Talk:Science & Environmental Policy Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Science & Environmental Policy Project has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Disreputable source?

Ed, your reference [1] looks just like advocacy. Could you please give some citations of articles of Fred Singer in scientific journals.

Okay, I'll look around. It might take a few days, okay? Ed Poor

Great, thank you! --HJH

[edit] Global warming vs. anthropogenic global warming

For future reference, we may wish to distinguish between "global warming" as a temperature trend and "manmade causes of global warming;" the second is in more dispute than the first, if I understand correctly. -- April

The three main global warming disputes are:

  1. How much and where is the earth's atmosphere warming?
  2. How much are human activities the cause of this?
  3. What will happen if we do or do not reduce our burning of fossil fuels?

A related issue is the use of carbon taxes as a means of redistributing wealth from the West to devoloping countries (a kind of global socialism).

User:Ed Poor

[edit] Ad hominem attacks on Singer

The central theme in the opposition to Singer and his views seems to be that (a) he accepted support from the "Moonies", so he must be a crackpot or in collusion with the Dark Side of the Force; (b) he just makes everything up; (c) no one really agrees with him anyway -- therefore, we just all just ignore him.

I think these ad hominem arguments are a deliberate distraction from the points Singer brings up, and I sincerely hope that Wikipedia editors will stop trying to muddy the waters with such irrelevancies.

The SEPP article and others relating to the global warming controversy should present scientific facts and the results of scientific research, as well as the views of scholars who draw conclusions from the available information. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's the SEPP page; arguments about Singer's various ideas have other locations. If it's a SEPP page, it should be about the organisations, history, funding, alliances, staff etc Longneck
Singer says SEPP never funded by Moon. — SEWilco 22:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Endorsing" a quote?

(William M. Connolley 21:34, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Ed: you've added "nb: wikipedia doesn't endorse or dispute gristss quote". I don't think this makes sense: direct quotes are quotes, and are implicitly neither endorsed nor not, but deemed worthy of inclusion. If we're going to qualify every quote that way, there are several from singer/sepp in the same article that need the same. I think thats a bad road to go down. This may or may not be a policy matter: it probably is: if so, you would know better than I the appropriate place (village pump?) to discuss it more widely.

Good catch, Dr. C -- I'm glad you deleted that useless text. You inspired me to attribute SEPP's POV further above that point. After all, an article about SEPP should say something about its point of view. --Uncle Ed 15:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I didn't, someone else got there first. I've accepted your challenge to find scientific criticisms of Singers pov, and added it to the page. I think you'll agree that I've carefully sourced all my comments, whereas all of Singers are completely unsourced. Which climate models does he mean, for example? Which T record does he get 2/3 out of? These are all mysteries. BTW: have you read the top of this page recently? ;-)) --William M. Connolley 18:40, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I left that comment (and my response) on purpose. I have no wish to conceal the fact that I'm not particularly good at conducting research. I just search on-line for stuff that looks well put-together, and cite it. I never go to the library, read journals, and hardly ever buy science books.

That's why I'm so glad there's a real scientist around here. I never learned how to do a proper citation. By the way, I've always agreed that you've sourced everything properly -- I just think you pick the wrong things to source ;-) Hoping you can take this bit of cheekiness with good humor, I beg to remain,

Your most obedient servant,

Uncle Ed 19:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[WMC] That seems fair enough... it can be hard to remain polite across projects like this (hardly a novel observation) but with Good Humour (and English Spelling) we will march hand-in-hand towards a Glad Dawn of improved articles.

I'm just glad you don't read the mailing list. I had an awful tussle with your buddy Sheldon Rampton last week. He seemed to think I was "attacking" you and that you needed "defending" -- merely because I dared to call into question the "neutrality" of one of your edits.

You know, I think it's a good day when as many as 50% of my edits (on subjects I feel strongly about) can conform to NPOV, so I really shouldn't be throwing stones at others. Now, when I get up to 90%... ^_^

Well, have a good weekend, old chap :-) --Uncle Ed 20:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Connolley as source

From article:

SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of Ozone depletion, making the assertion that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial [2]. Climate modeller William Connolley calls this assertion "clearly false".

I think William Connolley should be a source for the POV that SEPP's assertion is "clearly false". Otherwise, Wikipedia is endorsing William's POV that the CFC statement is NOT controversial. What's wrong with a scientific expert being both source and contributor? --Uncle Ed 19:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 20:16, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)) I'm going to revert it, because you're being silly: some statements are sufficiently obvious to need no source. Alternatively, if you insist on it being fully justified, I'll copy some/all of the argument below to the page.

BTW, the same text you object to is on the ozone hole page.

Lets consider:

"CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine."

The question is: is this controversial (as SEPP assert). Lets break it down:

  1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer
  2. become well-mixed in the atmosphere
  3. percolate into the stratosphere
  4. and there release chlorine.

Now, SEPP don't say which of 1-4 they consider controversial. 1 is commonplace - its on CFC for example. 2 also: e.g. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/, section 1.3 documents this. 3 ditto source, or even the SEPP page http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html. 4 ditto, "The situation changed in 1991, however, when NASA scientist C. Rinsland published data showing HCl increasing at about half the rate of HF, suggesting both natural and man-made sources (13)" says even SEPP, or the ozone depletion page.

So, come on Ed: which if 1-4 do you consider controversial?

If SEPP doesn't say, how can I say? Anyway, I refuse to have an edit war with you; it takes two to tango, and I don't want to dance. You clearly want to discredit SEPP, and if that's what you want I won't fight you. The article really needs a full rewrite anyway. When I have time, I'll start afresh. For now, say what you want. --Uncle Ed 20:20, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)) I've added points 1-4 to the article to make it nice and obvious for non-specialists.

[edit] Paragon House book

6. Rowland, F. S. Chlorofluorocarbons, stratospheric ozone, and the Antarctic "Ozone Hole". Singer, S. F., ed. Global Climate Change. New York, NY: Paragon House; 1989.

Zing! Ya got me, boss! I have to admit a conflict of interest: I used to work for Paragon House as a proofreader, because -- hold on to your seat -- it's 'linked' to the Unification Movement.

Furthering the irony, over the weekend I discovered that Rev. Moon himself buys into the ozone depletion thing somewhat, putting me at odds with yet another authority.

I'm really in trouble, now! --Uncle Ed 20:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 20:53, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)) Oh dear, you'll have to decide who to believe: the science, SEPP, or Rev Moon. I know who I'll go for...

Well, I can't in good conscience cite Rev. Moon as a "scientific authority", since his field of study was electrical engineering and I don't think he ever got a degree. The real controversy is whether SEPP or IPCC is more accurate in reporting what "the science" says.
Did you read the latest paper on Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph? Turns out he got caught "selecting" and even "fudging" data that proved his point. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well done Ed, only about 3 weeks late...
If you've known for three weeks that Mann was wrong, why didn't you correct the article yerself? Try to be a "bit" neutral, would ya please? --Uncle Ed 23:01, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Because the M&M study itself is probably deeply flawed an likely no more than muddying the waters. See Quark Soup.


(William M. Connolley 23:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)) ps: can't say i much like eds recent changes - smacks of supressing the 3 corpses and much else. MRD?

Can't say I'm an expert at the subject you two are debating, not even a student really. But I DO remember some highschool chemistry. Especially the part in which the teacher said that CFC's decompose in the atmosphere and produce chlorine which destroyed the ozone. I don't remember the book or the teacher telling me that that was in any way controversial. BL 10:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Massive deletes

The huge chunks of text I took out really need some massaging and could go back in as properly attributed criticisms. Dr. Connolley, would you like to try something along these lines?

CLAIM: That CFCs released into the atmosphere do not lead to significant increases in cancer.
REBUTTAL: According to Prof. Soand Sough at Thusnsuch University, Singer's argument has the following flaws...

I don't want a whitewash, I just don't want Wikipedia taking a side in the controversy -- including the "side" that there's "no controversy". --Uncle Ed 12:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I'm back... and so is the text Ed removed :-) Lets look at it:

  • Ed attempts above to sidetrack us with claims about cancer. There was nothing about cancer in the text Ed removed.
  • Ed removed: Note that the claim about "at least 2/3 of the warming" does not appear to be supported by the temperature record http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm. Further, the claim about no warming from the satellite record is currently wrong: the rise to-date (mid 2003) is 0.07-0.26 oC/decade, depending on which satellite record is used (see satellite temperature record); and climate models reproduce past temperature history quite accurately [3] (contrary to SEPPs claim here, (point 4)). All of this appears to be factual info contradicting the SEPP statement. Do you disagree with the facts, or including the info?
  • Ed removed: The claim that there is "no indication" of anything other than natural fluctuations is odd: most recent research (see anthropogenic climate change) suggests that recent warming is anthropogenic. Even Patrick Michaels, a well-known "skeptic", has said: it is "proven humans are warming the atmosphere" [4]. Attempting to refute warming by quoting cooling in any one year is to confuse weather with climate. Err, well, ditto the comments above.
  • The statements 1-4 stuff... well, which bit does Ed disagree with?
  • Ed rewrote the criticisms bit so it emphasised the religious stuff, which is trying to set up a strawman.
  • Ed removed SEPP's views are either self-published or appear in the mainstream press rather than in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a result, scientists who publish in the peer-reviewed literature have had little comment about SEPP's claims. This is relevant stuff - it explains why most sci don't trouble with SEPP, so needs to be in there.

[edit] SEPP does (not) have both peer credibility and political influence

The fact that Singer is the prodominate coordinator and voice does not mean SEPP is a one man band and does not mean they don't raise issues both in peer reviewed publications and in informal press that peers must address, even it only to "correct". A lot of people collaborate with Singer, even in SEPP's weekly newsletter, with permissions to reprint, etc. and SEPP provides a means to make sure that signifcant minority opinions get distributed to a community. Even if all SEPP contributes to a peer reviewed publication is Singer's services as a co-author, there is no reason to dismiss it as a sponsor of research or to minimize Singer's role.

(William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) There is no evidence that SEPP sponsors anything. There is good evidence that SEPP is a one man band: whenever Singer goes off travelling, the weekly column doesn't appear. SEPP is an advocacy organistation, not a science one. I don't agree with your assessment, above of Singers value.

The first three author's in both 2004 papers cites are in alphabetical order anyway. Singer may also be generous in allowing others primary authorship at this stage (or perhaps even earlier stages) of his career.

(William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) But the last two aren't.

I haven't objected to the ad hominem Moonie and exxon stuff, because they are presumably factual, and also a sign of desparation or weakness, since they are cited instead of more substantive arguments. But lets at least get the facts straight.--Silverback 16:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I didn't put them in either, but since they do indeed seem to be (a) true and (b) about SEPP, their presence does seem defensible.

(William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Finally, could you avoid POV headers for the sections? "A discussion of SEPPs credibility" would be fine; "Silverback thinks..." would be fine. But asserting something which many others (me, in particular) disagree with is stirring up trouble for no good reason.

This header on a talk page, was no more POV and, in fact, mirrored a statement in the article which should be of far more concern. Also the proposition, was not merely asserted, but also defended, which is more than has been done for the mirror statement in the article.--Silverback 08:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I'm surprised this page kept an acronym as a name for over three years! Wikipedia policy is to have acronyms be redirects. —Simetrical (talk) 05:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singer devised the satellite instrument that monitors the Antarctic Ozone Hole.

(William M. Connolley 09:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I removed this. Its not totally false, but I don't think its true as it stands either. It also doesn't belong in the crit section either. As far as I can tell, Singer did some early work on instruments of this type.

I too don't think the crit section was the right place, however, I was just restoring it to where it was. Here is the salient Singer quote: "I devised the satellite instrument that monitors the Antarctic Ozone Hole."[5] I don't think he would make so easily disputed a claim, unless it had good foundation. Perhaps the original poster can find an appropriate section for it.--Silverback 09:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 10:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I think Singer makes any number of easily disputed claims :-). I don't know the detail of this one.
(William M. Connolley 10:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Errrmm... and unless we really are accepting the total identification of Singer and SEPP, it doesn't really belong on this page at all, but on the Singer page. And the intro there indeed says: He was involved in designing on of the first instruments used in a satellite to measure ozone (I suspect I wrote that).
I dropped the instrument down there because it seemed relevant to the criticism of his ozone scientific expertise (in the adjoining pile of criticism). — SEWilco 18:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the page puts a little too much equality on the identity of the SEPP and Singer. I find the establishment of Singer's expertise to be unnecessary in an article about an organization he founded, unless as a direct response to a criticism someone has made that he is unqualified to form such an organization. — Cortonin | Talk 19:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "claim seen to be false"

You can't follow someone's statement with the "claim can be seen to be false". This implies the editors have knowledge of what the objective guaranteed truth is, which is strongly against Wikipedia's concept of NPOV. This section should be erased without even having to consider the topic it's about. The justification for the claim of objective truth is that the probability truth values of "commonplace" * "commonplace" * "commonplace" * "suggested" == "guaranteed truth". That's just so far of a stretch that there's no sense in having it there. The section also reads more like a condescending angry rant that's trying to explain something to what it views as children than it reads like an encyclopedia. If you're going to include something on that topic, then please completely rewrite it from scratch. — Cortonin | Talk 19:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Some things are in dispute, some aren't. If you try to put "the world is flat" on a science page, it won't work. Thats effectively what Singer is trying to say. Please don't remove the material just because you dislike it.
Please read this. You frequently seem to use some other definition for the word outside of common use. I don't care one bit about CFC's pro or con, so there's no like or dislike involved with the issue. It's simply what I said, that this section is completely against any NPOV. If you want to provide a counter to his statement by linking to the evidence which is commonly used to support CFCs triggering chlorine release, then by all means please do that, but it needs to be worded completely differently than that section. (It would also be helpful if this linked evidence addressed the issue as a whole, rather than in pieces. Deconstruction/reconstruction arguments are extremely weak in comparison.) — Cortonin | Talk 04:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the document WMC cites, Singer goes on to discuss what he means, and that does seem to be a fair assessment of the evidence at that time. I don't know to what extent it has changed since, but there is recently evidence of a very strong influence on ozone levels by the solar wind. I haven't read the original research, but it is discussed in this Nature News article, Solar wind hammers the ozone layer.--Silverback 10:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 11:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Sb's link is fine, but not relevant to the long-term Antarctic ozone loss. As for C: why don't you consider addressing the science? Or, if you really don't know or care about CFC's, why not edit something that you do know about?
I thought the ozone loss was seasonal, this solar influence is unlikely to be confined to the artic, although this particular study was about an event that occurred in the artic winter, similar events in the antartic winter are likely responsible for increased natural variability, which may make human influence less frightening or significant.--Silverback 13:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Ozone loss is seasonal, the ozone hole occurs in the spring. But there is no doubt that it is caused by CFCs.
Listen to what I'm saying here: I'm not disputing, debating, or concerned with the science on this issue. I'm disputing the structure and format of the argument. If you want to dispute his statement by adding a criticism, then rewrite the section, because that section is poorly constructed (for being a deconstruction/reconstruction argument), and extremely POV by stating something "false" rather than simply documenting who says otherwise or what the counter-evidence is. You should reread the subsection here, as this explains why you cannot write "this is false" here about someone else's claim, regardless of how well you "know" it to be false. — Cortonin | Talk 03:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think WMC's inline argument would normally be considered "original research" on wikipedia. I also think the analysis is wrong. CFCs fall into one of the exceptions to the well mixed atmosphere, chemical change. Note that CFCs were not found in the stratosphere, rather HCl and HF, the chemical products expected from the breakdown in CFCs. The difference in concentrations between these two suggest a significant natural contribution to one of them. Ozone itself is another exception to the well mixed atmosphere, due to differential production at different levels in the stratosphere. Additionally, this latest Nature news article discusses differential creation of nitrogen oxides by the solar wind, that gets mixed down into the ozone layer by particularly strong polar vortices.--Silverback 13:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I'm a bit confused about what you're saying here. Where are you getting you natural-sources stuff from? You appear to be disputing point (3). Did you read the ozone FAQ section that I used as a reference?
BTW, I should note that I don't agree with the overly strict and pickyune (sp?) interpretation of the "original research" objection to additions sometimes put forward here on wikipedia. I think fairly straight forward arguments, or noting of errors in arguments are OK. I just don't think WMC makes his case, or if he does, that steps in his case are not clear, or Singer's own argument is being unfairly represented out of context. Singer explains what he means immediately after his breakdown into the components that WMC presents, on the page WMC references.--Silverback 16:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Singer states specifically that the statement I've quoted is "controversial". Its not taken out of context at all.
I agree with your assessment there, Silverback. (Although I will postpone judgment on which side is "right" or "wrong".) In order to remove concerns about taking an argument out of context (especially considering that Singer is mostly using the first argument to support the argument that hasty action is taken ahead of science), I have reduced the section to the more general argument that he is making, as a more general representation of the views of SEPP, rather than extracting a singular phrase. This is more meaningful as an encyclopedic description of the SEPP's views. In fact, I'm leaning toward the idea that the section "Views of the SEPP" should simply be a simplified form of these views (which are well understood to be opinions of a single organization), and then rebuttals should be contained in pages like ozone depletion which would more thoroughly cover the existing science. — Cortonin | Talk 18:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WMC, I have taken a close look at your analysis and it is correct, except possible weakness at step 3, where it was only the new study which established it. Perhaps Singer is considering it controversial because of the limited confirmation so far, or perhaps because this important link in the chain was only established AFTER expensive international action had been taken, so making the premature political action point for him. I don't see why you want to focus on just this first of his statements, and consider it important enough to include in the article. I think he made a case at least, that the statement would have been controversial at the time political action was taken, and he definitely concedes that the evidence is shaping up and backing this statement. I don't think you make a significant point by including this. Thus my revert, because you word it almost as a refutation. --Silverback 13:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Given that, I'm not sure why you reverted it. In my opinion, Singer is just stirring up FUD. It doesn't help that he leaves out-of-date stuff up there as though it were current (not that it made any sense when it was "published" in 1995 either). That paper is titled "The Ozone-CFC Debacle: Hasty Action, Shaky Science". The science isn't shaky; it wasn't in 1995 either, and it wasnt earlier (please don't assume that Singers summary of the state of the science is accurate). We could consider [6] instead, with its The accepted interpretation is that manmade sources of chlorine, principally CFCs, contribute to stratospheric chlorine--along with natural sources, such as volcanoes and the oceans. - which is also wrong.
Singer quite clearly states, The situation changed in 1991, however, when NASA scientist C. Rinsland published data showing HCl increasing at about half the rate of HF, suggesting both natural and man-made sources (13). Yet the Montreal Protocol to freeze CFC production and roll it back to lower levels was signed in 1987, at a time when published work still indicated little, if any, contribution from CFCs. His point of including that statement is quite clearly explained as due to the political action predating concluding evidence, as this is one of the two major points he is making in that article. Your deconstruction/reconstruction rebuttal begins by pretending he is calling the statement still in dispute, when the very paper you quote it from clearly states the opposite. So instead, the section should be reduced to the summary of their views (like the section header states), rather than being a strawman dispute. — Cortonin | Talk 04:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Read what he says. He says the statement ***is*** controversial. Not was. I agree, the statement changed in 1991... makes nonsense of what he is saying, but thats the point: what he is saying is nonsense.
I will explain it to you. He says the statements are controversial, and then he proceeds to describe what the controversy is. You are trying to read it as, "Singer says this is wrong." Yet clearly he doesn't. He says the things "may be incorrect", which he later qualifies by saying that there is recent evidence supporting a contribution, and he says they are controversial because "policy is rushing far ahead of science", and then proceeds to explain in great detail how he sees the ordering of events having occurred. The "nonsense" you're trying to read in his paper is not actually there. Most papers can be read as nonsense if you try to reinterpret what someone is actually saying. — Cortonin | Talk 21:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)) He clearly says that each of the statements is individually controversial. That allows them to be considered separately.
  • I removed the whole section because the quote was from 1988, when there was still no indication that chlorine was increasing in the stratosphere. This means that the natural sources were more important than the CFC contribution. (SEWilco 05:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC))
Read slowly and carefully. Or if that fails, at LEAST do a text search for 1988, and try to pay attention to the point he's trying to make in the paper, and note how that differs from the point you think he's making, in particular, how he's referring to the actions taken and state of the science between 1987 and 1991, and in particular in 1988, with regard to the statement you have selected. You could also check the two pertinent references, (7) and (8), which are clearly marked from 1989. — Cortonin | Talk 10:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Please stop this patrionising rubbish, take your own advice, and read the SEPP page, which was published in 1995, and states:

For the general public, and even for the trained scientist, these scientific controversies are difficult to sort out. It is indeed a multi-faceted problem, a chain with many links connecting the release of CFCs into the atmosphere with the occurrence of skin cancer. Briefly, the steps are postulated as follows (6):

   1. CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine.

   2. Chlorine, in its active form, can destroy ozone catalytically and thereby lower its total amount in the stratosphere.

   3. A reduced level of ozone results in an increased level of solar ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth.

   4. Exposure to increased UV leads to increases in skin cancer.

Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect (7,8). One can reasonably conclude that policy is rushing far ahead of the science.

Note the is (emphasis added), on a docuemnt written in 1995, and please stop these spurious reverts.

  • The article is about hasty policy. He says that the 1987 Montreal Protocol was created when step 1 was not true. And the 1991 latest science given on HCl creation is not definite and only suggesting both natural and man-made sources. (SEWilco 21:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC))
If one examines the history of governmental CFC policy, one finds that it is based mainly on panicky reactions ..."The depletion of ozone is worse than expected"—starting with the March 1988 press conference by the Ozone Trends Panel...
...But as late as 1987, Zander found no long-term increase in HCl...
...Yet the Montreal Protocol to freeze CFC production and roll it back to lower levels was signed in 1987, at a time when published work still indicated little, if any, contribution from CFCs.
(William M. Connolley 22:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)) This is feeble in the extreme. The article was written in 1995. It states that certain things *are* (present tense) true. I'm not claiming the entirety of the article is false. You are constructing a strawman. I am taking statements from the article, that (the article asserts) stand by themselves, and showing those are false. Please stop this unedifing twisting and turning. If you feel like writing a section about SEPPS views on the montreal protocol, then feel free.
You think "suggesting both natural and man-made sources" is proof that "CFCs...release chlorine"? (SEWilco 07:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC))

The paper, and the view it expresses, is clearly focused on the idea that policy preceded action. The section being argued about clearly begins with, "If one examines the history of governmental CFC policy," indicating that it is discussing history. Then it proceeds to set the timescale by saying "starting in 1988", then referencing two papers from 1989, research from 1987, and then says it changed some in 1991. Right after setting the timescale as around 1988, in the section about the history of governmental CFC policy, and in the very sentence that references the two papers from 1989, while discussing historical events, Singer writes, "Each of these four steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect." Now you try to draw extra emphasis to the "is", but apparently you're unfamiliar with the mode of speaking in which present tense can be used to describe events through a historical description. For example, "Two years ago I was walking along Elm Street, and saw a house. My house is made of red brick, but this one is made of logs. This isn't my house, but I like it. Then last year I went back and bought that house, and now here I am." The word "is" in there is used to put one mentally in the time period being discussed, yet clearly it is a historical description given the multitude of surrounding contextual clues. — Cortonin | Talk 22:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) That is why it is generally NOT productive to take singular quotes out of a paper, and try to dispute them in isolation. The paper is about government action preceding science, and this is the point he argues. The section you're quoting essentially IS about the Montreal project (and more generally about any similar proposals in that time period), yet your dispute is not focused on what he's talking about. Let's keep the Wikipedia article focused on the major points he's trying to make. What would you think if you opened the Encyclopedia Britannica and an article extracted an out-of-context excerpt from someone and then tried to rhetorically beat him over the head with it? It's a disgraceful thing for an encyclopedia to try to do, and it makes the article look like a diatribe written in an angry and bitter fashion, rather than a respectable encyclopedia which seeks to inform. — Cortonin | Talk 22:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)) This is all silly. Yes, the paper is deceptive. Its trying to find something to stir up dirt around the ozone issue. But sadly (for him; for you) he stepped over the line from being misleading to simply being wrong. Trying to twist the words by redefining the meaning of the word "is" is simply implausible.
Show me where he substantiates that claim as something he still considers true any more recently than 1989. (And again, I draw your attention to the references.) If he DOES still consider the link between CFCs and chlorine to be controversial, then it doesn't seem that he has made that very clear yet. Perhaps you could email him and ask for an update on his position. — Cortonin | Talk 12:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 13:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)) The document was written in 1995, despite your claims to the contrary: have you had time to read it *slowly* and *carefully* yet? Your long trail of various exploded excuses for SEPP is embarassing and tedious.
"If one examines the history ... the Montreal Protocol to freeze CFC production and roll it back to lower levels was signed in 1987, at a time when published work still indicated little, if any, contribution from CFCs" So, which makes more sense? The WMC interpretation which makes the Singer paper contradict itself, thus showing it to be a silly paper which contradicts itself, or the Cortonin interpretation which makes the Singer paper self-consistent? As a good rule of thumb, if there are two interpretations, and only one of them is self-consistent, you take the self-consistent one. (And in fact, assuming a paper is self-consistent is usually how you should go about understanding the context of a piece of writing.) — Cortonin | Talk 04:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 10:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Your twists and wriggles remain entirely unconvincing. Now you are reduced to having to assert that Singer is always correct.
Not "always correct", simply "coherent enough to write four consecutive paragraphs which do not contradict themselves". Seriously, read that section you keep inserting and tell me what you think sounds even remotely like an encyclopedia in it. — Cortonin | Talk 15:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common Sense

I removed the following. It doesn't make sense. A $10,000 donation 6 years ago is not significant, particularly if all those big companies have "extensive ties". SEPP is modestly funded, and it sure don't look like someone is paying it to be a flashy public relations activity. The rest of the article also indicates there isn't a big, well funded, staff. (SEWilco 05:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC))

In 1998, SEPP received a $10,000 donation from ExxonMobil [7]. According to the Clearinghouse for Environmental Education, Advocacy and Research (CLEAR), a research project formerly affiliated with the Environmental Working Group, Singer:
"has extensive ties to fossil fuels industries. On a Nightline program in February, 1994, it was revealed that Singer has accepted 'consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun Oil.' According to Ozone Action, an environmental organization, SEPP has also received funding from Monsanto, Philip Morris, and Texaco. Singer appeared as a witness during a 1995 Congressional ozone depletion hearing, claiming to have published several peer-reviewed papers on his theories about the huge ozone hole over the South Pole. When Congressional staff checked his references, they found that Singer's only published work on ozone depletion during the past 20 years had been one letter to the editor of SCIENCE magazine, and two articles in magazines that are not peer reviewed."[8]
Singer states that SEPP is not supported by energy companies or any other industry, or by government. He never worked for oil companies, and his biography shows he has been a consultant on oil economics about 25 years ago due to having written a well-regarded monograph on world oil prices, which was unrelated to climate or environmental issues.

[edit] Activity

Bruce Ames is still active as a biochemist [9], Henry Linden is still actively publishing on energy and the environment [10], Sir William Mitchell is still actively publishing about glaciers, and Chauncey Starr is still actively publishing on the dynamics of risk analysis. Now I think calling someone "retired" in the attempt to call them out of touch is a pointless ad hominem, since in my experience retired and older professors tend to have a lot more wisdom and ability to objectively evaluate the larger scope of a field, but it definitely shouldn't be presented as if they're all retired. I also think that it's difficult to remain active in analyzing and lecturing on the larger-scope of a field, while still actively pursuing research in a focused area, so it is quite natural that the active figures working on analyzing the larger-scope would find their work primarily focused on that. There are a number of people on the list for which most of the information is in languages I don't read. Someone else will have to evaluate their publishing activity level. — Cortonin | Talk 22:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 23:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Um. Not wishing to sound too reasonable, but I've poked around a bit for the source of the quote and can't find it from the current grist site or elsewhere. So probably it should be removed. If I added it now (I didn't add it originally) I'm pretty sure people would, correctly, complain about an unsourced quote. I'm pretty sure it *is* a genuine quote, though.
Hmm, it does seem that the only sources for that quote all got it from this Wiki page. That kind of reminds me of the classic rumor game. — Cortonin | Talk 23:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unification Church

I added the Unification Church category because the SEPP was founded as an offshoot or affiliate of a think tank of theirs, the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, of which Singer was the founding president. [11] This linkage eventually should be documented in the text of the article- I'm just explaining the edit for other editors. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, SEPP admits no funding from or affiliation with the Unification Church. So I don't think it quite qualifies as a category. The SEPP is run by a board of directors and a scientific advisory board, and its funding sources have been presented. — Cortonin | Talk 10:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough - you folks have researched it more than I have. I was doing a categorization project and a quick check made it seem appropriate. Thanks for catching it. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable paragraph

The SEPP site appears to be becoming out of date: it lists three science advisors [12] who are dead (William Mitchell, William Nierenberg and Michael J. Higatsberger); the "key issues" page [13] says that "weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever" - this has not been true for some years (see satellite temperature measurements). The "New on the web" and "The Week That Was" links are kept up to date. For reports and analyses of particular publications, it is probably best to search the site on one of the authors.

The author(s) of the article here appear to be directly and indirectly arguing that the claims of SEPP are false. That's improper if one wishes to maintain NPOV. I'm not sure why the reader of the article cares whether or not all parts of the web site are kept up to day; with an external link, they can see that for themselves, anyway. The purpose of mentioning it here seems to be to provide indirect evidence that SEPP is ignoring more recent evidence which disfavors its position. Which may be true, but saying so in this way does not seem neutral. It might be good to mention the article satellite temperature measurements in some other way. In the meantime, I'm making a See Also link there. -- Beland 05:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Views of the SEPP

In this section, the encyclopedia author(s) once again appear to have taken up the task of directly refuting the claims made by SEPP. Again, this is inappropriate, given NPOV. It is, however, important to note opposing claims. These should be framed as the claims of third parties, not simply reported as fact. It should be made clear which claims have the status of scientific consensus (cite sources, please), and which there is still considerable debate about. If the claims of the SEPP are hooey, readers should be able to figure that out for themselves after reading the article and its references. It's fine to say that SEPP's claims are contradicted by other (possibly very well substantiated) claims; it's not OK to say they are contradicted by The Facts, even if we would all agree that's the case.

There are plenty of contradictory claims out there to be had, even if they don't directly address SEPP's claims, as the "Criticisms of SEPP" says. -- Beland 06:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Views and criticisms are currently comingling in both sections, so I (at least temporarily) merged them.

While we're talking about NPOV...

Criticism of SEPP centers on attempts to discredit the organization or its founder by linking it to religion and free-market capitalism, implying that its science is tinged by lunacy or a profit motive. Scientific criticism of SEPP is more rare...

This may be accurate, but it makes it sound like criticism of SEPP is non-substantive or generally unfounded. It probably wouldn't come across that way if specific sources could be quoted, which we should do anyway. But it sounds like there is a fair bit of indirect "criticism" out there, in the form of factually contradictory claims. -- Beland 06:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section was at least difficult to read. I reformatted to make the topics easier to spot. (SEWilco 06:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

  • The short Leipzig sentence needs explanation of what "View" it represents.
  • In some places "Singer" is mentioned. When are SEPP participants speaking for SEPP?
(William M. Connolley 20:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)) SEPP is a one-man-band. SEPP==Singer. But the skeptics won't let wiki say that...

[edit] Out of date

(William M. Connolley 13:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Increasingly, people seem to be defending SEPPs weird and wacky views by saying "ah, but thats what they thought in 1996...", or 1995, or whenever. Does SEPP have no current views at all?

The main current publications are the weekly "The Week That Was" newsletters. Some 1996 criticisms are still valid, such as the Sattalite data not showing the warming before 1996, I believe there is a warming trend since then, but the lack of confirmation of warming pre1996 still requires an explanation.--Silverback 13:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 14:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) TWTW are commentary on current events, not policy. Go to the sepp site, and under key issues you'll find, http://www.sepp.org/keyissue.html which says data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Can we take this as being SEPPs current opinion, do you think? How about, under ozone Although environmental pressure groups have made exaggerated claims that the stratospheric ozone layer is being eaten away by chlorofluorocarbons (most notably Freon) wafting into space - do you think this is current? Or not?
It is hard to tell whether the keyissues page has been updated since 1997. Organizations such as SEPP are not required to issue updated position statements. For recent additions to the site you can look at [14]. It looks like a lot of material authored by others gets posted to the site, presumably with the permission of the authors. In the annual report, SEPP took credit for some reasearch in 2004, and you will find an official SEPP press release mentioned on the above page. Here is a directly link to that press release which was posted to the site on Aug 28th. [15] It looks like the full text of the SEPP participating research is also available on line, per the press release. In the press release, Singer's comments seems to indicate that he still thinks the satellite data does not confirm the warming.--Silverback 02:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That style is not a particularly good way to write an encyclopedia article about an organization, but it is only emerging because description of the SEPP keeps turning into a content debate. I think the article should simply describe the organization, its members, its goals, and its views, with wikification naturally interlaced for more information, and if there are related content issues which should be addressed, they should be in the form of a "See also" at the bottom. No one comes to the SEPP page to read a debate about what percentage of temperature rises in which portion of the 20th century are due to which percentage of anything. Just describe the views of the SEPP as what they are: "views". Readers are smart enough to take views as views when they are described as such, and then we can cut out all the cluttered and out-of-place content debate. "Criticisms of the SEPP" has evolved into microscopic debate over specific views of the SEPP, which is really detached from the set of more meaningful and general criticisms. — Cortonin | Talk 02:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)) YEs, the SEPP page should mention its views. But how do we know what they are? Whenever I put up something about the SEPPs views, and point out that they are wrong, you just say "oh no, that was back in xxxx, its not current any more". Which is very frustrating. I'm trying to get some idea of which parts of the SEPP site can be considered to be its current views, and which bits are essentially obsolete. Silverback appears to be asserting that the "key issues" page is obsolete, as far as I can interpret him.
The press release and peer reviewed publications I pointed to above are interesting and fair game. Have at them. I think at least on the satellite data and criticism of the models, SEPPs views have not changed since 1997, although SEPP has participated in the publishing of more evidence.--Silverback 09:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the easiest thing to do would be to duck the question of whether any given thing represents a current view. When talking about a particular view, cite the source in the article itself, give the date of publication, and leave it at that? -- Beland 04:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It depends on what one is trying to do. If you are trying to draw conclusions about the current state of the scientific evidence, the use the latest research. However, if you are trying to impeach or criticise a source of information, which is what WMC appears to have in mind on this page, then it is unfair to criticise a past view with evidence that was unavailable at the time. Fortunately, Singer, under the institutional sponsorship of SEPP has publish peer reviewed articles as recently as last summer. So there is something identifiably current with which to assess his scientific viewpoints.--Silverback 04:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 07:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I'm trying to provide a fair presentation of SEPPs views. Snice those views are wacky, from a scientific POV, then any comments will tend to be critical. If you're interested in SEPPs views on ozone depletion, then reading their current research won't help, because there is none. I am still unable to understand Sb's belief that SEPPs views on the sat t record haven't changed since 1997, despite the record itself changing greatly.
The papers Singer co-authored, still seem to indicate that the climate models predict a vertical temperature profile in the atmosphere as a result of GHG, quite different from what the satellites and other temperature records show. [16] [17]. --Silverback 10:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 12:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)) There is an interresting question there, but the Singer papers (I'm assuming you mean the GRL ones) are a poor source for it, since they deliberately throw away the last 8+ years of the record in order to avoid seeing the warming. Other records (and this is on the sat page, of course) show more warming than the sfc. If you read the Singer papers you won't find this pointed out. And you know why.
--MichaelSirks 06:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) It would be relevant if the paper dealt with temperature trends. They don't. I find it strange that you say that the papers raise interresting questions but then want to disregard them because they use only a period of the temperature data. Climate models and the actual measurements should be in accordance for any given period. And one would expect that the surface temperature and the temperature in the trophosfere are also in accordance for any given period.
(William M. Connolley 09:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I didn't say the papers raise interesting questions. They don't. There are interesting questions around the issue, but they were all known before these papers.
Yes, the issues were known and dicussed at meetings, but no one had really done the peer reviewed studies that published the result that the climate models all shared a typical greenhouse gas induced vertical temperature profile and that the mismatch was serious over the tropical ocean, and pointed to the ocean surface interface. It certainly helps to have this well laid out and published for the scientific community, and should help get funding for followup studies (by other scientific specialties) on what is happening at the tropical ocean/atmosphere interface.--Silverback 10:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) What makes you believe that?
Because the skeptics are going to keep pointing to this issue until it is resolved.--Silverback 09:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) No, I meant, what makes you believe that "no one had really done the peer reviewed studies that published the result that the climate models all shared a typical greenhouse gas induced vertical temperature profile..." and so on?
--MichaelSirks 19:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)Let me see if I understand you(William). So the point (discrepency between models and measurements.)what was raised in the paper was already known, but almost nobody published about this. And you find a peer reviewed paper which deals with this point not interresting.
(William M. Connolley 09:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) No. My point is that its already been better published elsewhere. Its in the TAR, for heavens sake! Do none of you skeptics ever bother to read anything other than the skeptic literature?
Yes, but the modelers were trying to blame the data, not the models, this latest publication shows that data from different sources confirms the vertical temperature profile and the location of the worst problems. --Silverback 09:58, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
--MichaelSirks 08:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) William, why are the older papers a better source? And is this issue still actual(unresolved). It looks like you want to rubbish Fred Singer just like you wanted to rubbish Bjorn Lomborg. Just like introducing the word "contrarian" so that you don't have have discuse issues which are raised by them. By the way Linzen Spencer and other "contrarians" where also contributers to TAR. So it isn't surprising that these points where raised in the IPCC report.
(William M. Connolley 20:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) This is just silly and one sided. The modellers rather like their models. S+C rather like their dataset. Mears et al like theirs. Vinnikov and Grody... etc etc.
Yup, they say they avoid seeing the warming. "This also avoids the anomalously large 1997 El Nino event in the tropical Pacific which Douglass and Clader [2002] showed can severely affect the trend-line.

We will show later in this paper that it is likely that our conclusions would change little had we been able to use data though 2003." You think every year is now an El Nino year? … and just before that they stated R2-2m data change was their primary reason for stopping before 1998.[18] (SEWilco 20:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC))

(William M. Connolley 20:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Oh sure, they have a thin veneer of excuses in place. There use of R2 is distinctly dubious too: its indep from the sat data is questionable; and its value itself (for trends) is too.
Their "excuses" survived peer review and in the paper proper, not just in the discussion section. Perhaps, a future study will send their result the way of the hockey stick, if someone performs a study showing that their choice was a flaw significantly impacting the results. I doubt this is likely, since their results were not global, but focused on the disparity at a part of the earth unaffected by the excluded data, especially since they then analyzed that portion of the excluded data that pertained to the oceans.--Silverback 07:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

Criticism of SEPP centers on attempts to discredit the organization or its founder by linking it to religion and free-market capitalism, implying that its science is tinged by lunacy or a profit motive. SEPP's views are either self-published or appear in the mainstream press rather than in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a result, scientists who publish in the peer-reviewed literature have had little comment about SEPP's claims. Since "views" and "comments" are more easily published elsewhere this is not surprising.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of any of this, because there are no examples given and no sources cited. It seems like instead of a neutral characterization of SEPP's activities, we have here a little fight between two non-neutral authors who have been forced to finish each other's thoughts. I can try to fix this so the relevant information can be re-added to the article, but I need some examples to work with. -- Beland 03:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)