http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...led&action=edit
Did anyone notice an AFD?
Full Version: "The Science is Settled" is no more
I didn't notice, but there was one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ence_is_settled
Connolley voted to "keep," so maybe this is a good thing, at least for the JohnA contingent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ence_is_settled
Connolley voted to "keep," so maybe this is a good thing, at least for the JohnA contingent?
I think you'd call it an "extremely weak keep" by Connelley. He obviously wasn't trying very hard to retain it, having decided that the evidence against his straw man argument would get longer and longer, and he'd given up trying to block me and delete the edit history.
The reason I wanted it was to add his fellow traveller Gavin Schmidt who wrote this before going into a debate on the proposition "Global Warming is not a crisis":
Of course what happened was that Schmidt debating team got creamed
I particularly enjoyed this comment that somehow got through the RealClimate censorship:
The reason I wanted it was to add his fellow traveller Gavin Schmidt who wrote this before going into a debate on the proposition "Global Warming is not a crisis":
QUOTE
I'm quite looking forward to this, but I have to admit to conflicting thoughts. Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? Can this be entertaining and educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging?
Of course what happened was that Schmidt debating team got creamed
I particularly enjoyed this comment that somehow got through the RealClimate censorship:
QUOTE
The general public is treated to such delights as: Propaganda films forecasting 20 foot rises in sea level; emotional TV advertisements like "tick tick tick save the planet from global warming... for the kids" and comparisons between Holocaust deniers and Global Warming skeptics. Now you're surprised that skeptics are using emotional arguments to argue their side? If you want to keep emotion out of the debate, the time to start is when global warming advocates go overboard. If you only complain when the other side uses emotion, an uninformed observer might think its just sour grapes from somebody who was completely smoked in a debate.
Note that scientists who reject the theory of anthropogenic global warning are now reporting that they are receiving death threats, and are being publicly called "Global Warming Deniers" (to quote the immortal Anna Russell, "I'm not makng this up, you know.") As usual, Wikipedia takes the worst of popular culture and ramps it up a notch.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.