Difference between revisions of "User talk:RobertWDP"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Useful links
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Are you sure you want to edit this page further? You are obviously in disagreement with what is presented. The entire page is a rebuke of global warming orthodoxy. Maybe you should start a counter-arguments page.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 13:04, 2 March 2009 (EST) | Are you sure you want to edit this page further? You are obviously in disagreement with what is presented. The entire page is a rebuke of global warming orthodoxy. Maybe you should start a counter-arguments page.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 13:04, 2 March 2009 (EST) | ||
:But surely your statement says something about what is wrong with the article. It purports to be an article about Global Warming but as you say it is in fact simply a rebuke. I understand there are people who disagree with the concept of global warming but as someone who is currently studying the subject I think I can help here. The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here. Though of course there are politicians and groups who use global warming to meet their own ends there is no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact) by political squabbles. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:31, 2 March 2009 (EST) | :But surely your statement says something about what is wrong with the article. It purports to be an article about Global Warming but as you say it is in fact simply a rebuke. I understand there are people who disagree with the concept of global warming but as someone who is currently studying the subject I think I can help here. The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here. Though of course there are politicians and groups who use global warming to meet their own ends there is no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact) by political squabbles. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:31, 2 March 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | ::The disagreement we have has to do with the "man-made" part of it. The scientists who "say" man is causing it are doing so in an effort to get money, specifically money from the U.S. These same scientists refuse to acknowledge the sun's influence in the matter; they refuse to acknowledge natural events as contributing factors, such as a volcanic eruption; it is man in general, and the American man in particular. I put "say" in quote marks because of the fact that we have to take these people at their word, or so they want us to think. What they "say" about it does not make it a fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:41, 2 March 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 19:41, March 2, 2009
Welcome!
Hello, RobertWDP, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, RobertWDP!
Your edits are not primarily "factual;" they take issue with the presentation of the subject, which is based on ideological premises. Note that Conservapedia does not support a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) like Wikipedia does, but rather a conservative, Christian, YEC one. --Economist 17:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)
- Had to (above strike), Economist, as Mr. Schlafly maintains that will not be our emphasis, insofar as religion goes. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)
- My apologies TK; I assumed that Conservapedia's stated POV was similar to that of CreationWiki, which explicitly endorses YEC. I'll keep that in mind. --Economist 17:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)
Global Warming
Are you sure you want to edit this page further? You are obviously in disagreement with what is presented. The entire page is a rebuke of global warming orthodoxy. Maybe you should start a counter-arguments page.--jpatt 13:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
- But surely your statement says something about what is wrong with the article. It purports to be an article about Global Warming but as you say it is in fact simply a rebuke. I understand there are people who disagree with the concept of global warming but as someone who is currently studying the subject I think I can help here. The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here. Though of course there are politicians and groups who use global warming to meet their own ends there is no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact) by political squabbles. RobertWDP 14:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)
- The disagreement we have has to do with the "man-made" part of it. The scientists who "say" man is causing it are doing so in an effort to get money, specifically money from the U.S. These same scientists refuse to acknowledge the sun's influence in the matter; they refuse to acknowledge natural events as contributing factors, such as a volcanic eruption; it is man in general, and the American man in particular. I put "say" in quote marks because of the fact that we have to take these people at their word, or so they want us to think. What they "say" about it does not make it a fact. Karajou 14:41, 2 March 2009 (EST)