Talk:Environmental skepticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Someone has done a really good job of cleaning this article up. Good work __83.76.115.133 17:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk moved from article:
Proposed article for political and other viewpoints on global warming theory and similar environmental concerns which run counter to environmentalism, balanced of course by criticism of these viewpoints.
The Skeptical Enviro, Misleading Math, and Lomborg articles would be more informative grouped together in one long article, where the impartial observer can get the full story.
There's something inherently wrong about the way this entry is constructed in my view, since it lumps such a wide swath of issues and motivations together into a single -ism. Is it more contrarianism than skepticism? Does it include Creationists, who question scientists? Are they trying to "evaluate concerns" or are they trying to challenge the consensus/official policy? Do they use statistical analysis or do they challenge statistical studies as not being "proof"? Just my $.02. --TheCunctator
[edit] Bjørn Lomborg
Currently the Environmental skepticism article as it is, is quite politically correct when it could very easy start drifting POV, I know we discussed Bjørn Lomborg at the bottom of the page, but rather unfavourably, i'm not comfortable having such an extreme and controversial figure as the poster child for the Environmental skeptic article. It seems to me it would be similar to putting a picture of Cheech And Chong on the Environmentalist page. - UnlimitedAccess 8 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
I would be interested to know why the grammar and syntax in this entry and all entries dealing even tangentally with "environmental skepticism" falls so short of the usual. I suspect much of the material is the product of one editor. This is problematic in my view (the editing, not the grammar) for several reasons. Chiefly, the perception that the material is just "one guys opinion". I am not an authority on the topic and thus will not meddle with what is here but I wish someone else would.
Feel free to correct my Engrish. :) "BL->Extremist" wouldn't be NPOV unless it is attributed to Green. Among Environmental skeptic, he is probably a poster child. Personally, I believe that the entire reference to BL should be deleted. FWBOarticle
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science is a mockery. It souldn't be mentioned in this bibliography: Environmental Skepticism isn't a right-wing paranoia....
[edit] Unsourced
This article as it stands is not up to WP guidelines. It is entirely unsourced in the body. The bibliography is only a list of works by assorted skeptics or contrarians.
While I can see a case for having a page of this title, for this widely used catch-phrase, we would need to do a lot to rework it to meet guidelines of WP:ATT and WP:NOR.
As for Lomborg, he is a notable figure in this area and definitely deserves a significant place in the article (if we keep it at all). His book was widely read and generated a lot of discussion. To say he would be too extreme an example of the category is not really realistic; what would be the point in toning down this page to only talk about people who are only "a little bit" skeptical? Let's discuss the real, notable skeptics if we are going to write about this topic.Birdbrainscan 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way I don't want to belittle the current versions of the article -- it's not so bad of a summary of what the term can be understood to mean. Indeed, I'm a little unclear on the rule of WP:NOR where one is trying to explain a commonly used phrase, create the context in which we all are hearing and using the term. That's quite a bit harder to document than claims like "A said B about C on date D." Birdbrainscan 16:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
