![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm amazed at the number of logical fallacies in this article (appealing to authority, appealing to numbers, etc.) when the gist is that anyone who speaks against doctrine is a heretic.
This article should be deleted as far below an intellectual standard needed for anything representing itself as an encyclopedia. As long as it remains it will simply be another example of why Wikipedia cannot be seriously considered as an accurate, reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.57.199 ( talk) 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems we should add Energy lobby to "see also." Benzocane ( talk) 07:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Where are citations of those who argue against this term? Where are the voices of those who point out, such as Rush Limbaugh, the most obvious truth behind this term, which is that it was created to equate those who do not believe in global warming with Holocaust deniers? This is a fundamental point behind this terms creation and use, and not one citation? When there are dozens of articles that refer to it?
And where are the voices of those who believe this whole term is absurd, and simply an attempt by extreme leftists to push global warming politically and thus to vastly grow the size and power of government and raise taxes? The lack of neutrality is not only is what is included, but what is seemingly purposefully left out. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I am afraid Rush, although entertaining, is in no way a reliable source. This is particularly true on a scientific issue. I stand by what I said earlier, lost above in a storm of nonsense, that there are features of denialism on all sides of this debate. The science that Judgesurreal is looking for resides in linguistics, which is not much of a science. New terms emerge in English or other languages all the time. And this is one of those times, apparently. So what?-- Filll 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And what about AIDS denialists? And other forms of denial and denialism? And what about those who claim denialism has nothing to do with denial? This is just a playground for those who want to obfuscate and confuse.-- Filll 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the article really needs to mention Godwin's Law, at least in the "See also" section. -- Helixdq ( talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Articles like this one (there are several) damage Wikipedia's credibility. All attempts to delete these articles, or even make them NPOV, will fail, until the global warming alarmist movement itself collapses, which will happen eventually. Open skepticism among experts is building, and will continue to rise. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Vegasprof ( talk) 00:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm amazed at the number of logical fallacies in this article (appealing to authority, appealing to numbers, etc.) when the gist is that anyone who speaks against doctrine is a heretic.
This article should be deleted as far below an intellectual standard needed for anything representing itself as an encyclopedia. As long as it remains it will simply be another example of why Wikipedia cannot be seriously considered as an accurate, reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.57.199 ( talk) 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems we should add Energy lobby to "see also." Benzocane ( talk) 07:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Where are citations of those who argue against this term? Where are the voices of those who point out, such as Rush Limbaugh, the most obvious truth behind this term, which is that it was created to equate those who do not believe in global warming with Holocaust deniers? This is a fundamental point behind this terms creation and use, and not one citation? When there are dozens of articles that refer to it?
And where are the voices of those who believe this whole term is absurd, and simply an attempt by extreme leftists to push global warming politically and thus to vastly grow the size and power of government and raise taxes? The lack of neutrality is not only is what is included, but what is seemingly purposefully left out. Judgesurreal777 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I am afraid Rush, although entertaining, is in no way a reliable source. This is particularly true on a scientific issue. I stand by what I said earlier, lost above in a storm of nonsense, that there are features of denialism on all sides of this debate. The science that Judgesurreal is looking for resides in linguistics, which is not much of a science. New terms emerge in English or other languages all the time. And this is one of those times, apparently. So what?-- Filll 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And what about AIDS denialists? And other forms of denial and denialism? And what about those who claim denialism has nothing to do with denial? This is just a playground for those who want to obfuscate and confuse.-- Filll 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the article really needs to mention Godwin's Law, at least in the "See also" section. -- Helixdq ( talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Articles like this one (there are several) damage Wikipedia's credibility. All attempts to delete these articles, or even make them NPOV, will fail, until the global warming alarmist movement itself collapses, which will happen eventually. Open skepticism among experts is building, and will continue to rise. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Vegasprof ( talk) 00:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)