Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

Wikipedia and global warming

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

Bob Park's 28 Aug 09 WN has two entries about Wikipedia, then goes on to global warming:

Newspapers around the country have carried the story of the US Chamber of Commerce, the top US lobbying group, calling for the EPA to hold a Scopes- like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made. The EPA dismisses such a stunt as a "waste of time," but that's the least of its problems. Having lost the contest over scientific peer review of journal articles, the global warming deniers are accused have cooked up a Hollywood stunt [sic].

An LA Times story on the Chamber of Commerce proposal included:

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."

If one goes to Wikipedia on this topic, one finds Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Global Warming:

I've followed the concept of Global Warming since it's inception more than 20 years ago. Throughout it's development, it's been a media darling, and backed by numerous ecology groups as a spearhead for their efforts. Nevertheless, while the issues, data, and conclusions have been seriously inflamed to sell countless papers, magazines, TV spots, and page hits, the idea itself has remained somewhat of a pariah among serious climatologists, many of which either still hold out the question or refute Global Warming altogether. While numerous media and journals continue to claim that "most scientists are in agreement," and "the vast majority of data shows" with respect to Global Warming, the truth is that numerous experts in climatology continue to provide mass data which counters the GW claims of increasing temperatures, rising oceans, and the effects and sources of greenhouse gases such as CO2.
Rather than list the references here, I refer readers to Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," (ISBN0 00 718160 4)(Crichton is a fiction author, not a scientist) which discusses all sides of the Global Warming debate, including nearly all of those in the Wikipedia article. He leaves no stone unturned, having provided more than 140 references throughout his book, all of which are conveniently listed in his Bibliograpy at the end of the book. A sizeable number of the references include websites where the data can be verified online.
Since the references themselves have already undergone significant peer-review in the scientific community, and since those references relegate Global Warming to little more than media hype and an opportunity to funnel billions of dollars into needless research (the suspected motive for much of the hype from some scientists' corners), the entire Global Warming article in Wiki remains in the same serious state of doubt as has the Global Warming theory among serious climatologists.
Thus, I put it to those supporting Global Warming to refute, intelligently, the detailed analyses conduction over the last decade as referenced in Crichton's book. Dr1819 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, SoF is a waste of time, which makes this review a waste of time too. If you have any specific questions or points to raise, please do so. But do it on the GW talk page, not here. Or you could even try to improve the SoF page William M. Connolley 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You are referring me to buy a book? I checked my local librairies. They did not have it. You should, in fact, list referneces here. Or on the GW talk page. Specifically references to "mass data which counters the GW claims of increasing temperatures, rising oceans, and the effects and sources of greenhouse gases such as CO2" would be helpful. BTW, absolute worst case scenario is the oceans rise 5 feet by 2010, from what I've read here on Wikipedia. Far from catastrophic, but ought to be quite a concern to caostal communities. No? TimL 19:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
such as those in Louisiana. DGG 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IPBiz does not know what WN has to say.

On the "burning water" of Kanzius, once (justifiably) trashed by Park, note the take on Wikipedia.

What Wikipedia didn't tell you about Kanzius?

Also

Wikipedia, journalists tricked on Jarre entry

In passing, recall Crichton's gobbleygook on the Metabolite case in patent law.

Full post as published by IPBiz on September 04, 2009 (boomark / email).