Okay, wait, hold up here.
[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]Bassically it comes down to this. Go to CO2 page on wiki. It will state for fact that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.[/citation]
That is a fact, there's no problem stating it as such. This much as been recognized since at least the turn of the 20th century (Arrhenius, the guy whose name is probably best known to high school students when it comes to acid-base chemistry, worked out that human emissions of CO2 would be powerful enough to warm up the global climate way back in the late 19th century). Subsequent research has only confirmed the role of CO2 as a powerful greenhouse gas. Are you going to tell me that it's not a major greenhouse gas?
[citation]Fact is that Water Vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.[/citation]
In terms of its concentration in the atmosphere and contribution to the greenhouse effect, yes. That doesn't contradict the idea that "CO2 is a major greenhouse gas." In fact, in both abundance and magnitude, it's right behind water vapor. Also, CO2 is much longer-lived in the atmosphere than WV. WV molecules stick around in the troposphere for less than two weeks on average, CO2 can stick around for centuries. This makes the problem of accumulation much greater than that of WV. WV also plays a feed-back role, where warmer temperatures let the atmosphere soak up more WV, which leads to more warming. Thus the problem of WV can also be trace back, to an extent, to CO2 concentration.
[citation]Water Vapor contributes between 80% and 95% of all of th misnamed greenhouse effect.[/citation]
A) Sauce? I've only seen it put at between 40-70% myself.
B) Why is it "misnamed?"
[citation]This % depends on calculations as well as humidity.[/citation]
What does this sentence even mean?
[citation]Go into the CO2 site after finding reliable research that talks about this and cite it as you make an edit to the CO2 database, and within 24 hours your information will have been deleted by one of WIKI's superusers who have special powers, like the ability to ban your account. [/citation]
A) What site? A Wikipedia page? Which one?
B) What "database?" I haven't seen any database in any of the Wiki's CO2 pages.
C) What sort of reliable research? Since you seem to be experienced with this, perhaps you could drop some names/titles?
D) Is it possible that this is being deleted because it doesn't relate to the article in question?
[citation]I am not certain if CO2 is even unlocked for any editing anymore. When it was, it was still locked as far as what POLITICAL position CO2 held by a POLITICALLY motivated superuser of WIKI.[/citation]
I don't see any locked content notices on the pages related to CO2 and climate change.
[citation]The same thing with global warming. The totally discredited hockey stick is still there, as a fact.[/citation]
A) Where? I've just looked at the Global warming page, and the only place I see any graph related to Mann et al. 1999 (the "Hockey Stick Graph) is where the data is shown on a graph that also combines about
half a dozen other temperature reconstructions along with the instrumental data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
B) It only seems to be "totally discredited" when an anti-AGW person is talking. Other times it seems to be addressed as problematic but generally correct in its broad conclusions.
[citation] Even though countless studies in peer reviewed science journals has totally destroyed it's findings.[/citation]
I haven't seen that, actually. And Wikipedia's entry on the Hockey Stick Graph Controversy is pretty thorough and balanced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy They keep a running tab on it, too.
[citation]Every single part of the global warming page in wiki is tailored to indoctrinate people into thinking that global warming is real...[/citation]
It -IS- real, according to the vast majority of the experts. The general consensus is A) global warming is happening, B) human activity is driving it significantly. Nowadays there is not one single major scientific organization which will deny either of these two things. For now, the very best that science can say is "yep, it's real." Even the traditional hold-out, the American Association of Petroleum Geology (wonder why they held out so long?), have grudgingly admitted this much.
[citation]... it is settled science, and there is no dissent, except by people like flat earthers and holocaust deniers.[/citation]
I wouldn't go THAT far (the evidence for a round earth is significantly better established and more fully understood). Also, where in the Wikipedia page does it make any comparison between the anti-AGW movement and Holocaust Deniers?
As to dissent, by and large the dissent comes most loudly from those with monetary ties to fossil fuel industries. Non-scientists like Steven Milloy and scientists like Fred Singer, both of whom have money trails leading back to Exxon Mobil and Philip-Morris, have denied not only anthropogenic global warming but also (coincidentally), the danger of second-hand smoke. They also have a strong connection to "free-market" think-tanks, which also get lots of money from fossil fuel and other industries.
So what we have is a situation where most scientists agree one way, and a small number disagree. Of those that disagree, there's a demonstrable link between many of them and the industries that would suffer the most from increased government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, which do you find more likely?
A) Most scientists are being swindled or are knowing conspirators in perpetrating a hoax. Only a handful of scientists are brave enough to speak the truth.
B) Most scientists follow the facts and generally seek the most accurate descriptions of nature, eschewing BS that lacks evidence to support it. A small number of scientists are either incapable of making this distinction or are willing to go along with the BS if there is money involved.
And before you even say "scientists only support warming to get research funds," I'm going to shoot that down right now. Scientists can achieve far more wealth and notoriety by OVERTURNING CONSENSUS VIEWS than they can by simply affirming them. The problem here is that to overturn the consensus, there must be extremely strong evidence to the contrary of that position. Scientists in general are highly skeptical, either by their nature or by their training and experience. They are constantly checking each other's work for errors and trying to find fault with the accepted wisdom when something problematic arises that it can't explain. It goes strongly against the very nature of science, as a practice and as a calling, to lie or perpetuate lies. It would be nearly impossible for the vast bulk of the scientific community to knowingly support a hoax, or to be incompetent enough not to recognize one after sufficient scrutiny. In general, it is far more likely that a small number of self-interested or incompetent scientists can be lead to support false conclusions at odds with the consensus.
[citation]Wiki is run by liberal progressive statist who do not have the intent of having an open honest encyclopedia written by non paid citizens. Wiki is a farce.[/citation]
Again, I'm going to ask: are you a contributor to Conservapedia?
Facebook
Twitter