Sqrl said:
Sometimes Wikipedia is abused by those who want to make sure their view is the only thing that is heard. |
Tell me about it. I don't know how often I have to tell students not to use it as a source for their papers.
That being said, it's great for certain things like acronyms and I really like the idea that it is the an accumulation of knowledges across the world. It's a fascinating, if sometimes unreliable source of knowledge.
On topic of his article: Dear lord, I despise the National Post, a very, very, very conservative paper... Anyway, while this shows that there is indeed propaganda at play here by many orginazations and groups and that while there are some who dissent, the majority of the scientific community believes that we may have a hand in climate change. There are many, many articles where the authors, mostly implicitly, suggest that we have some hand in an irregular increase in temperature. I'd provide some examples but I'm sure you don't need me to. Use JSTOR and query climate change or whatever database your university has.
As I mentioned eariler, I do not consider myself any bit of an authority on the issue, and to be honest, I haven't done any major research on the issue since 2006. That being said, I had done quite the amount of work on the issue and would not accept with 100% certainty that we are indeed speeding this process, but I sure as hell would not feel comfortable disregarding hundreds of accounts of compelling evidence.
I really must dig out the old notes to become reacquainted with the issue as I've forgotten most of it. I really shouldn't be having this conversation without doing so first.
