# Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142 "2010-03-20T16:36:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/1 "2010-03-20T16:36:54Z")
[Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?](http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf) (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) > [@](#): > > For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of. **[Deconstructing Global Warming](http://www.viddler.com/explore/ceivideo/videos/121/)** (Video) (55min) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) **Selected Peer Reviewed Publications:** [Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?](http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335) ([PDF](http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/181_PNAS97.pdf)) \*(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997) - Richard S. Lindzen\* [Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus](http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/v15n2-9.pdf) (PDF) \*(Regulation, Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 87-98, 1992) - Richard S. Lindzen\* [On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml) ([PDF](http://www.mit.edu/~ysc/index.files/Lindzen&Choi2009GRL.pdf)) \*(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 16, August 2009) - Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi\* [Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously](http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/98477724788p4134/) ([PDF](http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf)) \*(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007) - Richard S. Lindzen\* ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/2 "2010-03-22T03:57:32Z")
OK, you’ve offered your cites. So what are you debating? ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/3 "2010-03-22T14:43:16Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > OK, you’ve offered your cites. So what are you debating? Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? I don’t believe it is. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/4 "2010-03-22T18:48:05Z")
Are you talking “Climate Science” in general, or just the bits of it that pertain to your (and Lindzen’s) personal bugbear? Because GW is not the be-all and end-all of \*Climatology \*(hey, what do you know, the Science even has its own proper name). And yes, it is designed to answer questions - that’s why it follows a scientific method, rather than, oh, I don’t know, just existing to nitpick data others gathered and posting in non-reliably-accredited political journals. Anyway, Lindzen’s a fine one to talk - I mean, he does the same climatology as everyone else, participates in the same panels, got the same degree, publishes in the same journals (other than that _E&E_ rag) - so what kind of scientist does that make him? I thought his big attraction for the denial crowd was that he was a real climate scientist. So isn’t he damning himself, there? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/5 "2010-03-22T21:10:57Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > [Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?](http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf) (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) :rolleyes: [Richard Lindzen?](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen) Seriously? > [@](#): > > **Fossil Fuel Interests Funding** > > In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that “his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.” (Emphasis added).[10] > > Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC.”[11] > > A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that “he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since.”[12] > **Lindzen’s Discarded Global Warming Arguments** > > An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) – an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 – reviewed some of the “contrarian” arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[13]. > > In a section on the “Role of Water Vapor”, the GCC’s Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that “In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a “thermostat” keeping temperatures from rising significantly.” > > However, the GCC’s science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. “Lindzen’s 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen’s hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument.”[14] > > In conclusion the GCC’s science advisers was that “Lindzen’s hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change.”[15] > **Linzden’s Betting Challenge on Global Warming** > > In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he’d be willing to bet that the earth’s climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. “There isn’t much money in climate science and I’m still looking for that gold watch at retirement,” Annan says. “A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension.”[16] > **On Tobacco** > > In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen “clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.”[17] ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/6 "2010-03-22T21:30:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :rolleyes: [Richard Lindzen?](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen) Seriously? Yes Seriously, please stop citing the propaganda site sourcewatch, **Sourcewatch** $$$ Funded by [The Center for Media and Democracy](http://www.prwatch.org/) - [Sourcewatch](http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7352) (_Discover the Networks_) > [@](#): > > These “exposes,” which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities… […] > > **As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users.** Says SourceWatch: “You don’t need any special credentials to participate – we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques.” While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that “ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques.” […] > > … **The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.** - [Center for Media and Democracy](http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7353) (_Discover the Networks_) > [@](#): > > An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing “public relations spin and propaganda”. > > In CMD’s view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides “information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists,” characterizes CMD as “a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization.” […] > > CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center’s Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website [Vote2StopBush.org](http://Vote2StopBush.org). He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association. > > The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD’s Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan’s efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of “social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism.” > > An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: “These guys come from the far side of liberal.” - [Center for Media & Democracy](http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/12) (_Activist Cash_) > [@](#): > > The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation. > > Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own. **[MIT’s inconvenient scientist](http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/)** (The Boston Globe) > [@](#): > > Here’s the kind of information the `scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the `shrill alarmism" of Gore’s movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming – but they also might not. > > `We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as `the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," `the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and `Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don’t know why." > > When Lindzen published similar views in The Wall Street Journal this spring, environmentalist Laurie David, the wife of comedian Larry David, immediately branded him a `shill." She resurrected a shopworn slur first directed against Lindzen by former Globe writer Ross Gelbspan, who called Lindzen a `hood ornament" for the fossil fuels industry in a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine. > > I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn’t hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT’s I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He’s no big fan of Gore’s, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since. > > He’s smart. He’s an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don’t want you to hear from him. It’s easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/7 "2010-03-22T21:35:24Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Yes Seriously, please stop citing the propaganda site sourcewatch, > > **Sourcewatch** > > $$$ Funded by [The Center for Media and Democracy](http://www.prwatch.org/) > > - [Sourcewatch](http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7352) (_Discover the Networks_) :rolleyes: Dude, [Discover the Networks](http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/) is [David Horowitz’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz) baby. Dude’s a crank even by RW standards, and Discover the Networks – based on the assumption that the combination of money and power on the left in America is anywhere **near** comparable to that on the right – is a prime example. Here’s a description of [SourceWatch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcewatch) from the (I hope you will agree) generally neutral Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > **SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia)** is an internet site that is a collaborative project of the progressive Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). It was created by the CMD’s research director, Sheldon Rampton. According to the project’s website, it “aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interest groups.”[1] > > \ > **Foundation** > Rampton created SourceWatch on January 15, 2003, and launched it publicly with 200 articles on March 10, 2003. According to SourceWatch’s own statistics, it included over 15,000 articles as of March 2007.[2] The content of Sourcewatch is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. > > The editor of SourceWatch is Bob Burton, who began to edit it part-time in October 2003. As its editor, Burton, who also serves as the project’s main contact person, provides oversight as a public relations analyst.[3] > > **Editorial and security policies** > The stated goals for registered users who are permitted to edit SourceWatch are “accuracy and fairness.”[4] Its editorial guidelines stress the importance of maintaining the accuracy of its source citations and admonish its editors to “Be fair”.[5] > > Sourcewatch is available on the web as a wiki, maintained by a community of interested users worldwide. When SourceWatch began, any visitor to the site could edit existing articles and create new ones. In April 2006, however, SourceWatch changed its policy, henceforth requiring users to register and log in before editing its articles and restricting unregistered visitors to reading articles only.[1] > > The Center for Media and Democracy sets the editorial and “security policies” under which SourceWatch operates. SourceWatch provides recommended editorial guidelines to its users but reserves privileges to modify content and to delete articles for its administrators, referred to (as in other wikis) as “Sysops”.[1][6] Information about “administrators” (“sysops”) in SourceWatch is hyperlinked via its “FAQ”.[7] > > **Mission statement** > According to SourceWatch, it aims: > > > [@](#): > > > > to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda. A primary purpose of SourceWatch is documenting the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy. SourceWatch also includes profiles on think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and lobby groups. Over time, SourceWatch has broadened to include others involved in public debates including media outlets, journalists and government agencies. Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor.[2] > > **Sponsor** > Further information: Center for Media and Democracy > The sponsor of SourceWatch is the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a nonprofit American-based news media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. In addition to SourceWatch, CMD publishes PR Watch, a quarterly newsletter edited by Laura A. Miller. The creator of SourceWatch, Sheldon Rampton, is CMD’s research director. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/8 "2010-03-22T22:14:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Here’s a description of [SourceWatch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcewatch) from the (I hope you will agree) generally neutral Wikipedia: ROFLMAO!! Wikipedia is neutral? Really? If you think it is so neutral please answer these questions, 1. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it’s level of accuracy? 2. How do you determine if a page is “good editor” corrected or “bad editor” inaccurate? 3. Who decides who a “good editor” is? How are their qualifications determined? 4. What is the time frame for a “good editor” to correct a page and how is this time frame determined? 5. If more then one “good editor” wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth? 6. If more then one person is “watching” a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth? 7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject’s Wikipedia page? 8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined? 9. How is a “neutral point of view” determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a “neutral point of view”? 10. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/9 "2010-03-22T22:35:44Z")
Accuracy and neutrality are not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/10 "2010-03-22T22:53:20Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > ROFLMAO!! Wikipedia is neutral? Really? If you think it is so neutral please answer these questions, > > 1. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it’s level of accuracy? > > 2. How do you determine if a page is “good editor” corrected or “bad editor” inaccurate? > > 3. Who decides who a “good editor” is? How are their qualifications determined? > > 4. What is the time frame for a “good editor” to correct a page and how is this time frame determined? > > 5. If more then one “good editor” wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth? > > 6. If more then one person is “watching” a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth? > > 7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject’s Wikipedia page? > > 8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined? > > 9. How is a “neutral point of view” determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a “neutral point of view”? > > 10. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? You’ll find all those questions answered in [Wikipedia’s article on itself.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) In sum, its accuracy is **based** on people making corrections to it; and any difference of opinions immediately comes to the attention of the editors, in fact there is a built-in method for disputing the neutrality of an article, and a “talk page” attached to each one. It is an iterative process – never perfectly accurate but always tending towards accuracy – in that, a microcosm of the human intellectual enterprise as a whole. Anyone may fairly criticize its take on a particular topic, and, more plausibly, the slipshod editing; but in my experience, posters who have a serious problem with the Wikipedia as such are those who also seem to have a serious problem with “consensus reality” as such, and they are nearly always RWs. Well, heads up: The facts have a liberal bias. Wikipedia does not. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/11 "2010-03-22T23:06:44Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > ROFLMAO!! Wikipedia is neutral? Really? If you think it is so neutral please answer these questions, Wikipedia is among the most neutral sources. That is, it is neutral _relative to the alternatives_. > [@](#): > > 1. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it’s level of accuracy? > > 2. How do you determine if a page is “good editor” corrected or “bad editor” inaccurate? > > 3. Who decides who a “good editor” is? How are their qualifications determined? > > 4. What is the time frame for a “good editor” to correct a page and how is this time frame determined? By checking that page’s references, which are more reliably provided on Wikipedia than in most other sources. > [@](#): > > 1. If more then one “good editor” wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth? Check the page’s references, which are more reliably provided on Wikipedia than in most other sources. > [@](#): > > 1. If more then one person is “watching” a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth? The odds are good that the most recent edit is the truth. In particular, these odds are better for Wikipedia than they are for most other information sources. > [@](#): > > 1. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject’s Wikipedia page? The relevant question is, Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject **who will** make an edit **that will last long enough for you to see it**? If “expert” means “knows the relevant facts”, then the answer is that there are more expert than non-expert such people. > [@](#): > > 1. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined? By checking that page’s references, which are more reliably provided on Wikipedia than in most other sources. > [@](#): > > 1. How is a “neutral point of view” determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a “neutral point of view”? Statistically speaking, the “neutral point of view” is the view most likely to have lasted long enough for you to see it. > [@](#): > > 1. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? _Being more accurate than the alternatives_ is perfectly consistent with _getting more accurate over time_. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/12 "2010-03-22T23:12:57Z")
**Poptech** , would you care to apply some thought and analysis to your OP? As an AGW sceptic in the proper sense, I find your posts decidedly unuseful. If you can do a search, try looking for posts by **Intention**. And BTW it doesn’t matter if Lindzen and Sourcewatch and whoever are funded by one side or the other as long as it’s out in the open. And just because they’re funded by one side or the other doesn’t mean that they’re automatically right or automatically wrong. It’s when someone’s funding is concealed that we should worry. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/13 "2010-03-22T23:14:29Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > It’s when someone’s funding is concealed that we should worry. As in Lindzen’s case. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/14 "2010-03-23T02:31:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You’ll find all those questions answered in [Wikipedia’s article on itself.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) No you will not, you will not find a single answer to any of those questions. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In sum, its accuracy is **based** on people making corrections to it; You are under the false assumption that a change to a page is a “correction”. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > and any difference of opinions immediately comes to the attention of the editors, No it doesn’t. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > in fact there is a built-in method for disputing the neutrality of an article, and a “talk page” attached to each one. Which is only useful if everyone that can edit a page uses it and can come to an agreement, which does not happen. If anything the talk page is a joke. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It is an iterative process – never perfectly accurate but always tending towards accuracy There is nothing to support this statement. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > but in my experience, posters who have a serious problem with the Wikipedia as such are those who also seem to have a serious problem with “consensus reality” as such, and they are nearly always RWs. Well, heads up: The facts have a liberal bias. Wikipedia does not. Only liberals actively participate in collective group think thus by design Wikipedia will be liberal biased. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/15 "2010-03-23T02:35:16Z")
> [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](#): > > Wikipedia is among the most neutral sources. That is, it is neutral _relative to the alternatives_. No it’s not, it is truth based on who edits last. > [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](#): > > By checking that page’s references, which are more reliably provided on Wikipedia than in most other sources. That does not answer any of the questions. > [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](#): > > The odds are good that the most recent edit is the truth. In particular, these odds are better for Wikipedia than they are for most other information sources. ROFLMAO! How naive are you people? Am I the only one who understands how wikipedia works? > [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](#): > > The relevant question is, Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject **who will** make an edit **that will last long enough for you to see it**? If “expert” means “knows the relevant facts”, then the answer is that there are more expert than non-expert such people. Really? There are not more people who think they know? > [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](#): > > Statistically speaking, the “neutral point of view” is the view most likely to have lasted long enough for you to see it. No the view you are looking at is based on the last edit of a single person. You effectively failed to answer any of the questions. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/16 "2010-03-23T02:36:02Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Only liberals actively participate in collective group think . . . Not even you believe that. ---
**Author:** ![Poptech](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/poptech/32/7292_2.png) [@Poptech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poptech)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/17 "2010-03-23T02:41:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > As in Lindzen’s case. Really? His whopping $10,000 to speak at a conference in 1991? So an effective $526 a year has funded his skepticism? ROFLMAO!!! Are you serious? Speaking of funding, [Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf) (PDF) (Joanne Nova, B.S. Microbiology, Graduate Diploma in Science Communications) \*\*The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics\*\* ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/18 "2010-03-23T06:32:53Z")
Ha-Ha - in the [other thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7), \*\*poptech \*\*is praising Google Scholar because it is open, and accusing me of elitism because I prefer the decidedly refereed SCI. Here, he’s down on SourceWatch and Wikipedia … because they’re open to anyone. The _dissonance_, it is, how you say in English, _cognitive_, no? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/19 "2010-03-23T06:42:20Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics\*\* Errm, that’s somehow missing the\*\* $27.5 million\*\* they spent in lobbying (mostly against GW legislation) _[last year alone](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Exxon+Mobil&year=2009)_. Never mind the **$200 million** [spent on ads by the energy corps.](http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-20-industry-groups-energy-ads/) ---
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142/20 "2010-03-23T07:29:18Z")
> [@Poptech](#): > > Really? His whopping $10,000 to speak at a conference in 1991? So an effective $526 a year has funded his skepticism? ROFLMAO!!! Are you serious? Exactly the point… he hasn’t been doing research on that since 1991… so where IS his research money coming from? We don’t know = lack of openness. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/533142.md?page=2)