Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,206
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 56:
Line 56: +
→No need to exaggerate: reply
::::The sources definitely seem credible enough for evidence to re-add the sentence, "In reality, the small 'fraction of research' is actually a worldwide scam to grab power and dictate new Leftist laws." Before I add it back into the article, are there any suggestions for re-wording it, so the statement doesn't appear dubious -- even though evidence points to it being more factual than fallacy. Based on the above three sources, the statement, I don't think, is minority of opinion but is indeed factual based on the evidence presented throughout this entire ordeal. Thoughts? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 22:45, 3 December 2009 (EST)
::::The sources definitely seem credible enough for evidence to re-add the sentence, "In reality, the small 'fraction of research' is actually a worldwide scam to grab power and dictate new Leftist laws." Before I add it back into the article, are there any suggestions for re-wording it, so the statement doesn't appear dubious -- even though evidence points to it being more factual than fallacy. Based on the above three sources, the statement, I don't think, is minority of opinion but is indeed factual based on the evidence presented throughout this entire ordeal. Thoughts? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 22:45, 3 December 2009 (EST)
From what I can see these articles go no further in providing evidence for such a claim. They remain simply opinions, the opinions of these authors. It wouldn't be too difficult to simply pull up some articles with completely opposing views. To date there is no factual basis to call this a worldwide conspiracy. A factual basis for example would be showing that all climate data for all studies was made up, which is not the case, and not simply some commentator criticising a certain policy. As such to me this statement looks out of place as some wacky conspiracy theory. We have actual evidence in the hacked documents, but only for this very specific case. To extrapolate from that to call it a global conspiracy detracts from the credibility of the article, a credibility it can retain if it simply sticks to what we actually know. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 11:58, 4 December 2009 (EST)
From what I can see these articles go no further in providing evidence for such a claim. They remain simply opinions, the opinions of these authors. It wouldn't be too difficult to simply pull up some articles with completely opposing views. To date there is no factual basis to call this a worldwide conspiracy. A factual basis for example would be showing that all climate data for all studies was made up, which is not the case, and not simply some commentator criticising a certain policy. As such to me this statement looks out of place as some wacky conspiracy theory. We have actual evidence in the hacked documents, but only for this very specific case. To extrapolate from that to call it a global conspiracy detracts from the credibility of the article, a credibility it can retain if it simply sticks to what we actually know. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 11:58, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:I changed the wording from, "In reality, the small 'fraction of research' is actually a worldwide scam to grab power and dictate new Leftist laws," to, "The reality is that this small 'fraction of research' — the theory which is the foundation of anthropogenic global warming — the data used by CRU scientists, it is proven fraudulent. The theory which used to hold human beings responsible: it is nothing more than a Global warming scam, according to Jim O'Neill from the Canada Free Press. The scientists at the CRU, from the evidence found in the their e-mails and documents, show a criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, and at the same time advance an ideological Leftist agenda." And I used sources from which the arguments were brought up. So the article page is no longer stating it's a worldwide theory, but merely pointing out what others have argued from the evidence released on November 19, 2009. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:04, 4 December 2009 (EST)