They myth that is man made global warming.

[Final-Fan]

elprincipe said:

Final-Fan said:

elprincipe said:

Final-Fan said:

elprincipe said:

akuma587 said:
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.  

Why do you value the opinion of the politicians who wrote the IPCC report over, to take one example, the leading climate scientist at MIT?

Once again your response is not one little bit on point to the question of whether the bolded statement is accurate.  However, I might respond by saying that if the statement IS accurate then I would feel justified in trusting every national/international scientific body with a stated opinion on the subject over one individual (especially since I'm sure I could dig up equally respected individuals on the other side of the debate).  

Look, Kasz216 came up with an actual reason to doubt that statement (see our discussion in previous posts).  Either just get behind him, or come up with a real reason on your own, or admit you can't and move on to attacking something else instead of pretending to be on point to this particular point.