Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread
#81
Matrix Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.
Well, I can't vouch for the global warming assertions of bias, but when I look at Roe versus Wade or Intelligent Design, I see a totally objective scientific description of the facts.

If you see this differently, please explain.

Explain why I see things differently than you?

Um, maybe it's because we aren't the same person?

Doh!

On the other hand, if you mean that because you don't see bias in an article then the bias doesn't exist, I'd simply point out that closed-minded people are often unable to see reality.

But, let me check on that -

I'll see what wikipedia says on it. :lol:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#82
John L Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.

How True!

Quote:Wikipedia bias
Written by Dr Fred Hansen
Friday, 18 July 2008

Recently, quite a few people who occasionally use Wikipedia have told me that they have noticed that this useful online encyclopaedia is left leaning in some of its entries. I always assumed this might just reflect the same bias in the media as a whole. But I was wrong. The bias does not emerge by default but is vigorously enforced, as this story on Wikipedia global-warming propaganda shows.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, sums up the situation well:

In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion. But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

Solomon undertook several attempts to edit the Wikipedia page on global warming and to delete mistakes for instance about British scientist Bennie Peiser, only to find his entries eradicated time and again. Obviously in the people's encyclopaedia there are two classes of editors: one with genuine imprimatur and another that may be censored. Solomon discovered that network administrator William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

There are other examples of course. Just look at the pages Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design and make up your own mind.


JohnL -

there probably is a Wikipedia article refuting that.

:lol:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#83
No doubt JW. 8)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#84
JohnWho Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.
Well, I can't vouch for the global warming assertions of bias, but when I look at Roe versus Wade or Intelligent Design, I see a totally objective scientific description of the facts.

If you see this differently, please explain.

Explain why I see things differently than you?

Um, maybe it's because we aren't the same person?

Doh!
Not a satisfactory answer. I know many people who see AGW as I see it -- a strong probability. I suspenct, John W, that the reason lies in our ideological differences. You see the world as a playground for homo sapiens; I take the evolutionary view that cockroaches are more likely to survive in the long term than humans.

Who is right?

Neither of us can answer that question satisfactorily.

john who Wrote:On the other hand, if you mean that because you don't see bias in an article then the bias doesn't exist, I'd simply point out that closed-minded people are often unable to see reality.

But, let me check on that -

I'll see what wikipedia says on it. :lol:
Good idea.
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#85
Matrix Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:
Matrix Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.
Well, I can't vouch for the global warming assertions of bias, but when I look at Roe versus Wade or Intelligent Design, I see a totally objective scientific description of the facts.

If you see this differently, please explain.

Explain why I see things differently than you?

Um, maybe it's because we aren't the same person?

Doh!
Not a satisfactory answer. I know many people who see AGW as I see it -- a strong probability. I suspenct, John W, that the reason lies in our ideological differences. You see the world as a playground for homo sapiens; I take the evolutionary view that cockroaches are more likely to survive in the long term than humans.

Who is right?

Neither of us can answer that question satisfactorily.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Although I agree - "Who" is right.

Quote:
john who Wrote:On the other hand, if you mean that because you don't see bias in an article then the bias doesn't exist, I'd simply point out that closed-minded people are often unable to see reality.

But, let me check on that -

I'll see what wikipedia says on it. :lol:
Good idea.
I checked - it says that only a fool would assume a "user edited" project would be without bias.

I suppose you believe that.

:lol:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#86
Matrix Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:I would caution anyone from using Wikipedia as a source regarding anything remotely related to the concept of "global warming", regarding discussions around natural, man-made, or CO2.

It is strongly biased toward the GW alarmists and it is not difficult to detect that it is not neutral.


Just an observation.
Well, I can't vouch for the global warming assertions of bias, but when I look at Roe versus Wade or Intelligent Design, I see a totally objective scientific description of the facts.

If you see this differently, please explain.
By the way, your above comment is an example of attacking the messenger, not the message. You did not point out any factual errors in the Wikepedia entry on Global Warming.

The link that John L published is merely an opinion piece, which makes certain claims that may or may not be true. Dr. Fred Hansen, as I understand it, is a science writer. Perhaps the editors of Wikipedia did not consider him qualified to make the changes he says he wanted to make. In any case, his article, Wikipedia bias, does not give the reader much to work with, other than Dr. Hansen's assertions.

Hansen also suggested that the Wikipedia entries on Roe v Wade and Intelligent Design were also biased. That tells you something about Hansen's "scientific" perspective. When I looked through those entries, I found them quite objective. You did not contest this point.

Did you actually read the Wikipedia entry on global warming, to which Hansen refers?

It lists 124 notes and sources, along with listings of key scientific, educational and other links. It also provides a lengthy list of recommended reading.

Rather than make ungrounded insinuations about a particular publication, why not point out some specific statements or contested data, which the Wikipedia entry glosses over or deliberately misconstrues in its entries on Gloabal Warming, Roe v Wade or Intelligent Design, as Hansen claims?

Then we can indeed find out whether "Who is right". S1
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#87
I'll repeat - "only a fool would assume a "user edited" project would be without bias." This is an important point whenever using Wikipedia - it is easily edited to reflect bias.

You are assuming that the Wikipedia article is factual since "It lists 124 notes and sources, along with listings of key scientific, educational and other links. It also provides a lengthy list of recommended reading."

I'd like to assume you have the intellect to know that none of that means anything if it is not fact based. Remember - we are questioning whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise. We are not questioning whether the atmosphere contains other substances or other scientific facts which may or may not be part of the "124 notes and sources, along with listings of key scientific, educational and other links" or twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. (Apologies to Arlo Guthrie) Much of that article is "opinion" regarding CO2 and global atmospheric temperature. Opinion presented as fact, but "facts" that have been either shown to be false or questionable on other sources. The bias of the article is that it does not allow adequate presentation of the science nor does it allow for debate on the questionable opinions as it presents the information as factual.

I am not going to refute every false premise in that Wiki article - that has been done on a number of sites on the Net. In fact, this board has links to a ton of information that would help one with an open mind see the bias in the Wiki article.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#88
JohnWho Wrote:I'll repeat - "only a fool would assume a "user edited" project would be without bias."

I cannot state with authority that Matrix is a "Fool", but one thing is certain: he is blessed with far more intelligence that common sense.

That should explain the vast number of "brain farts" and the resulting odor that follows. "M", if you would like, I can give you an address where you can purchase more 'common sense', at a reasonable price. That way you will not move around the room, constantly stepping on your "Johnson". That must be very painful. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#89
John L Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:I'll repeat - "only a fool would assume a "user edited" project would be without bias."

I cannot state with authority that Matrix is a "Fool", but one thing is certain: he is blessed with far more intelligence that common sense.

Well, I wasn't making that statement only toward Matrix - I would, and have, said it, or something similar, to others who assume the authority of Wikipedia. The sad part is that ideally it could be, but not it it's present format.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#90
Still, the facts that Wikipedia presents are true. There's no reason not to cite it if you want to present a certain fact or two.
Reply
#91
Anonymous24 Wrote:Still, the facts that Wikipedia presents are true. There's no reason not to cite it if you want to present a certain fact or two.

Really?

In the aforementioned "Global Warming" article, in the "Causes" section is this:
Quote: The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[19][20] is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era.

Is a "scientific consensus" even an important item? Is there really a consensus or is it only a fabricated one that ignores the large amount of disagreement?

It is a fact that some scientists believe that, but it is also a fact that some scientists do not.

Even if some of the facts are correct, an article's bias may not make it a good reference. Especially if it is presented as being unbiased.

I'm sure that there may be some articles that present useful information, but the way Wikipedia is "moderated" makes it something we should all view with caution, in my opinion.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#92
That's not a fact, though. I said that Wikipedia is useful when citing actual facts. Even if Wiki users sometimes think some things are facts when they're not, I'd think that the person you're debating with would be intelligent enough to know the difference. Wikipedia is useful as a repository of information.
Reply
#93
Anonymous24 Wrote:That's not a fact, though. I said that Wikipedia is useful when citing actual facts. Even if Wiki users sometimes think some things are facts when they're not, I'd think that the person you're debating with would be intelligent enough to know the difference. Wikipedia is useful as a repository of information.

I thought the object was to be a "repository" of Accurate information? Is that not for what it should striving?

and I hate to keep parcing words, but there is a difference between "true" and "accurate".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#94
CNet warns of problems with the informatin in Wikipedia h e r e.

I'm just sayin'...
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#95
JohnWho Wrote:Is a "scientific consensus" even an important item? Is there really a consensus or is it only a fabricated one that ignores the large amount of disagreement?

It is fabricated if you ask me. No body did though.

The fact that they keep having to repeat that there is consensus leads me to believe that their isn't. Usually when someone tries that hard to convince you of something you have to ask who they are really trying to convince, you or themselves.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#96
Anonymous24 Wrote:Still, the facts that Wikipedia presents are true. There's no reason not to cite it if you want to present a certain fact or two.

I think you should be a bit cautious when assuming this to be the case when discussing matters among people who really know what is going on. Wiki may have some of the broad outlines intact, but can be seriously lacking as to what is actual fact. For example, quite a few scientific articles, ones for which I know the facts, are lacking either in accuracy or detail. It is also evident that "opinion/soft science" articles are (or can be) skewed, to anyone who has read extensively. Wiki is a nice place to get a first impression, but be careful when asserting the truth of Wiki among those who are knowledgeable. You can easily be perceived as a fool.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#97
scpg02 Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:Is a "scientific consensus" even an important item? Is there really a consensus or is it only a fabricated one that ignores the large amount of disagreement?

It is fabricated if you ask me. No body did though.

The fact that they keep having to repeat that there is consensus leads me to believe that their isn't. Usually when someone tries that hard to convince you of something you have to ask who they are really trying to convince, you or themselves.

This is precisely the point - a consensus is not a fact. Its an opinion, since the idea of 'consensus' is subjective and not objective.
Reply
#98
JohnWho Wrote:I'll repeat - "only a fool would assume a "user edited" project would be without bias." This is an important point whenever using Wikipedia - it is easily edited to reflect bias.
As humans, by definition, all display a degree of bias, the adjective is relative. The fact that you cry bias without providing any serious evidence is in itself a type of bias -- an assertion apparently based on unsupported opinion.

Now the Wikipedia article on global warming, as I pointed out, presents a long list of evidence to support its statements. The fact that you challenge one statement in the GW entry (without providing any evidence to back up your view) looks suspiciously like knit-picking.

If Wikipedia is so consistently unreliable, in your view, why haven't you commented on the Roe v Wade or Intelligent Design accusations made by Dr. Hanson? Could it be because you happen to agree with Wikipedia on these issues, but not on global warming?

JohnWho Wrote:
Wikipedia Wrote:The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[19][20] is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era.
You are assuming that the Wikipedia article is factual since "It lists 124 notes and sources, along with listings of key scientific, educational and other links. It also provides a lengthy list of recommended reading."
You continue to evade the basic point. In any informed discussion, there is a presentation of information, backed up by sources. The sources provide support for the statements made. That is an essential aspect of any academic debate.

If you challenge the information and sources provided, it is up to you to point out specific instances of why you think so -- including an analysis of the sources.

JohnWho Wrote:I'd like to assume you have the intellect to know that none of that means anything if it is not fact based.
You're attacking the person, not the argument.

JohnWho Wrote:I am not going to refute every false premise in that Wiki article - that has been done on a number of sites on the Net.
I have read your assertions, unbacked claims, ad-hominem arguments, personal insults and unsubstantiated opinions -- but so far I haven't see any refutations of global warming or anthing else on this thread.

So, come on, JohnWho, how about some substantive arguments? We wouldn't want people thinking you were intellectually bankrupt. Wink1
Quote:"The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it." -- Voltaire
Reply
#99
matrix Wrote:I have read your assertions, unbacked claims, ad-hominem arguments, personal insults and unsubstantiated opinions -- but so far I haven't see any refutations of global warming or anthing else on this thread.

So, come on, JohnWho, how about some substantive arguments? We wouldn't want people thinking you were intellectually bankrupt.

Interesting. In one line, you accuse JohnW of ad-hominem attacks and then in the next you make an ad-hominem attack on him.

Quote:If you challenge the information and sources provided, it is up to you to point out specific instances of why you think so -- including an analysis of the sources.

It is not really necessary to refute by analyzing the sources you provide. One only needs to list sources that refute your sources. In fact, you have been invited to read JohnL's considerable list of sources which gainsay the IPCC opinion. Thus it would appear that you have not educated yourself on the contrary arguments in the matter. This is hardly the behavior of a dispassionate person interested in science and logical accuracy.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
Matrix, rather than argue global warming on this thread, which is supposed to be about drilling for oil, please take yourself over to some of the threads that discuss this topic, and please take the time to read some before you make your knee-jerk comments.

In case you haven't heard yet, we are in for a major cooling period for the next 30 plus years, and global warming will not be an issue soon. Did you know that? Or do you really care?

Now go here and apply your expertise.

Why We Are Cooling Down?

Scientists reject Gore

Klaus to debate Gore?

Has global warming stopped?

Positive News about Global Warming.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 109 10,906 12-04-2019, 10:23 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 158,931 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 30,586 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 25,407 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 684,805 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Nazis John L 134 56,257 07-01-2014, 04:12 PM
Last Post: Paul In Sweden
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,748 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,494 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,582 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,371 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)