The Wonderful World of Wikipedia

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jan 10, 2012.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    The Wonderful World of Wikipedia | Watts Up With That?


    the climategate2.0 emails have a lot of background on this story. funny how all the people who cried "taken out of context" when the first batch of emails came out are not being very vocal anymore. the emails show the context very well, thank you.

    I wonder who mastcell is? W Connelly was banned from Wiki a while back for being obnoxious in rewriting climate articles that had any criticism of 'consensus' so its probably no him. I bet it is one of the other peripheral members of the hockey team though.
     
  2. RollingThunder
    Offline

    RollingThunder VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    4,398
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +886
    LOLOLOL....you are such a nutjob, falling for anything that that professional liar Watts publishes.

    Here's the actual scoop on the fossil fuel industry sponsored stooge Willie Soon and his bogus paper.

    CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal
    (excerpts - much more info on original website)

    This investigation shows that Dr. Soon has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for most of his scientific career and heavy corporate funding in the last decade.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,243
    Thanks Received:
    2,916
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,239



    lmao.........is this guy not the chief architect of the irrelevant link on thIs forum........like a mental patient screaming from inside the padded room.:funnyface:

    So fcukking what:D:D:D..........green energy is a laughingstock outside the world of the radicals, and I posted up about 15 links the other day spelling it out.........WSJ.......Forbes.........Realclear........the links went on for pages and pages.

    Meanwhile......for all the BS science links RT posts up in here, he has yet to post up a single solitary fcukking link that displays for the readers that the science is matterring one iota in terms of how it is influencing public policy. And ummm..........know what that means????



    [​IMG]
     
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Rolling Thunder- first off, the article was not written by Anthony Watts. it was presented on the website run by Watts just as many other interesting articles are. I dont pre-emptively dismiss anything posted by SkepticalScience even though SkS seem to have a very skewed position and questionable practises, at least in my opinion. you may enjoy living in an echo chamber but I like reading both sides of the issue as I find it gives me a better perspective and a better chance of picking out the wheat from the chaff.

    back to the OP. the article is about wikipedia retaining incorrect statements in a history of the Soon Balunas/ DeFrias controversy. they continue to quote a second hand source that gives the hockey team's side of the story even when there is first hand sources that contradict it, not to mention the absolute stupidity of even considering that a science paper can get published with all the reviewers recommending rejection.

    this is yet another story where the climategate2.0 emails has show the skullduggery, conspiracy and generally low class and unethical behaviour of many of the climate science principals. it is very interesting that you fall into the same tactics. rather than just admit that the whole affair was handled badly by the scientists and wikipedia (and the media in general) you just try to deflect criticism of the hockey team by accusing S&B of being tainted by Big Oil. I didnt read your link but I have seen it before. I think it is hilarious that S&B are castigated for defending the old consensus opinion that there was a MWP and LIA, by cataloguing historical evidence. but you dont have a problem with M Mann using the Tiljander cores upsidedown and against the wishes of the scientist who took them. RT, you are a closed minded hypocrite.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,320
    Watts publishs much shit on his site. It is his site, therefore, he is just as responsible for that as the Wickpedia people are for what is on their site.
     
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Watts puts all sorts of articles on his site, and anyone is more likely to get a more complete idea of what is going on in climate science by reading WUWT than by reading just SkepticalScience or Real Climate. plus the links to other sites are more comprehensive and the moderation of the comments is kept to a minimum. you cant say that about pro-AGW sites.
     
  7. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,883
    Thanks Received:
    8,090
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,411
    Ad hominem argument - a logical fallacy.

    Only morons find logical fallacies convincing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,198
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    Ideas stand or fall by their own merit. it does not matter who voices them.

    opinions are a different matter altogether. an opinion is only as strong as the number of people who will agree with it even though they dont know if it is true or not. appeal to authority is the basis of consensus and settled science.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,320
    OK. A site by real scientists, not a dumbass like Watts.

    AGW Observer
     
  10. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,883
    Thanks Received:
    8,090
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,411
    Your link times out.
     

Share This Page