Wikipedia and AGW

[Hallo Alfie]

When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

Right back at ya Quacky.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

From another thread...

So you agree the total supression of dissenting opinions and data is not going on on wikipedia?

No, I agreed that Wiki doesn't "generally ban things that are not happening".
And what I said originally was: "AGW theory hasn't and shouldn't be barred - it is a developing field. What should in my opinion is total supression of dissenting opinions and data".

Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth or misrepresenting what I say?
This is at least the second time.

 

[geni]

From another thread...



No, I agreed that Wiki doesn't "generally ban things that are not happening".
And what I said originally was: "AGW theory hasn't and shouldn't be barred - it is a developing field. What should in my opinion is total supression of dissenting opinions and data".

Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth or misrepresenting what I say?
This is at least the second time.

Sigh go look up what a question mark is.

The reason I keep attempting to get you to clairify your position is that you deal in insinuation, JAQing off and trying to play games with semantics. Dealing with such tactics does not allow for much in the way of reasoned debate and thus I attempt to shortcut the process.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Sigh go look up what a question mark is.

The reason I keep attempting to get you to clairify your position is that you deal in insinuation, JAQing off and trying to play games with semantics. Dealing with such tactics does not allow for much in the way of reasoned debate and thus I attempt to shortcut the process.

Through misrepresentation?!

 

[a_unique_person]

Through misrepresentation?!

Not misrepresentation, he was just pointing out it is almost impossible to pin you down to saying anything definite.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Not misrepresentation, he was just pointing out it is almost impossible to pin you down to saying anything definite.

First off, I still think it is misrepresentation - at the very least a case of putting (or trying to put) words in my mouth (as it were).

Secondly. I have already answered the question a number of time.
The trouble is many on this forum see things in "black or white", I am not one of those, there a varying shades of gray. This is one of those; I have already conceded that some matters within the article are trivial, I also think some of the allegations are more serious.

 

[geni]

Through misrepresentation?!

Citation needed