Poptech

You have no intention because you can't. You are completely unable to back up your argument and utterly refuse to try thus you lose by default. Anyone reading this can see that you are unable to answer simple questions.

Please answer the following questions:

1. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? The pages should simply be locked for all eternity in their current perfectly accurate state.

2. Who decides who a "good editor" is? How are their qualifications determined? (anyone with an internet connection can edit any Wikipedia page at will and anyone can create a Wiki account)

3. How do you determine if a page is "good editor" corrected or "bad editor" inaccurate?

4. What is the time frame for a "good editor" to correct a page and how is this time frame determined?

5. If more then one "good editor" wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

6. If more then one person is "watching" a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject's Wikipedia page?

8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined?

9. How is a "neutral point of view" determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a "neutral point of view"?

10. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it's level of accuracy?

Poptech

Those people are the president of those societies. You have provided no evidence for the position of the societies members. I would like evidence of the position of each societies individual members on this issue. Your alarmist nonsense sites cannot help you here.

BonnieDundee

Wtf? Are you for real? The president's represent the societies, they are in touch with the members and the general attitude and consensus. And by alarmist nonsense sites I take it you mean the royal society website?

I really don't think you have a clue what you are talking about to be honest if you think that the heads of organisations like the Royal society went against the general attitude of their members.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

BonnieDundee

Anyone reading can see that Alex McKee who is a moderator and I believe owner of the site gave you the same reply. I really don't think you are going to win those points you are so after in that way.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

BonnieDundee

Looking back over your list of names(you do realise that there are thousands and thousands of scientists out there right?) that many are simply irrelevant and have little to do with the field. You even listed economists(wtf?).

And none of that goes anway near refuting that the consensus is certainly not on your side.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Poptech

The President of a Scientific Society is a political position within the organization and has no bearing on the THOUSANDS of individual member's opinions on a scientific position such as AGW. If they are truely representing a consensus position then it should be easy to provide me with scientific survey to back up this claim. Unless of course you are claiming that by becoming president of a scientific organization you get to dictate what is or is not science?

Then surely there must be a poll or survey of the membership to back up this position?

An owner of a website stating the same unproven position does not make it right now please answer the questions, you have not and keep stalling.

I have provided evidence of thousands of scientists:

19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
- Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)

The Economists are clearly listed under Social Scientists:

"The assessment of regional environmental and social impacts is a multidisciplinary task that involves natural and social scientists working in tandem with policy makers." - American Meteorological Society

There is no consensus and you have failed to show proof of one! You just keep repeating the same media driven propaganda.

BonnieDundee

The president represent the members, it is that simple. He could not take such a measure without general agreement.
Certainly. The fact the president gave the societies agreement.

No. I'm not stalling, I don't intend to answer you. Go read about it yourself.





Economists, who tend to be rather conservative, are irrelevant to this.

I have proved it. 13 of the official scientific societies of nations such as America and Britain have signed documents recognising it. It certainly beats your dubious lists and links.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Poptech

So where is the evidence of the agreement or consensus of it's members? Where is the scientific survey or poll?

That is not evidence of anything but the president signing a paper.

Yes you are stalling because you cannot answer the questions because they prove my point as to why Wikipedia can never be a source of truth. I have already read it and these questions are NOT answered in your link not even remotely which is why I asked them. You simply continue to lie that your link answers my questions, it doesn't.

Social Scientists such as Economists are VERY relevant to this since they are the ones who's opinion on what action should be taken in relation to the economy.

All you have proven is that 13 scientific organization's presidents agree not the hundreds of thousands of members.

BonnieDundee

You answer your own question, no better proof is needed and your line of attack is lame and absurd.


Stalling would suggest I intend to answer it later, I do not.


Well I'm soon to be an economist and I wouldn't trust most of them on the economy. But anyway that is nonsense, they are not even scientists in the sense of the physical sciences, their views are irrelevant on the science behind it.

The fact that these organisations still exist, the fact that there has not been widespread attacks on the organisations and they are not being ripped apart by descent all show you how wrong you are. Also anyone with half a brain and some knowledge of these organisations can see how rubbish and strange your line of attack is.

To be honest if you can't do better and just keep repeating yourself I don't see the point of you replying.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Poptech

Spoken like a true believer. If you cannot prove your assertion then it is faith based and not science.

Therefore by default you concede that you cannot.

Interesting that you would say we should not take the advice of econimists on the economy so who should we listen to then for economic advice?

I clearly stated they are SOCIAL Scientists and even labeled them as such which you conveniently ignore. There views as to actions that should be taken towards the economy are VERY relevant.

The fact is you have failed to provide evidence of a consensus of the members of these organizations or even what the positions of their members are on this issue. Anyone with half a brain can see how logical I actually am. You reliance on members coming out and risking their careers attacking the president of large scientific bodies is ridiculous. That is not a scientific position! When this can be proven in a much more scientific method of surveying or polling these organization's members. Please provide this evidence. If you don't have it well what can I say, there is no consensus.

Please stop replying as you have been unable to answer simple questions:

1. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? The pages should simply be locked for all eternity in their current perfectly accurate state.

2. Who decides who a "good editor" is? How are their qualifications determined? (anyone with an internet connection can edit any Wikipedia page at will and anyone can create a Wiki account)

3. How do you determine if a page is "good editor" corrected or "bad editor" inaccurate?

4. What is the time frame for a "good editor" to correct a page and how is this time frame determined?

5. If more then one "good editor" wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

6. If more then one person is "watching" a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?

7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject's Wikipedia page?

8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined?

9. How is a "neutral point of view" determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a "neutral point of view"?

10. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it's level of accuracy?