|
→POV tag added: Reply
|
|
||
Line 221:
::With regards to the US National Academies report, it may sound impressive but at the end of the day it is just the opinion of lots of scientists from just one country (and there is a good chance it's not overly balanced, given the polarised debate about climate change in the US, political interference, strength of fossil fuel lobby etc.). I think the IPCC report which had global participation is more important here. If they included only a short segment on SRM then there is likely a good reason for it, namely that its role for climate change mitigation is likely tiny (if any). So I think overall, we should follow the reasoning and weighting of the IPCC report more than the US National Academies report.
::Pinging [[User:InformationToKnowledge]]: I know you have worked on this article in the past. What is your view on it now? Do you agree with me that it has [[WP:POV]] issues and comes across as biased? [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::So, I am just going to make one comment for now, and it is that I think you are misinterperting the position of the AR6, apparently without having read the relevant section. Yes, in WG2, it is given simply a "Cross-Working Group Box" that's only a few pages, rather than a whole chapter or a "Cross-chapter paper". You know what else also gets the same kind of "Cross-Working Group Box" of about equal size in that chapter? [[Economic impacts of climate change]], and we certainly don't say '''that''' topic has a tiny role! (Though, that article could likely do with significant condensing and perhaps removal of less-supported material.)
:::Now, I agree that this article has substantial issues, but sadly so do a lot of others related to our project. The way the final sections are written isn't really [[WP:NPOV]], sure, but neither is having a very large "Limitations and risks" section and only a much shorter and vaguely written "Evidence of effectiveness and impacts" before it, as opposed to something like "Benefits". Granted, nearly each paragraph on "risk" is self-contradictory with a cacophony of directly opposing sources (or sources cited in a way that ''seems'' to place them in direct opposition). That arguably improves NPOV, but definitely brings down article approachability and quality. I don't know when or how I can resume dealing with the issues here again. [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 19:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{reflist-talk}} [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||