I meant "first step in reversing/dealing with a horrible situation is acceptance"

:-):-)
[Rep]

YCHTT wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Well I'll be surprised if you'll find any individuals on wiki that have a fervent anti-global warming stance, but then again I wouldn't trust wikipedia as far as I could throw them, as they're renowned as a disinformation site.

Well pin your big floppy ears back & go down to the woods today :-

Try searching in Wiki for, say, Richard Linzden, Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer, David Bellamy, Tom Ball, Sallie Baliunas, Bob Carter, Bjorn Lomborg, Craig & Kieth Idso , Steve McIntyre, Pat Michaels, Steven Milloy, Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Willie Soon ………..

In fact, to save yourself trouble try this link first:-
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and then look up the details of the individuals.

Although not in the anti-AGW category, I see that a certain crackpot called Alex Jones has a very large entry, and even Uncle Tom Cobley has an entry :-).
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
and even Uncle Tom Cobley has an entry :-).

Clippo doesn't because they have not done 10 most ignorant rude and boorish individuals
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
YCHTT wrote:-


Well pin your big floppy ears back & go down to the woods today :-

Try searching in Wiki for, say, Richard Linzden, Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer, David Bellamy, Tom Ball, Sallie Baliunas, Bob Carter, Bjorn Lomborg, Craig & Kieth Idso , Steve McIntyre, Pat Michaels, Steven Milloy, Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Willie Soon ………..

In fact, to save yourself trouble try this link first:-
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and then look up the details of the individuals.

Although not in the anti-AGW category, I see that a certain crackpot called Alex Jones has a very large entry, and even Uncle Tom Cobley has an entry :-).

I'm sure Hitler has an entry on wiki too.

You're missing the point - it's not about censorship, it's about putting out misinformation that people like you believe as gospel without question.

The fact that Alex Jones is described as a "conspiracy theorist" proves my point - it doesn't go into depth about his arguments, it simply seeks to discredit those people who they wish to discredit.
[Rep]

The link you provided reads more like a vindication of the pro global warming agenda with statements like:

"Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus"

To make it sound like a consensus has been achieved when it hasn't.

It's subtle propaganda to try to discredit those that do not fit into the mainstream view that they want to push as "accepted".
[Rep]

YCHTT wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
You're missing the point - it's not about censorship, it's about putting out misinformation that people like you believe as gospel without question.

I am not missing the point. You wrote earlier :-

Originally Posted by :
Well I'll be surprised if you'll find any individuals on wiki that have a fervent anti-global warming stance,……………

I proved you utterly wrong – but, don’t worry, the ignominy & shame will fade with time :-)
&

Originally Posted by :
The fact that Alex Jones is described as a "conspiracy theorist" proves my point - it doesn't go into depth about his arguments, it simply seeks to discredit those people who they wish to discredit.

In the Alex Jones article in wiki, the vast majority of the article is only about his ‘career’ - as it is with most biographical entries.

Towards the end, in ‘Media appearances' it states this:-

Originally Posted by :
In September 2007, he was part of the History Channel documentary 9/11: Fact or Fiction, which examined the various conspiracy theories espoused on the Internet.
In 2007, Jones appeared on the BSkyB programme, "Conspiracies", in which he discussed the supposed power structure of The Illuminati, its New World Order plan and the various symbolism allegedly worshiped by the group.
In 2008, he appeared on a BBC programme called "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" which aired in July. The programme discussed the idea of various 9/11 conspiracies and how much proof there was to support them.

These are factual records of his media appearances – not anywhere is he ‘described’ as a conspiracy theorist.
He will also have seen this article about himself and will have had the opportunity to correct.reword it. He obviously doesn’t quibble with what is written.
[Rep]

Well I said I'd be suprised if there were and it seems there are.

But Even wikipedia has to report some of the truth some of the time.

I never said "there weren't any" as a statement of fact.

But yes I am suprised I suppose, though not too much.
Despite the fact that the page is about opposition to global warming it still has the findings of the IPCC at the start of the page, though if you go to the IPCC entry you don't (and will never) see any mention of arguments against global warming.

So wiki is still guilty of double standards and bias though it sometimes has to include references to things it would maybe prefer not to.

As for your statement regarding Alex Jones :

"not anywhere is he ‘described’ as a conspiracy theorist",

Look directly underneath his photo where it says: "Known for"

It clearly says "Advocacy of conspiracy theories". :-)

So whilst my guess of what I suspected to be the case was wrong, your statement of supposed fact, has been proven to be a lie. :-)

Though of course it doesn't take much to figure out the word "conspiracy" is used with abandon to associate Alex Jones with being a "conspiracy theorist" does it ? :-)

You seem to know a lot about wiki - so you're saying anyone can edit anything they like on wiki ?

Please inform me of the rules.....
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
.

As for your statement regarding Alex Jones :

"not anywhere is he ‘described’ as a conspiracy theorist",

Look directly underneath his photo where it says: "Known for"

It clearly says "Advocacy of conspiracy theories". :-)

So whilst my guess of what I suspected to be the case was wrong, your statement of supposed fact, has been proven to be a lie. :-)

Though of course it doesn't take much to figure out the word "conspiracy" is used with abandon to associate Alex Jones with being a "conspiracy theorist" does it ? :-)

You seem to know a lot about wiki - so you're saying anyone can edit anything they like on wiki ?

Please inform me of the rules.....

You would not expect Clippo to actually read what other people post unless it fits his world view ?

Wikipedia you need to have an account and then off you go be prepared to have your writing criticised and trashed
[Rep]

Haha - who knows what his world view is ?

Maybe he thinks the same as us, but is duty bound to oppose it.

Or maybe he really does believe it ? omg !

Do you know what the rules are on editing entries on Wiki ghall ?
i.e. surely nobody can just pick up any entry they want and just edit it as they please as wiki controls the information on the site ?

Cheers.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
*snipped*

Your point about your typing all day because you know what is at stake could apply to anyone, including myself.
Why else would I spend so much time focussing on global warming?

As I said, I have looked at the other viewpoint with an open mind. The problem is that the viewpoint I currently hold has, in my opinion formed after a great deal of research, a greater amount of evidence to support it.
Looking at the other viewpoint has thus given me more cause to worry about global warming, because the arguments against it are very weak compared to the arguments for it.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
...
But yes I am suprised I suppose, though not too much.
Despite the fact that the page is about opposition to global warming it still has the findings of the IPCC at the start of the page, though if you go to the IPCC entry you don't (and will never) see any mention of arguments against global warming.
...

The two most important ones, although there are other criticism subsections:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
[asking about Wikipedia]

Anyone can edit it, with or without an account, although an account is recommended so that people can both discuss your edits with you if necessary and to help prevent spamming.
Pretty much any article can be edited, although some are locked to anyone but administrators - usually important things such as the main page, for obvious reasons - and normal articles can be protected (no-one but moderators can edit) or semi-protected (people without accounts can't edit) if either an edit war is brewing or there's been an event which could reasonably lead to spamming occurring (an example of the latter would be when the famous webcomic xkcd linked to a page a few strips back; the page was semi-protected to prevent vandalism).

People are usually dissuaded from editing articles relating to themselves, as it's considered bad form and conducive to bias, but it's not forbidden. Alex Jones could quite easily edit his own page for example, with or without an account.

Hope that helps.
[Rep]