| Revision as of 12:02, 7 January 2010 editHistorianofScience (talk | contribs)179 edits →I support you← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:46, 8 January 2010 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,015 edits →GWCT: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| PS see the discussion here . Even the most fervent adherents of the AGW hypothesis at Misplaced Pages are saying that the scientific view is 'it's more likely than not'. That places AGW scepticism in a different light than deniers of ], or of the ]. No one would say of Cantor's Theorem, or the existence of the Holocaust, that they are 'more likely than not'. ] (]) 12:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | PS see the discussion here . Even the most fervent adherents of the AGW hypothesis at Misplaced Pages are saying that the scientific view is 'it's more likely than not'. That places AGW scepticism in a different light than deniers of ], or of the ]. No one would say of Cantor's Theorem, or the existence of the Holocaust, that they are 'more likely than not'. ] (]) 12:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == GWCT == | |||
| is fine by me - but do you really think its just a conspiracy theory? ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:46, 8 January 2010
Ref please explain what issues have you tried to resolve on the talk page of global warming and failed to? I had a quick look at your previous edits after you made this statement. I can see you voted once in May 2009 and were on the page April 2009 and before, but where did you raise an unresolved issue? --BozMo talk 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- You'll have to excuse me not fully understanding how policy is operated - but at Global Warming I was told they make it up on the hoof, and I'm not entitled to know what's been decided. That strikes me as WP:OWNER on a grand scale, with commensurate breaking of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Is that a start? The specific improvements I want to make are a decent section on "dissent", perhaps a quick breakdown of the various rather different kinds of dissent with links to fuller discussions. It might end up as 10% of the article or a bit more. Not overpowering the message, but not leaving an impression of great bias, which is what I'm getting now. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. I am looking at the history of the talk page at Global Warming failing to recognise any of what you say. Who said they "make it up on the hoof", and when did they say that (a diff would be nice)? Who said you are "not entitled to know what's been decided" (a diff would be nice too)? Your own talkpage contributions there have been rather limited and been a bit along the lines of "there's a bad smell" but I don't see specific things things you have raised and had unanswered. If you wander around Misplaced Pages making complaints up to a point people will listen and try to investigate but if there isn't any substance then it is hard to keep taking the complaints seriously. --BozMo talk 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding on your reasoning at Talk:Global warming. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I support you
I strongly support the principle you have been arguing for on the pages of Global warming. I too would like to understand why sceptics hold their point of view, for the same reasons I am also interested why creationists hold their views, even though I regard creationism as absurd. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. My specialism is in the history of science, as my username suggests. HistorianofScience (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
PS see the discussion here . Even the most fervent adherents of the AGW hypothesis at Misplaced Pages are saying that the scientific view is 'it's more likely than not'. That places AGW scepticism in a different light than deniers of Cantor's Theorem, or of the Holocaust. No one would say of Cantor's Theorem, or the existence of the Holocaust, that they are 'more likely than not'. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
GWCT
is fine by me - but do you really think its just a conspiracy theory? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)