nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 104:
Line 104: − − ==Full rewrite== − − The whole article is a mess, from start to finish and should be completely rewritten. − − Proposed outline: − − *State the theory − *Give evidence for the theory (if any) − *Give scientific critiques of the theory − − In a separate article, discuss the politics: − *Implications of the theory: i.e., what various parties want us to "do about it" − *Things various parties to the controversy say about each other − **For example, that the opposing side doesn't care about science but is only interested in ideology or money − *Identify who's on each side: e.g., liberals support the theory, conservatives oppose it − − I'm tempted to delete the whole thing right now, it's such a mess! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:21, 1 October 2007 (EDT) − − *Looking at the editors working on this article, and how long it has been locked, I suggest you resist temptation and pray instead, Ed. And perhaps email or something before posting publicly. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:26, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 13:01, October 2, 2007
, 13:01, October 2, 2007→Full rewrite: removed crank post
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)