Drnaline
 
Reply Sun 21 May, 2006 08:01 pm
A little back ground.

I was cruising another board and found a few posts with the all mighty Main Page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It is always refered for varios topic as i'm sure most know. I was wondering what or how the topic of "Global Warming" would go on that search. Least to say i found some of the content humorous. First search yielded this. Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first thing to catch my eye in the first paragraph was "very likely ". I thought, according to the general scientific community that is was a forgone conclussion? The rest of the paragraph trys to link "very likely" with human expolsions. But admit there are varied other factors. Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This unit in reference was put together by no other the the UN. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And the United States National Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Which have credentials in the Science community. With recent confirmation by the G8, G8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Of which the NAS is a member of G8, a small percentage according to the other members inroled. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Russian Federation.
If your still with me, here is a link to the scientists who still oppose the theory. List of scientists opposing global warming consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They seem like pretty good questions to ask In this link they protray a small number of scientists who do not agree but do not reference even a like number of ones who do not agree. In any case there are four opposing theorys if your read all the way down.
In the global warming link i find this not in sinc with the theory they wish the topic to go. "In principle, 'global warming' is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage, 'global warming' generally implies a human influence. However,? WTF? I thought is was common knoledge? Appears not?
Another UN entity United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives it's opinion under the same warning issue. I may have a few more additions, observations, or other things i find humorous as i fallow the wiki? This post is getting long?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 941 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
jatuab
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 12:47 am
@Drnaline,
Have you ever looked at a linked article and thought that maybe you used too many links?
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 05:53 am
@Drnaline,
That's why i cut the post short. The more i read and clicked the better it got. I was not awarded with more proof of the claim in the earth warming was my point, and it's cause as they believe it to be human related? For supposedly the shiznit in online pedia'sa they didn't offer much.
0 Replies
 
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 06:31 am
@Drnaline,
Please remember that Wikipedia is compiled by all types of people and each entry is subject to the biases of whichever member published it . If you take each entry as the whole and definitive truth on that subject , you are entering the rapids with neither a conoe nor a paddle .
Use wikis as springboards to better knowledge and follow enough links to satisfy curiosity .
jatuab
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 08:26 am
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon wrote:
Please remember that Wikipedia is compiled by all types of people and each entry is subject to the biases of whichever member published it . If you take each entry as the whole and definitive truth on that subject , you are entering the rapids with neither a conoe nor a paddle .
Use wikis as springboards to better knowledge and follow enough links to satisfy curiosity .

I use it to get dumb research papers over with in a quick manner.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 07:59 pm
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon wrote:
Please remember that Wikipedia is compiled by all types of people and each entry is subject to the biases of whichever member published it . If you take each entry as the whole and definitive truth on that subject , you are entering the rapids with neither a conoe nor a paddle .
Use wikis as springboards to better knowledge and follow enough links to satisfy curiosity .

Yes i've heard that many times and believe it as well.
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 May, 2006 10:13 pm
@Drnaline,
Wiki is good for random information at times.

It is NOT a difinitive source on anything, nor does it claim to be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Wiki any one?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.33 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 11:45:41
▲ ▼