2008 Woodie Awards
*Your Voice*
Response to "Global warming: A convenient misconception"
Kevin Hundt
Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: Opinion
Rather than continually repeating the statements made in the April 2 Racquet article, "Global Warming: A Convenient Misconception???", I will show point-by-point why they are wrong or otherwise illogical in a way that necessitates having a copy of that paper to follow along.
The reason why Wikipedia popped up first is because of how Google works. It directs you to the most popular page based on how many other pages link to it. Wikipedia is, for obvious reasons, one of the most-linked-to websites; therefore, it comes up first in many results, especially for such a large topic.
Wikipedia is not a source. One of the guiding principles of the encyclopedia is that there must be "No Original Research". It is a compilation of sources: Every piece of information on the site must be cited. The Wikipedia page on Global Warming cites 114 sources and suggests more places to go for information. Wikipedia is not a pile of rumors where anyone can say whatever they want. If something is controversial, that controversy is noted; if something isn't cited, it's removed.
Also, the #2 website that Google recommends for Global Warming? The EPA. That directly contradicts Kate Susa's claim that "the first links that pop up are not from trusted scientific agencies, the National Weather Service, environmental research facilities, or even the government".
Regarding that absurd but oft-repeated point that Al Gore's house uses 12 times as much electricity- So what? Is that supposed to prove that he's 'just kidding' about global warming?
Of course, surely the American Meteorological Society should have something to say. So let's quote from a 2003 statement by that organization: "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems."
Next, yes, the temperature changes even without human interference. However, "over the last century" includes the time period when humans were contributing! Furthermore, the problem isn't the fact that global average temperature changes, it's the speed. Over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, species and ecosystems can adapt to a change of a few degrees; but when that change is over hundreds of years, they have a harder time and are more likely to collapse.
I could keep going, but I think I've proven my point. That article was, at best, poorly researched, and the fact that it was printed, apparently with no editorial fact-checking, damages the reputation of the Racquet.
Kevin Hundt
-UW-L Student
The reason why Wikipedia popped up first is because of how Google works. It directs you to the most popular page based on how many other pages link to it. Wikipedia is, for obvious reasons, one of the most-linked-to websites; therefore, it comes up first in many results, especially for such a large topic.
Wikipedia is not a source. One of the guiding principles of the encyclopedia is that there must be "No Original Research". It is a compilation of sources: Every piece of information on the site must be cited. The Wikipedia page on Global Warming cites 114 sources and suggests more places to go for information. Wikipedia is not a pile of rumors where anyone can say whatever they want. If something is controversial, that controversy is noted; if something isn't cited, it's removed.
Also, the #2 website that Google recommends for Global Warming? The EPA. That directly contradicts Kate Susa's claim that "the first links that pop up are not from trusted scientific agencies, the National Weather Service, environmental research facilities, or even the government".
Regarding that absurd but oft-repeated point that Al Gore's house uses 12 times as much electricity- So what? Is that supposed to prove that he's 'just kidding' about global warming?
Of course, surely the American Meteorological Society should have something to say. So let's quote from a 2003 statement by that organization: "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems."
Next, yes, the temperature changes even without human interference. However, "over the last century" includes the time period when humans were contributing! Furthermore, the problem isn't the fact that global average temperature changes, it's the speed. Over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, species and ecosystems can adapt to a change of a few degrees; but when that change is over hundreds of years, they have a harder time and are more likely to collapse.
I could keep going, but I think I've proven my point. That article was, at best, poorly researched, and the fact that it was printed, apparently with no editorial fact-checking, damages the reputation of the Racquet.
Kevin Hundt
-UW-L Student
Be the first to comment on this story