Why do the AGW believe use political sources and wikipedia?

Question

Why do the AGW believe use political sources and wikipedia?

Answer 1

Why do you continue to post questions with false (and intentionally misleading) premises?  Any why do you continue to identify yourself as a Dr., when every regular here knows you are not?

A cursory review of the links provided by people around here, shows that supporters of the AGW theory are far more likely to utilize links to reputable non-partisan scientific organizations or peer reviewed scientific journal articles, than are the doubters.

The occasional link to wikipedia is probably provided because the doubters are either unwilling to read or unable to understand the content of actual scientific reports.

Answer 2

I haven't been counting, but I had the impression the D/s crowd referred to it more often.

Answer 3

As I had admonished the author of another question, one must be very careful with the wikipedia site because some articles – particularly those where they wish to be “politically correct” - are biased. But the wording is cleverly crafted in a way that the unassuming reader will not discern the bias until they have been overwhelmed with apparent “facts,” at which point their perception will become dulled and their critical eye dimmed.

Politicians talking about science? That’s about as valid as an auto mechanic talking about heart surgery.

Answer 4

Wikipedia has some well-cited articles, and some that have been vandalized. I think that Wikipedia is a good place to start when introducing a new term or idea, but it should not be your only source.

As far as “believers” using political sources, I think that most of the sources that we rely on are from scientific journals and press coverage of scientific articles from journals.

Answer 5

Because the majority of the public whether ecologists, agw deniers, skeptics or whatever are not scientists. So for most people global warming a lifestyle decision instead of an accademic one.

Answer 6

A lot of the citations get dumbed down a little so you could, in principle anyway, follow along if you wanted to.  I've found that if I get too technical, nobody understands the argument.  

Go figure.

Answer 7

Mostly I don't.

I do use this wikipedia site, which lists the positions of most all scientific organizations that global warming is real, and mostly man made.  This isn't somebodies opinion, it's simply easily verifiable fact.  I use wikipedia, because it has them all gathered in one place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

And "wiki" hosts some sites which are not wikipedia sites, and can't be edited.  Nothing wrong with those, like this one that, with references, proves global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Finally I use political quotes to show that the political argument that this is a "liberal" thing are nonsense.  How else would you do it?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Answer 8

you mean like nature and science?

Answer 9

I don't think they will be referring to Wikipedia too much longer...  What a load of ....  Well.  Everyone will know in the very near future that just about anyone can edit those pages.  What is ridiculous is that some of these nuts refer exclusively to that as a reference.  LOLOL