Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 512:
Line 512: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 19:54, June 29, 2007
, 19:54, June 29, 2007→False claims of consensus?: lengthy, scorching rebuttal to HeikkiL
Lastly i have to say that i really hope you can have open enough mind to get out from gategoricing things as liberal facts and conservative facts, there are no such things, just facts that should be packed by evidence no matter what way they point or does it fit into your political views. Mayby science and it's findings seam liberal because the world is that way. For me, the whole american liberal/conservative thing seams actually quite odd, none of the other countryes i have worked or lived have had such controversy. More i read this site the more i wonder if there is any field in science that dosen't conflict with the world view this site promotes. And im really worryed about that. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:53, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Lastly i have to say that i really hope you can have open enough mind to get out from gategoricing things as liberal facts and conservative facts, there are no such things, just facts that should be packed by evidence no matter what way they point or does it fit into your political views. Mayby science and it's findings seam liberal because the world is that way. For me, the whole american liberal/conservative thing seams actually quite odd, none of the other countryes i have worked or lived have had such controversy. More i read this site the more i wonder if there is any field in science that dosen't conflict with the world view this site promotes. And im really worryed about that. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:53, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
#Oreskes is not a "him", and her bias was already noted by Peiser, et al.
#''Science'' is not an objective source - they have rejected papers which passed peer review elsewhere, purely on the ground that the contents would "not be of interest to their readers". A journal whose readers would not be interested in a paper which contradicts what everyone wants to believe precisely because ''the readers don't want to hear anything that contradicts their preconceptions'' is not a good source for an encyclopedia article.
#The IPCC's bias is well known; it's a creature of the UN.
#National academies are creatures of their own governments.
#Anyway, science is not decided by votes. Rather it requires evidence and reasoning. To verify whether a theory is true or false, see [[Scientific method]].
#I agree that ''facts themselves'' are not liberal or conservative. The problem is that liberals and conservatives disagree on what the facts are. The [[hockey stick graph]] of Michael Mann is a case in point. The IPCC used his version of the temperature record ''precisely for the reason you condemned'', i.e., because it fit into their political views: i.e., they want to endorse the [[Kyoto Protocol]].
#Science is not liberal; rather, liberals distort scientific findings; they ignore anything that contradicts their world view.
#This site only seeks what is true. If you have evidence of any errors, please point them out. Using biased sources like ''Science'' journal or the UN won't help your argument; try citing a specific study by a particular scientist. And say what they observed and how they explain it. That's science. It's not science to say that a particular ''authority'' endorses an idea.
#If you're "really" worried about people who [[appeal to authority]] instead of seeking out and reporting what is really true, then you should help us create a complete and accurate article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)