Talk:Worldwatch Institute: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:To get to the bottom of a controversy, one must know what all the various parties are saying and who they are. The media and Democrats have hoodwinked the public into believing there is scientific consensus on global warming. I am providing evidence that there is no such consensus because the science is not settled. Perhaps this is foolish of me. If you think so, please feel free to persuade me that it is, and I will stop. [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] |
:To get to the bottom of a controversy, one must know what all the various parties are saying and who they are. The media and Democrats have hoodwinked the public into believing there is scientific consensus on global warming. I am providing evidence that there is no such consensus because the science is not settled. Perhaps this is foolish of me. If you think so, please feel free to persuade me that it is, and I will stop. [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] |
||
There IS a concesus. What disturb me is the number of edits and talks around for greenwashing and anti-ecologism bits like that, all around wikipedia. |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Gareth, I'm interested in why you say this. I think it's great that people enter specific information under specific headings; why should someone interested in what the Worldwatch Institute is shouldn't have to look under an article called, e.g., global warming. |
Gareth, I'm interested in why you say this. I think it's great that people enter specific information under specific headings; why should someone interested in what the Worldwatch Institute is shouldn't have to look under an article called, e.g., global warming. |
||
Revision as of 05:41, 4 November 2012
 | Organizations Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Environment Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This is now the fifth or sixth "article" (I use the word loosely) for whart should all have come under global warming or The Skeptical Environmentalist. I don't know what this scattergun approach is intended to achieve, but it sure as hell isn't "high quality encylopedia articles ".
- To get to the bottom of a controversy, one must know what all the various parties are saying and who they are. The media and Democrats have hoodwinked the public into believing there is scientific consensus on global warming. I am providing evidence that there is no such consensus because the science is not settled. Perhaps this is foolish of me. If you think so, please feel free to persuade me that it is, and I will stop. Ed Poor
There IS a concesus. What disturb me is the number of edits and talks around for greenwashing and anti-ecologism bits like that, all around wikipedia.
Gareth, I'm interested in why you say this. I think it's great that people enter specific information under specific headings; why should someone interested in what the Worldwatch Institute is shouldn't have to look under an article called, e.g., global warming.
I think an article about this organization should clearly state what its biases are, eh? --LMS