Steel,

Because you really didn't understand my ruse about Queen apologising matter and my reluctance [because you so rude] about how the death of Stalin [19530 had a domino effect leading to the crack down in Tibet and friction between China and India; I must agree with you that wikipedia is a poor resource.

as for the Dalai Lama research it yourself. Catch os the best books on the topic we printed in 1940s and 1950s and university data bases usually don't go back that fare with outline jounals.

Hope you learn some manners.

O.

Steel,

Because you really didn't understand my ruse about the Queen apologising matter and my reluctance [because you so rude] about how the death of Stalin [19530 had a domino effect leading to the crack down in Tibet and friction between China and India; I must agree with you that wikipedia is a poor resource.

as for the Dalai Lama research it yourself. Catch is the best books on the topic we printed in 1940s and 1950s and university data bases usually don't go back that fare with outline jounals.

Hope you learn some manners.

O.

Ok. I deserved that. Sorry.

All the best.

EVO

Steel

It may be worthwhile going to the following link and typing “Lawrence Soloman” into the search field, click ‘GO’ and see what you come up with.

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/quick/

It explains some of the history behind why Soloman wants to ‘dump’ on Wikki.

A lot of people get mesmerised by op-eds and media hype – the ‘National Post’ that Keiran linked to is typical of a number of anti-global warming blogspots that have sprouted recently.

Their gain in 'hits' is correlated to the fear people have of something threatening their comfort zone.

Unfortunately, many of the posters haven’t a clue about the science and the moderators allow a feeding frenzy by the pack on anyone who dares challenge the rationale of the blog. But it goes both ways - I know my patience would be challenged.

There are a few sites around where reasoned and rational questions can be answered by the experts. However, unless you’re willing to learn or challenge in a constructive manner, there is no point in visiting them.

As to what Oliver is on about, maybe you/he got tied up in another thread?

Hmm, some people got messed up. My comment was NOT directed at you Oliver nor anyone else (now that you've wasted your posts you won't be able to correct it :) for a while...). I was instead addressing KEIRAN only, earlier who rather offhandedly and arrogantly dismissed the wikipedia article on the effects of global warming i cited that contains 156 citations, (although he only commented about it indirectly, he made an inclusive statement). What's funny is, he rarely gives any citations for his viewpoints. I get really perturbed by laymen who outright refuse to acknowledge the tens of thousands of hours of research and field tests that go into these things, by many, many people. If you have a logical argument that has some basis, go right ahead, but arguing from ignorance and arrogance is just crazy when you consider that each person votes based entirely on perceptions and private/media beliefs. Thankfully, many people *DO* respect the work of these scientists and groups. I'm not saying they shouldn't be questioned, but do it from a decently strong position, not an ignorant one.

Q&A, we have this comment .... you say "Wikki is ‘generally’ ok for an overview (especially for beginners)". I say this is an appalling outlook if you are genuinely concerned about honest science and the education of impressionable people. I have commented on this previously and this statement of yours speaks of your lack of credibility.

The wiki page Steel mentioned is pure propaganda and its many references attest to this fact. Gawwd look at them ..... it's a virtual whose who of media, political, and pseudo-science shonks and try hards. It plainly is not a balanced over view but must say this wiki joker editor is much better than AlGorithms. All i can say is take off the blinkers and admit you have been conned because wiki is all simply based on reinterpretations and as such will be biased.

Next Q&A, we are not debating peak oil but AGW, an hypothesis based expediently on but twenty years of the late 20th century warming. It is not a theory at all because there has been shown NO conclusive proof other than an attempt to make something of a correlation between minuscule human CO2 emissions and the fact that we have had a warming period within normal historical evidence. No wonder dodgy AGWers preach the oxymoron .... "Stop Climate Change." lol