Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 13 November 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

An Inconvenient Truth was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: April 2, 2007.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

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. "Factsheet: S. Fred Singer". ExxonSecrets.org. Retrieved 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 " 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 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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Prot?

I've put this down to semi, & will ask the admin who put it at full to check William M. Connolley 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for full protection because I felt everyone could do with a good chat, instead of just making the changes at will. GreenJoe 22:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We should add "Innacurate" in the title paragraph

via sources above. well documented (via court) that the film is innacurate.--68.115.80.156 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, why is the Critism section blank? Obviously there is quite a bit of Critism spicifically about this film. If critism is spicifically about this film, should it not be included here?--68.115.80.156 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Chris Cunningham 08:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gore and IPCC awarded Nobel Peace Award

Minimal wire message here. I would suggest for some in-depth-coverage before jumping the gun. --Stephan Schulz 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That type of info should be added on al gore's page.--65.107.88.154 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Did he win it for AIT? --DHeyward 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He won it for the work associated with AIT, in the timeframe of AIT. It doesn't need to be literally cause-and-effect to be pertinent to the article. Chris Cunningham 14:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the fact the he along with the IPCC group were awarded the Nobel Prize was added to the article. Out of curiosity is there any sort of official announcement from the Nobel Committee that is availabe to read? The reason I ask is that if AIT isn't mentioned specifically as part of the reason he was given the award then I don't think it should be mentioned in this article. Again the article is about the film, not Gore. So if it's not mentioned as part of the reason why the award was given it shouldn't be here IMO. Elhector 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

British Judge's Ruling

The article should mention that the film has been legally described as biased and containing untruths and is not permitted to be shown without disclaimers to that effect in England. This might even be reasonable to briefly mention in the lead. --Blue Tie 12:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. The decision will not be appealed, so its ratio decidendi is now 'officialized'. --Childhood's End 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The judgment should obviously be mentioned. And indeed it is. But the question is which bits of the judgment should be used, and how prominently. Perhaps you would care to propose some text you consider unbiased? William M. Connolley 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why bother, anything that casts any doubt on the alter of Global Warming will not be agreed upon by many here.--65.107.88.154 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will trust William's words and will look at the judgment more closely as soon as I get time. --Childhood's End 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above. The Dimmick case is already covered in the article. Your characterization is not accurate. rewinn 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My reading is that his characterization his rather accurate, although it could benefit from certain qualifiers. --Childhood's End 15:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the decision. The judge finds the movie broadly accurate. Out of the entire span of the film, the judge found only 9 points that required clarification in the attached materials, and accepted the defendant's proposed documentation. BlueTie's characterization is inaccurate; the study materials are not disclaimers and the film as a whole was not found to be biased. The subject has already been discussed above; it's pointless to start ab novo. rewinn 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(as a note, I was not trying for technical accuracy. I was just pointing something out. I do not really even know the details, but since it is in the news, it seemed appropriate to give it some mention.)--Blue Tie 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The judge didn't accept "the defendant's proposed documentation" (the guidance note). He told the defendant to amend the existing guidance note to include warnings about factual errors and political bias and to send out the guidance note in the AIT package for schools (until this court case, the note was only available as a PDF at a website for teachers). He was also critical of DEFRA's (to me, rather creepy) statement that the DVDs were being sent to schools because "influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public". And when awarding two-thirds of the costs to the plaintiff, the judge said, "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act." Substantially won. The plaintiff brought the case because he thought the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush" and, as such, was unsuitable as a teaching material. Substantially won. The only reason that the film may still be shown in schools is that it is to be accompanied by an amended guidance note warning that the film promotes a particular political agenda(um) and is, in part, wrong about the science.

I would have been astonished by this discussion a month or two ago when I first started editing Misplaced Pages articles. A reputable (by global standards) justice system has said that an important film about an important person talking about an important topic is propagandistic and inaccurate and not suitable to be shown in schools without a warning to that effect. Yet this criticism has to be watered down before it can appear in Misplaced Pages. No astonishment now, though. Before I finally got around to creating a Misplaced Pages account, I had read loads of allegations that there was a cabal of Wiki-tyrants (led by William Connolley) that deleted anything that didn't accord with a particular view of climate change. Most of these whinges came from genuine "deniers" - the few people (mostly American) who still don't accept that Man has any responsibility for climate change. So I didn't take their whinges seriously. ("Deniers" is, shamefully, applied to all sorts of people, including many who don't deny AGW at all, but these whingers were mostly the real deal.) After a couple of months of dipping in and out of the edit-warsdiscussions in various climate-change-related articles, I can now see what the "deniers" meant. There is a tyranny in Misplaced Pages when it comes to climate change. This squabble about the High Court ruling exposes it completely for what it is. Vinny Burgoo 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be added to the article that the person who brought this challenge, lorry driver Stewart Dimmock is a member of The New Party (UK) which is bankrolled by Scottish businessman Robert Durward, the director of the British Aggregates Association- more info in this article here http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=83662003&tid=733 where he is described as "an avowed enemy of environmentalists, an opponent of "witchhunts" against drink-drivers and an advocate of letting the army sort out schools, hospitals, and roads".

Durward says he is "a businessman who is totally fed up with all this environmental stuff... much of which is unjustified, such as the climate change levy. We also have the aggregates tax, which will put the UK quarry industry out of business." Durward and Adams established the Scientific Alliance in 2001. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136 the Scientific Alliance is a pro heavy industry lobbying group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einztein (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add this to the article. I think it's a bad idea to start throwing peoples political party affiliations into the article. I mean, as the article stands right now it doesn't address the fact that Gore is a Democrat or that he works with enviromentalist lobbying groups. And it shouldn't address those things about Gore. This is an article about the film. I don't think adding info about the political party and the guy that founded it would improve the article at all. Adding anything about Durward would be a bad idea as he's not even a party to the case so he's not relevant to the subject. Let's avoid throwing political affiliations into the article, it's just going to make this article suffer from more edit warring and partisan bickering. Elhector 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important. The person arguing the case against this film on todays "The World At One" on BBC Radio was one Martin Livermore, Director of the Scientific Alliance and the link between this person and the person that brought the court case was not stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einztein (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment before I address what you said above. You should always sign your coments using four tildes (~~~~). Throw 4 tildes at the end of the comment and it will auto sign your comment with your user name and a time and date stamp :-) Moving on. I still don't see how this is important. As I stated above I think it's best to leave politcal party affiliations out of the article. Just because the link between the guy bringing the case and this lobby group wasn't brought up on the BBC doesn't mean it should be brought up here in the article. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to act as if it's some sort of investigative journalism project that trys to expose alleged links between certain people and certain orginizations. That's not our purpose here. Now I do think that this information might be useful over in the article for either the lobby group or the political party you spoke of above. You could also just be bold and add the info to the article yourself. Just be warned that it will likely be reverted and you will be expected to try to justify the addition of the information here. And as I'm sure you can see from all the above discussion that can be incredibly frustrating. Elhector 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elhector: suspicious as I am of the motives of the people who brought the case, the final judgement was handed down by a judge whom we should assume (lacking evidence to the contrary) to be unbiased. Incidentally, the judgement didn't say that the film was "propagandistic and inaccurate and not suitable to be shown in schools without a warning to that effect", or that it is "not permitted to be shown without disclaimers to that effect in England". These are all gross exaggerations. What the judge actually said is that the film contained a (small) number of statements that were, at worst, unproven and that it isn't suitable to be used as a sole source of teaching material, which to my mind is pretty obvious and doesn't come close to the outright ban that the plaintiffs wanted. Cosmo0 19:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that this lorry driver financed this case himself, don't you? It is highly likely he was funded by the The New Party (UK) and ultimately by Robert Durward, chief bankroller of the party and director of the British Aggregates Association. Einztein 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Who really knows? You may be right. However, Misplaced Pages is not a place for speculation. Elhector 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

@rewinn and others : again, shall I repeat myself, please read par. 44 of the ruling if you havent, which is the ratio decidendi. The judge says (my bold) "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." The fact that the judge finds the film to be broadly accurate or that there is a consensus about global warming is an obiter dicutm and mostly irrelevant to the main point, which is how, and why, is it allowed to show the movie at schools. --Childhood's End 20:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Shall we simply quote from the decision: "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," http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html . The article is fine as is. rewinn 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Or this quote, yes. It begins with "in the light of the changes to...". The judge tells you again that he would not have ruled this way without the changes made. --Childhood's End 13:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy is obviously highly relevant to this article, though. Whereas other things highly relevant to the case (the funding by the New Party, for example) are irrelevant to the article William M. Connolley 13:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have now found out that the person that brought this case, Stewart Dimmock is not just a member of the The New Party (UK) he stood as a candidate in the Dover District Council election on 3 May 2007 http://www.ukprwire.com/Detailed/Education/Government_forced_to_work_overtime_on_Al_Gore_health_warning__10450.shtml

His party affiliation is mentioned in numerous sources so I see no reason why it should be censored on Misplaced Pages Einztein 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC): http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%2B%22Stewart+Dimmock+%22+%2B%22new+party%22&mkt=en-gb&scope=&FORM=LIVSOP

No one is stating the information should be censored from the Misplaced Pages. It's just not important for this article and Frankly you've failed to explain why political information should be included in a article that is not about politics. Again, the information would be more appropriate for the article about the politcal party, the lobby group, or Dimmock's article if he has one. If he doesn't have one feel free to create it. Good luck with the notability issue on that one though :-) Elhector 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The man probably does not deserve an article by himself but the party which he represented in an election does (and it has one). So in effect you are saying you do not want his political affiliations mentioned on this page when just about every other independent media source does mention it. Einztein 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not being censored. Its just not worth mentionning. He isn't important, the ruling may be. Why not start a page on him if you think he is notable? William M. Connolley 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it isn't being censored as I haven't yet added it (and I will do). To say this issue is not about politics is just false as this issue is an enormously political issue. The political and business affiliations of Al Gore are of course well known. It is only fair that people who criticise him have their own political affiliations made clear to the public. Einztein 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to address both of your posts above in this post. Firstly, Misplaced Pages is not a media source, it's an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if other independent media sources are mentioning it. I actually question if there is such a thing as a "independent" media source anymore. Secondly, there may be political issues concerning this movie but I again state that this article is about the film, not politics. We're trying to keep politics out of the article. The article mentions nothing about Gore's political and business affiliations. Those affiliations are dealt with in the Gore article. So to add anything about someone elses would unbalance the article. Lastly you stated above that "The man probably does not deserve an article by himself...". If he doesn't deserve an article about himself and his political and business affilations then are they really worth mentioning at all? Your running into a Notability issue here. (I generally hate to quote Wikipolicy as I think it's quoted way to much and abused, but I think it's necessary to point out in this case.) Elhector 22:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What you seems to be suggesting here is that you are censoring this article by avoiding any mention whatsoever of anyone's political affiliation. I am quite certain that if there was a famous court case in an encyclopedia and it was judged that the political affiliation of one of the parties was directly significant to the reason that the person brought that case then the encyclopedia would mention it. Einztein 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elhector and William Connolley. I think that they both gave excellent reasons to ignore the trivial details of party affiliation of the person who brought the suit. I would argue that even a big discussion of the suit is inappropriate. A summary of the results is enough. --Blue Tie 22:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not a trivial detail. He was a candidate in an election for a party whose main funder is a businessman in heavy industry who has stated his disgust of environmentalistism and who has also founded a lobbying group masquerading as a scientific thinktank, the Scientific Alliance with a PR man and former aide to two British Prime Ministers, Major and Blair, Mark Adams. Einztein 23:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It may not be trivial in some article, but it is trivial in THIS article. Remember. This is an article about the film. The trial is about the film and so it is a citable bit of info about the film. But the participants in the suit are really third order detail and then information about them is fourth order detail. And finally, information about who might fund them is fifth order detail. Its really too extreme. The cut should come before or no further than the third level. If the detail of the suit are important to you, then consider making that a separate article and putting all that cruft in there with a link in this article. --Blue Tie 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As a fan of the film and of Al Gore generally, I must agree that the political affiliation of the named plaintiff doesn't belong in an article about the movie. It would be right for an article about the lawsuit or about the named plaintiff, but legally the outcome of the case (in theory) would be the same even if Al Gore filed it himself against himself. rewinn 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will start an article about the lawsuit and link it from here (if it doesn't already exist). Einztein 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV is obvious here. the same exact type of information that "is trivial to THIS article" is heald in high regard in other articles relating to Global Warming. Misplaced Pages is lost to the Church of Global Warming.--207.250.84.10 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nine errors?

I'm surprised by how the discussion is getting sidetracked onto "controversial" and the complainant, and how little discussion (or, gratifyingly, edit warring) there is about the "nine errors" of the court case. We've just had removed, which I think is fair, because its wrong: The decision listed nine major factual errors in the film. is incorrect. Lots of people seem to be misreading this; Tim Lambert says it most forcefully but Ive said much the same . Discuss (or not?). I think the current state of the page is a bit too pro-Gore, but the alternatives suggested are far too anti-Gore William M. Connolley 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to view my proposed changes to the article? I have a draft of it here. I think the best way to deal with it is to have a short description and then include a link to the actual court findings. My draft is very similar to what is there now, i just reorganized things a little. I also think it deals with the whole controversy discussion here a little bit better then slapping the controversial label on the film in the lead. Let me know what you think. Elhector 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware this is already in the article. The purpose of the intro is to summarise the main points of the article. The high court ruling is a major decision about the factual accuracy of the film and hence should be mentioned here. Iceage77 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but if your going to add it, add it correctly. You can't just cherry pick one part of the court decision you like and slap it in the intro. The court did find that on a whole the film is mostly accurate as far as science goes. If you notice there are like 40 other things that are discussed in the article that are not addressed in the lead. Otherwise the lead would be as long as the main article. A court finding that the movie had 9 errors in what is otherwise considered mostly accurate by the court is more then worth discussing in the article itself, but I question whether or not it's lead worthy. Elhector 22:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The "9 errors" is what was picked up by the mainstream media for their headlines so I'm not cherry-picking just reflecting their coverage. Iceage77 23:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that is what most of the mainstream media is picking up, but honestly it's just a very small part of the whole ruling. We're not the media here so we don't need to be guilty of the same mistakes they're making. The best source in my opinion is the horses mouth. In this case that would be the court ruling itself which is freely available on the internet. Somewhere there is a link in this talk page to it. Good luck finding it though, this talk page is growing by the minute :-P Elhector 23:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but notability is determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. If we base our analysis on the primary source that is WP:OR. I have seen the link BTW. Iceage77 23:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why I hate quoting wiki policy... It's a court ruling and a court document. I think that makes this a little bit of a different situation. In this case I think WP:COMMON trumps WP:OR in this situation. (There I go quoting WP policy again... I think WP:COMMON is the most important guidline of all though.) Elhector 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The supposed error about coral reef bleaching was not actually an error at all. So that makes 8 errors in total. Einztein 23:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read anything yet stating it wasn't an error. I did notice you decided to create an article about the lawsuit though. If you can find a source stating that the court was wrong on this one then by all means include it in the article you're creating. Let me know when you've got the article up, I'd love to read it :-) Elhector 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is that scourge of climate change denying, The Guardian

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2189456,00.html

Regarding the lawsuit article I will make a start on it sometime this weekend. Einztein 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI it looks like the article from the Guardian is an editorial. I haven't read the complete article yet though, I'm gonna do that when I get home tonight. A lot of times editors on Misplaced Pages will argue about whether an editorial is a reliable source. I won't harrass you about it though, I think sometimes editorials do work as a realiable source. It's kind of a case by case basis thing though. Good luck with the article! :-) Elhector 00:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're missing the big picture here. The reliable sources are quoting 9 errors cited by the court. That's notable. it's a reliable source. If there are rebuttals, they can be included but judging them "inaccurate" is Original Research and that is not what should be happening. Put all 9 issues cited by the court. Use a secondary source for their meaning. But censoring it because you may not agree with the court or the newspaper is not an option. --DHeyward 05:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of "censoring it", it's a case of finding a way to report it which doesn't happen to match the prevailing conservative media narrative (i.e. reporting as little as possible except for the phrase "nine errors", with the intent of making the film seem factually challenged). The nine errors need to have context provided, and when context is provided it turns out that the exact number of errors is fairly inconsequential. Chris Cunningham 08:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The 'nine' errors are only the ones with political argumentation. I don't think the court addressed all the errors. I'm not sure what 'context' needs to be included except that it was a court ruling. Your interpretation that it is fairly inconsequential is interesting but unless you can provide a reliable source that says it, I'm not sure it can be included. There are reliable sources taht describe the nine errors, the court ruling and it's consequences. --DHeyward 20:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually as WMC points out (try reading it again and follow the links), the reliable sources aren't "quoting 9 errors cited by the court" they are quoting 9 "'errors'" (note citation marks), on which the court has various comments. No where in the court papers are these stated as errors as opposed to 'errors'. --Kim D. Petersen 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So then the 'errors' are notable. I didn't read too much into the quotation marks as they are used in the legal opinion. They are not there to imply that they may not be errors and he talks about errors without quotation marks. The marks are there to give a proper name to them. 'The Nine Errors' would be the long form of that and is simply used for clarity so that it is clear that he is speaking specifically about those errors that have political arguments and are inaccurate. There are more than nine errors in the complaint so the judge needs to be clear about the errors he is addressing. Nine errors fell within the context of the law which addressed political opinions in the film. Note that he says specifically that the nine errors are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. If you look at point 17, he speaks about errors without quotation marks in the broad sense. The quote marks refer to the nine specific errors addressed by the court. --DHeyward 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The use of quotation marks clearly implies that the raw word is not appropriate. Though its not quite clear why we're arguing this, as the article doesn't cover this issue William M. Connolley 20:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding 17 iii) "There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports. ". No quote marks. No question about the use of the word "error." Only when he illustrates the specific errors that he will address (i.e. the ones with political argumentation) does he use quote marks. --DHeyward 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and said so a day or two back. The judge definitely thinks there are errors, in the plural, no quotes. But when it comes to 9, they are 'errors'. So we only know that there are at least 2, and we don't know which of the 9 he asserts are really errors. Not very satisfactory, but there you are William M. Connolley 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not my interpretation at all. There are errors. There are at least nine errors with political argumentation. These 'errors' are quoted. He didn't mean to address all the scientific errors since the law doesn't address errors in science, only political indocttrination. --DHeyward 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your own opinions, of course. But in relation to 9, the judge said, always, 'errors' in quotes. You appear to go on and assert that the judgment doesn't address any scientific errors, which would rather undercut your original assertion. Unless you are asserting no scientific errors, only political ones? That would be weird, and definitely your own interpretation William M. Connolley 08:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the law addresses scientific fact. I think there are errors in the film. I think the judge only addressed those errors that are affected by law. The law addresses political indoctrination and propaganda in schools not simply errors. For example, the Bohr model of the atom is inaccurate and actually wrong. It is not against the law to present it and teach it as fact because it is not political. If the inaccuracy, however, was used to further a political agenda (i.e. Kyoto, fossil fuel reduction/alternative fuels, carbon credits, carbon neutral lifestyle, carbon tax, pollution laws, etc), then the error has crossed the line into the dominion of the courts. Courts don't render verdicts on science, they render them on the law. If I said "there are scientific errors in film. Nine of those errors have political implications" would you think there are more than 9 scientific errors or only more than 2? --DHeyward 04:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that is exactly what the judge is saying in section 23. He is not saying that these are scientific errors, only that there is enough political bias in his interpretation to warrant guidance for teachers to address a political imbalance. With that guidance in place, the judgement was to take no action (i.e. reject) the application.Trishm 13:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In short the film was deemed "political" though not biased towards a particular party. It is biased towards a certain political view. In section 12 we see that 406 is not considered to have been violated. Section 16 shows that the judge believes 407 has not been violated. "Equal air time" is not necessary. As long as people are notified that the government considers the film (per section 17) "to make a political statement and to support a political programme" then everything is ok. Section 406 and 407 having been taken care of the judge continues to deal with idea of government sponsored things having specific errors in them. Those are handled with a simple statement (Guidance Note) showing that not everything said in the film is in accord with scientific consesus (while maintaing that MOST of the work is in line with scientific consensus). The judge in essence said "This is allowable under British law provided you let people know this film does have a specific political goal and some speculation not based on facts" (my own paraphrasing). Interestingly section 19 points out that provisions 406 and 407 have no relevance normally to scientific validity, but because of the context of alarmism and "exaggeration in support of his political thesis" then it becomes necessary to have the Guidance Note to prevent worries over 406 and 407. 70.90.74.186 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't signed in when I posted my last comment (sorry) WeatheredPebble 18:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian has updated the article reporting on the nine errors, which itself contained an error! I'm not sure if we want to link to this rather than the previous link. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange Paul haynes 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate Entry: Style, Ease of Reading, and NPOV...

Perhaps, it was mentioned/discussed above, but I didn't see it.

I'm thinking about creating a new Misplaced Pages entry, perhaps titled: "An Inconvenient Truth - Controversies, Factual Errors and Criticisms" or "UK Judgment's Opinions of An Inconvenient Truth" and moving those sections there.

I think its valid to list the issues within the movie, but this article seems too long to me. It gives these nine (9) errors or overstatements more weight textually than the hundreds (600 or so) factual/directional accurate statements and awards. And I think that giving a single UK Judgment all this space and weight in the original article, well, detracts, from the point of the whole thing. Sure there are many points of view and few of them neutral, but why give this one so much space here? If you want so much space, why not move it to its own article "UK Judgment's Opinions of An Inconvenient Truth"

Even with its faults, the movie, is helping to make people aware of Climate Change as an Issue. To say that the movie has errors in it, while accurate, is trying to distract from the main point of this article. The movie (errors and all) is successfully moving people to action to advert a crisis that could affect world peace in the future.

So why not list them in a separate wikipedia entry?

Looks like we should discuss it a bit...

Separate Entry? or Leave it as is?

- BMcCJ 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested doing this, I will try and make a start tomorrow but feel free to have a go yourself then I will add to it. Einztein 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too small a subject matter to create a separate article. This would be a pov fork I think.--Blue Tie 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you are talking about a separate article regarding the trial. I also think that is too trivial but I would not see it as a fork. --Blue Tie 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Movies and Accuracies....

I'm just sitting here wondering what other movie has had so much energy put into scouring it for inaccuracies versus the overarching message.

So I looked at the entry for the previous documentary winner: "March of the Penguins". It too has controversy and debate. Are penguins really monogamous, do they kidnap other penguin chicks, should we see penguins as a metaphor for human family values?

But, in the end, it was a good movie and made us aware of issues both with the penguins, in their environment and within ourselves. I think the same is true with AIT... there are those that want to deny global warming and focus on the films errors, but, do these issues really detract from the overall message?

I think a separate entry would allow debate of the films scientific points there or under the catchall Global Warming Controversy. - BMcCJ 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. But imagine a film documentary that highlighted the good that Catholic charities did and the underlying role of the church in those charities. Then imagine that the church provided the film free to public schools and it became part of the curricula complete with guidance notes. Any problem with that? I would have a problem with it and it's the same problem I have with AIT and it is what makes it controversial. --DHeyward 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are comparing apples and tomatoes. The overarching point, as made by the movie and the Nobel award committee, is that without either reversing our carbon output or preparing for more climate catastrophes or refugees (read Hurricane Katrina) we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren a global disaster affecting as many as 300 million people. Doesn't really matter who the messenger is or if a few data points are in dispute, I want to work to avoid the problem, versus shooting the message or the messenger. More energy needed on Climate Change Solutions - BMcCJ 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're mention of Hurricane Katrina and millions of global warming refugees is not born out by the facts as we know them today. YOu might as well point to video about the apocalypse and biblical plagues. It's the same thing. Global Warming science should be taught in schools. The fear mongering and politics should be left out. --DHeyward 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling the issue fear mongering is more misleading than what Gore said. Discussions are ocurring at the governmental level on where Pacific Islanders can go as sea levels rise. .203.214.56.96 21:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuvalo (sp?) is the only island that I'm aware of that has discussed this. It is not a very high priority for the government of Tuvalo. It's fearmongering to make it seem as if it is. We have plans and discussions for asteroid collisions too but it's very unlikely to happen. It would be very irresponsible to present dire predictions of the earths imminent demise due to asteroids along with actual science on asteroids to school children especially if the solutions were politically charged (i.e. diverting billions of dollars in food aid to develop anti-asteroid space weapon or diverting actual food such as corn to make ethanol). --DHeyward 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't talking about whether or not school children should receive the movie. That seems clear as your POV agenda. And this wiki article shouldn't be the place to decide or debate it. Neither should this talk page. As to fear mongering, we are experiencing fatalities around the globe due to our change in climate and warmer atmosphere. Its factual. And the IPCC, continues to underestimate the concern see: IPCC#History_and_studies_suggesting_a_conservative_bias. We, as a planet, have seen climate refugees in the US, 100s of thousands, still affected and relocated following Huricaine Katrina and similar storms. The EU, US, India have had 1000s die from record breaking heat, storms, record rains and flooding. New Orleans was not prepared and YES we would have spent less preparing than in cleaning up. You could argue that there are more important global concerns, and have debates about funding and priority, or how to educate and foster positive action, but this article isn't the place. 'Nuf said. - BMcCJ 08:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Correction

It has been erroneously stated by many members of the press that Al Gore himself won the Academy Award, but he in fact did not, Davis Guggenheim was the nominee and recipient of the Oscar. Al Gore did get a chance to make a speech at the Oscar's, but the statuette is not his. 70.224.63.12 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are not responsible for what "many members of the press" state. This article gets it right. --Stephan Schulz 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gores response

VB removed Gores response, correctly spotting that it wasn't. So... has he? William M. Connolley 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalee Kreider has given his response: "The ruling upheld fundamental pieces of the film and the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activities," she told The Associated Press. "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up." (They do?) Vinny Burgoo 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I don't think they have, but other sensible people disagree William M. Connolley 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

High Court again

The second sentence of the second para of the UK High Court section is misleading. The judge's ruling said that AIT "did not amount to political indoctrination" only in that it said that no film could itself amount to political indoctrination - it was all a matter of how films (and other teaching materials) were presented in class. And he was unambiguous about whether the manner of the original, pre-hearing presentation of AIT could have resulted in political indoctrination. Para 45: "I am satisfied that ... there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Act but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has now eventuated." The eventuated conclusion was the hammering out during the hearing of an amended guidance note for teachers. Without this amended guidance note, the film could not be shown in schools. Which is why the judge awarded the claimant two-thirds of his costs.

It is also misleading to say that the ruling "support the Government's decision to issue the DVD". Again, the law has no business supporting or rejecting such decisions. The judge ruled that it was the manner of the issuance that was in question - and his ruling was not supportive of the manner in which the Government originally chose to issue the DVD. Indeed it was critical of it.

I reckon the most important points about this ruling are (a) that all parties in court agreed that it was a political film, (b) that the judge ruled that the initial package had not adequately taken account of this politicality, (c) that the judge, acting on expert advice, found nine ways in which Gore's presentation diverged from the IPCC consensus and (d) that the film may be shown in schools as long as teachers are instructed in how to deal with the political bias and the bogusnon-standard science in the film (the amended guidance note takes care of this). It should be possible to say that fairly succintly. (The article, like this comment, is getting very long.)

I also reckon that the various responses to the film mentioned in the article should be arranged in a more rational way - for example, all "Education" responses, including the High Court ruling, should be lumped together.

And another thing ... The opening para. "Global warming skeptics have criticized the film, calling it 'exaggerated and erroneous'" implies that only GWSs have criticized the film. Is that true? Even in the supplied references, you have Hansen saying that AIT has "imperfections" and "techical flaws". And what about Judge "Nine Errors" Burton? Vinny Burgoo 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that the nine errors are as important as the amendments required to the notice because of the partisan/political aspects so that the movie can be shown to students. That is the ratio decidendi. --Childhood's End 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (But I think your re-write is too long.) Vinny Burgoo 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps, but it's still shorter than the previous one... --Childhood's End 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount that can be said about the court case, I think we definitely need a spinoff article on it. I'll use the relevant text from this article as a basic framework as a starting point. -- ChrisO 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. That'll mean that the reference to the HC ruling can be as brief as this: "In 2007, a judicial review of the British government's distribution of DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth to English secondary schools ruled that the film could be shown in schools only if teachers were instructed to treat it as material that was politically partisan and scientifically questionable." With enough references, that should cover everything. (Not entirely serious. The treatment perhaps needs to be slightly longer than that.) And another thing ... Chris, I'm going to change your "stated" back to "claimed". Thousands of facts? Define fact. I confess that I haven't seen the film (or any of the lectures). All's I know is that, according to the amended guidance note, Gore's spokesman's "handful" of judicially denied facts take up a third of the film (and I've read that another quarter is taken up by biographical stuff): a quote that contrasts such a "handful" with "thousands" is a claim, not a statement. And what about these studies that allegedly "back these pieces up"? Until Gore's team produces them, that too is a claim, not a statement. Vinny Burgoo 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful before cutting the reference to the HC ruling further. First, there's one side which will complain that the relevant parts of the judgement that are favourable to their view no longer appear herein, and second, we might miss a few necessary elements to understanding what the controversy was about and how/why it was ruled by the Court. --Childhood's End 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Claimed" is a word that we're generally enjoined to avoid. See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Claim and other synonyms for say. -- ChrisO 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then please see the movie - the 9 'errors' comprise (even optimistically counting) a total of 6:10. (realistically though <3min). And most of these are 'errors' "by omission" of stating more. (i've just watched it again - and jotted down the times). --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I might even buy my own copy on DVD. Vinny Burgoo 13:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff article - comments requested

The new article on the recent UK court case is now available at Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Please see Talk:Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills for my comments on specific areas that need to be expanded.

There are a few inaccuracies in the related section in this article - I suggest that the section should be rewritten to reflect the new spinoff article. -- ChrisO 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section to make it consistent with the new article on the court case. -- ChrisO 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the section. It's short, sweet, to the point, and pretty unbiased. I'll go check out the new article on the actual court case in a little bit and let you know what I think there. Elhector 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of ExxonMobil as a Funding Source of SEPP

The following was added to the section on The Great Global Warming Swindle:

"President of the ExxonMobil supported Science and Environmental Policy Project"

The the way back machine reference citing a record from ExxonMobil's website seems to be an acceptable reference. That reference does not show the date(s) of the contributions but the second reference, from a Greenpeace website, does. These are from 1998 and 2000, supposedly, but the Greenpeace site does not provide a credible source for these allegations.

I object to this current addition because it leaves the reader with the misleading impression that ExxonMobil was a major source of SEPP's funding which cannot (easily) be validated since SEPP claims to not reveal their funding sources. But even if we accept that SEPP did, in fact, accept something on the order to $10,000 in each of 1998 and 2000 it is unlikely that these are the sole sources of funds, or even a significant proportion of the funds, provided by SEPP's funding sources.

I also object because the reader is left with the implication that ExxonMobil is only funding climate skeptics when in fact they provide far more funding to worthy environmental causes every year.

I am going to remove the above text from the article. If the community feels that it is critical that we call out this source of funding then we can still mention the relationship but I will want to do so in a way that is not misleading regarding my objections above. --GoRight 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably fair William M. Connolley 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to where it belongs. --GoRight 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, why is Singer quoted at all? For example, in his op-ed cited here the statement "the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2" is patent nonsense. (No, it's not open to argument or interpretation -- this is flat-earth, moon-made-of-green-cheese wrongness.) Raymond Arritt 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)\

I didn't introduce the text for The Great Global Warming Swindle, in this article but it does seem to be appropriate to include this reference as valid criticism of AIT. Fred Singer is a legitimate climate scientist with legitimate credentials. The physics regarding the solubility of CO2 in sea water is well understood. His statement is merely a reflection of that relationship as well as the documented lag of 800-1000 years between observed warming and CO2 rises in the ice core data. --GoRight 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Singer isn't a clim scientist, but that doesn't necessarily matter. However, there is no obvious reason to include a quote from him, when there are no quotes from those opposing TGGWS William M. Connolley 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Side question

Why is "the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2" patent nonsense? I understand that sea surface warming would tend to absorb CO2 but it also seems reasonable that warming of the ocean floor would take carbonate from the solid form and put it in solution. I have no data or anything to suggest it happens, but chemically it seems plausible. Dissolved CO2 that reaches a certain depth I believe becomes a precipitate and goes to the ocean floor. This process is often touted as a mitigation to excess CO2 so I'm not sure why it's reversal due to warming temperature and reduced ocean density would be patent nonsense. If the ocean floor had enough carbonate, I suspect that the carbonate in the ocean and the atmosphere would rise as the temperature rose. It's a thought experiment though. --DHeyward 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. We know where the atmos CO2 is coming from. Warming SST would lead to less CO2 in the ocean. And most of the warming is at the sfc, so there is little warming of the ocean floor William M. Connolley 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem intuitively plausible until you actually look at data. That the oceans are acting as a sink of atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by ocean chemical measurements (e.g., oceans are becoming more acidic, meaning they're gaining CO2), isotopic trends in atmospheric carbon, and other lines of evidence. To say that the oceans are currently a source of CO2 you'd have to dream up some new data and discard everything we know. Raymond Arritt 21:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Think of this thought experiment: saturate a glass of water with bicarbonate until it precipates to the bottom (this isn't an ocean so I can't create pressure gradiant precipitates). If you then heat the glass of water, the water will gain carbonate from the source of the precipitates and pH will drop. This would also be a source of carbon for atmosphere as the equilibrium at the interface would change. It all depends on how much carbonate is available from the solid. There are 1,000 Gt of carbonate on the ocean floor. WC says that warming SST means less CO2 in the Ocean and RA says that warming means it's gaining CO2. I thought it was gaining CO2. --DHeyward 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Warming SST, with no other changes, outgasses CO2 (ie, your "I understand..." is wrong). Warming SST whilst increasing atmospheric CO2 is a balance; as it happens, the oceans are indeed gaining CO2 from the atmos and becoming more acidic, as RA says William M. Connolley 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aah, I understand now. Thanks. Couple more questions if someone wants to humor me.

I found some more articles on the ocean chemistry and it's still not clear to me how quickly dead and dying sea creatures go from the bottom of the ocean and back through the carbon cycle and what percentage of their carbon actually makes it to the bottom. Is there any definitive studies on deep ocean carbon or is this still a largely unknown field of study?

Do oceans covered in arctic ice sink as much CO2 as arctic open water (or another way to ask it is are under ice oceans as saturated with dissolved CO2 as much as arctic open water)? --DHeyward 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick question along these lines too. Methane is a greenhouse gas, right? Doesn't the Bermuda Triangle area belch methane into the atmosphere from the ocean floor? I thought I had seen on a documentary somewhere that this may be a cause of the issues airplanes and boats have with traversing that area in that it changes the atmosphere a little in that area and could possible screw with instruments on the planes and boats and also stall engines. Isn't it possible there are other areas in the ocean that belch up gases into the atmosphere. I'm just asking a general question because I'm curious. I'm not an atmospheric or oceanic scientist :-). Elhector 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly places where methane seeps out from the sea bed (see Cold seep) but I don't know how widespread such phenomena are. As far as I know, most methane on the sea floor ends up "frozen" in the form of methane clathrates. It's been suggested that methane clathrates may suddenly become unstable and outgas under certain circumstances; see Clathrate gun hypothesis. -- ChrisO 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New court case?

I understand that Viscount Monckton is intending to, or is already financing the distribution to UK schools of a Great Global Warming Swindle and his upcoming film financed by the Science and Public Policy Institute, "Apocalypse No". As these films represent a minority opinion in the scientific field I consider the showing of these films in schools unacceptable. What do people think about launching a similar court case to prevent the showing of these films in schools? Einztein 19:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for such a discussion (do you have £200K to fund a court case, anyway?) but I'd say that the most appropriate response would be to write to the Schools Minister. The contact details are at . -- ChrisO 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC Feedback

Readers of this page may be interested to listen to the latest edition of Feedback on BBC Radio 4, originally transmitted on October 19 (availiable to listen till October 26). http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/feedback

Roger Harrabin admits that the BBC may have given a misleading impression of the judgement in the first reports. He also defended (weakly, IMO) the fact he did not mention that the Scientific Alliance was intimately connected to The New Party (UK) when its representative Martin Livermore was brought on to criticise Al Gore's film. Harrabin bizarrely also seems to attempt to slur Gore by claiming that he shouted at Harrabin after an interview, but strangely Harrabin had "lost the tape". Einztein 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was interesting. Is there any evidence of Gore taking hostile questions well? William M. Connolley 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if the incident did happen, the question is what relevance did this incident have to the court case or the way that Harrabin had reported it? None IMO. I think Harrabin was trying to paint Gore as an untrustworthy figure to make his own presentation which was pandering too far to the minority sceptics seem "neutral". Totally disgraceful. Einztein 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually if his testimony before US Congress is any indication, Al Gore avoids the hard questions like the plague. He doesn't even bother to show up if he anticipates hard questions. --GoRight 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All roads lead to Exxon

What a surprise. The group with which Viscount Monckton (the backer of Dimmock and author of The New Party (UK)'s manifesto) is currently affiliated, the Science and Public Policy Institute is in fact an off shoot of the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, "a conservative group that maintains that human activities are not responsible for global warming" which "received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002". http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E1D91131F93BA15756C0A9659C8B63

Einztein 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Stanford discredited because of the $10 million grants they receive? --DHeyward 04:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference would be that Stanford's products aren't implicated in the problem, unless you count academic hot air... -- ChrisO 08:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that funding worked the other way round (i.e. Exxon funded Stanford). But this is an obvious ruse. If you want to promote a fringe view, just sponsor both legitimate work and work supporting the fringe. You will appear neutral, but you artificially prop up the fringe (not to a majority view, but to d degree that might allow you to claim "no consensus"). And, of course, Exxon may well have legitimate interest in good research as well. No good research is likely to come out of the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation (although some interesting studies might be made about them). --Stephan Schulz 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The other think tanks products are not affiliated with the problem either. I was pointing out that this is logical fallacy that support by Exxon is discrediting. The IPCC and AIC have blurred the lines between politics and science. It is very hard to separate out policy support and support for science but it really has to be done to treat organizations neutrally. --DHeyward 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Exxon funded any groups who lobby on the position that global warming is due to human activity? Einztein 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which organizations are lobbyists for the position that global warming is due to human activity? --DHeyward 16:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly does that matter? The IPCC view has had billions in funding poured into it and at this point there is an entire industry with a vested interest in protecting those funding streams. As a result there is a concerted effort to silence anyone who holds a contrary perspective or who challenges the IPCC view. This is evident from your statement above, is it not? Is the IPCC view so fragile that it is seriously threatened by such a modest investment in opposing research? --GoRight 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it matters incredibly. The oil companies and heavy industry are being quite deliberately dishonest as the know the truth about climate change, but they are just trying to spin things so it won't hurt their profits. They have a lot of money so they can hire experienced PR men and filmmakers to put doubt in many people's mind about global warming and they have succeeded in many cases with such films as The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is really crazy to suggest that somehow climate scientists since the 1970s have been being secretly funded by solar panel and wind turbine companies that probably didn't even exist at that time. Einztein 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is really crazy to suggest that somehow climate scientists since the 1970s have been being secretly funded by solar panel and wind turbine companies that probably didn't even exist at that time." This is not what I am claiming. What I am claiming is that the scientific community has created a situation where their funding streams to support on-going climate research is significantly enhanced by their current AGW positions. Regardless of where the money is coming from, be it industry or government sources, those people working in these fields have a vested interest in continuing to promote climate change as a catastrophic event simply because doing so will serve to pad their pockets with future grants. --GoRight 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No that is what you are arguing- you said "What I am claiming is that the scientific community has created a situation where their funding streams to support on-going climate research " - they have been talking about man made climate change since at least the 1970s. For what you are saying to be true the conspiracy must have started back then. They must have just invented man made climate change in the 1970s as a conspiracy to attack oil companies so they could cover the world in wind turbines and solar panels... Einztein 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea. Why don't we debate the science on its merits rather than complaining about who funded it? You know, I am sure, that the validity of the scientific results does not depend who paid for it, correct? --GoRight 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the people that fund groups that lobby on the side of global warming being human caused also have a financial interest? Arguing about who's funding what studies is useless. The same argument can be made both ways. Just as many people stand to profit big time from pushing the view that it is human caused as there from people standing to profit from pushing the opposite view. The whole issues is political and industry backed on both sides. That's why so many people are skeptical. I doubt any good science comes out of either side at this point. Neither side is to be trusted. Elhector 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That's why one side has the overwhelming support of the scientific community, and the other side has some unreviewed white papers produced by well-known conservative think tanks. How do you suppose the "pro-AGW" conspiracy manages to undermine the scientific integrity of the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, and many other national academies, all of which have formally supported the IPCC position, NASA, NOAA, the Universites of Oxford, Chicago, Potsdam, Bern, Kiel, Tokyo, Arizona, Penn State, Iowa State, Ohio State, ETH Zurich, Stony Brook, Yale (to name a few), all of which happily employ IPCC contributors in senior positions, and the editorial staff of e.g. Science (journal), Nature (journal), and Cambridge University Press, which publishes these junk-science reports? --Stephan Schulz 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the groups you reference above have the most to loose if AGW were disproved as meaningless. As such they are the most likely to be biased if we want to look at the total money influence on the debate. The amount of money being channeled into these groups far exceeds the money Exxon channels into the climate skeptic groups. If you are truly worried that money is corrupting the science you would do well to consider the impact that reduced climate study grants would have on the AGW "scientific community" at this point. They have a vested interest in keeping their climate funding streams alive and well, and those streams are far larger than anything the skeptics are getting from Exxon. --GoRight 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Isn't it possible that the people that fund groups that lobby on the side of global warming being human caused also have a financial interest"- right so that would be the ultra powerful solar power or wind power lobby, except there isn't one. You don't have to be Einztein to see the problem here, oil companies and heavy industry don't want "green" taxes on their business and they don't want people to stop using their products by having the knowledge that they are contributing to climate change. It's entirely selfish. Einztein 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is tons of money in green companys. Take these carbon credit companies. I believe Al Gore is on the board for one of them. He buys credits from this firm to justify his energy comsumption. They stand to make lots and lots of money if enough studies come out telling people they need to be "carbon neutral". Plus there is tons and tons of grant money available to research firms and colleges if they complete studies that show global warming is human caused. Trust me the eco friendly industry is just as big and has just as much profit potential as oil companies due. GE is a prime example, they make tons of money off of wind powered generators and hydro electric generators for dams. Everyone is so quick do demonize the oil companies when I think companies that claim be eco friendly and sell "green products" and carbon credits are guilty of the exact same profiteering as big oil. Not that profits are a bad thing, I mean capatilism is awesome. I'm just saying the science and debate of global climate change has been hijacked by politicians and big business and it's definately on both sides of the argument. Elhector 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gore isn't on the board of a carbon credit company. He's the chairman and co-founder of a private equity partnership that will one day invest in green-tinged small- and medium-sized businesses but currently invests in large and not-particularly-green companies like Autodesk, General Electric and Staples. It also sells unspecified "research" to companies that want to be greener. Gore doesn't buy carbon credits from this partnership, or indeed from anyone else as far as I can tell (despite what his spokesman is quoted as saying on the Gore Controversies page). The partnership buys carbon credits from carbon-credit suppliers and uses them to "offset" the partners' lifestyles so that the partnership can claim to be zero-carbon - a legitimate business expense, I suppose, when the partnership is in the business of selling green "research", but it does seem odd that a London-based company should be buying credits to cover the footprint of a mansion in Tennessee and of Mr Gore's jet travel here, there and everywhere. That's globalisation for you. Vinny Burgoo 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a report on the level of funding going into climate related science (). You may complain about the source of my reference but the data speaks for itself on this point. As you can see this funding has been growing over the past few decades and must be, but virtue of its shear size, supporting a large number of researchers ... all of whom have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate. At this point it should be obvious to those complaining about ExxonMobil's funding that most climate researchers have already determined that it is far more lucrative to be a supporter of AGW than it is to be a skeptic. This sort of makes me wonder just how "unbiased" their opinions really are ... I mean as long as we are going to be considering the sources of one's funding, right? Personally, I prefer to let the science from either side stand on its merits rather than back biting logical fallacies. But maybe that is just me. --GoRight 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

2 x SPPI?

Now we have something strange here. Dr. George Carlo apparently founded a Science and Public Policy Institute in 1994, along with its Safe Wireless Initiative. Carlo sent a letter to Ben Goldacre dated June 2, 2007, still listing himself as being associated with the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) with the address given as 1101, Pennsylvania Ave. NW — 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20004.

One month later, Mr. Robert "Bob" Ferguson, one time Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy, a project of "Frontiers of Freedom", chaired by aristocratic (his bro-in-law Lord Carnarvon is best friends with the Queen) former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop started using the exact same name, the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) on a new website where he is also listed as Executive Director with exactly the same advisers that he had for the Center for Science and Public Policy, and at the same street address, 209 Pennsylvania Ave. So did Mr. Carlo sell the name to Mr. Ferguson, or is it normal for two unrelated yet identically named organizations to exist on the same street in Washington? Einztein 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Expert" testimony

"On the basis of expert testimony, the judge also pointed to nine statements...".

Which expert testimony is this statement referring to? The case indicates only Bob Carter (a skeptic) had input resulting in the "nine statements" judgement. This sentence should be clarified. Unless otherwise indicated, I'd like to rephrase this as "On the basis of testimony from Dr. Bob Carter, the judge...". See case: ] Gmb92 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of singling out ExxonMobil in the NSTA section.

The NSTA section is currently calling out ExxonMobil as a contributor with the implication that showing the film might cause ExxonMobil to modify their funding level to NSTA. The source provided amounts to nothing more than conjecture on the part of the article's author and provides no substantiation to back up that claim.

The current reference is misleading in that it suggests that ExxonMobil (1) is a majority contributor (at least a highly significant contributor) to the NSTA, and (2) that they are using their funding of NSTA as a means of influencing the NSTA's decisions. The latter point has yet to be substantiated.

In the interest of brevity within the article I will be removing this reference. If the community feels that it is critical to call out the supporters of NSTA who might take the showing of this film into their funding decisions I would argue that we would need to provide a comprehensive list of those supporters rather than cherry picking ExxonMobil. A more comprehensive list would be: Albertson’s Inc., Alcoa Inc., American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of Physics Teachers, American Chemical Society, American Chemistry Council, American Electric Power, American Geophysical Union, American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council, Apple Computer Inc., Association of Science-Technology Centers, Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Biotechnology Institute, California Science Teachers Association (CSTA), Carolina Biological Supply Co., Center of Science and Industry (COSI), Chevron/Davis Foundation, The Children’s Book Council Inc., Ciba Specialty Chemicals Education Foundation, Clark Foundation, Colorado State University, The Cooper Foundation, Cornell University, Delta Education, Dow Chemical Company, Dragonfly TV—Twin Cities Public Television, Drug Chemical & Allied Trades Association, DuPont Co., Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, Ernst & Young LLP, Estes Industries, ExxonMobil Foundation, GEICO, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, Great Source Education Group Inc., Harcourt School Publishers, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Horizon Research Inc., IBM Corporation, Intel, JASON Academy for Science Teaching and Learning, Joullian Foundation, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Learning Network Inc., LEGOLAND, Lockheed Martin, Lysol® Brand, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Division, Maryland Science Center, MBNA, MeasureNet, Medtronic Foundation, Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), Memphis Urban Systemic Program, Merck Institute for Science Education, Micron Technology Inc., Montana State University National Teachers, Enhancement Network, Moran Oil, NASCO, National Academy of Science/National Research Council, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Alliance of State Science and Math Coalitions, National Association of Biology Teachers, National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers of Education, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institutes of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Science Resources Center, Nokia, NPS Pharmaceuticals, Ohaus Corporation, Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, Partners in Public Education (PIPE), Paul F-Brandwein Institute, Pearson Learning, Phillips Petroleum Co., The Planetary Society, Prentice Hall, RAM Energy, The Research University Foundation of SUNY, Reuben R. Fleet Science Center and IMAX Theater, San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego Museum of Natural History, San Diego Science Educators Association (SDSEA), San Diego Wild Animal Park, San Diego Zoo, Science Education Council of Ohio (SECO), Science Screen Report Inc., The Scope Shoppe, Scott Foresman, Sears Craftsman®, Shell Oil Company, SeaWorld San Diego, Smithsonian Institution, Southwest Airlines, Space Foundation, The Spencer Foundation, Starr Commonwealth, State Farm Insurance, T & S Educational Inc., Tennessee Book Company, Tennessee Science Teachers Association (TSTA), Texas Instruments, Tommy Hilfiger Corporate Foundation, Toshiba America Foundation, Toshiba America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., TryScience (NY Hall of Science), U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, University of Maryland College of Life Sciences, Utah Science Teachers Association (USTA), Vernier Software & Technology, WGBH, The Wireless Foundation --GoRight 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we add the ExxonMobil reference back in I would seek to highlight the following statement direct from NSTA:

In the op-ed Ms. David goes on to characterize NSTA as a willing corporate America partner that eagerly pushes corporate messages about the environment.

This is not true.

The perception created by the op-ed that NSTA has a conflict of interest in dealing with corporate America is misleading. This is a very serious issue to NSTA and science education. Like many organizations, NSTA does receive support from corporate America and other organizations (in FY06 total corporate support received by NSTA was 16.4% and total support from energy companies was 3.77%). Before we accept any funds from outside groups (corporate or otherwise), and as a condition of any support, we make it clear that NSTA is solely responsible for developing, directing, and implementing the programs we offer to teachers.

Let me specifically address the programs outlined in the op-ed: ExxonMobil has been a long-time sponsor of the national network we call Building a Presence for Science. In this project we have identified a "point of contact" for science in over 40,000 school buildings. Originally conceived to provide a copy of the National Science Education Standards to each school, NSTA now regularly sends these points of contact useful information on science education that they share with teachers in their buildings. Not once has ExxonMobil asked to use this network for their own purposes.

The Shell Oil Company funds national research science experts to present at our national conference, where they speak directly to science teachers about their field of research. NSTA chooses the scientists, invites the scientists, and hosts the scientists at these conferences. In addition, the Shell Oil Company sponsors the Shell Science Teaching award for K-12 science teachers who have had a positive impact on their students, school, and community through exemplary classroom teaching. This award program is administered by NSTA and the recipients are chosen by science teachers selected by NSTA.

The partnership with API, which ended 5 years ago, led to the creation of a simulation, done entirely by NSTA, on energy usage. The video in question, "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel" was not on our website.

--GoRight 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to present NSTA's view, but the Washington Post source is a valid contribution to this article. Exxon's goals in these types of partnerships is clear (see memo below) and they do have at least some degree of influence over the organization. Many heavy CO2 emitters are in this list, so perhaps the quote should be rephrased rather than singling out Exxon. The Post source uses other examples of NSTA corporate donors in the American Petroleum Institute and Shell Oil.

And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996, mostly for the association's "Building a Presence for Science" program, an electronic networking initiative intended to "bring standards-based teaching and learning" into schools, according to the NSTA Web site. Exxon Mobil has a representative on the group's corporate advisory board. And in 2003, NSTA gave the company an award for its commitment to science education.

So much for special interests and implicit endorsements.

In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school.

And Exxon Mobil isn't the only one getting in on the action. Through textbooks, classroom posters and teacher seminars, the oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox.

NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence.

The education organization also hosts an annual convention -- which is described on Exxon Mobil's Web site as featuring "more than 450 companies and organizations displaying the most current textbooks, lab equipment, computer hardware and software, and teaching enhancements." The company "regularly displays" its "many . . . education materials" at the exhibition. John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto.

"The materials from the American Petroleum Institute and the other corporate interests are the worst form of a lie: omission," Borowski says. "The oil and coal guys won't address global warming, and the timber industry papers over clear-cuts."

An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."

]

To add to this, here's a view from a blog run by highly-credentialed climate scientists: ] Gmb92 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to a reference and relevant quotes being made from the Washington Post piece. In fact the article is still prominently referenced where it was at the start. What I do object to is presenting the information in a biased and misleading way. From the quote above it is clear that the total funding support for NSTA which comes from energy companies is only 3.77% of their FY06 budget, and ExxonMobil would only represent a portion of that. I don't believe that it is fair to claim that one company making donations totaling less that 3.77% of the NSTA budget is somehow running roughshod over the organization or that the organization is bending over backwards to protect that minuscule amount of funding. What is also clear from the NSTA response is that ExxonMobil has been a no strings attached contributor for many years since the NSTA makes it quite clear that ExxonMobil has NOT in fact tried to influence NSTA members via the parent organization in a manner similar to what the AIT producers HAVE done.

What is obvious from ExxonMobil's website is that in addition to the science related donations that you HAVE mentioned, there are numerous worthy environmental causes which they regularly support to a far greater extent that you HAVE NOT mentioned. Ergo, your selectivity provides a misleading representation of ExxonMobil's contributions to the environment. I simply object to trying to paint the picture that a corporation which contributes to many worthwhile environmental causes is being nefarious and inherently anti-environment out of self-interest. If we want to paint the ExxonMobil picture that is fine, I only want to make sure that it is an accurate and balanced picture.

With regard to the RealClimate position on this issue, and giving all due respect to the climate scientists running that site and I believe some of whom contribute here, they are hardly an unbiased reference. As climate scientists their personal livelihoods are to some extent dependent upon and to a larger extent enhanced by their promoting a pro-AGW message. A pro-AGW perspective generates increased levels of climate related funding which, in turn, facilitates and enhances their livelihoods. You are asking me to believe that NSTA has been influenced because less that 3.77% of their funds come from Exxon Mobil yet you want me to ignore that fact that a far larger percentage of these people's entire livelihoods are dependent upon AGW related grants. This does not seem reasonable to me. I have no axe to grind with the scientists who run RealClimate, nor am I suggesting that they are anything other than honest and forthright individuals, but if we are going to consider the potential influences of funding streams on the results being reported I have to legitimately question their objectivity.

--GoRight 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you're claiming in this last paragraph is something amounting to a conspiracy on a massive scale that could be arbitrarily applied to nearly any branch of science with not a shred of evidence supporting it. The conspiracy theory doesn't make much logical sense. For instance, for the sake of argument, if somehow it was proven scientifically that GHGs don't warm the Earth (extremely unlikely at this point), there will be a need to continue to fund climate studies regardless of causation. We will still have a great need to know where the climate is headed and what influence, if any, human activities might have going forward. Contrast this to clear and demonstrable links between individual companies funding perspectives against the virtual scientific consensus and working to influence public policy. Like the Post article mentioned, a leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute stated a goal was "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future." If you study the issue closely, you'll notice that many of the handful of skeptics (Singer, Lindzen for example) have been paid not only to dispute climate change but also the scientific consensus on the health effects of tobacco. Coincidence? Like tobacco companies, energy companies also act in their self-interest. Tobacco companies have no interest in getting people off cigarrettes. Similarly, companies like Exxon have no interest in curbing emissions.

Regarding NSTA funding, most is fixed from the government. Private funding isn't. Exxon and Shell have no obligation to donate to them. They do so hoping to influence a small subset of scientific issues. They've effectively put one of their reps on NSTA's advisory board. Conceivably they could have had an effect on an issue of importance to them.

Ultimately, the view of the experts who study climate change in depth are very relevant to this topic, regardless of whether or not one thinks their scientific integrity has been compromised. We should work to incorporate their view, the Post piece and NSTA's into this section.Gmb92 07:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming any type of conspiracy, massive or otherwise. I am merely claiming that the climate scientists act (individually) in their own interest just as you claim the corporations do. Personally, I prefer to evaluate the science based on its merits rather than on who its funding sources are. Are you of the opinion that just because ExxonMobil funded a research project that it could not have yielded any valid scientific results? If so this is clearly not an argument based on sound deductive logic. There is no direct cause and effect between a funding source and the scientific value of the results obtained. The scientific results can be independently assessed and confirmed or refuted regardless of who the original funders were. This is how the science should be evaluated, not by ad hominem attacks on the funders.

Do you have any actual evidence that Exxon has tried to influence NSTA in terms of things that they support or not? If not how is your charge anything more than the pure conjecture that you accuse me of with respect to climate scientists? It isn't.

You are correct that Exxon and Shell are under no obligation to fund NSTA which is correct, and yet they still do and on a regular basis. How much money have the AIT producers donated to independent organizations such as NSTA or any of the other environmental causes that Exxon donates to every year? I suspect that there is a significant disparity between the two. Exxon is not obligated to donate to the Tigers either yet they do. What is their self interest in this case?

As for your last paragraph, I am not seeking to restrict the ability of the climate scientists to state their positions in any way, although you seem to be seeking to restrict the ability of those scientists who happen to disagree with them to voice their views are you not? As I said before, I have no problem with presenting the views of all of the groups you mention into this article. If you actually read the article you will see that those views remain represented so I am not sure what you feel we need to work towards in that regard. My perspective is that we work towards a fair and objective discussion of all sides of the debate. I will continue to argue against introducing material that is misleading, whether intentional or not.

If you feel that something is missing in terms of representing the views of the groups you are discussing what would that be? Make a proposal or add it to the article. Just don't do so in a misleading or biased way and I won't complain. --GoRight 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Climate scientists have no reason to compromise their scientific integrity or their objectivity. Their research will be funded regardless of their conclusions on global warming causation. Thus, there's no logical or factual basis for your assertion. Philip Morris will only fund those who take a stand against the scientific consensus on the dangers of smoking. Exxon will only fund those who take a position against global warming mitigation. That is the self-interest of corporations. In contrast to your assertion, this is well-documented. You seem to assume corporations are more altruistic.

The Realclimate commentary makes an excellent point on NSTA. While they rejected the Gore documentary on dubious grounds, their website promotes a book by a skeptic. ] Kenneth Green is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that seeks to avoid GW mitigation efforts. ] So while NSTA rejected a documentary that largely follows the consensus view on global warming (see Justice Burton's ruling), they are openly promoting a contrarian. If the issue is only with Al Gore and politics, you'd think they would find an alternative mainstream view to promote. The view of climate scientists on this issue is worth a note in this section.Gmb92 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have already noted, if one looks at the issue of funding sources objectively climate scientists have more reason to be biased than does NSTA. The availability of funds for climate research will clearly be greater if there is a pending world-wide climate catastrophe just around the corner, than if there is not. This is just common sense. If the pool of AGW related funding shrinks some climate scientists will be looking for other jobs or taking pay cuts. Either way they have a significant reason to be biased towards a pro-AGW perspective for financial reasons.

Exxon Mobil is pledging $100 million to Stanford University for "research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming." Are we to now assume that any research in this area that comes out of Stanford University should be simply ignored? Are we to assume that the university has been somehow tainted in this entire area? I seriously doubt that Stanford will be branded a skeptic organization just because Exxon Mobil made a contribution. Nor would I consider Stanford to have already taken a position against global warming mitigation as you claim they would have above (to be eligible for funding from and Exxon Mobil perspective).

However, even if I accept your claim of a purely self-interest driven agenda on the part of Exxon Mobil the fact that they would be selective in the research that they choose to fund is neither surprising nor objectionable. If the goal of science is to find the truth we must investigate all sides of the issue and accept where the data takes us. This includes doing research which may run contrary to the prevailing consensus of the day, does it not? What does it matter if this contrarian portion of the entire climate research picture happens to be funded by Exxon Mobil or any other party with a vested interest? Their doing so does not reduce the funding of the other portions of the climate research which you find more palatable or you have your own vested interests in, correct? As I pointed out above, the fact that Exxon Mobil funded a researcher who discovered a scientific fact that happens to be in Exxon Mobil's favor does NOT alter the scientific validity of that scientific fact one bit. The science should either stand or fall based on its merits, not based on who funded it.

The RealClimate commentary, at least as you describe it, fails to recognize that NSTA has offered multiple options to the AIT producers to promote the movie to NSTA members which would not violate their long standing policy of not endorsing products. One of those options was to provide information about the availability of the free AIT DVDs on their website. If the skeptics take NSTA up on their offer to advertise their products on the NSTA website but the AIT producers obstinately refuse to whose fault is that? The simple fact is that IF the AIT producers wanted to have their offer advertised on the NSTA website they could. They are simply choosing not to. This places their true motives into question in my mind, and your characterization of these facts is misleading on these points.

--GoRight 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, NSTA made claims of alternative offers. We don't know the authenticity or the details of these claims as stated or if there were certain strings attached. In fact, the film's producer (Laurie David) said she had not received the claimed offer. ]

Last Thursday, NSTA released a statement claiming it had offered us "many options" for "publicizing such programs" as An Inconvenient Truth to their members. In fact, Wheeler had promised by phone just the day before that he would meet with his board and come back with possible ways to get the disks into teacher's hands. Instead he went straight to the press, claiming I had turned down an offer I never received.

The wording of the section in this article should thus be changed from "highlighting" to "claimed" with the linked response by David. As noted by Post piece, NSTA let it slip that the film was rejected in part due to "It places unnecessary risk upon the capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters". ]

You've still not presented a logical or factual case for your continued claim that the very strong majority of climate scientists compromise their scientific integrity to receive funding. If anything, the government, which funds much of these grants, would prefer an answer to the effect that we can't do anything about global warming - although not to the extent that polluters would. Regardless, the climate would always need continued study regardless of causation. Your charge is similar to saying that most of those who study heart disease are falsely claiming we can do something about it because if they say we can't, their funding would dry up. It's like saying all doctors who advocate treatment and continued office visits for a disease do so because they'd get less customers if they "admitted" there was no need for the treatment. It follows that the medical journals, researchers and schools from which these professionals base their opionions have similarly compromised their scientific integrity. Certainly, you can always single out a few who cross the line. Your charge amounts to nothing more than a vast conspiracy.

Your link to the Exxon/Stanford donation also notes the PR benefit of what is, in relative terms, a small donation for Exxon. Exxon also spends money on this sort of advertising. It represents 1/10th of a percent of what they pledge for oil and gas exploration. Improved public image keeps them politically relevant. Similarly, Philip Morris in recent years have spent large sums of money to improve their battered image through donations and advertising.

"If the goal of science is to find the truth we must investigate all sides of the issue and accept where the data takes us." Yes, as opposed funding or propping up only a fringe minority that tells certain industries what they want to hear. An entity interested in objectivity would not seek only scientists (or journalists in many cases) who support only their views against mitigation, such as the American Petroleum Institutes memo stating "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."Gmb92 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to an AAAS article on this controversy to provide a less biased assessment of the situation from a respected scientific publication. I also expanded your Huffington Post reference to include some important information from that reference that you (conveniently?) left out.

"Yes, as opposed funding or propping up only a fringe minority that tells certain industries what they want to hear." So you believe that Stanford University is a fringe minority organization that is being propped up by Exxon Mobil and will only tell them what they want to hear?

"An entity interested in objectivity would not seek only scientists (or journalists in many cases) who support only their views against mitigation, ..." I completely agree. As we have seen above Exxon Mobil has been demonstrated as supporting organizations across the entire spectrum of this debate (e.g. skeptics, Stanford, other environmentally aligned organizations). I am curious, do you know how much money the AIT producers have donated to the AGW skeptic organizations? I suspect that this amount would be quite low.

--GoRight 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"We don't know the authenticity or the details of these claims as stated or if there were certain strings attached." Likewise we don't know the authenticity or the details of David's denial, but there are multiple sources available which contradict her claim including the ScienceNOW article that I included as well as her own commentary within the article that you, yourself, provide. Your claim that she never received such an offer (at all) is rather selective on your part given that she herself then goes on to list several options which had been presented to her and openly complains about them. What is blatantly obvious from the most recent references is that (1) David wanted NSTA to issue a cover letter (thus providing an implicit product endorsement, especially in the face of their long standing policy against providing such endorsements in the form of cover letters and unrequested solicitations), and (2) she wanted to have the DVDs distributed at the expense of NSTA (since she complained about mailing costs) which, again, would undeniably constitute a finanical endorsement of the film if nothing else.

"You've still not presented a logical or factual case for your continued claim ..." I have presented the completely logical assertion that "promoting AGW catastrophe = more climate funding" coupled with the equally logical assertion "less climate funding = fewer climate scientists or reduced climate scientist salaries". You seem to be confusing the notion of "less funding" with "no funding", and the notion of "fewer climate scientists" with "no climate scientists". These terms are not equivalent, nor should these dots be that difficult to connect.

"If anything, the government, which funds much of these grants, would prefer an answer to the effect that we can't do anything about global warming - although not to the extent that polluters would." This perspective sort of depends on the government in question. Those governments who stand to gain economically under Kyoto (i.e. almost every one other than the United States) have a strong incentive to promote AGW catastrophe fears since the mitigation strategies will inevitably improve their ability to compete with the larger and better established economies in the world. This is one of the primary incentives any government has to sign onto Kyoto since, as you yourself point out, their natural incentive would be to ignore AGW altogether.

"Your charge is similar to saying that most of those who study heart disease are falsely claiming we can do something about it because if they say we can't, their funding would dry up." This attempt at an analogy is seriously flawed. In the case of medical science, treatments typically undergo double blind studies to establish not only their safety but their efficacy. Thus we are assured that these treatments do, in fact, address the maladies for which they are prescribed. Unlike heart disease which clearly exists and is not at all controversial, climate change has neither (1) been proven undeniably to be caused predominantly by man made sources, (2) been proven to be catastrophic even if it does occur, nor (3) had the proposed mitigation strategies validated in a double blind study (which doesn't even make sense). To compare these two is clearly fallacious.

"Your charge amounts to nothing more than a vast conspiracy." You repeat yourself. Please review the discussion above. As I clearly stated my observation does NOT rely in any way on collusion or conspiracy amongst the climate scientists, only a common sense notion of self-interest on their parts.

--GoRight 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Likewise we don't know the authenticity or the details of David's denial, but there are multiple sources available which contradict her claim including the ScienceNOW article that I included as well as her own commentary within the article that you, yourself, provide. Your claim that she never received such an offer (at all) is rather selective on your part given that she herself then goes on to list several options which had been presented to her and openly complains about them. What is blatantly obvious from the most recent references is that (1) David wanted NSTA to issue a cover letter (thus providing an implicit product endorsement, especially in the face of their long standing policy against providing such endorsements in the form of cover letters and unrequested solicitations), and (2) she wanted to have the DVDs distributed at the expense of NSTA (since she complained about mailing costs) which, again, would undeniably constitute a finanical endorsement of the film if nothing else. "

So the NSTA only endorses and distribute material from those who give them the most money, as opposed to those who present an accurate view? That's one of arguments presented by David and climate scientists.

Not at all. Conjectures made by David and/or RealClimate do NOT constitute a reliable source under the rules of WP:RS. NSTA only endorses material that they themselves produce. AIT is not an NSTA production so why should they endorse it? As for having advertisements on their website these are available to everyone. Presumably Kenneth Green paid for his, something that AIT seems unwilling to do. Neither you nor David have produced any evidence that NSTA provided that advertisement free of charge (i.e. at NSTA's expense). Please provide a valid reference to substantiate that claim or drop it as it is unsourced at this point. As for the series produced by Wheeler the distribution costs were (presumably) covered as part of the funding provided by ConocoPhillips. Neither you nor David has produced any evidence that NSTA as an organization provided that distribution free of charge (i.e. at their expense). Please provide a valid reference to substantiate that claim or drop it as it is unsourced at this point. NSTA, a highly respected scientific organization which is frequently referenced as a respected authority in various science related articles, has made it clear that they are offering the AIT producers the exact same terms as they do for everyone else. If you or David can provide a valid reference to substantiate your claim that NSTA is giving preferential treatment to some organizations, please do so or drop the point. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"This perspective sort of depends on the government in question. Those governments who stand to gain economically under Kyoto (i.e. almost every one other than the United States) have a strong incentive to promote AGW catastrophe fears since the mitigation strategies will inevitably improve their ability to compete with the larger and better established economies in the world. This is one of the primary incentives any government has to sign onto Kyoto since, as you yourself point out, their natural incentive would be to ignore AGW altogether. "

No major government stands to gain from mitigation (unless the economic studies showing a net economic gain from mitigation materialize). Some countries will simply incur more costs than others. The scientific organizations in every major country, including the U.S., have reached similar conclusions on the issues. If the U.S. government wanted most to avoid mitigation, by your conspiracy logic, funding in the U.S. would only be provided to those who claim there's no problem. Thus, scientists on a massive scale would be compromising their scientific integrity by claiming there's no problem we can solve. Although there have been attempts by national leaders to influence organizations like the EPA, I don't think federal funding has been conditional. Both conspiracy theories rely on the assumption that government funding is conditional on conclusions and that on a massive scale, scientists and their many peers involved in the review process compromise their integrity to achieve more funding.

"Some countries will simply incur more costs than others." Which is precisely the mechanism by which some countries will gain and others will lose, relatively speaking. In other words, this is precisely the point. I also object to your mischaracterization of my position as being a "conspiracy theory". It is not, as I have pointed out numerous times. Either provide some rational argument as to how the effects I discuss require collaboration between the actors involved or retract your assertion as it is unfounded. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

" This attempt at an analogy is seriously flawed. In the case of medical science, treatments typically undergo double blind studies to establish not only their safety but their efficacy. Thus we are assured that these treatments do, in fact, address the maladies for which they are prescribed. Unlike heart disease which clearly exists and is not at all controversial, climate change has neither (1) been proven undeniably to be caused predominantly by man made sources, (2) been proven to be catastrophic even if it does occur, nor (3) had the proposed mitigation strategies validated in a double blind study (which doesn't even make sense). To compare these two is clearly fallacious."

You seem to be mistaking mathematics from science. Scientists don't claim absolute proof or knowledge. They form theories and objectively make observations, gaining evidence to support them. Anthropogenic causation is one such theory with very strong evidence to support it. Numerous studies have passed rigorous peer review processes. This has gradually lead to a virtual consensus among climate scientists. Regarding mitigation, absolute proof shouldn't be the level required before action is taken.

You seem to be the one that is confused about mathematics vs. science. Please explain the rationale by which you came to the conclusion that conducting double blind studies to assess the safety and efficacy of medical treatments constitutes "mathematics" as opposed to "science". You do understand what a double blind study is, do you not? It is a carefully constructed experiment designed to provide valid scientific evidence of a predicted result for a given treatment. Where are the climate scientist's equivalent of this time tested scientific methodology? It is true that climate science undergoes various peer review processes, I am not denying that. The point I made, however, is that those processes produce nothing even approaching the level of confidence provided by double blind studies in medical research which is why your analogy is flawed. They are not even close. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Going forward, I think we should limit this discussion to the topic at hand - that being the NSTA/An Inconvenient Truth issue specifically. There have been too many lengthy digressions.Gmb92 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Please provide valid references for your assertion that NSTA has acted in an unethical manner with respect to their position regarding the AIT producers. Conjectures made by David or RealClimate do not constitute evidence in this context. If you cannot provide such evidence please remove your claims in this respect from the article as they constitute a violation of WP:BLP which demands that they be purged not only from the article in question but these discussion pages as well. --GoRight 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent mudslinging in the NSTA section.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I was relatively happy with the version of the NSTA section prior to the edits of Gmb92 a few days ago. I don't object to having the points that Gmb92 wants discussed, but keeping the presentation balanced is drawing in quite a bit of additional material which could be considered extraneous to the primary point of the section which was, IMHO, adequately and fairly covered prior to the recent few days editing.

I don't consider a simple statement that "Laurie David said she never received an alternative offer" to be a fair representation of the facts. Quite the contrary. So I felt obligated to keep the record more balanced.

The introduction of a reference to a site such as RealClimate, while relevant, has the effect of introducing a biased perspective into the discussion simply because all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists. As I have said before, I have no particular axe to grind with those individuals and I am not seeking to impugn their motives but their opinions as expressed in the piece being referenced are clearly one-sided (i.e. biased). In response I provided a reference from AAAS that discussed the issue from both sides and highlighted a quote from the perspective on the other side of the issue from that expressed in the RealClimate piece.

Since I feel that the RealClimate piece is presenting only a single side of the issue I feel it is relevant to highlight some of the background of the contributors and the organization actually paying to host the site so that the reader is better able to keep their criticism in context. Highlighting the link to Environmental Media Services differs from the discussion of Exxon Mobil above in that EMS is funding 100% (I assume) of the hosting costs for the RealClimate site whereas Exxon Mobil is funding less than 3.77% of NSTA. Perhaps the best solution would be to remove the reference to RealClimate and simply reference the AAAS piece (and remove the included quote therefrom) as a somewhat neutral assessment?

--GoRight 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"I don't consider a simple statement that "Laurie David said she never received an alternative offer" to be a fair representation of the facts."

You're right. My mistake. I think we've collaborated to correct that.

RealClimate is a valid reference. While we have views from the film producer and NSTA, views from a number of experts who actually study the climate are a valid contribution. A neutral description of RealClimate is available in an earlier section of the article. Your opinion of RealClimate I removed from this article. Your "background information" is akin to posting an opinion from Fred Singer and saying something like "Fred Singer, who has ties to oil and Tobacco...". Linking to his Misplaced Pages article is sufficient.

"The introduction of a reference to a site such as RealClimate, while relevant, has the effect of introducing a biased perspective into the discussion simply because all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists."

If you haven't noticed, almost every scientist who studies the climate are "pro-AGW". There are a few on the fringe who are not. There's nothing biased about including views from those experts who support the scientific consensus.

"In response I provided a reference from AAAS that discussed the issue from both sides and highlighted a quote from the perspective on the other side of the issue from that expressed in the RealClimate piece."

I have no problem with the reference other than it requires a subscription to view. Is the article available through other outlets? What doesn't belong are POV statements such as "a less biased assessment".Gmb92 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Your opinion of RealClimate I removed from this article." That section is not my opinion, it is merely a statement of relevant facts. Which of part do you consider to be my opinion, the part where I state that all of the contributers at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists or the part where I state that the website is hosted by Environmental Media Services? Unless you can demonstrate where these statements are false they need to stay to provide context to the reader.

"If you haven't noticed, almost every scientist who studies the climate are 'pro-AGW'" Why, then, do you object to my pointing this out for context?

"I have no problem with the reference other than it requires a subscription to view." This is unfortunate and unavoidable, however it is available for free. The AAAS site requires that you create an account but some of their content, including this reference, is free of charge. I didn't realize that this was the case because I had already signed up for the free subscription for other purposes and was not even prompted when I viewed the article. I doubt that there is another venue since this will almost certainly be copyrighted material.

"What doesn't belong are POV statements such as 'a less biased assessment'." I accept that which is why I changed the wording to read "less one-sided assessment". As I said, I don't have a problem with referencing RealClimate as long as the presentation is kept balanced and in its proper perspective. The fact that all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists is a relevant piece of context for assessing their criticism. The AAAS article clearly discusses the issue from both the NSTA and Laurie David's perspectives and is therefore balanced.

I find your insistence on smearing the NSTA as being in the pockets of big oil when at most 3.77% of their funding comes from energy producers and when it has been highlighted that the energy companies have made no demands in exchange for their funding to be quite petty. The fact is that Laurie David was trying to push her film onto science teachers and wanted to do so at NSTA's expense AND wanted to make it appear as though NSTA had endorsed the film. NSTA doesn't provide a free distribution service or product endorsements to anyone else so why should Laurie David and AIT get a free ride? If Laurie David wants her film advertised and distributed through NSTA let her pay the going rates like everyone else. And I suspect THAT is where the rub comes in. So again, I ask you, how much money have the AIT film producers contributed to NSTA with no strings attached as opposed to publicly complaining that they aren't being given a free ride?

--GoRight 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of more reverting, some remarks about GR's latest edit:

1. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:RS and not to be used as such in Misplaced Pages articles.
2. Whatever "activistcash.com" is, it certainly is not a WP:RS either. And, no, it is not remotely as reliable as RealClimate, which has received positive coverage from a large number of scientific venues, including Science (journal) and Nature (journal).
3. There is no source for the claim that all RealClimate contributors believe that the current global warming trend is anthropogenic in origin. It also is a misleading oversimplification on several counts - a) in claiming they believe in human causes only, b) in suggesting that their reasoned opinion is "a belief", and c) in suggesting that this is unusual enough to be worth mentioning when the Shannon information content is essentially zero.
4. The hosting issue is rather irrelevant and certainly sufficiently covered in RealClimate, and the reported to be "the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications is even more remotely connected (not to mention missing a RS).

--Stephan Schulz 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why do consider "www.activistcash.com" a non reliable source? Elhector 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Have you looked at the site? --Stephan Schulz 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely serious. I have looked at it, used it from time to time. I stumbled upon it a while back and I've looked up a handful of orginizations on there and fact checked there info and didn't really find any major discrepencies. I haven't looked up every orginization or foundation they list but on the handful I did the info was accurate. Elhector 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses to SS:

1. I corrected this by simply referencing the RealClimate discussion of the issue. Is this a sufficiently reliable source (for you at least)?  :-)
2. ActivistCash.com is at least a reliable a source as RealClimate in the context of this discussion. The RealClimate reference that this section relies upon was no more peer reviewed or fact checked (required by WP:RS) than anything found on the ActivistCash site. (Perhaps this is a argument for removing the entire RealClimate portion from this section which would be fine with me?) The parent group supporting ActivistCash.com (The Center for Consumer Freedom) does not appear to have a stake in the whole global warming debate and is at least a neutral party, the RealClimate site cannot make any such claim.
3. On the point of all of them being AGW proponents, they have been criticized for censuring contrarian comments from their site and all of the positions on their site argue in favor of the AGW position. If you can point out any primary material from any of these contributors which expresses a contrarian position I will be open to changing my assertion. On the points you consider misleading I have sought to address those by a) inserting the word predominantly in front of the claim, b) noting here that their "reasoned opinion" IS "a belief" by definition since it is what they "believe" and my comment is appropriate because their "reasoned opinion" is no more or less valid than that of an equally credentialed contrarian, and c) noting here that the information content is significant because it allows the reader to understand the ideological and scientific opinions of those leveling the criticism.
4. The hosting issue is relevant because EMS certainly holds an ideological viewpoint which undoubtedly influences their decision to provide the funding to host this site and the ideological perspectives represented there.

Again I would be happy to remove the RealClimate reference altogether to avoid the controversy it is introducing and simply rely on the more ideologically neutral perspective found in the AAAS reference. Given that others felt that it was important to include the RealClimate reference I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to remove it. This leaves me in a position where I need to try and keep it presented in a balanced way.

--GoRight 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that "ActivistCash.com is at least a reliable a source as RealClimate" is so absurd that it barely merits a response. The contributors to realclimate.com are published scientists writing in their field of expertise, who give their names and capsule biographies. ActivistCash.com appears to be an astroturf organization and gives virtually no meaningful information on who is behind it. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A note on ActivistCash.com, which has suddenly made an appearance in at least one other article ] ]Gmb92 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

None of which affects the accuracy of the information provided there, nor changes the fact that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the AGW debate.

Yes they do. Read the links.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of Kenneth Green being a climate skeptic, since this term is being used as a pejorative in this context it is subject to WP:BLP. Unless you can provide a valid reference from a respected and neutral third party who satisfies WP:RS, let us stick with the characterization actually made in the RealCliimate reference which is simply his name.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Mr Connolley has changed the section to remove the reference to Mr Green. Thanks. Unfortunately the current text reads "RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, described the NSTA action as "bizarre", found their defence "unconvincing", wondered if their actions had been influenced by the NSTAs funding by Exxon and recommended that they improve their "paltry" supply of useful educational material relating to global warming."

While this new text summarizes the points made in the RealClimate piece it also contains a reference to a claim of impropriety on the part of NSTA with respect to being influenced by their Exxon funding. As we have discussed already the extent of Exxon's funding was less that 3.77% of the total NSTA budget, a sum hardly considered significant in the grand scheme. I would also like to point out that a charge of impropriety is subject to WP:BLP which requires an extra level of scrutiny from a referencing perspective.

While the contributors at RealClimate may be (indiviudally) authorities on climate change, I question their authority on the issue of the inner workings of the NSTA funding and/or decision making processes. On this topic they are clearly not a reliable source and their unfounded accusation amounts to pure conjecture. Misplaced Pages is not the place to be spreading pure conjecture as I understand it. Consistent with WP:BLP I would request that the accusation of impropriety on the part of living persons (i.e. the Exxon funding reference and influence accusation) be sourced using an authority that would be able to actually comment on such a circumstance or that this part of the statement be removed from the article.

--GoRight 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of a double standard with respect to referencing people's ideological leanings (especially those of living persons which makes them subject to WP:BLP) as we have seen yesterday there is an objection to my refering to the RealClimate contributors as adhering to the belief that the current global arming trend is anthropogenic in nature (a fact that I have confirmed directly with them here, and perhaps William M. Connolley would like to weigh in on this point as well?). I find it amusing to say the least that these climate scientists who argue in favor of there being a scientific consensus would object to be described as being associated with the fundamental point of that consensus. However, I assert that if it is relevant to point out the ideological leanings of Kenneth Green then it must be equally relevant to point out the ideological leanings of those leveling the criticism. Either the ideological leanings are relevant or they are not. So they are either all in, or they are all out. I don't care which.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since nearly all climate scientists have the qualified opinion that the evidence generally supports AGW as is typically defined, then the "ideological leanings" would be the mainstream virtual consensus. It would be close to saying "these scientists, who are pro-gravity, object to..." and you would be stating this as a way to push a POV that they have a bias. Since you began edits here by removing a similar phrase about Exxon, I would think you would understand this point. The argument in the RealClimate piece, as I understand it, is in addition to very little global warming materials promoted on their website, the NSTA has appeared to have no problem promoting contrarian views in lieu of the mainstream. Thus, the POV of Green is relevant to mention. However, I'd prefer to let one of their representatives phrase this part as they'd like.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no more POV pushing than when your side insists on labeling people "Skeptics" and "Deniers" or trying to imply impropriety by association with Exxon funding. When the level of the funding is less that 3.77% one has to question the objectivity and neutrality of those making the charge. I am in no way trying to mischaracterize the position of the people in question, only to describe that position in a neutral manner. Would "climate scientists who agree with the IPCC assessments" be less objectionable? I am merely trying to inform the reader of which side of the debate these particular climate scientists are on. I don't see why there should be an objection to accurately reflecting that position.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is related to WP:UNDUE in my view. You seem to be trying to push the notion that there are 2 roughly equal sides on AGW, which is the goal of adding a phrase like "pro-AGW" (simplistic as it is).

"Skeptics" is generally considered a positive phrase. What true scientist isn't a skeptic? "Deniers" is POV and not a phrase that I've put in any Misplaced Pages article, although I believe many do deny clear evidence on this topic. Few of them have published peer reviewed studies.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that scientists should be skeptics in the sense of being critical thinkers, however the use of the word "skeptic" in this context is essentially viewed as being the equivalent of "denier", at least in the the popular media, since the terms are used interchangeably. Given the confusion between the two we should seek to be more clear. --GoRight 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of discussing the ideological leanings of the group hosting RealClimate. Presumably EMS, which is an environmental advocacy group would not choose to host a site which is expressing opinions contrary to their own. The fact that they exercise no control over the content is irrelevant on this point. The mere fact that they are paying for the sight gives them at least ideological level control over the content, if not the specifics. I am confident that if the contributors at RealClimate were expressing views inconsistent with EMS's goals that they would pull their support (which is NOT a mere 3.77% of the budget for the RealClimate site but the entire budget for the operation of the site).

I am not saying that the contributors on RealClimate are acting unethically, only that their expressed positions must be in agreement with the hosting organization or that organization would pull their support. As such, this provides a valid insight into the ideological viewpoints being expressed on the site and if a relevant piece of context for the reader.

As such, I would propose that we modify the description of the RealClimate site to include "a group blog hosted by an environmental advocacy group and maintained by eleven climate scientists". Depending on the outcome of the ideological leanings discussion started above I would augment this further by appending "all of whom adhere to the belief that the current warming period are anthropogenic in origin". I don't like this clumsy wording but as we saw yesterday there is resistence to referring to them using a more succinct "pro-AGW" tag of some sort. As I said, I explicitly asked this point and receive a response directly on RealClimate here.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the contributors on RealClimate are acting unethically, only that their expressed positions must be in agreement with the hosting organization or that organization would pull their support - this is certainly a tortured piece of logic. There is any number of possible reasons why the hosting organization continues to host the site - from the trivial ("commitments are only reviewed once per year" to the highly moral "we encorage a diversity of opinions on principle" to the egoistic "whatever they say, being associated with the blog is a PR coup"). Or put differently: "Clearly the Wikimedia foundation must agree with everything you say - why else would they host your opinion?". --Stephan Schulz 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing tortured about it. EMS is an Environmental Advocacy Group by their own description. If RealClimate was advocating positions which were antithetical to their stated objectives they would pull the funding without question. This is the nature of such groups. They are hardly altruistic as you seem to believe, they are focused and dogmatic in the pursuit of their goals and their support of RealClimate is undoubtedly consistent with that perspective.

--GoRight 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm...you make unsubstantiated statements and back them up with more personal opinions, while ignoring what I wrote (I gave two scenarios that don't require an assumption of altruism at all). You also introduce more fallacies. There is a huge space between "being in agreement with" and "being antithetical to their stated objectives" (which are? and why would that be their real objectives?). Hosting a medium-traffic web site like RC is nearly free nowadays - I estimate it could run on my hosting contract, and I don't even know how little I pay - it's certainly not more than single digit Euros a month. Assuming EMS is a perfectly rational agent (big chance, that!), they would withdraw suport if that would be net gain for them. Even a minor PR problem ("EMS tries to silence scientists, closes website") is likely to be more costly for them than the minimal hosting fees. Your conclusion (RC publication furthers EMS goals) may well be right. But your argument for that is completely bogus. And of course RC may further EMS goals even if they do not agree, just like Nader helped Bush win against Gore... --Stephan Schulz 23:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You can quibble all you want. The simple (and completely substantiated) facts of the matter are:

1. 100% of the funding for operating the RC site comes from EMS, a fact that RC felt obliged to address.
2. The magnitude of the investment is immaterial, their motives for making it are and those motives are to be an environmental advocacy group.

The FACT that RC is being hosted by an environmental advocacy group is relevant information for the reader. The FACT is not in dispute so why do you argue so strenuously against having it stated? Is there something to hide here?

--GoRight 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The service of providing web hosting is similar to that of purchasing pencils and paper. If somehow this service wanted to exert any control over RealClimate, these scientists could simply find another hosting service with ease. That's why your argument is absurd and the information thus irrelevant, however you view the service. I've noticed that you've been pushing this in other articles recently.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The point, however, is that these scientists are not buying their pencils and paper, they are receiving them gratis from a group with an agenda. I believe that the reader should be informed of that relationship, which is not contested. I don't want to mischaracterize the facts but I do want the facts to be known. If you don't like the phrase "environmental advocacy group" I would be just as happy with listing the group by name and providing a link to the wiki page for them. Either way the facts are known and there is no reason to suppress them. Let the reader make their own judgements.

If RC finds their relationship with EMS uncomfortable, perhaps they should sever that relationship as you point out they are free to do.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they are similar to pencils and paper and are irrelevant. If they conditionally paid their salaries or a significant portion of it, you might have an argument.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: This section currently contains the following statement: "NSTA indicated that they retained editorial control over the content which David questioned based on the point of view portrayed in the global warming section of the video." This statement amounts to David calling Wheeler a liar on the issue of editorial control. Conjecture on the part of David is not proof of unethical conduct, and a charge of unethical conduct is subject to WP:BLP which states that unsourced or poorly sourced statements should be removed from the article as well as the discussion pages. Please provide a valid reference which complies with WP:RS to substantiate the claim that NSTA did not exercise control over the content in question when they have directly stated that they did. David is not a reliable source in this context because she did not have any direct knowledge or involvement in the production in question whereas Wheeler clearly did. Under these circumstances we should give the benefit of any doubt to the first hand participants (i.e. Wheeler).

--GoRight 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This amounts to an effort of censuring one equal half of the debate. This section deals with the issue of NSTA rejecting offers from the Gore team, of which David is a representative. Her view is largely supported by at least some of the experts in the field. Presenting both of their points of view from parties involved in the issue is relevant to this topic and not a violation of WP:RS. It is not for you to decide who gets the benefit of the doubt.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about POV. It is about presenting credible and verifiable facts. The NSTA is a well respected organization, they have issued a definitive statement on this point, and they are unquestionably in a position to know the facts. Laurie David? Not so much and it is quite evident from the facts that she is disgruntled because should couldn't get NSTA to pay her bills. RealClimate contributors? Respected in their field but not in a position to know the facts being discussed, so their statement amounts to nothing more than conjecture and innuendo (something that objective and neutral parties do not engage in). Misplaced Pages should not be about spreading conjecture and innuendo.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's say Fred Singer had a qualm with an organization - notable enough to mention on his page or their page. Should we really ignore his opinion of the organization's decisions simply because we have an opinion that he's not credible? Most certainly, his views would be central to the topic. My personal view is that if he had distinguished scientists on his side who had published peer-reviewed studies in the field related to the dispute, it would strengthen his case. If not, his view would be central to the issue, right or wrong. Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: I will abandon the threads above in favor of a new approach. I don't object to RealClimate being mentioned as the place where a particular article has been published, however blogs do not write articles, people do. I would propose to update these references to RealClimate to indicate the authors of the article and mention that they were published on RealClimate.

--GoRight 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating "by an anonymous editor" is POV scewing. Realclimate is a group blog, which has specified authors - when a posting is without attribution we can reasonably assume that either its an oversight - or its on behalf of them all. There is no specific reason to state which of the authors who are writing a specific thing - you would do that in the reference instead.

Unless you have a specific reason to believe that the authors on Realclimate disagree internally on postings on their blog - its simply crud. --Kim D. Petersen 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stating "by an anonymous editor" is POV scewing." No, stating that it was anonymously posted is a statement of fact. Do you deny that the post in question is anonymous? To some level that is the point I was making by writing it that way. A statement that "Anonymous = All Contributors" is non-sense, IMHO, for the following reasons:

1. The list of contributors at the site might change over time, thus an interested reader cannot trust that a perusal of the current contributers there reflects exactly who actually endorsed the article when it was written, and it is only on the credentials of those actually involved that any claim of legitimacy can be made.
2. Unless I am mistaken, WP:RS doesn't allow the use of anonymous sources which this clearly is. There is no way to know (1) who wrote it, (2) which of the site's contributors actually endorse it, or even (3) whether it was actually written by someone other than one of the publicly acknowledged contributers listed on the site (admittedly less likely but still a legitimate concern).

I would be happy to update the text to include the name of the author, or list of authors, once they have been identified and I no longer object to the statement being included as long as it is clear that the statement was posted anonymously or (preferably) by a set of identified individuals whose credentials can actually be assessed and examined.

--GoRight 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No WP:RS isn't concerned about anon or not. You can find plenty of reliable "anonymous" news-articles. Its concerned about editorial oversight, reliability and fact-checking of the sources. RC has a good (not to say excellent) record on all three. We know who wrote it: One of the contributors to RC - which are limited to a select few. If and when the list of contributors change - this might become an issue - it currently isn't. Do we also need the names of the editors of the WSJ? It appeared on RC - its endorced as at least factually and reliable by the editors of the blog. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Media section

I would ask editors take a look at this series of edits and determine whether it is appropriate for the article. Editor User:rogerfgay added

"A 1 November 2007 commentary in Men's News Daily opines that the film took advantage of growing interest in the use of the documentary style in fictional works such as The Blair Witch Project. Given the backlash against the film the article laments, "It may be generations before anyone can believe, even in real documentaries."

I question whether Men's News Daily is a reliable source (and/or worth quoting) and whether User:rogerfgay has a conflict of interest given that the article on MND was written by a Roger F. Gay who is not, incidentally, a professional film critic. These edits do not appear to me to meet the criteria for citing oneself. Since I have dealt with a similar issue with Mr. Gay on a very different page, it would be good if other editors made the decision here.--Slp1 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not notable I have removed. The PETA stuff which has recently appeared also appears to be undue weight. We don't need sections on every fringe group that has criticised AIT. Iceage77 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate

I see we're disagreeing about how to describe RC. "RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists..." is not unreasonable but its cubmersome to repeat and would be tedious to change were someone to leave or join. I would suggest just "RealClimate" - the link is there to follow if you want to William M. Connolley 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It also saves the minor inconvenience of changing all occurrences of the text whenever one of the contributors dies, or is bought by Exxon, or, heaven forbid, a new one joins. Or, in case the details at various times become important, consider "RealClimate, a blog maintained by the New York times reas estate editor, but kept by the UN peacekeeping mission for Alaska from 2009 to 2011 and by a group of enemies of the state before that"... I think it is preferable to keep the details in the article. --Stephan Schulz 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem referring to RealClimate as a venue where identified people publish their work, but in the end it is the people who provide the content. Readers have a right to know where the content is actually coming from if you seek to use their personal credentials as a claim of legitimacy (which I consider fine as long as we know whose credentials we are talking about on a case by case basis).

I believe that I have offered a good faith alternative which inherently addresses all of the concerns you both have listed above. By referring to the actual people the contributers at RC can come and go at will without affecting the accuracy of the cites here. Without such information the reader may at some point in the future be mislead as to who is endorsing what if the membership at RC changes. (Yes I know that this is unlikely to occur, in total, but it is a fair concern even with small changes in membership.)

I consider my change to be good faith because the Eric Steig modification clearly left a reference to his being a climate scientist and a reference to RC in a relatively clean way which I assume was the desired content and impression based on the previous description. The problem comes in with the anonymous articles for the reasons cited above. I only included the "anonymous author" bit to illustrate the problem. I assumed that the point would be raised here and discussed in full as it now is.

Is there some rationale for why articles at RC are being written anonymously? --GoRight 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Eric Steig reference in particular should be changed to quote him rather than RC because, in context, he makes it clear that he's presenting HIS opinion, not that of RC: "How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research." He goes on to differentiate his opinion from that of "his colleagues" (presumably other people at RC, though he doesn't say) in regards to scientific accuracy. I think attributing his opinion to all of RC is disingenuous. link Oren0 20:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

William Gray Quotes

William Gray is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Gray is also a controversial figure in the global warming debate, as he does not subscribe to anthropogenic causes for global warming.

He is properly credentialled to be listed in the academic sub-section of the criticism portion of the article. I assert that he must be relevant to the GW debate because there is a lot of activity on his BLP page seeking to discredit him by cherry picking comments out of a number of news articles, self-published sources, and going so far as to rely on individual blog comments from pages in Google's cache.

Given his status as a widely recognized expert in hurricanes, a topic of some discussion in the IPCC assessments, and given that there are numerous press accounts for him within the context of GW his comments are suitable for inclusion.

Claims of undue weight in this case are inappropriate because there is currently only one dissenting voice listed within the academic section of the criticism. As we know there is more than one such voice, so in fact NOT listing additional voices is an example of undue weight, IMHO.

I believe that his comments should be left in tact.

--GoRight 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article is in need of another dissenting voice to maintain proper balance. I think Gray's expertise qualifies him, and I think a claim such as him having "no GW-specific expertise" is absurd. Please explain why a PhD in Geophysical Sciences and a professor of Atmospheric Sciences is unqualified to make statements about climate. Oren0 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Gray is listed on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which is fairly tightly controlled on who they allow to be put on the list if you read the discussion pages. --GoRight 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's arguably not that tightly controlled: "Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate." What would help his WP page would be a list of his publications. Gmb92 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Refer to this thread in which the pro-AGW forces are arguing to keep Roger Pielke OFF the list. The people allowed on the list are heavily scrutinized. --GoRight 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't appear to be around Pielke's credentials but more centered around Pielke's unclear view on 1 or more of 3 basic positions declared in the article. Gmb92 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This one comment should make the point nicely:

"Whether P requested inclusion or not (he didn't) is irrelevant. You don't get onto this highly selective list merely by asking to be in. So we're back to the quote. Ron has a habit of mischaracterising debate in his favour (and it would seem that CE has joined in the same mischaracterisation). The IPCC doesn't make forecasts, it does projections: P is well aware of this William M. Connolley 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)"

WC is obviously trying to keep Pielke OFF the list and he himself terms the list "highly selective". So is it now your contention that WC is not credible since you are arguing a position opposite to his comment here?  :-)

--GoRight 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. How are my views in opposition? Are you attempting to build a strawman? Gmb92 01:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me put the relevant commentary in one place for you:

"It's arguably not that tightly controlled," Gmb92

"You don't get onto this highly selective list merely by asking to be in," William Connolley

I consider these points to be in opposition.

The very fact that Gray is on this list and that WC argues that the list is "highly selective" is sufficient evidence that Gray's commentary is credible in terms of criticizing the basis of this film. As WC points out, they don't let just anybody onto that list yet Gray qualified and part of the qualification is having been published appropriately.

Gray is undeniably qualified to comment here in the academic section of the criticism by virtue of being on this list if nothing else.

So, again, is this conversation going anywhere or is it your intent to stonewall things here and continue to revert my edit?

--GoRight 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused. I haven't reverted any edits regarding Gray here or made comments on the Gray content in this article as of yet. You are also confusing 2 sets of criteria for being in that list. The first involves a person's credentials. Repeating this from the article: "Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate." So by this standard, it's arguably not that stringent but certainly more stringent than allowing anyone (you or me for instance) to be included based simply on being asked to be on there. The other criteria is having made statements that oppose one of the 3 positions outlined in the article which is what the topic of discussion is about. By this standard, it's more stringent. Gmb92 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that WIlliam forgot to add WP:SARCASM tag to his claim about selectivity.... --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Steven Milloy

There is no problem with Stephen Milloy for this quote. He is at least as credible as Laurie David who is being prominantly discussed in this section and has been quoted on her opinions. Regardless, he is undeniably a recognizable figure in the public debate over GW who is notable enough to have his own BLP AND his educational credentials appear to exceed those of Laurie David is already quoted in the article. Even more amazingly he is arguing that AIT SHOULD be shown in schools so why object? Isn't that what this section is all about in the first place, NSTA distributing AIT to science teachers?

Bottom line, his quote is not about the science involved but the politics of pushing a POV into the schools. He is certainly qualified to do that and in the realm of the political debate over GW he is an expert. He argues against pushing a specific POV, where do you stand on that issue?

--GoRight 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LD has an obvious connection with the film. Milloy is an author of trash with no credibility William M. Connolley 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trash? No credibility? Let's not mudling here. He's obviously reliable enough to quote in regards to the politics of this film. Do you have a good reason why his political opinion wouldn't be critical or relevant? Oren0 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What does Let's not mudling mean? I don't regard Milloy as reliable to quote for anything William M. Connolley 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So suddenly having direct knowledge of something is important to you? That's a laugh given that RC and LD are both maligning NSTA on topics of which they have no direct knowledge (i.e. the funding arrangments for the ConocoPhilips funding for the Wheeler produced film as well as the Exxon funding somehow influencing ). I detect some pot calling the kettle black here. I am curious as to why you did not weigh in with a similar position when Gmb92 and I were discussing this very point above, would you care to weigh in now? --GoRight 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

David and the NSTA spokespersons are central to the topic, which describes a dispute between the two. Whether or not one agrees with them or find them reliable is irrelevant. If Milloy was an NSTA spokesperson, by all means, his arguments would need to be included. Do you understand this distinction? Gmb92 01:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If we lowered the standards to include Milloy's opinion, we could include about a million other opinions. He's not relevant to the section (unlike David or the NSTA spokespersons) nor is he remotely an authority to comment on it. Gmb92 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, RC is not any more relevant to this section Milloy so perhaps we should remove their commentary as well by the same logic? I would be fine with eliminating the RC sentence, the AAAS sentence, and the Milloy sentence. If I have to choose between the AAAS quote and the Milloy quoute because of complaints about undue weight I favor the Milloy quote because it is more directly about the issue at the heart of this discussion AND it has the advantage of not requiring a subscription to read (something that I believe you complained about above).

Even so, we are not lowering any standards by including Milloy because he is probably a more of an expert regarding the politics of the GW debate than anyone at RC is. Many of you will have argued that all he does is the political side of things, whereas the RC folks are on the science side, right? You don't get to have it both ways where you claim RC is credible but anyone you don't like is not. I looked it up in the dictionary and it didn't have anything in the definition of "credible" about having to agree with you. This IS a criticism section after all.

--GoRight 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

...on which he has established a pattern of calculated deception; e.g., a "survey" that some of us recently received. Raymond Arritt 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant "mudsling" I swear that 'S' was there before. Anyway, the quote isn't about the science, it's about the politics of showing it in schools. Again, he's qualified to state is opinion. As for "we could include a million other opinions," our goal is to represent a sample of what's being said in reliable sources. I don't believe the current article does that and I don't see how including one more negative opinion is undue weight. Oren0 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree that Milloy has any credibility at all on anything remotely related to global warming, including the politics. If you want a credible commentator on the politics of GW you should cite someone like Roger Pielke Jr. Raymond Arritt 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well let me just try the William Connolley approach and see if it works any better for me. junscience.com is accepted as credible is other similar articles.  :-) --GoRight 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What articles are those? We should fix them post-haste. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. --GoRight 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So your contention that Steven Milloy, who has no expertise whatsoever in any topic related to global warming, is just as credible as the scientists on RealClimate? That's an interesting perspective. Raymond Arritt 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My contention is that he is every bit as much an expert regarding the politics of the debate as the RC folks are regarding the science of the debate. This page is not only about the science, it is also about all aspects of the film including the political ones. You don't get to veto him simply because you don't like him. --GoRight 01:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Read my response six up. There are plenty of people who qualify as "an expert regarding the politics of the debate," but Milloy isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to hold, but luckily your opinion is not policy on this site. You have thus far failed to present anything which would disqualify Milloy's quote. As I said, the fact that you don't like him is not a disqualifying factor.

As far as I and apparently others are concerned Miloy is sufficiently qualified to comment on the political aspects of the NSTA decision and his quote should stand.

Is this discussion actually going anywhere or do you all intend to simply stonewall this issue in the commentary and keep reverting my edit?

--GoRight 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Milloy claimed the film, a documentary on a scientific topic, was "biased" and recommended 2 other films (one "The Great Global Warming Swindle") which he praises. What would qualify him to make scientific assessments of the film? Qualified opinions from scientists who have published in the fields in question are of the highest reliability. Milloy doesn't qualify. When searching for an alternative source, keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Milloy could take note of that too. Gmb92 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As the high court case demonstrates and you all have argued, the decision in that case was that the film was politically biased, not scientifically so although others would disagree. Now you want to limit the discussion to scientific opinions only? I have not argued that Milloy's comment is relevant because of his scientific opinion but rather because of his political ones. Apparently the high court agreed with him that the film IS biased politically speaking and all Milloy is pointing out is that now there is a counter balancing film from a political perspective and that both films should be shown. You only object because you are trying to force your opinions and viewpoints on everyone else, or at least that is how it looks to me.

--GoRight 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Milloy is just as qualified to comment on the politics as is Paris Hilton, or some guy down the pub. Again, there are people who have done meaningful work on the politics of GW, but Milloy isn't one of them. He's simply someone with a highly partisan view of the issue. You're not helping your case by calling on Milloy as one of your witnesses; why not choose someone credible and qualified? Raymond Arritt 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we cannot agree on how to handle third party material in this section I suggest that we simply keep the section trimmed down to direct commentary from the parties directly involved. The RealClimate reference didn't add anything new beyond what LD claims so it is redundant and as such is undue weight. This is at least a fair position which keeps the POV pushing out of it from either side, agreed? --GoRight 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The commentary is from experts on the film's topic. It certainly is different from the LD statements. Gmb92 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But the quotes they provide have nothing to do with the film's topic. So those credentials are irrelevant to the allegations that they are making. LD already makes the points that are even relevant to the dispute in question, namely the ExxonMobil link and the ConocoPhilips link. Adding a reference from RC is just WP:UNDUE and WP:RS since they have nothing that makes them credible to comment on the ExxonMobil's influence over NSTA. Their comment is 100% pure speculation. --GoRight 02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The RC critique first expresses disapproval about the NSTA decision on the film distribution. This is based in part on a general approval of the film as presenting the science accurately. Second, they note that the NSTA has a paltry sum of good material on the topic. Both of these opinions are particularly qualified by their expertise, which makes them a good RS. Gmb92 06:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't quote Milloy. I agree he is highly partisan and not a climate scientist but then so is George Monbiot, and we quote him on numerous GW-related articles including TGGWS. Iceage77 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the above discussion he can't be included because some people on this talk page don't like him. That really isn't valid reasons not to include the quote but thats all I can glean from the above discussion. It was stated several times that his quote should be included as part of the political commentary on the film but the editors against including it only give the reason that he is not an expert on global warming. Since the stated reason was given that the quote speaks to the the political commentary on the film but the people opposed to adding the quote only give the reason I mentioned above (not sure how him not being a scientist makes him unreliable for political commentary purposes) I can only assume that they're not really reading the reasoning that is being given and are just against having the quote in the article because of dislike of the quoted person and any information that does not fit there preconceived notions. What else could possibly be assumed when the arguments given not to include the information have nothing to do with the reasons given for including it. Can anyone else honestly come to any other conclusion after reading the exchanges above? Smells like censorship to me (and censorship smells like the cargo hold of a cattle ship crossing the equator at noon.) Elhector 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't include Milloy, because he isn't particularly relevant. When including critique and praise, we get a choice between various different opinions, and have to choose according to weight. In this particular instance Milloy's view is irrelevant (according to weight). On other issues: the critique of AIT is well-represented in accordance with its relative weight, and people like Lindzen are more representative of that view. That aside - i'd rather choose Carter over Gray, since Carter has a bit of relevance (being expert witness on the Dimmock case) whereas Gray has (afaics) no relevance at all. --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect:

1. Please read the commentary above rather than making us repeat every argument for you personally.
2. Why do you personally get to decide who and what is relevant. Your position is clear. This is a criticism section, so should not the skeptics decide what is relevant here?
3. Milloy is relevant because he is a recognized expert on the political aspects of the GW debate, and because he is a regular contributor on Fox News. You clearly know who he is, what he stands for, and where he says it. That makes him relevant.
4. You keep claim undue weight but you have never presented any rationale for why his quote would be undue weight.
5. I have proposed to remove one of my additions which (a) requires a subscription to access which was complained about previous by the AGW proponents here, (b) the quote included therefrom is basically just a reiteration of the LD view and is therefore redundant (which actually IS undue weight strictly speaking), and (c) by removing it I presumably address your undue weight complaint.
6. I have made this point numerous times in a variety of ways and you still have not addressed it in any meaningful way.
7. I disagree that the political aspects of the criticism are represented at all. The scientific contributors have managed to completely monopolize this page to the exclusion of the political aspects. Including Milloy would correct this shortcoming.
8. Lindzen is fine as a counterpoint from a scientific perspective, but the criticism of AIT comes from more than just the scientific community.
9. Gray represents a faction within the scientific community that is also not represented here at all, namely those who find the whole issue to be ridiculous. You simply find his commentary uncomfortable but this is not a valid reason for excluding his viewpoint, although there are those who wish to censor his commentary here while seeking to simultaneously heap criticism on him in his BLP using anonymously posted sources.
10. I see no reason that there should be a criteria for inclusion in this article that the commenter has some direct relationship to the film as you suggest. The film is clearly controversial. It affects us all and all of our voices should be included not simple some arbitrarily defined subset that is created to censor the uncomfortable commentary which is part of this debate.

--GoRight 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. With all due respect - i have.
2. No.
3. Recognized expert? By whom? Where?
4. Again please read WP:WEIGHT. Milloy's opinion is given more weight here, than his position merits. Neutral point of view does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight.
5. This is not a market place. Every issue is and should be decided on merit. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. If you feel that one of your additions has so little merit that it can be bartered - then it should probably go.
6. Apparently people do not agree.
7. Are you of the opinion that Lindzen's comment is scientific rather than political?
8. Lindzen is representative of the critique from the minority viewpoint on climate change. (we do not include all the positive critique either). We also have the NYT and the livestock issue (which is btw. represented completely outside of weight).
9. That Gray "represents a faction" is your own POV. and has to be substantiated if you want to go on with that line. I personally rather doubt this.
10. No the film is not "clearly controversial". The subject of the film is controversial in some circles the U.S.

--Kim D. Petersen 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"1. With all due respect - i have." With all due respect, forgive my confusion on this point because it was not apparent from your original post.

"2. No." Why not?

"3. Recognized expert? By whom? Where?" Yes. Fox News. On their network.

"4. Again please read WP:WEIGHT. Milloy's opinion is given more weight here, than his position merits. Neutral point of view does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight." With all due respect, I have.

On NPOV: Milloy's opinion in this case basically argues that all points of view should be expressed in a political and educational context. In essence, he is advocating WP:NPOV in the NSTA case. It is ironic that you are seeking to use that very same notion against him. Your comment amounts to saying the WP:NPOV is being given too much weight in this article. Is this what you really mean to say? I would add that the high court case demonstrates that AIT is politically biased, thus showing that Milloy's concerns were well founded.

On WEIGHT: Polls have shown that as much as 15% of the US population don't believe that GW is happening. That is not an insignificant segement of our society. Given that Milloy, in your assessment anyway, is an average person who doesn't believe that GW is real he will serve satisfactorily as a prominent representative of that group. I would argue that the views of this 15% of the US population have not been adequately represented on this page. Ergo, the existing page has the WP:WEIGHT problem, not this single quote.

"5. This is not a market place. Every issue is and should be decided on merit. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. If you feel that one of your additions has so little merit that it can be bartered - then it should probably go." I only offered to remove AAAS because you repeatedly claimed WP:WEIGHT with no discussion or commentary on this page as is customary, thus leading to a misconception on my part as to the nature of your complaint. I accept your point concerning this not being a market place and hereby rescind my good faith offer of compromise. I will be happy to keep the AAAS quote as I believe that it adds value. The issue still remains regarding the inclusion of Milloy's quote.

"6. Apparently people do not agree." Who? Where? This is the first place you have given any explanation.

"7. Are you of the opinion that Lindzen's comment is scientific rather than political?" Sure, he is saying that the science presented is biased, an assessment justified by his credentials.

"8. Lindzen is representative of the critique from the minority viewpoint on climate change. (we do not include all the positive critique either). We also have the NYT and the livestock issue (which is btw. represented completely outside of weight)." When you say "minority viewpoint" using Lindzen as an example we are obviously talking about the scientific minority with respect to the alleged scientific consensus on GW. What about the 15% of the general public? Where are they represented?

"9. That Gray 'represents a faction' is your own POV. and has to be substantiated if you want to go on with that line. I personally rather doubt this." Fair enough, I stand corrected.

"10. No the film is not "clearly controversial". The subject of the film is controversial in some circles the U.S." Well if you believe that you are here arguing about the subject of the film I would respectfully direct you to Global Warming as a place more suitable for your commentary. The topic of this article is the film and things people have said about it. As such the views of everyone have merit, not just the scientific community.

--GoRight 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that GoRight has done more than a sufficient job above pointing out that this is not the case and is not a valid argument and seems to be more of an opinion of some editors here. Also, I see that the Weight argument is thrown around here a lot as a reason to keep things out of this article. How exactly is "weight" decided? Elhector 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all - i've yet to see anyone argue for why Milloy's opinion is relevant. There has been a lot of discussion on whether or not its reliable, which is definitely not the same thing. NSTA is relevant (part of the controversy), LD relevant (again part), RC might be relevant (since they give us an outside opinion based upon the scientific merit). Milloy is relevant because? He is not a political party to the conflict .. He is not a scientific expert on the conflict .. what exactly is he? (as others have said - if you want a political opinion - cite someone with an expertise in the political side (such as Pielke Jr.). --Kim D. Petersen 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect:

1. "i've yet to see anyone argue for why Milloy's opinion is relevant." See above. In short he is relevant simply by being a recognizable figure within the political side of the debate. How else is it that you even know who he is enough to argue against him so strenuously?
2. "NSTA is relevant (part of the controversy), LD relevant (again part), RC might be relevant (since they give us an outside opinion based upon the scientific merit)." RC is no more relevant by your criteria than is Milloy, as I have said so before. If you criteria is that com mentors be directly associated with the NSTA conflict the RC fails that test undeniably. If you open the criteria up to include RC as a third party observer from a scientific perspective then I claim the right to similarly open up the criteria to also include a third party observer from the political perspective and I choose Milloy for the reasons stated above.
3. "Milloy is relevant because? He is not a political party to the conflict ..." He is most certainly a political party to the conflict in the same sense that RC is a scientific party to the conflict. This article is not only about the underlying science. It is about all aspects of the film as well as all aspects of society who hold views on it.
4. "others have said - if you want a political opinion - cite someone with an expertise in the political side (such as Pielke Jr.)." As has been noted Roger Pielke Jr. has been strenuously argued to NOT even be a skeptic by a prominent member of the pro-AGW contingent here. You are asking me to forego one of the most visible figures on the skeptics side of the issue in favor of someone you consider to be on pro-AGW side of the debate. That clearly skews the perspective which is exactly why I believe he is being suggested. While Roger is a fine source for many things, a representative of the political side of the skeptics he is not. Once again, this article is not only about the scientists and what the scientists think. There is a political aspect to the entire debate which should be reflected here.

--GoRight 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I know Milloy because i've edited these pages (and others) - i doubt if he is much known outside of the U.S. (i certainly had no idea who he was before starting to look into the U.S debate).
2. Notability is not inherited. Milloy might be notable - but that doesn't mean that his opinion on various subjects is notable. In this case Milloy is a random character who's opinion you seem to want to hear - but i've yet to see any reasons for it being relevant. Milloy is not a relevant political commentator - Pielke Jr. might be.
3. No Milloy is not a political side to this. He is a commentator (and someone rather uninteresting from an international point of view). Afaics he represents the U.S fringe opinion. On the other hand RC represents a view from a relevant scientific perspective - they are very much able to assess the scientific parts in the controversy. What expertise does Milloy bring to this?
4. undue weight - we do not just include opinion, because it comes from an "anti-" side. It has to be a notable opinion.

--Kim D. Petersen 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note - you seem to be of the opinion that all views should be represented equally. But that particular view is against wikipedia policy. See: WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. --Kim D. Petersen 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL: I have an exchange with MastCell on my user page related to my behavior here and elsewhere. Feel free to weigh in if you are so inclined. --GoRight 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to drive this to a bottom line decision, if possible. The Steven Milloy quote has met all of the wikipedia criteria for being allowed in as far as I can tell. The discussion above covers the details thereof. The text itself should not be considered all that controversial as it actually endorses the showing of AIT in schools (albeit along with other counter balancing presentations) which is exactly what the film's producers wanted in the first place.

Who still objects to including it and why?

--GoRight 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I still object. I imagine others who have commented recently still do too. Several reasons have been described above. Milloy is not a reliable source. Gmb92 07:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, GR asserts that Milloy is a recognised expert on the politics. Again and again, people point out that this isn't true. And so we continue. Dull William M. Connolley 10:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The policies WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are being cited as the reason to not include this. It has been pointed out already quite thoroughly that these policies are being misapplied here. These policies are being used in Wikilawyering in order to keep the info out. Enforcing these policies in the way they are being used here is a detriment to the article and Misplaced Pages in general and should therefore be set aside in this situation per WP:IGNORE. Especially when the criteria being applied here to Milloy is not being applied equally to others in the article. No Misplaced Pages policy is to be used to block good and useful information from being included in an article, especially when said information is well and reliably sourced, comes from a person that is more then qualified to comment on the issue at hand, and is relevant to the topics discussed in the article. GoRight's arguments above have more then demonstrated this. Elhector 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Steven Milloy is a crank and a paid shill, despite the trouble you and GoRight seem to accepting this. He doesn't belong in the article. The fact that others have - correctly - kept him out out of this article per our prohibition on fringe theories and crackpottery is not wikilawyering. Raul654 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Milloy is a mainstream commentator for Fox News. There is no evidence for the assertion that he is a fringe theorist. Iceage77 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And as such "commentator" he has as little relevance here, as Bill Geist or Ben Stein. And since there is very little backing (read: nothing) to propose that Milloy has more than a minority view on things - he would be presented outside of weight. --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the published opinion of a political commentator be relevant in a political matter? Being in the "minority view" doesn't mean he shouldn't be mentioned, especially in the context of a criticism section. And please show me some "backing" to propose that Milloy represents a minority view at all (his view on showing AIT in schools, not his view on AGW in general). Is there some survey that says most people or most political commentators support showing AIT in schools without discussing opposing views? Oren0 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well the "crank and a paid shill" argument is getting old. That seems to be default argument against including anything in this article once all other arguments against something have been put to rest. What is your definition of "crank and paid shill"? One could make the argument that anyone is a "crank and paid shill" and thats why the argument doesn't hold water. That is a ad hominem attack and as such has no meaning or bearing on this debate. Also I would like to point out that there is a large difference between an minority view and a finge view and I believe you fail to see the difference between the two. In respect to AGW for example the belief against it is not a fringe belief, it's a minority belief. The Milloy comment does not deal with AGW specifically though, all it argues is that all points of views should be represented. The idea of representing all POVs in education is not a fringe belief at all. Elhector 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a crank because he's been wrong about basically everything he's ever said. He's a paid shill because he takes money from large corporations like ExxonMobile and R.J. Reynolds (with an interest in muddying the scientific debate) and then proceeds to advocate positions in the interests of those paying him.

One could make the argument that anyone is a "crank and paid shill" - no, one could not. Most experts (including all of the reputable ones) do not take many from large corporations like Exxon and then advocate their position. And reputable experts are not dead wrong every time they say something.

And if (as you say) excluding people who take money from Exxon and are wrong all the time excludes all of the contrarians, then I suppose that says something very fundmenetal about the contarian arguments being presented (and the people presenting them). Raul654 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because no one on the pro-AGW side has a financial interest in it, right? There's no such thing as needing research grants, an environmental lobby, etc. And you'll have to explain to us how an opinion about showing a movie in schools could be wrong. Oren0 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the old canard about the secret underground pro-global warming conspiracy among scientists, environmentalists, and the ever-powerful solar power industry to get money. Raul654 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Singer quote

Why is Fred Singer quoted here, out of all those that appeared in TGGWS? Raymond Arritt 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply trimmed the section to remove redundant details from the TGGWS page using the same logic being employed to revert my edits on the Singer page relative to Monbiot and his BLP.

If the information removed is reverted then I plan to copy the complete list of TGGWS contributors to this section to offset the POV pushing. This section is clearly contained within the criticism section of the page. The commentary I removed was not consistent with being in a criticism section. --GoRight 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT, threats like that serve no purpose and may result in a block. Vsmith 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What threat? I am simply indicating that if the critics of TGGWS are to be referenced here so should the supporters to KEEP things neutral. This comment is directly in agreement with WP:POINT as far as I can tell. Let me make the relevant points more clear:

1. I removed redundant information from the article using the same reasoning that was used to remove information on Singer's page.
2. I consider the current the redundant information to be POV pushing.
3. If people insist that the critics of TGGWS be listed here then I think we should also copy the full list of TGGWS supporters here as well to AVOID the POV pushing bias.

Does that make it more clear to you?

--GoRight 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your comments make the situation clearer, but probably not in the way that you intended. Raymond Arritt 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the quotes from this film's critics have been systematically removed from the article while the text that was probably at one time counterbalancing those critics still remains. The result is a skewed perspective of TGGWS's legitimacy. I wish to restore the balance on that point. I am happy to include the critics of TGGWS here but then I think that we should also list the names of those that appear in the film for balance. --GoRight 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But why do we need to mention any more than the fact that it's a film with a contrary take on the subject? If we're going to go into details like the contention that temperature is forcing CO2 in present-day climate (which we know is absolutely, unquestionably wrong because of isotopic analysis, etc.) then we have to note that which details are correct and which are bunk. Otherwise we mislead the reader, which you surely wouldn't want to do -- would you? Raymond Arritt 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mislead the reader? Of course not. As I said that is what I am trying to avoid here.

The film makes several points all of which are fully discussed in the TGGWS article along with their critics responses. Of all of the points made in the film this one (the fact that the CO2 lags the temperature in the ice cores) is not actually in dispute, is it? I think your side accepts this as a valid scientific point, correct? I just think it makes sense to somehow summarize here the most sound or significant point made in the film. I know that you don't think that this is the current relationship in the current warming period though. I'll add a comment that the results presented in the film are widely disputed and the criticisms are discussed in detail in the TGGWS page. Would that satisfy your concerns?

It is moot for now as Raul654 just conducted a drive by revert. --GoRight 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I reverted Raul654's revert and made the change I proposed above. Raul654 then conducted another drive-by revert (i.e. a full revert without any mention or discussion here) so I will leave it for now. Does the proposed addition satisfy your concerns? --GoRight 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I don't know what you mean. This seems to be an argument about expertise. The pro-AGW people on this talk page and others seem to be operating under the assumption that only scientists are qualified to discuss any aspect of global warming related issues. Remember that this is a page about a movie, not about science. While the folks at RC are qualified to discuss the science of AGW (and thus the science of this movie), I don't see why they're any more qualified to judge the politics of this movie or its distribution in schools than lots of other people (Milloy for one) are. Oren0 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I obviously agree. --GoRight 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Stream

Did Gore really say that reduced THC would "halt" the Gulf Stream? That's wrong -- though its intensity would be reduced, the Gulf Stream will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates and the North Atlantic is unfrozen. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I'd think I'd remember if he said something that bad. What were his exact words? Raymond Arritt 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was reference to a possible shutdown of thermohaline circulation, but don't remember the exact reference in the film being to shut the Gulf stream down. Vsmith 04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ask? --GoRight 05:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I want the article to be accurate. If he didn't say "halt", we shouldn't say he did. Conversely, if he really did say "halt," that's motivation to include material that criticizes him saying so (as well he should be). Raymond Arritt 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see where it is referenced. Given the stated cause and effect I would agree that this has to be a typo of some sort. I think Vsmith is correct about what the proper reference should be. Although, if Gore really DID say Gulf Stream be sure to let me know! That could be a handy quote for elsewhere. --GoRight 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand he might actually have said it. I haven't followed the details but a quick Google search turned up a site that you won't like which had this related commentary: Gulf Stream Will Not Shut Down, Science Magazines Admit.

"Since 1998, global warming alarmists have claimed rapid melting of Greenland's ice sheet could shut down the Atlantic Conveyor Belt, dominated by the Gulf Stream, and thus shut off the supply of warm water and air that keeps northern Europe extremely mild for its high latitude.

The resulting advance of ice sheets across Europe, alarmists argued, would quickly spread throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere and plunge the Earth into an already overdue ice age."

So maybe he was refering to something related to that? I'm not suggesting that you rely on this or anything, just trying to give you additional good faith info for your search.

Here's a source that will be more to your liking: Ocean changes 'will cool Europe'. It does discuss the Gulf Stream so if Gore did mention it he was probably referring to this.

--GoRight 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all very nice but it's not relevant to my question -- which is, what did Gore actually say? It would be good if there were an actual transcript available. Raymond Arritt 06:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always buy a DVD off of him, after all that's why he made them ... oh, and that's also why you probably won't find a transcript. Maybe you should buy his book too.  :-) I can't help you because, needless to say, I don't own either of them. --GoRight 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"At the end of the last ice age as the Vlad glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed in North America. The Great Lakes are the remnants of that huge lake. An ice dam on the eastern border formed, and one day it broke. All that fresh water came rushing out, ripping open the St. Lawrence, there. It diluted the salty dense cold water, made it fresher and lighter so it stopped sinking. And that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped, and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. The change from conditions we have here today to an ice age took place in perhaps as little as 10 years time. That is a sudden jump. Of course that’s not going to happen again, because the glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah, (pointing at Greenland). We’ll come back to that one." Source. Iceage77 11:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a reasonably good Meteorology 101 summary of current views on the Younger Dryas (one can quibble over details; e.g., recent evidence is that drainage was mostly to the north rather than through the St. Lawrence). Back to the original point, he doesn't say the Gulf Stream was halted so we shouldn't misreport him. I'll reword the text accordingly. Raymond Arritt 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would eliminate that reference to Gulf Stream. It is not really spurious as you claim. If you follow the reference provided by Iceage77 here is the paragraph proceeding the one he quoted:

"One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the Earth’s rotation. Isn’t it interesting that the whole ocean current system is all linked together in this loop. They call it the ocean conveyor. The red are the warm surface current, the Gulf Stream is the best known of them. The blue represents the cold currents running in the opposite direction. We don’t see them at all because they run along the bottom of the ocean. Up in the North Atlantic, after that heat is pulled out, what’s left behind is colder water and saltier water, because salt doesn’t go anywhere. That makes it denser and heavier. That cold, dense heavy water sinks at a rate of 5 billion gallons per second. That pulls that current back south."

I guess I don't have a major problem with your change, but the original text WAS accurate, IMHO. If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream which he specifically mentions, right? I defer to your judgment on this point. --GoRight 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream..." Nope. The Gulf Stream is primarily wind-driven and will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates, the North Atlantic ocean is liquid, and the continents stay roughly in their current positions. In the popular imagination the Gulf Stream is the whole current system from the Gulf of Mexico to Scandinavia, but that's wrong. The North Atlantic Drift is largely a thermohaline circulation and would be affected by freshening of the North Atlantic. Gore's mention of the Gulf Stream is a little confusing, but he doesn't specifically say the Gulf Stream itself would shut down. Raymond Arritt 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --GoRight 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1589883,00.html
2. http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html
3. http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Delisted good articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists