Talk:Political positions of Fred Thompson/Archive 1

ARCHIVE OF GLOBAL WARMING DISCUSSION FROM JUNE 2007. DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. ALL EDITS SHOULD BE REVERTED. NEW CONTENT SHOULD ONLY BE ADDED TO THE MAIN WIKI ARTICLE.

The comment at the end of the section on Global Warming states "This relatively new theory is accepted by few climate scientists; see Climate of Mars for details.": The link to the "Climate of Mars" makes no reference to the statement that "few climate scientists" support this theory. This is a highly controversial subject. What is the source for that claim? Kbastin 15:29, 18 June 2007 (EST)

The linked to article actually makes the more categorical statement "Abdusamatov's hypothesis has not been accepted by other scientists." Taken literally that would say that there are no climate scientists who have endorsed this theory (except Abdusamatov himself, and even he is more of an astronomer). As I said in a discussion above, there probably is some climate scientist somewhere who supports it, but I couldn't find one on a quick Google search.Crust 20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon of the National Post (Canada) wrote a good multi-part series called "The Deniers", here's a link to part 1, the other ten parts are linked at the story. There might be something useful there. I actually thought this series was extended to something like 20 or 30 articles, but I don't see them linked there, but I'll look again later. - Crockspot 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This link has more of the "Denier" articles: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71 I don't intend this discussion to become a debate on the global warming controversy but I don't feel that the phrase "few climate scientists" is appropriate. There are quite a number of climate scientists that have doubts about human activities role in 'global warming'. This article is not the place for that debate nor is it appropriate to make unsubstantiated statements. Kbastin 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the entire line "This relatively new theory is accepted by few climate scientists; see Climate of Mars for details." Kbastin 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kbastin, it's important to distinguish between skepticism about anthropogenic global warming in general and support for this argument in particular. This article is not the place to go into details, but this particular argument has holes you could drive a truck through. (E.g. we have much more direct measurements of solar activity than trying to infer it indirectly from which other planets may be warming.)

As I said a couple of times, I literally could not find a single climate scientist who endorses this argument. I'd bet good money that e.g. Richard Lindzen (who is often considered one of the more respectable skeptics) would not endorse it. Now there probably is some climate scientist somewhere who accepts this argument, but really the formulation "accepted by few climate scientists" is a generous one. Indeed, I'm tempted to go with "few (if any)". Crust 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is or isn't a consensus I don't see how it is relevant or necessary to make that statement in this bio. This article http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af contains several references to climate scientists that have doubts about the man made component of 'global warming' in case anyone else is 'unable to find a single climate scientist' with doubts. I don't have an oppinion on the subject but I don't see why the original comment was needed especially when there was no source document reerenced to back up the claim. [User:Kbastin|Kbastin]] 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Kbastin, but that article contains exactly zero references to climate scientists who accept the Martian argument against man-made global warming. Did you not get the point about distinguishing between skepticism about man-made global warming in general and support for this argument in particular? To give an (admittedly absurd) analogy, arguing that Libby should be pardoned is one thing. Arguing that Libby should be pardoned because people with nicknames like "Scooter" don't deserve to go to jail (obviously not Thompson's actual argument) would be quite another.Crust 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Crust, Apparently you didn't notice the third to the last paragraph of that article which contained specific references to (among others) the November 2006 survey conducted by the National Registry of Environmental Professionals which found that only 59% of it's membership believed that manmade activity was causing 'global warming'. See this link for that survey at http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm. There are several other surveys of climate scientists cited in the same article. The entire point of this has NOTHING to do with global warming and everything to do with what appears to be an attempt to portray Fred Thompson in an unfavorable light for his comments suggesting that global warming observed on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Triton (a moon of Neptune) and Pluto (coincidentally at the same times that we are observing Increased Solar Radiation and increased sunspot activity might have more to do with 'global warming' than some scientist may believe.

Here are some other articles related to scientists that have expressed views suggesting solar radiation is underrated in causing global warming...

swiss and german scientists blame the sun duke university physiscist thinks sun's role is underestimated Scientists Debate Sun's Role in Global Warming Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Brightening Sun Warming Earth - Harvard University Global warming hits Mars too BLOG - Global Warming on other planets Defects in Global Warming Theory (Marusek)

Whether there is any merit to any of these articles and beliefs is entirely irrelevant in THIS wiki article. There are many references to other scientists holding these views and therefore the comment which I removed is clearly out of place. Any further discussions on the merits of the global warming topic itself really need to take place on the Global Warming Discussion board. Kbastin 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kbastin, do you really not understand the difference between agreeing with the conclusion of an argument and agreeing with the argument as a whole?

So for instance I agree that it is cold in winter. But I disagree that this is because Persephone goes to Hades in wintertime (as the ancient Greeks argued). Skeptical climate scientists agree with Thompson that the Earth's warming is not principally due to man. But many (possibly all) of them disagree that this is shown by the fact that some other planets are warming.

This is not a complicated point. You didn't get it the first two times I made it, so I don't suppose you'll get it the third time. You did get one thing right though, your countless links to all these articles are irrelevant here.Crust 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Crust: One more time - The statement "This relatively new theory is accepted by few climate scientists; see Climate of Mars for details." was an editorial comment and inapropriate for inclusion in this bio. The only support you have cited for that statement was another editorial comment from another article which also failed to provide any study or evidence to substantiate that statement. Perhaps the original author had something to back up the statement but it is NOT evident in the references cited in this wiki article nor is it evident in anything you have contributed to this discussion. I have cited numerous articles that you want to claim are irrelevant to the discussion but every single one of them are articles that appear to validate the statements Fred Thompson made and dispute the comment that "few climate scientists" agree. Perhaps there are only a few but unless you can cite some specific study or fact based evidence the comment is inappropriate. 24.99.96.88 15:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Kbastin (I assume anon above is Kbastin), I am really getting tired of this. If Thompson had said that global warming is not man-made because the tooth fairy told him so, there would be no need to explain that his argument was a stretch because that would be obvious to every reader. However, most readers are not in a position to make a judgment one way or the other on the planetary argument for AGW. I know this stuff in detail and that argument, frankly, is just bunk. You can see the reasons at the Climate of Mars article or follow your own link to Breitbart -- hardly a liberal source -- to see why if your curious. I'm tempted to explain the details, but since you don't seem to get the distinction between an argument and its conclusion, there doesn't seem much point. If you think the statement that "few (if any) climate scientists" or some variant is inaccurate, the correct place to dispute it is at the Climate of Mars article.

Crust; I have consistently stated that my point has NOTHING to do with global warming. I don't have an opinion on that subject; My objection is to the lack of any credible source to substantiate the "few climate scientist" remark. I really don't care if YOU think that this belief is equivalent to a belief in the tooth fairy you MUST provide a credible source for that sort of statement. The "few climate scientist" statement does not have a "credible source" as defined by the wikipedia:Reliable sources. I will refer you specifically to the section titled "claims of consensus".

You have repeatedly referred back to the text "Abdusamatov's hypothesis has not been accepted by other scientists" in the "climate of mars" Wiki page as your source for that comment however that statement in the article also fails to cite any credible source for the statement. THIS article is about a candidate for president and not about Global warming so I don't see why that particular comment is even necessary in this article but even if you feel it IS necessary it must have credible sources to back it up and not simply your opinion. Kbastin 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Crust Given that the main point of this discussion is already a settled point (removal of the 'few climate scientist' statement) I suggest that we condense this entire "global warming section" down to a much simpler statement such as -

I removed the statement "This relatively new theory is accepted by few climate scientists" as it lacks a credible source as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Kbastin 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to delete your comments without your feedback but this section is much longer than it needs to be. If you agree feel free to make those edits yourself or if I haven't seen a response in a few days I will make the change myself. Regards. Kbastin 18:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You should probably archive this discussion rather then deleting it. Also, please use wikilinks rather that external links when linking to hings within Wikipedia. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that SigmaEpsilon, Thanks for the tips and Happy Birthday!!! Kbastin 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)