Spoetry - Submit your own Spoems

grastog1313 (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 05:53:16 PM)

There seems to be some disagreement about the wikipedia "Global Warming" article. For those seeking an accurate, understandable overview of CO2 effects or other climate basics, it's probably unsurpassed on the Web. It's also notable in that, unlike blogs, it addresses all perspectives in the published literature, even as it reflects the literature in devoting considerable space to CO2-driven warming. Still, I don't see a point in arguing - viewers can visit it to draw their own conclusions.

ziljn (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 05:37:12 PM)

Grastog illustrates a common misconception among those unfamiliar with any science - that it is determined via popularity or editors. The article does not present all views, nor does it ackowledge all the shortcomings of the hypothesis that can be found in the journals. I also find it disappointing that Grastog would prmote an entry that uses articles and blogs for references. I guess his/her acceptance of those sources is very, very subjective.

grastog1313 (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 03:58:21 PM)

Laurel illustrates a common misconception among those unfamiliar with climate science - that anyone can edit the wikipedia global warming article. It's true that some other wikipedia content is vulnerable to unfiltered editing, but the global warming article, because of its importance, and the reliance on its content by millions struggling to understand CO2 effects and climate change principles, is highly protected against unscrupulous editing. Any doubter can conduct his/her own test of this.

laurelbush (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 03:47:19 PM)

clutching even more straws.

laurelbush (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 03:46:38 PM)

grastog shows his stupidity once again by referring to wikapedia which is open to any krank who wishes to add to it.

DrDave953 (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 02:52:20 PM)

Who does the filtering? He's a green addict who wouldn't know science if he was hit in the face with it. Dave.

grastog1313 (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 02:18:02 PM)

Dave illustrates a common misconception among those unfamiliar with climate science - that anyone can edit the wikipedia global warming article. It's true that some other wikipedia content is vulnerable to unfiltered editing, but the global warming article, because of its importance, and the reliance on its content by millions struggling to understand CO2 effects and climate change principles, is highly protected against unscrupulous editing. Any doubter can conduct his/her own test of this.

DrDave953 (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 02:10:41 PM)

And of coarse... Popular & user edited, (sort of, if you don't disagree), is good, right?? I'm sure that Einstein would have gone with the populace editing his work! Dave.

grastog1313 (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 01:26:20 PM)

Those wondering why the wikipedia "Global Warming" article warrants attention can Google "global warming" - >30 million hits turn up, and traffic analysis shows 14-25% of "global warming" searches end on wikipedia. Among reasons for its popularity - it's accurate and very informative. The attention devoted to CO2 reflects the literature, but the article addresses all published perspectives, uncommon in an era of one-issue blogs. Readers might want to visit it to draw their own conclusions.

DrDave953 (Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 12:51:19 PM)

It's all happened before grastog! As per usual, you insult peoples intelligence & education, the typical AGW proponent! Wikipedia is totally biased and does not give a balanced view. Despite what grastog says, many informed people do NOT agree with the proposal of AGW. Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist is just one. Dave.