Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

If it does, I wonder if it'll get deleted again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

Take it or leave it.

The notion of balanced coverage may make perfect sense when covering a political convention, but in the culture of science, balancing opposing views may be neither fair nor truthful. As such, many experts argue that it is misleading to give scientific mavericks or advocates equal time with established mainstream scientists.

Yet there is evidence that this is exactly what the media is doing. In a survey of 636 articles from four top United States newspapers between 1988 and 2002, two scholars found that most articles gave as much time to the small group of climate change doubters as to the scientific consensus view. Given real consensus among climatologists over global warming, many scientists find the media’s desire to portray the topic as a scientific controversy to be a gross distortion. As Stephen Schneider put it:

“a mainstream, well-established consensus may be ‘balanced’ against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.”

Science journalism concerns itself with gathering and evaluating various types of relevant evidence and rigorously checking sources and facts. Boyce Rensberger, the director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Knight Center for Science Journalism, said, “balanced coverage of science does not mean giving equal weight to both sides of an argument. It means apportioning weight according to the balance of evidence.”

The claims of scientists also get distorted by the media by a tendency to seek out extreme views, which can result in portrayal of risks well beyond the claims actually being made by scientists. Journalists tend to overemphasize the most extreme outcomes from a range of possibilities reported in scientific articles. A study that tracked press reports about a climate change article in the journal Nature found that "results and conclusions of the study were widely misrepresented, especially in the news media, to make the consequences seem more catastrophic and the timescale shorter."

So... the answer is no to all. Got it.

Is there a Godwin's type law regarding apealing to Wikipedia in a science debate? If not there should be.

Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

Annoying, no. Amusing, yes.

Is there a Godwin's type law regarding apealing to Wikipedia in a science debate?

As an addendum, I think one reason why people dislike Wikipedia is because of its reliance on secondary sources,

As an addendum, I think one reason why people dislike Wikipedia is because of its reliance on secondary sources, i.e. sources that review primary sources.

The Guardian newspaper is internationally respected for its coverage of the climate crisis.

A lot of people who like to take a very individualist approach to science (to put it nicely) like to engage with the primary sources directly, but when you're outside the field you can often just end up engaging in cherry-picking. Reliable secondary sources give you a wide view of the field and let you know where it's headed and the current understanding.
But these individualists dabbling in the field are feeling good about their evaluative abilities and think they can beat the experts in the field at it, and they dislike having it already done for them.

The UN IPCC is a political organisation. Expecting impartiality from that quarter would be akin to expecting to see a herd of rainbow farting pink unicorns on your front porch every morning.

You are, of course, welcome to think whatever you like- but the reality is that Wikipedia has a long history of using biased sources and representing political opinion and editorial as fact.

An example of one of the sources listed in the page you linked:

OI!
I just said that!
Get your own material!

I use Wiki often and find it very informative,
But I am not naive to the political bias influencing it's presentation *at times*.

One must always carry a sack of salt when traversing the realm of Wiki-kingdom.
I haven't come across many nooks of questionable content,
But I have found some disturbing instances of power abuse thought denial of conceptual, err, concepts.

This is to be expected.
There is only one true "Oracle of Truth" after all.
And it's not easy being green,
Err, the colour,
Not the politics.

OI!
I just said that!
Get your own material!


"The Guardian". <snigger>
Next, they will be talking about: "theconversation.com".