09 Jul 08
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works, writes Lawrence Solomon:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterPerhaps people should only read publications that support their own view then.
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works, writes Lawrence Solomon:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyMaybe I'm just old-fashioned or not as nuanced as John Kerry, but I think that if the publication is going to portray itself as "fair and balanced," then maybe it should be "fair and balanced."
Perhaps people should only read publications that support their own view then.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI don´t think it does portray itself as fair and balanced does it?
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned or not as nuanced as John Kerry, but I think that if the publication is going to portray itself as "fair and balanced," then maybe it should be "fair and balanced."
09 Jul 08
From that article:
Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.
I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.
Yeah, see, that's called "original research" and it's one of the big no-nos of Wikipedia. It's not enough for Solomon to ask Peiser what he said, and then change the Wikipedia article to reflect that himself, because other Wikipedia editors have no way of verifying that conversation. Solomon can change the article based on something Peiser is quoted as saying in a published source, provided he cites that source; he cannot change it based on something Peiser told him personally. His edits were correctly reverted per Wikipedia's stated rules.
99% of the folks who claim to be victims of bias on Wikipedia are really just victims of their own failure to understand Wikipedia's rules, which are there for good reasons.
09 Jul 08
1 edit
Wikipedia has a lot of flaws when it comes to documenting controversial topics. It's intended to be an encyclopedic reference, not an in-depth dereference for researchers.
If politicians and scientists can't come to consensus on a topic, what makes you think the answers are to be found in an Encyclopedia? You wouldn't go pick up an Encylopedia Britannica and expect to find out if god exists, would you?
And unfortunately, the author is very correct - it's very easy to take over wikipedia articles and dominate them with "point of view", using wikilawyering. I edit wikipedia articles frequently, but stay away from controversial pages -- it's really pointless to contribute there.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThere is scientific consensus in the SCIENTIFIC community.
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works, writes Lawrence Solomon:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml
Just because a lot of, paid for by oil money, journalists keep denying it does not mean that it is still a controversial claim.
There are no laws against stubbornness and stupidity, unfortunately the actions of those who fail to understand affects the lives of the rest of us. This is why I care about this persistent failure to accept the seriousness of the case. Else I wouldn't give a flying fart about you and your like any more than I care about the other loonies on the creationism wing who also seems to be incapable of understanding simple scientific arguments.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScheelThere's no consensus in the SCIENTIFIC community:
There is scientific consensus in the SCIENTIFIC community.
Just because a lot of, paid for by oil money, journalists keep denying it does not mean that it is still a controversial claim.
There are no laws against stubbornness and stupidity, unfortunately the actions of those who fail to understand affects the lives of the rest of us. This is why I care ab ...[text shortened]... e creationism wing who also seems to be incapable of understanding simple scientific arguments.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
You've been duped and hugger-muggered.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterTake all the scientific organizations that have come out in support of the theories regarding global warming, take the number of people affiliated to those organizations, divide this number by 2 (just to be fair) and you´ll have a good figure you can use as the number of true scientists (not only those that have a Phd in something and are working in McDonalds) who believe in the mainstream view.
There's no consensus in the SCIENTIFIC community:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
You've been duped and hugger-muggered.
You can google this information if you want to get the facts of the matter which I´m sure you don´t. You´ll come up with hundreds of thousands of them.
I took a few example names from your list at random and googled different permutations of their name. The only reference to any of these people that wasn´t just the actual list you posted was one lady who had her CV posted on some business job finding service. Might not be able to deduce anything from that but I bet you didn´t spend even a moment attempting to validate your data.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterLooks like you need a little help when it comes to the definition of the term "scientific consensus.
There's no consensus in the SCIENTIFIC community:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
You've been duped and hugger-muggered.
The scientific consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.
Scientific consensus does NOT mean that all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress. It also does not mean that the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
Therefore, scientific consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".
When the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the consensus.
Now, name a scientific establishment of national or international standing that rejects the basic finding that human activity has influenced recent climate.
The last one I knew of was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and they changed their position in 2007.
I don't understand why you're so adamant that there is no consensus when almost all of the largest scientific organisations in the world support the idea.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterTry:
There's no consensus in the SCIENTIFIC community:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
You've been duped and hugger-muggered.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
And:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate_change/climate-consensus.html
Of course, there are also plenty of websites that say there is no general consensus in the greenhouse effect because the internet is often an unreliable source of information.
But, according to Newscientist magazine (that I read every weak) there is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that the greenhouse effect is real. Newscientist magazine is, as far as I have always been able to determine, a non-biased source of scientific information and, whenever a theory is controversial, it give both sides of the argument. But Newscientist magazine says the greenhouse theory is no longer considered to be generally “controversial” and the Newscientist magazine pointed out that even basic science says that carbon dioxide should cause global warming. -What is meant by this is each of the premises of the greenhouse theory is known to be correct by basic science (for example: laboratory measurements can demonstrate that carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation etc).
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo you link to a petition - on the internet.
There's no consensus in the SCIENTIFIC community:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
You've been duped and hugger-muggered.
That have been signed by, a lot of people, maybe 30.000+
What does that show ?
How many of these people understand the issue better than you ? For a start.
How many of them is part of the scientific community (no, medical doctors, professors in mandarin and other nice people who doesnt know sht about atmospheric science, physics and chemistry does not count as scientific community in this respect).
I've signed it now, knowing that this kind of petition will never be taken serious by anyone outside a litle group of fanatic believers.
In some weeks when processed you can find me under the name D. Duck.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScheelI hope you put Phd at the end of your name or you wouldn´t be taken for a true scientist.
So you link to a petition - on the internet.
That have been signed by, a lot of people, maybe 30.000+
What does that show ?
How many of these people understand the issue better than you ? For a start.
How many of them is part of the scientific community (no, medical doctors, professors in mandarin and other nice people who doesnt know sht about atmospher ...[text shortened]... oup of fanatic believers.
In some weeks when processed you can find me under the name D. Duck.
09 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOh dear.
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works, writes Lawrence Solomon:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml
You really should stick to drinking whiskey.