Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

malcolmkirkpatrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>On Jul 28, 3:04 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
>
>> >> >I'll accept wikipedia for non-controversial tioics. The topic here
is
>> >> >wikipedia's bias on global warming. Given the demonstratted
partisan
>> >> >editing on this issue, for global warming, wikipedia is out of
bounds.
>>
>> >> Coming from you, who plasters most of your postings with page-long
>> >> footers filled with partisanly-selective quotes from biased sources
on
>> >> the controversial issue of vouchers, that comment is hilarious.
>>
>> >You mean, sources like American Economic Review, the Journal of School
>> >Psychology, and Comparative Education? These are peer reviewed.
>>
>> So are the scientific journals where global warming has been almost
>> universally accepted.  
>>
>Sorry, but it's my understanding that this is not the case. This
>discussiion began with the assertion that Wikipedia has fabricated
>this "consensus".

I have been hearing of such consensus for several years from a variety
of other sources.  The only *scientific* dispute seems to be how much
of the global warming is caused by humans or whether some of it has
natural causes.

>> I suspect that there is a lot more unanimity among scientists that
>> global warming is occurring than there is among economists that
>> vouchers are a good thing.  And climatology is  science, whereas real
>> world economics is wannabe pseudoscience (as are all social
>> "sciences").
>>
>Some economist wrote that Economics and Biology are the same theory
>with different names attached to the variables.

One would expect an economist to write such nonsense.  Biology is a
natural science.  Economics is a social pseudoscience.

>LeChevalier's disdain for economics

is by no means unique to me.

>goes a long way toward explaining his loopy policy recommendations.

I rarely make policy recommendations, and when I do, I don't attempt
to justify them as being the result of any sort of scientific study.

By and large I stick with the status quo, because it HAS evolved as a
result of countless experiments, and most of the ideas that I have for
improvement are politically unsalable anyway (and I don't like to
waste time on what cannot be politically achieved, unlike you).

>If one imagines that physics says nothing about the real world,

One can imagine a lot of things. But most of physics has been verified
against the real world, whereas most economic models make hurricane
forecasting look like an exact science (which hurricane forecasters
would never claim) - and hurricane forecasting doesn't have any
obvious political component to it, whereas I have observed that
economics results invariably reflect the politics of the person or the
think tank that produced them.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Lojban language www.lojban.org