Talk:Science & Environmental Policy Project

message: (William M. Connolley 21:34, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Dr. C -- I'm glad you deleted that useless text. You inspired me to attribute SEPP's POV further above that point. After all, an article about SEPP should say something about its point of view. --Uncle Ed 15:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't, someone else got there first. I've accepted your challenge to find scientific criticisms of Singers pov, and added it to the page. I think you'll agree that I've carefully sourced all my comments, whereas all of Singers are completely unsourced. Which climate models does he mean, for example? Which T record does he get 2/3 out of? These are all mysteries. BTW: have you read the top of this page recently? ;-)) --William M. Connolley 18:40, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: [WMC] That seems fair enough... it can be hard to remain polite across projects like this (hardly a novel observation) but with Good Humour (and English Spelling) we will march hand-in-hand towards a Glad Dawn of improved articles.
I'm just glad you don't read the mailing list. I had an awful tussle with your buddy Sheldon Rampton last week. He seemed to think I was "attacking" you and that you needed "defending" -- merely because I dared to call into question the "neutrality" of one of your edits.
You know, I think it's a good day when as many as 50% of my edits (on subjects I feel strongly about) can conform to NPOV, so I really shouldn't be throwing stones at others. Now, when I get up to 90%... ^_^ 
Well, have a good weekend, old chap :-) --Uncle Ed 20:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: "Endorsing" a quote?

message: From article:
:SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of Ozone depletion, making the assertion that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial . Climate modeller William Connolley calls this assertion "clearly false".
I think William Connolley should be a source for the POV that SEPP's assertion is "clearly false". Otherwise, Wikipedia is endorsing William's POV that the CFC statement is NOT controversial. What's wrong with a scientific expert being both source and contributor? --Uncle Ed 19:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If SEPP doesn't say, how can I say? Anyway, I refuse to have an edit war with you; it takes two to tango, and I don't want to dance. You clearly want to discredit SEPP, and if that's what you want I won't fight you. The article really needs a full rewrite anyway. When I have time, I'll start afresh. For now, say what you want. --Uncle Ed 20:20, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connolley as source 

message: The huge chunks of text I took out really need some massaging and could go back in as properly attributed criticisms. Dr. Connolley, would you like to try something along these lines?
:CLAIM: That CFCs released into the atmosphere do not lead to significant increases in cancer.
:REBUTTAL: According to Prof. Soand Sough at Thusnsuch University, Singer's argument has the following flaws...
I don't want a whitewash, I just don't want Wikipedia taking a side in the controversy -- including the "side" that there's "no controversy". --Uncle Ed 12:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive deletes

message: The fact that Singer is the prodominate coordinator and voice does not mean SEPP is a one man band and does not mean they don't raise issues both in peer reviewed publications and in informal press that peers must address, even it only to "correct".  A lot of people collaborate with Singer, even in SEPP's weekly newsletter, with permissions to reprint, etc. and SEPP provides a means to make sure that signifcant minority opinions get distributed to a community.  Even if all SEPP contributes to a peer reviewed publication is Singer's services as a co-author, there is no reason to dismiss it as a sponsor of research or to minimize Singer's role.  
: (William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 19:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: This header on a talk page, was no more POV and, in fact, mirrored a statement in the article which should be of far more concern.  Also the proposition, was not merely asserted, but also defended, which is more than has been done for the mirror statement in the article.--Silverback 08:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEPP does (not) have both peer credibility and political influence 

message: I'm surprised this page kept an acronym as a name for over three years!  Wikipedia policy is to have acronyms be redirects. —Simetrical (talk) 05:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: (William M. Connolley 09:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I too don't think the crit section was the right place, however, I was just restoring it to where it was.  Here is the salient Singer quote: "I devised the satellite instrument that monitors the Antarctic Ozone Hole."  I don't think he would make so easily disputed a claim, unless it had good foundation.  Perhaps the original poster can find an appropriate section for it.--Silverback 09:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 10:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  (William M. Connolley 10:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dropped the instrument down there because it seemed relevant to the criticism of his ozone scientific expertise (in the adjoining pile of criticism).  — SEWilco 18:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the page puts a little too much equality on the identity of the SEPP and Singer.  I find the establishment of Singer's expertise to be unnecessary in an article about an organization he founded, unless as a direct response to a criticism someone has made that he is unqualified to form such an organization.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singer devised the satellite instrument that monitors the Antarctic Ozone Hole. 

message: Bruce Ames is still active as a biochemist , Henry Linden is still actively publishing on energy and the environment , Sir William Mitchell is still actively publishing about glaciers, and Chauncey Starr is still actively publishing on the dynamics of risk analysis.  Now I think calling someone "retired" in the attempt to call them out of touch is a pointless ad hominem, since in my experience retired and older professors tend to have a lot more wisdom and ability to objectively evaluate the larger scope of a field, but it definitely shouldn't be presented as if they're all retired.  I also think that it's difficult to remain active in analyzing and lecturing on the larger-scope of a field, while still actively pursuing research in a focused area, so it is quite natural that the active figures working on analyzing the larger-scope would find their work primarily focused on that.  There are a number of people on the list for which most of the information is in languages I don't read.  Someone else will have to evaluate their publishing activity level.   — Cortonin | Talk 22:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 23:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it does seem that the only sources for that quote all got it from this Wiki page.  That kind of reminds me of the classic rumor game.   — Cortonin | Talk 23:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activity 

message: :The SEPP site appears to be becoming out of date: it lists three science advisors  who are dead (William Mitchell, William Nierenberg and Michael J. Higatsberger); the "key issues" page  says that "weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever" - this has not been true for some years (see satellite temperature measurements).  The "New on the web" and "The Week That Was" links are kept up to date.  For reports and analyses of particular publications, it is probably best to search the site on one of the authors.
The author(s) of the article here appear to be directly and indirectly arguing that the claims of SEPP are false.  That's improper if one wishes to maintain NPOV.  I'm not sure why the reader of the article cares whether or not all parts of the web site are kept up to day; with an external link, they can see that for themselves, anyway.  The purpose of mentioning it here seems to be to provide indirect evidence that SEPP is ignoring more recent evidence which disfavors its position.  Which may be true, but saying so in this way does not seem neutral.  It might be good to mention the article satellite temperature measurements in some other way.  In the meantime, I'm making a See Also link there. -- Beland 05:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable paragraph 

message: In this section, the encyclopedia author(s) once again appear to have taken up the task of directly refuting the claims made by SEPP.  Again, this is inappropriate, given NPOV.  It is, however, important to note opposing claims.  These should be framed as the claims of third parties, not simply reported as fact.  It should be made clear which claims have the status of scientific consensus (cite sources, please), and which there is still considerable debate about.  If the claims of the SEPP are hooey, readers should be able to figure that out for themselves after reading the article and its references.  It's fine to say that SEPP's claims are contradicted by other (possibly very well substantiated) claims; it's not OK to say they are contradicted by The Facts, even if we would all agree that's the case.
There are plenty of contradictory claims out there to be had, even if they don't directly address SEPP's claims, as the "Criticisms of SEPP" says. -- Beland 06:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of SEPP centers on attempts to discredit the organization or its founder by linking it to religion and free-market capitalism, implying that its science is tinged by lunacy or a profit motive. Scientific criticism of SEPP is more rare...
This may be accurate, but it makes it sound like criticism of SEPP is non-substantive or generally unfounded.  It probably wouldn't come across that way if specific sources could be quoted, which we should do anyway. But it sounds like there is a fair bit of indirect "criticism" out there, in the form of factually contradictory claims. -- Beland 06:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 20:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of the SEPP 

message: Criticism of SEPP centers on attempts to discredit the organization or its founder by linking it to religion and free-market capitalism, implying that its science is tinged by lunacy or a profit motive. SEPP's views are either self-published or appear in the mainstream press rather than in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a result, scientists who publish in the peer-reviewed literature have had little comment about SEPP's claims.  Since "views" and "comments" are more easily published elsewhere this is not surprising.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of any of this, because there are no examples given and no sources cited.  It seems like instead of a neutral characterization of SEPP's activities, we have here a little fight between two non-neutral authors who have been forced to finish each other's thoughts.  I can try to fix this so the relevant information can be re-added to the article, but I need some examples to work with. -- Beland 03:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: The rebuttal section appears to be WP:NOR as there none of the sources for the “rebuttals” specifically mention the Science & Environmental Policy Project. These appear to be specific editor’s rebuttals to the ideas propagated by the SEPP and not any WP:RS’s “rebuttals”. 
As such, I have removed them. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, time for another round of the SEPP wars I suppose. I hope you've noticed that "Five of the nine science advisors listed on its web site (Tor Ragnar Gerholm, William Mitchell, William Nierenberg, Michael J. Higatsberger, and Chauncey Starr) are deceased." is equally unsourced William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Time for another round of the SEPP wars"? That a shitty attitude to go into this with, dont you think? Instead of complaining, why not use some reliable sources to address the concerns I have made here. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttals

message: I'll just leave this here.  Apols if it's already been discussed:  "Candace Crandall, a policy research associate with the Science and Environmental Policy Project of Fairfax, Va., assailed the study, describing the National Environmental Trust as 'a propaganda mill, not a research organization'." NYTimes  ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times Quote 

message: I don't see any sources for the rebuttals section of this article.  IF a source claims A and SEPP claims B, for an editor to combine them into "Source A is criticizing SEPP" is a textbook case of WP:Synthesis.
There's a secondary layer of synthesis on some of the sources as well, such as a link to a graph of world temperatures compared to model predictions, with the editor claiming this is a rebuttal of "models don't correlate to actual temperatures".  This needs to be sourced with an actual statement by someone actually criticizing SEPP.  FellGleaming (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis 

message: SEPP lists Seitz as chair of directors still . Quite why Singer thinks this is a good idea is unclear, but there you go, ours is not to reason why.
Also, SEPP isn't a research organisation. In fact it isn't really an organisation at all, but never mind we don't need to bother with that bit.
William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And again. Maybe people might read this section one day William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stiffs etc 

message: Happened to come across this mention of the SEPP website; might be useful:  --JN466 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure which bit you mean. The only mention of SEPP I can see is "Chart: WHERE TO GO The Science and Environmental Policy Project http://www.his.com/sepp Citizens for a Sound Economy http://www.cse.org/globwarm.htm Cooler Heads Coalition http://www.globalwarming.org The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition/The Junk Science home page http://www.junkscience.com Mobil http://www.mobil.com" - are you suggesting that we should use this as a source to assert that all these groups should be lumped together? I'm not sure that would be a very good source for that idea, it appears to rest too much on interpretation William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Paragraphs 4–7 of the article appear to be about the SEPP site (and the Leipzig declaration hosted on it). Note that the article is from 1997, so the info is not that recent. --JN466 15:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, missed that, I was searching for SEPP William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times article

message: I removed some OR ; we have no evidence that he has been replaced William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seitz 

message: I don't understand the objection to SEPP's think tank status.  Groups -- especially those founded by scientists -- that exist to generate policy-influencing papers are, by definition, think tanks.  This is the standard definition.  Fell Gleamingtalk 15:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try reading the defn: A think tank (or policy institute) is an organization or individual that conducts research and... so SEPP is out. It doesn't conduct research William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It most certainly does conduct research, and it publishes the results of that research.  The vast majority of all think tanks do not conduct peer reviewed research, which is probably what is confusing you.  Take a look at List_of_think_tanks for ample verification of this.  Fell Gleamingtalk 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think SEPP does research, PR or otherwise. Incidentally, even SEPP doesn't think it is a tank:   William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text:  Edit.  What's even more amusing is that the definition already in the sentence you restored calls SEPP a "research and advocacy organization".  That's a think tank, plain and simple.  Fell Gleamingtalk 16:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha ha, you're right, but its wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: SEPP describes itself as "A non-profit, 501(c)3 educational group". I think in practice it was basically a PR hub for what people associated with it were doing anyway; basically handy brand name. Anyway, "research and advocacy group" is clearer than "think tank". Rd232 talk 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  basically a PR hub for what people associated with it were doing anyway - yes, that is accurate, but alas we can't say it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You're off wikilawyering again, which is dull William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you feel that properly defining terms is "Wikilawyering"?  Do you or do you not realize that a freshman research paper is created by "doing research"?   WP policy doesn't allow us to redefine the language to suit us. Fell Gleamingtalk 18:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Think Tanks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Science & Environmental Policy Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100712133504/http://www.sepp.org:80/key%20issues/keyissue.html to http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissue.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Science & Environmental Policy Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928121846/http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/boarddir.html to http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/boarddir.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429225341/https://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2007/September%201.htm to http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2007/September%201.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712133504/http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissue.html to http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissue.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011226132807/http://sepp.org/pressrel/goreglac.html to http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/goreglac.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified