Thread: Waiting for Global Cooling still

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I wouldn't call Wiki worthless. However, it is anything but a balanced
reliable source.

It is worthless and nothing there should ever be taken as fact. The only thing it is could for is providing links to real sources.

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

It gives you leads to some things, so it isn't worthless.

It is also a good for brainwashing zombies.

I see your point, I should say it is worthless as a source of truth but can be useful as a jumping off point to real sources. I should note I have found a direct coorelation between AGW alarmists and their acceptance of Wikipedia as a source of truth.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

That quote really misses the mark, it has little to do with this. What it is saying is that it is evidence that matters and I'd presume scientists who support MMGW have looked at the evidence.

Then it should be easy to prove via the scientific method. Please do this for me.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Wikipedia is simply an Encyclopedia and is just as valid, if not more so, than alot of the links you have there.

Wikipedia is an internet domain that runs "wiki" software that allows 5 year olds to edit and change anything on it. It has nothing to do with a real Encyclopedia and has absolutely no comparison in value. The links I have are substantiated. Please read them:

The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
Wikipedia's Zealots (National Post, Canada)

A false Wikipedia 'biography' (USA Today)
A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source (The New York Times)
Wikipedia "broken beyond repair", co-founder says (The Inquirer)
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (The Register)
Wikipedia - I have the power (Penny Arcade)

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

It is quite clear that most scientists, particularly those in the relevant fields support the theory of MMGW.

Really? Please prove this. Please show me the poll done that proves this otherwise you are simply stating nonsubstantiated points. While I have extensive evidence this is not true:

68% of Alberta Earth Scientists and Engineers Do Not Believe the Science is Settled on Climate Change (Edmonton Journal)
Copenhagen Consensus 2004 (Copenhagen Consensus)

Originally Posted by Copenhagen Consensus

A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world’s most distinguished economists [...] looked at three proposals, including the Kyoto Protocol, for dealing with climate change by reducing emissions of carbon. The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits.

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming (PR Newswire)

Originally Posted by PR Newswire

Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. [...] [only] 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)

Originally Posted by The Heartland Institute

A survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries determined there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial. Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the survey results. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change and 72.6% did not agree we could predict what the climate will do 100 years from now.

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (DailyTech)

Originally Posted by DailyTech

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. [...] Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Survey of State Climate Experts Casts Doubt on Link Between Human Activity and Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

In the past I have found a direct coorelation between rejection of MMGW and rejection of Darwinian evolution ie creationism. But coorelation as the old saying goes does not prove causation.

Same repetitive alarmist tactics. Since I believe in evolution that sort of puts a hole in your "theory" while you have shown and defended evidence for mine (Wikipedia + Alarmists). You really have no idea who you are talking to as I do not believe in any conspiracy theories either. Lets kill that before that tangent begins. Yet this pathetic tactic is used to try and paint skeptics as religious non-scientists or to try and get them to start a defense of creationism. My skepticism is based purely on science or rather the absolute lack of it in relation to AGW. Interesting since I am a computer scientist my theory is further substantiated that only computer illiterates believe in AGW since they can be manipulated so easily by computer generated (modeled) results and have this naive notion about Wikipedia.