a trailer, it's factually accurate, but designed to paint the most attractive picture possible. Likewise, the content addressing "response" to the film is carefully organized to give the impression that, while most of the world has happily embraced the film as gospel truth, a few flat-earther types have not. The fact that there's a lengthy argument on this page about whether to even permit the article to mention that the film is controversial illustrates just how divorced from reality it really is. The article has been edit protected, according to the top of this page, because the subject is controversial . Yet people are trying to argue that it's unclear whether the subject is controversial?!

I suppose it's unrealistic for me to hope that people would care more about the integrity and reputation of the wiki project than for their pet political beliefs. But come on, folks--do you really think you're advancing your political agenda by trying to pretend that TIC is the gospel truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.238.2 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Ok you guys. After reading through all this I think this is one of the situations where both sides are right for the wrong reasons. What I mean is that there is one side that wishes to include factual, well cited and sourced information into the article. The problem is they're being more then transparent in there motives for wanting to include the info. This of course is going to raise a red flag in the minds of the people on the other side of the argument. So now the other side is trying to block the info since they suspect the other side only wants it added to damage the integrity of the film. There's a problem with this though. The other side then comes off like they're trying to protect and defend the film. Now the other side looks and sounds just as partisan as the side that wants the info added. So now we have a case where important, well cited, and accurate information is not in the article. Also, nobody is assuming good faith here in the edits. No one should be attacking the film here and no one should be defending it either. The article should simply contain all the knowledge and information on the film that is out there. Good and bad. That's how we make a factual article that will reflect history accurately 1, 2, 5, or 10 years down the road. Situations like this are making Wikipedia less and less relevant. I think what we need here is a compromise, so I'm going to attempt to make one here:

1.) We have a self imposed moratorium on editing this article for a few days so everyone can cool off and think.

2.) After a few days we all get back together and discuss how to include this information in a NPOV way. Here are a few things to think about:

a) At this point I think we can all agree that the film is controversial. Now I will agree that this doesn't necessarily need to be stated in the lead of the article, I can understand how that may be viewed as POV pushing. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the article though. Maybe we could find a way to include the fact that the film has been controversial but figure out a way to work that in further in the article. Maybe we need to include a controversy section instead of just labeling the film "controversial"
b) The court case in the UK is significant and should also be mentioned in the article. This could be done a few ways. It could be included in it's own section, we could include it in the above mentioned proposed controversy section, or we could pretty much leave it the way it is now but maybe just clean up the language a little bit so that it doesn't push a POV one way or another. Maybe if we leave it the way it is for the most part we could include a link to an article that is strictly about the case itself. I haven't really ever looked for an article on Wikipedia about a court case, but I'm sure they exist. We could create an article for the case with all of the detailed information about the findings. Then we include the small blurb in this article pretty much the way it is but add a link to the article about just the court case itself. That way this article isn't substantially increased in size but the information is still available to the reader if they would like to see it. Let me know what you guys think. Elhector 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about your 2b. There is no edit warring over that section. What problem do you see? William M. Connolley 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw some arguing starting above about how to include the court case info and how it should be worded. Might not be an edit was yet but I figure I might try to head of the edit war before it starts. Elhector 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure about his 2a. In fact, I think I've been emphatically arguing against it for several days now. Chris Cunningham 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand you've been arguing against it, and there is another group aruging to call it controversial. I'm trying to strike a compromise between the 2 groups. Personally I'm for at least putting something in there that points out the controversy around the film. Like I said though I don't think it needs to go in lead of the article. Elhector 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What I objected to was your statement that "At this point I think we can all agree that the film is controversial". As I am not a Democratic member of the 110th Congress, I do not hold "complete capitulation" to be synonymous with "compromise". I don't have a problem with introducing the controversy concept into the article, but the best way to get it in would be for someone to write a well-worded addition to the article. Chris Cunningham 21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL! I like your comment about congress. That made me chuckle which is something I haven't done while reading this talk page yet :-) You're right though, I shouldn't have used that rehtoric and I certainly didn't mean to infer that everyone should agree with me for there to be a compromise. I think we can all agree that the situation with this article is getting out of hand though. I think I'm safe in saying that ;-) When I get some time tonight to do some research I'll put together a controversy section. I'll post it here on the talk page first before putting into the article. That way everyone can have a chance to read and critique it before I add it to the article. Does that sound fair? Elhector 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I decided just to overhaul the article a little. Here is a rough draft of the work I've done so far. Everyone please take a look and tell me what you think. I think I've addressed everyone's issues fairly and it reads very NPOV and is well cited and sourced. I removed 1 of the 2 references in the lead about it being an academy award winning film. I didn't feel it was necessary to mention twice in the lead. I also created a controversy section and broke out some of the info from the education section and moved it there. I think this addresses the controversy issue we've been having here. Instead of just labeling the film "controversial" I think it's better to describe the actual controversy. That way we're not labeling the film as something that eveyone is disagreeing on here. Take a look and let me know what you guys think. Thanks Elhector 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as an improvement on the current article. The "controversy" is basically a political response, which the current structure reflects. Also the proposal puts undue weight on the Dimmick case. A short statement of the case, ending with the basic decision, would suffice: the film is broadly accurate and a study guide should accompany it to describe points the judge found unsupported. Listing the nine points leans away from NPOV since it gives great weight to nine out of hundreds of points in the film, leaving the reader with the impression that the court found the film inaccurate, when in fact precisely the opposite is the case. See treatment in current version of article. rewinn 00:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, per your suggestion I removed the nine specefic items and instead just placed a link to the actual court findings. There is a short description of everything and then if the reader would like to read more they can just take a look at the official court decision in it's entirety. No better source then right from the horses mouth, right? Where you say "The "controversy" is basically a political response, which the current structure reflects." are you saying that each of the items listed were political responses or are you saying that the section itself in the article is a political response? I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying. I think it does make sense to include the controversy section in general. In order for this article to be factual it needs to address it in some way shape or form. If you're saying that each situation listed was a politcal response I don't think that precludes them from being controversy around the film. I'm avoiding labeling the film controversial as a whole, but the film does generate it. I also don't believe covering these items in this way in the article questions the general scientific accuracy or importance of the film. Now if your statement is saying that the inclusion of the section is a political response then I honestly don't know what to say to that. I would take exception with that statement as I feel that I've made it more then clear that I have no political interest in this film or article one way or another. I'm simply attempting to improve the article with factual information about the film. Click here to see my latest draft. Elhector 06:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The Dimmick Case is already covered in the article adequately.
  2. When you write "Where you say "The "controversy" is basically a political response, which the current structure reflects." are you saying that each of the items listed were political responses or are you saying that the section itself in the article is a political response?" my answer would be neither. The current structure adequate addresses the controversy. The controversy is primarily political; the science is basically settled. rewinn 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In the current draft I am proposing I am covering the Dimmick Case with the exact same wording that is currently in the article. The only difference is that I added a link to the full official court decision. I believe you're the one that authored the section in it's current form in the article so I think this should be ok. Do you have any objections to including the link to the full court report? I don't see having the link as a problem. I think it's a good way to help anyone that is using the article for research to find out the info on the case in it's entirety. I think this is also good because it prevents us as editors from doing to much interpreting of the decision. The reader can simply go and read it for themselves if they want. Now the only real difference between the current article and my draft is that I've removed the double reference about the film winning an academy award from the lead, I've done some simple reorganizing of the sections, and I've added the link to the full court decision to the Dimmick Case section. Otherwise the text between the articles is almost identical. Do you take issue with any of these changes? If so please explain why. I look forward to hearing everyone's opinion on my new draft proposal. Thanks! Elhector 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If the science is settled, will those who agree that the science is settled let us know that funding is no longer needed? I mean, once you've settled something, there is no point researching it further...--65.107.88.154 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Non Sequitur. rewinn 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the formatting of your reply above so that it shows as a wikilink. I think this is what you intended to do so hopefully you don't mind me fixing it :-). You are right, His or Her statment (I'm not sure since the editor doesn't seem to want to obtain a Wikipedia login) is a non sequitur in this debate, but I outside of this debate I think he or she is making a good point. Science is never settled. Science is an ongoing process. Remember not to long ago climate researchers were warning us about global cooling. After continuing research though they got findings that pointed in the other direction. Further research brought us where we are today in terms of scientific theory on climate change. I do think it's important that these groups continue to recieve funding so that research can continue. Science is a process, not a destination :-) I know this all doesn't have much to do with this particular debate, but I think it's important to understand this when looking at the bigger picture here. Elhector 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If Now I will agree that this doesn't necessarily need to be stated in the lead of the article, I can understand how that may be viewed as POV pushing. is true, then this should be an accurate statement for other wikipedia articles that are about a controversial item, Correct? The Great Global Warming Swindle for example? the failure to apply this standard to other articles, or failure to apply the standard about other controversial articles to this one is deffently a POV problem.--68.115.80.156 04:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Chris Cunningham 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think not. POV pushing more like it. How else do you explain the removal of things that you do not agree with and the addition of only things that you agree with? This whole global warming related items seam to be owned by a few extremists. I haven't been editing long, but this much is very obvious by their edit history. If one is willing to say that adding the word Controversial into the lead of an article is POV Pushing, and if that is a true statement, then you can't very well go around saying "Yea, but except for these... cause these are controversial in a diffrent way..." without sounding like a... religious zealot.--65.107.88.154 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me with other people. Regardless, I'm not responding to anonymous ad hominem attacks. Chris Cunningham 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think controversial has to go in the intro. It's been a very polarizing film to the point where it's polarization is it's defining point. It's not POV to assert that, it's just fact. The earth is warming, AIT won an Academy Award and AIT is controversial. It is not undue weight to state it. --DHeyward 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeating this doesn't make it any more true. have you anything to add to the discussion? Chris Cunningham 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The "controversy" is not the defining point of the film. To the contrary, the film was a contribution to Al Gore's Nobel Prize because of its intrinsic value. The controversy is noteworthy and adequately covered in the article as written rewinn 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the controversy is not the defining point of the film in itself. But if you ask anyone about the film, they'll agree that the film is a major sticking point in the global warming debate. Right or wrong it is. It's not our job here to decide if it's right or wrong, just to cover it in the article. There is clearly a lot of disagreement here on how this should be covered and how much of it should be covered. What I'm proposing is that we throw it all into 1 section so that if the reader wants to read about they can, and if they don't they can skip it. I'm not trying to sprinkle the controversy information all over the article here. Also my proposal is avoiding having anything about the controversy in the lead. I had argued that I felt this wasn't a big deal but it created such a rancor that the article felt like it was starting to get white washed and go completely the other way. I'm just trying to broker a compromise here so the article can include as much factual information as possible while still making both sides happy here. On a side note, and I know this is just my opinion but I believe the Nobel Peace Prize lost most of it's credibility when it was awared to Yassir Arafat. It seems like more and more awards are becoming worthless because they're being handed out for politcal reasons or reasons outside of there original intent. I'd say the same thing happened to the Academy Awards after they gave one to a child molester. Elhector 17:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)