Sorry, but Al Gore sounds like he’s a flabbergasted 12-year-old trying to sound smart.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Part 6:
50 articles that seriously question the credibility and integrity of the IPCC’s activities and claims: http://tinyurl.com/cthokw
As for my “denier” tendencies, this is more in line with my thoughts on the topic: http://tinyurl.com/362mn9
I’ll remain the skeptic until I see some concrete evidence. There’s no difference between you and a right-wing person when asked for the proof of the existence of…. and you both point to your Bibles as though that was proof enough.
Fusion,
I forgot to mention that if you go to the Palin URL, you should note Greg Allen’s comments of:
“Even though I’m a big fan of Wikipedia, I know not to trust new and highly political entries.”
“But, the political ones are inaccurate because the authors are not impartial and can’t work together.”
Paddy-O’s comment of:
“Interesting. Palin’s wiki entry mentions a potential scandal with the state trooper. Quite a bit on it.
Obama’s entry makes no mention of him being friends with a known terrorist.
Wiki has A LOT to do to have nonpartisan cred…”
And your very own comment on Wikipedia here:
“I do know NOT to trust anything concerning a living person or current political controversy.”
Guyver,
Part 1
That first link. What was your point? That some discredited people (Singer and co.) complained?
Second link, so someone was caught trying to rig the entry. They were caught because the system worked.
Third link, just a confirmation that the edit system at Wikipedia worked.
So lets all stay away from Bank of America, CitiBank, and Wells Fargo as they were once the target of a bank robber. You have offered no proof that the Wikipedia entries are more or less biased than any other source material.
Part 2
First link, again, a bad entry was found out. What is your point here?
Second link, so what? Anyone with any legal knowledge would see the government didn’t stand a chance with this case. At best, this is third hand information and is generally excluded for a good reason. Some inexperienced prosecutor was grasping at straws. The same would apply for Encyclopedia Britannica.
Third link, again offers no point. A discussion of why/why not a certain page should remain. You suggest an editorial factual failure when this is an editorial judgment call. You offer nothing to show what, if any, Wikipedia entries are incorrect.
Part 3,
First link, The goal behind the effort is to link publications with public contributions. . A noble undertaking and I approve.
Second link, a discussion on flagging edits to weed out vandalism. Was there a point there?
Third link, another discussion. Honestly Guyver, I’m wondering why you linked to this.
Part 4,
First link, Uuhh??? Wakipedia is a comedy site. People are invited to submit as stupid an entry as they wish. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
Second link, That is sad, but the system worked. A bad editor was exposed and resigned. Does World Net Daily do the same thing? How about the New York Post, do their biased editors ever resign?
Third link, an opinion piece by another denier. Wow. I’m impressed. (yawn)
So I visited these twelve sites you offered and have yet to see something that says Wikipedia is a less reliable source than other sources. I saw some good ideas, such as research papers also submit a Wikipedia entry. But mostly I saw just garbage with no particular point being made.
Do you remember what you learned in school? Don’t expect the reader to make your point. As the writer that is YOUR job. Just putting several links with no connection or explanation won’t win any argument. A reference is to back up your points, not to make them. Damn, its been too many years since I wrote a paper, I don’t intend to start teaching people how to write now.
Don’t expect me to waste more of my time with more useless links.
LOL… Spoken like a true Wikipedia defender. I fully expected you to be defensive… the point being is these are the things caught… there’s plenty more going on that hasn’t been caught. Wikipedia is continuously being altered for self-interests.
Heck you even said about Wikipedia:
“I do know NOT to trust anything concerning a living person or current political controversy.”
Which Fusion am I to believe? At least be a little intellectually honest and concede you’ve contradicted yourself on Wikipedia. LOL
As for the part 4 “denier” link, that denier “contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007” He’s very knowledgeable about the IPCC’s problems and political leanings. But of course since you don’t agree with his findings, you’ll just list him as a denier along with anyone else who questions where the irrefutable proof is.
As you have eloquently stated about not trusting Wikipedia entries concerning political topics, I will remain the skeptic. I think I’ve more than justified that Wikipedia has its problems, although in spirit it tries to be a good thing.
Show me a true causal relationship. Computer simulations designed on the assumption that CO2 is the problem (when that is still yet to be proven) is self-serving for your agenda.
The point of the links was to simply show that Wikipedia is highly disputed as being an authoritative source. I happen to think it’s okay when it’s not being used for info concerning something of a political or religious nature. Why? Because as you, Paddy-O, Greg Allen, and I have already agreed, Wikipedia is not credible under those situations.
Fusion,
Also if you read the “wakypedia” article you would realize it was indeed a Wikipedia article and not the “wakipedia” site your referring to. The Inq has a tendency to do name calling in which this was the case.
100, guyver,
Heck you even said about Wikipedia:
“I do know NOT to trust anything concerning a living person or current political controversy.”
Please leave the reference so I can see the context and rest of the section.
He’s very knowledgeable about the IPCC’s problems and political leanings.
So when someone writes under the by line VIEWPOINT it really isn’t opinion. He did write:
From Part 2: Sarah Palin: glowing make-over at Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/cf6u34
And the full quote that you’re chopping up is: “Don’t misunderstand me.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have SOME climate impact through CO2’s radiation properties.
However, FUNDAMENTAL knowledge is MEAGRE here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are NOT occurring.”
And although Professor Christy is writing a viewpoint piece, he’s probably much more well informed about the IPCC’s issues than you or I. His article was to explain why the IPCC isn’t as objective as you would like them to be.
Professor Christy probably best sums it up about Science here: “The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.
He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…” ”
The key thing here is Professor Christy and the other links I provided are people from WITHIN the IPCC who left because ulterior motives of the IPCC.
There are legitimate grievances against Wikipedia and the IPCC IMHO, but there are those who are predisposed to ignore those grievances because it’s not compatible with their agendas.
I want to see something black and white. I want a smoking gun. I do not care for a liberal’s “common-sense” interpretation of what they believe must be happening, nor do I trust the conclusions of an organization whose behavior seems to be more inclined to advance an agenda rather than acknowledge and objectively address any and all flaws with their analysis or approach.
Guyver,
There are legitimate grievances against Wikipedia and the IPCC IMHO, but there are those who are predisposed to ignore those grievances because it’s not compatible with their agendas.
If you don’t like Wikipedia then fine. Show us something better. Because every other source you dare think up also has its own problems. You can’t just say that because there have been a few pages out of millions in Wikipedia (or whatever number they have) the entire site is wrong. Damn, would you shut down the Courts because they have had some cases overturned? Would you pull every car and truck off the road because a few are defective?
Those denying Climate Change will never be satisfied that it is an actuality until they see the ocean lapping at their doorstep. And then they will start building big boats to put two of every species on.
Unless you “really KNOW” is it right to argue forcefully for or against a proposition?
Shouldn’t we all be a whole lot more agnostic on most issues?
Nothing wrong with being certain that something is logically incoherent or morally repugnant. That still allows disagreement on most issues. But when the issue is “scientific” what is it you are actually bringing to the discussion besides ego?
Scientific–global warming.
Political–what to do about it.
How do you decide when to “submit” to science and when to be ignorant?
Fusion,
Excuse me while I snicker as I note you skirting the fact that you’ve contradicted yourself on Wikipedia’s credibility on political issues. LOL
Now as for providing you with better sources than Wikipedia, I’m all ears too. What I can tell you is WHAT I don’t think is credible and my reasons why.
I take people like Professor Christy more credible because he’s not only a scientist, but he’s one where the IPCC has used his work. He knows their politics and their short comings. His analysis of their problems and conclusions should be looked at as a peer review and not that he’s some sort of denier. But to humor your label, the IPCC really should do a third party peer review by the “denier” scientists. If it stands up to that sort of scrutiny, then this would be much closer to an open and shut case. But they don’t.
Another thing, “Climate Change” and “Man-Made Climate Change” are two totally different things. You talk as if the two are synonymous. They’re not.
Man-Made Climate Change is not a foregone scientific conclusion. There is no proof that CO2 is responsible for climate change. Nor that man-made CO2 is significant. Heck this Global Warming fiasco is almost as bad as when the Europeans thought the Black Plague was caused by cats. People are taking correlations and declaring them to be causal. That’s not science. At best it’s a hasty conclusion.
Bobbo,
If science is where you use a supercomputer to model an open system as a closed system and the model is designed on the assumption that CO2 is the driving force, then you and I have two different perspectives on science. Computer simulation models are not experiments. They’re only as good as our weakest link…. Our assumptions.
Here’s a good write up IMHO: http://tinyurl.com/362mn9
I have no problem with submitting to science so long as the “scientific” conclusions are truly scientific and not based off of political agendas, assumptions, and self-serving simulations.
Pushing the IPCC and Wikipedia as the authoritative source on Global Warming even though there are some serious issues with their credibility is more “faith-based” than it has to do with the scientific method. Calling people “deniers” because they’re pointing out holes in the “foregone conclusions” of man-made global warming is hardly scientific and is pretty closed-minded.
As you said in post #77, “Read the studies and wait longer. Science has no time requirement.”
I can wait…. Can you? Or have you already determined that the data collected proves that man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion?
#106–Guyver==”I can wait…. Can you? Or have you already determined that the data collected proves that man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion?” /// Didn’t I say above that I’m agnostic? Didn’t I say that one should “KNOW” before taking strong stands? I agree that modeling is not proof and that the IPCC as being formed expressly for the purpose of informing the governments of the world of the dangers of global warming is BIASED by definition.
I have NEVER said I believe in GW or AGW or AGCC or anything of the sort. As close as I have ever gotten is “the best evidence” and confirmation of my ignorance.
I do enjoy seeing the errors in logic/proof that both sides make in their arguments and enjoy my own errors on the fence being pointed out as well.
The foregone conclusion I do see is carbon pollution thats killing the ocean. Bound up and inextricable, but different.
107, My apologies. You did say you were agnostic, but sometimes it can be hard to discern genuine comments from sarcastic ones. 🙂
Regardless the link in post #106 is worth checking out.
Well! That’s 7 scientists of the 1% of climate scientists who agree with John.
Now, surely, John will be showing us testimony from the *thousands* of climate scientists (99% of the total) who disagree…
CO2 is ecentiual for plantlife becuase plants use it to manaifacture all that they need to survive AND AL GORE IS THE #1 PRODUCER OF HOT AIR
Greetings! I’ve been following your blog for some time now and finally acquired the bravery to go ahead and provide you with a shout out from Dallas Texas! Simply wanted to tell you continue your great work
An old racetrack joke reminds you that your program contains all the winners’ names. I stare at my typewriter keys with the same thought.
How about a free Forex trading account with a $100 bonus? I found this company that is getting ready to launch their new technology and right now you can get a free, professionally managed account with $100 to start, all as a promotional campaign for them to be able to spread the word about their company. There’s no catch so go ahead and have a look for yourself! Here’s the link that will get you the free acount… http://prelaunchx.com/x/forextex
What’s the secret to getting more bloggers to comment at your own personal blogosphere? The rich get richer. The one rule about search engines that never seems to change is that they love content above all else. When lots of people visit your blog and leave comments, that’s like getting free content for your website. Of course, if you really want to ramp up your traffic then you need a boost. Fortunately, some has already ‘invented the wheel’ on this. I managed to stumble across a system that includes everything that you need to know about getting free traffic to your blog. The traffic does not just come from one source either. You can get visitors from other blogs, through video marketing, web forums and much more. If you want to take your blog to the next level then this package is something that you really need. Even if you consider yourself to be an expert on getting free traffic, you will find some great information, tricks and tips in these strategies. If you really want to explode your website traffic then check this out. http://tinyurl.com/86e6egy