User talk:Jamieplucinski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Jamieplucinski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  William M. Connolley 10:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

I notice you claim that the global warming article is NPOV because "Flagged as Bias as it does not mention or detail any of the alternative viewpoints adopted by many scientists discrediting global warming as defined on this page". Apparently you've failed to notice the bit in the intro saying Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller but non-negligible effects on global mean temperature since 1950.[2] A few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.; and you appear to have missed the section on Global_warming#Solar_variation. Did you actually read the article before commenting? William M. Connolley 10:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I did read the entire entry, but I decided to flag it as NPOV as there is very little mention of any of the latest research arguing against the widely accepted viewpoint on global warming, that National Geographic reported on recently.

There are also many alternative standpoints that point at a solar cause in further detail than the link above, the current research that Al Gore is supporting is based upon a relatively short period of time in the life cycle of the planet and at the current rate looses basis as time goes on.

The current stance of global warming is based on a theory by Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

So everything found in support of global warming is based upon something that was never proven and became a law fo future research. A well decorated Canadian Climatologist made a somewhat lengthy post highlighting the flaws with the current research into global warming.

As much as I realize myself and anyone else who disagrees with the current viewpoint on global warming are effectively swimming upstream, the entry needs to be flagged as NPOV and Biased so that alternative viewpoints can be explored upon in greater detail than they're currently mentioned, or not mentioned at all.

--Jamieplucinski 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Well drive-by tagging isn't a good idea; who would have known that you thought that from your edit comment? You are supposed to leave a message explaining *why* you think something is NPOV. To answer your points: Climate of Mars (you did read the Nat Geog when it said it was one persons opinion?); Solar variation (as linked from the GW article). I don't understand where you get Kuhn from; I don't think you can have read the attribution stuff on the GW page or attribution of recent cliamte change. Notice how fact free the canadafreepress article is that you quote (but now I know where you got Kuhn from) William M. Connolley 10:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My edit comment was useless I know, although the first one mentioned alternative standpoints, the second edit comment was just a plea for people not to undo the edit and there is only so much space for the comment. The links I gave were not that amazingly factual but they're the only posts online that I could find at the time, I recently lost all of my bookmarks when Google Bookmarks flopped on me. The point remains that there are many, many, many alternative viewpoints all that share the same ideas as listed in my above reply. Wikipedia says that they will not stand on a soapbox in the same way encyclopedia writers do, yet it's very hard to get anyone to even consider an alternative viewpoint. And even harder to keep that viewpoint around, regardless of how many supporters is has. This is not like editing the holocaust article and saying it never happened, there is overwhelming proof that it did, however when it comes to Global Warming it is happening, but for reasons nobody will allow to be published here and not because of the widely accepted (and not proven) reasons. Wikipedia needs a major NPOV checkup, as there are way too many people undoing changes just to adhere to their own moral and political agenda. Wikipedia is looked upon by many as a definitive source of information which it is not, and this makes the ability for people to edit controversial topics more and more dangerous especially when they retain their biased way of writing throughout many attempts to get some fact that has just as much of a right to be addressed than the current standpoint thrown into the mix. Jamieplucinski 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/User_talk%7EJamieplucinski_3a0f.html"