Talk:State of Fear/Archive 2

Weird overview...

The overview begins: According to Crichton, three years were spent studying the themes of the book, and he included a statement of his views on global climate change as an afterword. In this section he called "author's message", Crichton states his belief that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is largely unknown and unknowable, a view disputed by a majority of scientists.[10] He finishes by endorsing the management of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment. In Appendix I,...

This isn't an overview of the novel at all. It focusses on the afterword. Now, I happen to think that the book is sh*t* and badly describes the science, but that the only reason anyone pays it any attention is the controversy over whether it descibes the science or not. However... our overview (which is nominally an overview of the book, not the controversy around the book, no?) really ought to be an actual overview of the book. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• You are right about the direction it took, in fact I was going to edit a bit more, but stopped because of the concern you are raising. So, what do you think to have a separate section called something like "Author's afterword" or something like that? I do think the content is important to give due weight to the article, given that the scientific criticism is all against him. With this section what MC wrote in the book speakes for him. Any other ideas or suggestions?
• Since I am familiar with the novel, I can give it a try as for a real overview, in the standard of other Wiki articles, but I rather wait for a decision here on the issue you raised and my suggestion.--Mariordo (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• After a quick overview of several MC's best sellers, such as Jurassic Park, Timeline, The Andromeda Strain and Next (novel), or even from other author's such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel) and Fahrenheit 451, Wiki style for this kind of article has been to have an "Overview" section only when a "Plot summary" section is lacking. So, since SoF already does have a "Plot summary" section, such "Overview" section is unnecessary, and due to its present content, I will be renaming and moving this section to a new "Author's afterword" (any other title name is welcome) right before the scientific criticism section, to provide some due weight, by having what MC wrote in the book speaking for him. The only information left is this "The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and reached the #1 bestseller position at amazon.com and #2 at the New York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005." that because of its relevance I will move to the leading paragraph.
• It is also worth noticing that as per the proposal above, tha Jurassic Park has a branchin article called Biological issues in Jurassic Park, so that a detailed discussion about the science in SoF could be detailed in such an article.--Mariordo (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of lack of NPOV tag

I think that since WMC summarized the excessive quotes in the criticism section, further editing by several editors has improved NPOV a lot. Still is missing some scientific criticism in favor of SoF (if such exists) for due weight, and also the literary criticism section, with the normal summary of book reviews, but I think this content can be added in the future. If the content of the latest edits are OK for everybody, I proposed deletion of the NPOV tag. Please state below your opinion on this proposal. --Mariordo (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed the NPOV tag now.Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 02:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From our private discussions and forth it is clear to me that the problem with the article right now is structural not lack of NPOV and/or lack thereof.... thus I think the structure I am purposing in the rewrite still makes sense (I should have the non-science part done by the end of the night) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to run after making the comment so didn't fully explain my self... for example I think having a "awards" section and only sitting the AAPE award is in it self a violations.... the "correct" way to handle this in a NPOV fashion would be move it to lit. crit and say something like "The critical acclaim the book has raised as much conterversy as the book it self" then offer a reference to the AAPE award in see also or external links/what ever --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should be put back on the article. At first glance, the entire thing reads like a political screed for the false religions of environmentalism and man-made global warming, footnotes and references notwithstanding. It's about as bad an example as one will find in Wikipedia. Phooey! —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep the overwhelming "rebuttals" to footnotes?

I feel that the "Criticisms" section is a bit much, so to say, and some editor's biases are spilling over. And as the title says... 98.210.15.39 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Before some environmentalist gets angry at me, I'd like to point out that our fellow editors obviously have their biases spilling over, reverting edits and the like and trying so hard to call out on Crichton. Mr. Raptor (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The book was cr*p (from a sci pov) but the we-hate-it quotes are a bit excessive I'd say. I've removed some. Still a lot left though. I don't think they should all go into footnotes William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We should keep biases out of any sort of article. I agree we should leave the criticism from other scientists (and before anyone else pigeonholes Crichton, his other books are much better from a scientific viewpoint), but the quotes are a bit much. Mr. Raptor (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Critighton is *TOO GENEROUS* to the "radical" enviromentalists

The following is the transcript of an email I sent to the Heartland Foundation http://www.heartland.org/ that has an essay giving clear references and layman's references to justify every single point Crichton makes in the book (Some of the more mild non-climate change issues I think he is wrong on for example we understand acid rain sufficiently well to manage it and prevent its worst effects same for water pollution [the EPA just recently declared the Hudson [including the portion running along Manhattan] to be safe for swimming and with simple purification [iodine] safe for human consumption] so for "trivial" systems such as these we *DO* have the science to make sound policy). Following the transcript I will include a few comments I failed to include in the original email:

Subject: essay on state of fear is to kind to the radical enviromentalists From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:25 AM To: jbast@heartland.org I am a computer scientist who specializes in the limits of computational models (i.e. the limits of what is modelable on a computer and what computers can and can not do) [generally refereed to "the Theory of Computation"] and both your essay and Crichton are too kind the underlying math and computational nature of computer climate modeling (CCM). Specifically *EVEN IF* we had completely accurate raw data to put into the models *AND* we *COMPLETELY* understood the system being modeled (i.e.the climate [which even the IPCC admits is the mathematically most complex system we have ever attempted to model]) it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to get output over any sufficiently large surface area of the planet (say California at the largest end) or over any sufficiently long time frame (say 10 years at the out side) that would be more then 20-50% (with 100% accuracy being the model completely agrees with real life) accurate. In summary the reason this is it is impossible for a computer model to have a "present" it only has a "past" or "future" that (theoretically) is "infinity" [1] close to the "present", *BUT* since different portions of the current "generation" of the model are either in the past or the future it is not possible to produce aggregate results that are in the "present". Additionally even if the theory of computation allowed for the above issues to be resolved it is well known that any complex dynamic mathematical system is extremely sensitive to it's initial inputs and computers can not represent infinitely precise numbers (for example a computer can *ONLY ESTIMATE* pi to an arbitrary [i.e. some large but finite] number of digits). Thus since we can only estimate the true values of the raw data (assuming our measurements are completely correct) when entering them into a computer model and the inherent input sensitivity of CCM's the output would be completely untrustworthy (likely worse then then 350% error Crichton cites). Since it is late and I need my sleep if you need more details or creditable references I will put them together tomorrow or Friday.

Footnotes:

1. Infinity as used to calculate derivatives and integrals in calculus (i.e. some very small but measurable number)

-- Aryeh M. Friedman (aryeh.friedman@gmail.com), FloSoft Systems Java Developer Tools and Operating System Development

      "Free Software != Free Beer"

--- end of orginal email ---

The math behind the limitations of the modeling has been proven from at least the late 60's with most of the work being done in the 40's and 60's but some of the earliest results are from the early 30's.

The math behind input sensitivity has been proven since at least the mid 70's with some of the proof going as far back as the late 50's.

Both topics are extremely well understood and are covered in undergrad classes in both math and computer science by almost all universities.

Bottom line is the above statements are not "theoretical" in the sense that they have not been factually proven to the satisfaction of every professional in math and computer science (i.e. they are as solidly proven as say the Pythagorean Theorem or the value of PI).... they are only theortical in the sense that they rely on "abstractions" (areas of knowledge that it is impossible to physically "touch", thus we *MUST* rely on indirect meausers and mathimatical proofs/disproofs to understand]).

For this reason and the extremely well documented citations crighton gives the page *MUST* in all fairness be updated to *CORRECTLY* state Crighton's thesis which is we *DO NOT* have sufficent science on climate change to base policy on... and that getting that science is the single most complex and time consuming project the scientific community has ever undertaken (it *IS* the 21st centuries apollo/Manhattan/etc. "project")... I personally believe that we quite likely have some measurable effect on the climate due to human activity *BUT* since our track record for attempting to manage systems that are beyond our understanding is so horrible we *MUST NOT* base policy on any of the current science (namely policy that essentially ignores the problem *AND/OR* policy meant to curb what ever effects we may have on the system(s) in question) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.89.184 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Locations

Any thoughts on the 'locations' section? Seems completely irrelevant to me. Really, what is the point in this long list of locations? Can we shorten it or remove it altogether? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting article rewrite

Since the article is clearly highly biased and does not seperate the fictional parts from science cited by the characters (which is by everyones admission is "real" and not fictional [i.e. comes from actual scientific publications.... the only disagreement is how fairly Crighton selects what "facts" to report and which ones to "overlook" as well his debatable combining of findings from multiple sources in the same dialog). I have started a page rewrite project at State of Fear Revisions. The goals of the rewrite are to:

1. Correctly state Crighton thesis in his own terms (without passing judgement)

2. Give a accurate plot summary and character list (basically done but the plot summery mischaraterises the reason for Even's "conversion" from being one based on beiong torn between sarah and (I forget her name) instead of being based on the "evidence" presented by Kenner and first hand experience with NERF's action plan)

3. Break the critism/science debate off into a seperate page and make it more objective

4. Leave purely literary critism (like weak story telling compared to his other efforts) on the main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• A 100% support for your proposal. People who doesn't seem to have read the book added their POV. See my comments above regarding NPOV (though it has improved a bit lately). Definitively is required to have a description without passing judgment to achieve NPOV. --Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I only have the book (currently... lent the paper copy to someone) from a bit torrent of the audio version which is missing cd 5 if anyone has it let me know (I do have a electronic copy of the text including all the graphs and both appendixs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think copyrights would not allow to have an electronic copy, but you can consult the text by bits using the "Search inside" tool in Amazon, which is available for the paperback version. Just type the right key words and you will be able to read page by page, at least this will help you to fill the blanks. I am working on other projects, but I do have a copy and have read it twice, so and I can give you a hand from time to time.-Mariordo (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I am currently reading it for the 4th time (twice for fun, once for a paper essay on it [which I verified every source in the bibliography], and once to this rewrite).... I have also listened/read/viewed every publically abvaible speech/testimony Crighton has given so I think I know the general concepts he is aiming at well but certain details like where to prove the editting of the 2001 IPCC report might need some help from you. Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OOPS forgot to mention if you drop me a email note at aryeh.friedman@gmail.com I will send you some intresting reading/info that has some interesting stuff about SoF that are not directly related to this article thus I wish not to post them here Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As per some stupid editorial policy which I am current disputing I was forced to move the rewrite page to my personal user space ... the link above has been updated.... since I am rather new to wikipedia editing can some please attempt to edit it and tell me if it is editable by others Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it works, I did some editing as requested. Because you are new to Wiki, I suggest you first do some reading of Wiki policies regarding content, style and WP:NPOV. --Mariordo (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally this sounds good, but I wouldn't create a separate article for the scientific criticism as this often leads to WP:POVFORK. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 11:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if you look at the two skeleton pages you will see why I think making them one is unwieldly and confusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Does n't look very promising so far. You've completely dropped the sci crit. You also seem to have completely misunderstood the state of the "sci" in the book: it isn't validly presented: its a mixture of invention, distortion and selective quotation. I doubt your re-write will fly William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You must of wrote that as I was creating the skeleton of the separate article for sci crit State of Fear Science Debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird overview...

The overview begins: According to Crichton, three years were spent studying the themes of the book, and he included a statement of his views on global climate change as an afterword. In this section he called "author's message", Crichton states his belief that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is largely unknown and unknowable, a view disputed by a majority of scientists.[10] He finishes by endorsing the management of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment. In Appendix I,...

This isn't an overview of the novel at all. It focusses on the afterword. Now, I happen to think that the book is sh*t* and badly describes the science, but that the only reason anyone pays it any attention is the controversy over whether it descibes the science or not. However... our overview (which is nominally an overview of the book, not the controversy around the book, no?) really ought to be an actual overview of the book. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• You are right about the direction it took, in fact I was going to edit a bit more, but stopped because of the concern you are raising. So, what do you think to have a separate section called something like "Author's afterword" or something like that? I do think the content is important to give due weight to the article, given that the scientific criticism is all against him. With this section what MC wrote in the book speakes for him. Any other ideas or suggestions?
• Since I am familiar with the novel, I can give it a try as for a real overview, in the standard of other Wiki articles, but I rather wait for a decision here on the issue you raised and my suggestion.--Mariordo (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• After a quick overview of several MC's best sellers, such as Jurassic Park, Timeline, The Andromeda Strain and Next (novel), or even from other author's such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (novel) and Fahrenheit 451, Wiki style for this kind of article has been to have an "Overview" section only when a "Plot summary" section is lacking. So, since SoF already does have a "Plot summary" section, such "Overview" section is unnecessary, and due to its present content, I will be renaming and moving this section to a new "Author's afterword" (any other title name is welcome) right before the scientific criticism section, to provide some due weight, by having what MC wrote in the book speaking for him. The only information left is this "The novel had an initial print run of 1.5 million copies and reached the #1 bestseller position at amazon.com and #2 at the New York Times Best Seller list for one week in January 2005." that because of its relevance I will move to the leading paragraph.
• It is also worth noticing that as per the proposal above, tha Jurassic Park has a branchin article called Biological issues in Jurassic Park, so that a detailed discussion about the science in SoF could be detailed in such an article.--Mariordo (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of lack of NPOV tag

I think that since WMC summarized the excessive quotes in the criticism section, further editing by several editors has improved NPOV a lot. Still is missing some scientific criticism in favor of SoF (if such exists) for due weight, and also the literary criticism section, with the normal summary of book reviews, but I think this content can be added in the future. If the content of the latest edits are OK for everybody, I proposed deletion of the NPOV tag. Please state below your opinion on this proposal. --Mariordo (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed the NPOV tag now.Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 02:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From our private discussions and forth it is clear to me that the problem with the article right now is structural not lack of NPOV and/or lack thereof.... thus I think the structure I am purposing in the rewrite still makes sense (I should have the non-science part done by the end of the night) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to run after making the comment so didn't fully explain my self... for example I think having a "awards" section and only sitting the AAPE award is in it self a violations.... the "correct" way to handle this in a NPOV fashion would be move it to lit. crit and say something like "The critical acclaim the book has raised as much conterversy as the book it self" then offer a reference to the AAPE award in see also or external links/what ever --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should be put back on the article. At first glance, the entire thing reads like a political screed for the false religions of environmentalism and man-made global warming, footnotes and references notwithstanding. It's about as bad an example as one will find in Wikipedia. Phooey! —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite ready for Review

The rewrite mentioned above is ready for it's first field tests as per it's content and maintaining NPOV, The science debate page is still a skeleton. See State of Fear Revisions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now enough of a outline of the direction that the sci. debate article is heading that I would like some feed back on it (forgive my grammar and spelling) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aryeh_M._Friedman/State_of_Fear_Debate --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note that my normal writing style is to write the text and then and only then add the references. This does not mean that I do not have ready references for every statement it just means that adding in the formal reference breaks my flow of thought thus I leave it til I get everything down —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Risign Sun references are irrevelent

The section added no information content except for trivia for hardcore MC fans like me.... also it incorrectly cites RS as the only MC book with a teacher/student relationship... while ultimately a false front there exists the same relationship between Casey and Richmond in Airframe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, I always found that subsection pretty irrelevant. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reason for merging and retitling awards and use in politics

Both essentially address the same issue (controversy created about the book by readers/fans). The political use is easy to see, but the reason for moving the AAPG award there also is since it is the only award cited (and from the camp that the critics already think is "tainted") if it had say gotten an award from a pro-environmentalist group then keeping the award section would make sense (note I would of merged them even if the only award was from an enviromental group and not the AAPG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 11:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite

The rewrite looks like quite an improvement of the overall article. However, I have a few concerns about individual passages, mostly about interpretation of the novel and references. What do you think about the following issues?

• The last two paragraphs of Overview (startting with: Essentially Michael Crichton argues...) seem very much like the interpretation of Crichton's novel and as such WP:OR. This is especially the case for the second paragraph ('Even though not overtly stated the secondary message Crichton attempts to make...'). Also some of the wording seems to be POV ('Sadly,...').
• The same is true for Major themes. Are there any references that these are the major themes or is it only the editor's perception?
• And even more in Metaphorical Use of Characters. Who claims that Kenner stands in for Crichton, that his agenda is to present science in an objective manner (remember, the main scientific criticism of the book is that science is not presented in such a way) and so forth...?

I will add the rest of the character refs in a few hours, but note I was not able to find a decent one for Ann. I think this is still within wp standards because a) she is really a minor character appearing int 2 sequences only (flight to San Francisco and the banquet in addition to the flight to Hawaii [if someone can fix the wording in the plot summary this is what I meant when she left due to forsh8adowing {customs scarerd her with their stories}]) and b) even the most careful reader would have a very hard time telling Ted and Ann apart if it wasn't for Ted's "celeb vices"

• The Criticism/Literary section has a reference for the mixed reviews but not for the individual claims in the list below.

Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking back on it I realized I pulled the specifics points from the NY Times review but all other mixed reviews make one or more of them also (often in slight subtly different ways) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have some twelve book reviews from several sources, and several countries. There are favorable reviews, mixed, but most are very critical (overall rate is 40/100). I do not think just the NYT review is NPOV. I propose including at least 6 reviews (from 18 included in RS review site), using quotes (as short as possible) to avoid OR and to keep NPOV. If you think is worth the effort I will do it, and I will justify the criteria used for the 6 selected. Regarding the recent edits I think there is a lot of WP:OR. You really need RS other than the book itself.--Mariordo (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same.... I think there are about 5 or 6 reviews referenced indirectly in the article now (all the character standins refs are from various reviews) when I was looking up something else I found a site that collects all the "major" (Metro-Area US Daily newspapers and news magazines)... btw what is the ISBN for that book you mentioned on my talk page?--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The book is I can provide to you the urls for the book reviews for you to work it out, let me know.--Mariordo (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordered it last night from amazon should be interesting--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed the refs for the items above and did some rewording of the second to last paragraph of the overview... I also completely deleted "Major Themes" because it's main point is already covered in the central thesis description and the rest is irrelevant and/or mentioned else where and is not "major" enough to be stated here (we may want to add back a direct ref to the USC prof but I think the critical thinking ref does that well enough in a more non-fiction way).....

So I guess it is time to go find all those little annoying details (like as I type this I just reliezed I forgot to redo the refs for the lit crit section as I said aboev) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Next Target for Rewrite

The non-science rewrite is done (see above). This leaves the science but at least from my POV it requires a lot of research and sourcing (especially since I personally think the limitations of computer modeling is the key area that is not addressed else where in context to the GW debate and SoF presents some special challanges... for that reason I have created scratch pad page for collecting and organizing my personal thoughts (which may or may not be slowly reworked into a fully sourced NPOV article in it's own right [way to long to try to combine the lit and sci into one article]).... please feel free to take a look and treat it like you wouold a talk page and make comments anywhere you think is needed (please sign) and once everything is down and sourced I will start on NPOV'ing it.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aryeh_M._Friedman/State_of_Fear_Debate --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

really stupid question

Does any know the legal status of climate graph data from NASA's GISS center (the same one Jennifer shows Evans?). Just to be clear I am talking about the orginals not the ones in SoF where MC added a trend line --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean their copyright status? Works of US govt tend to be public domain William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.... I just remembered some that needs to but in somewhere but since there is no good context for (unless I cut and paste something from sci. debate scratch page [speaking of which I had no feed on that as yet from anyone]) which how to handle the controversy if his citations are all real (there was not a single creditable site I found that did a independant checking of them said the where fakex but the bloggers and the conspricay crowd thing there is) and doing the cut ans paste I mentioned whould be a rather out of context add

Just a side question can I get someone to look at my user profile and send me mail on what you thought (there are some projects that are not ready for me to make public that I think might go a long ways towards reducing any doubt of GW [has happened but can't predict if it will continue and what the causes are] --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Link between Eugentics and the Holocost

The Nazis actually offically used it as justification both in propaganda and Nuremberg... so why is best left since it is a) a point MC makes both directly and indirectly in the appendix and b) it waters down how wrong of a policy it was not to say that (in the same way MC accuses the famous backers doing after WWII) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jolly edit wars

Re [1]:

It should be noted that even though AAPG is often grouped as Global Warming deniers they are in fact first and foremost scientists and have historical changed their view on several topics based on solid evidence; therefor they should be grouped with the skeptics (yes they are among the most skeptical but not dogmatic).

It should be noted... is the wrong way to say most things on wiki. Are these people first and foremost scientists? Who says so? I think they are mostly working petroleum geologists working for std commercial companies, not scientists. The entire thing is unencyclopeadic.

Any other field/industry would except industry as well as academic work (most of the real break throughs in cs are from the companies not the academics) besides here is there new offical statement saying the agree that the theory behind GW is basically solid but to spotty in places.... http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm... thus will reput it with the ref (I was doing that before you took it out) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter. The stuff I've removed is just your personal interpolation. You simply cannot go around adding your personal opinions like that, however convinced you might be William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not refuted the basic evidence only the wording so I will take the part of skeptics vs. deniers but youo can not deny that they did revise their position (in 1999 the said there was no GW peroid in the new statement they say the basic theory is sound).... please explain in detail why this is not a) relivent (since the revisted the position after the award) and b) a new statement that very clearly reverses there 1999 position is not good enough evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore... amy or may not have SoF in mind. We really can't tell. Is there any good reason to include this tenuous stuff?

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...and while I'm here: ansible doesn't look like a WP:RS William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are two quite different nice little edit wars, actually. I find it obvious that Gore referred to SoF, but I count less than nothing, so I have found three references for this (did you notice that I had added two more to the only one we had before?). This said, if Al Gore comments on (or makes fun of) a novel, it seems a significant detail to be inserted in that novel's article. Don't you agree? Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Yes, I always find only one edit war at a time to be too simple :-). Meanwhile, I still think the connection is tenuous, but don't care enough to revert it out again William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though I think Al Gore is one of the most fanatical people on the non-"industry" side he should not be dismissed (I guess the same reason I defended ExxonMobil when I hate their guts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs)

Thanks. So, having given my views above, and as at least another editor agrees, I am putting Gore's quote back. Goochelaar (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of Gore or Exxon. FWIW (very little) I don't hate their guts William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to play this game out I am willing to go all the way including going through the official disbute resolution procedures, because all three points you edited out are important to give a rounded picture (the wording could be improved and I did improve it) but only someone who has more biases then you accuse MC of having would not see this. Bottom line if you think it is not needed then lets play it out fairly instead of you attempting to trick people in WP:3RR for no good reason except to get your voice be heard last. --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Trick you into 3RR? What are you on about. I've warned you about avoiding 3RR. But anyway, I've reverted your changes [2] because:

• [3] where does he state this? Its a pretty clunky novel by all accounts, but I very much doubt he says "The central thesis of the book is that the following five points are misused for personal/professional gain by some people". What exactly are you paraphrasing to produce this?

Note MC doesn't number the points in the afterword but I am for easy ref (starting with point 1)

Lack of proof of GW (pts. 1-9)

Elites {pts 2 and 3 in the article} (pts. 12, 16, 17, 19, 25)

Conflicts of interest (pts. 19, 22, 24, 25)

Lack of use of scientific method (pts. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeeessss... which shows that he mentions themin the appendix. Does he ever explicitly state that the thesis of the book is those 5 points? Otherwise, its just your original research William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the same order as before her are the in story citations of either the first mention of the point or a specific monologue from Kenner (which you have no problem reconizing as being a stand in for MC) or a character specifically created to make that one point and never used before or after (specifically Prof. Hoffman for the elites)

Lack of GW evidence (p. 47-51)

Elites (p. 497-504)

Conflicts of interest (p. 47-51)

Lack of sci. method (Mortan's last monologue: p. 618-623)

Do us a favor next time before assuming that people have not done their research please so a sign that you have done enought to question their's --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've asked you this twice now and you've evaded answering, so its fairly obvious: the answer if, MC never says they are the 5 central themes; its just your WP:OR that they are. Which makes it impremissible William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• [4] there are lots of facts about eugenics and the holocaust; we don't include them all here. If Crichton explicitly states that E->H, thats different.

Page 634 (paperback) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• [5] "the title refers to..." isn't part of the plot

Again wrong as seen on pages 497-504 --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• [6] why do we care that the AAGP has since changed its mind?

Not to do so makes them appear not to be a independant group from industry, when in fact they are a professional association which is always reconized as independant from the employeers --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're making this up. Who says they are "always recognised as..."? How could you possibly know? Its not up to us to chronicle the twists and turns of their policy William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Several sources and the law but the one your most likely to trust since your so into WP is WP itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_organization where every single one says that the organizaition is independant from the employers and in some cases the sole representive of the profession or is reconized as the premire academic source (such as the AMA in the US) --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't say "they are a prof org; hence they must be indep". Thats just making things up. Nor is that particular point terribly relevant. I really really don't understand your logic: what you're saying is, that its vital to anyones understanding of the AAPG, to know that they've changed their stance on GW, because otherwise they look like the lapdogs of their employers? You're saying that their previous stance was obviously scientifically unaccepatable and unprofession, so they couldn't possibly have held on to it? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Try getting the root source. Wiki cannot be used for wiki. Brusegadi (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the orginal issue is AAPG here is their official stand on the issue from their own annual report http://www.aapg.org/business/annual/intro.cfm..... now from doing verious variants of "professional organization[s]" "independance" "legel status" etc. on google I was not able to find a single mention in the first 5 pages of any of the searchs that implied that every professional organization considered in the page was in fact 100% independant... many of such wordings are written in to the US Code and other places--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording seems problematic. As an example, on the first paragraph of plot summary, the word "elite" is used. Yet, it is never used in the source, so its WP:WEASEL. The description should be toned down. Brusegadi (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is used numerous times with the most notable in the pages I sited where it is even directly linked to the the phrase "state of fear".... doesn't anyone actually read any more? --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I also took out P's [7] removal of deniers... I don't mind the deniers going, but we shouldn't say its used, without saying by what side William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So C has now fixed this [8] which undoes one of AMF's first edits [9]. And so we go round :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)