They myth that is man made global warming.

[Final-Fan]

elprincipe said:

Final-Fan said:

elprincipe said:

akuma587 said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Glad to see that what I have been saying for years is now going mainstream.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

I like your definition of mainstream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

It's well documented that the editor of the global warming portions of Wikipedia is a follower of global warming dogma.  Do a search on this fact if you don't believe me.  Quoting Wikipedia on anything is grounds for failure in and of itself (not to mention laughs), but especially on this issue.

Look, I agree that Wikipedia is far from a paragon of neutrality on some issues, global warming very notably among them.  But this is a simple statement of fact that IF UNTRUE ought to be easily proven so.  And if it's NOT untrue, then your complaint is irrelevant.  

Please put up or shut up.   

[edit:  I admit that "easily" may be an exaggeration.  Also, "the editor"?  As in there's only one?  I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, because what it sounds to me like you're saying makes no sense.]

It took two seconds to find this information.  I guess we really are that lazy nowadays.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

Unfortunately that was completely irrelevant to the point.  That had nothing to do with the statement in question, which regards organizations not individuals.  (I've discussed that story before, and found the counterclaims massively exaggerated (of bias of the source, not bias of the editor), but fortunately there is no need to argue over that since it's completely irrelevant either way.)

There is not one editor in charge of global warming articles on Wikipedia (either de jure or de facto), whatever some idiot from NRO thinks, and the story doesn't even touch on the statement in question anyway.