Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 551:
Line 551: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 13:23, July 3, 2007
, 13:23, July 3, 2007→False claims of consensus?: If they were true, you wouldn't be posturing - you'd be citing
But still i see that your post about the false concensus stays on the page. It violates all of the principles you have demanded from my studyes, it's so old that it's rediculous. But you just ignore these facts and don't comment it in anyway. You ask why im not helping on the other parts of this article? It's simply because im disgusted about it's current state and think the major errors should be fixed instead of adding new ones. This intellectual dishonesty reprisented here endagers the lifes of our children, i suggest that you carefully read what i wrote and really think if your comment on the article is intellectually honest one, the one you can proudly defend when your childrens ask you 30 years from now, what you where doing about the subject at your time. Im sorry if i sound harsh, but i really beliave this to be important for the future of us and the coming generations. And i do think there can be made intelligent arguments against the global warming, but denying the obvious concensus on the subject definetle isn't one of those. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 19:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
But still i see that your post about the false concensus stays on the page. It violates all of the principles you have demanded from my studyes, it's so old that it's rediculous. But you just ignore these facts and don't comment it in anyway. You ask why im not helping on the other parts of this article? It's simply because im disgusted about it's current state and think the major errors should be fixed instead of adding new ones. This intellectual dishonesty reprisented here endagers the lifes of our children, i suggest that you carefully read what i wrote and really think if your comment on the article is intellectually honest one, the one you can proudly defend when your childrens ask you 30 years from now, what you where doing about the subject at your time. Im sorry if i sound harsh, but i really beliave this to be important for the future of us and the coming generations. And i do think there can be made intelligent arguments against the global warming, but denying the obvious concensus on the subject definetle isn't one of those. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 19:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:How does the fact that some scientist who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming have (1) "taken money" from Big Oil or (2) are "aligned" with Bush or the conservative movement?
:You profess disgust, but is this political (because science is in sharp disagreement with the treaty ratifiers)? Or do you have some information about the Earth's climate which only liberals know?
:Do you think that this encyclopedia should publish scientific work only by people who agree with you, or who are neutral? That is not our policy, because one-sided views aren't trustworthy. We publish the truth, even when it disagrees with the mainstream of liberal thought.
:You are free to ignore the peer-reviewed, published studies cited by Singer, Lindzen, etc. Even a ''novelist'' like [[Michael Crichton]] has found out about peer-reviewed, published studies which disagree with the liberal POV.
:But an encyclopedia cannot afford to censor the truth. We'll leave that to moribund publications such as Wikipedia, which makes a cottage industry out of intellectual dishonesty.
:Meanwhile, if you find any scientific evidence ''in favor'' of [[AGW]], please add it to the article. Unlike Wikipedia, we want to present both sides.