Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
14,282
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + +
→Rules proposal: r and r
:::::On this question of what's fringe and what's not, I note that Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer, [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/ leading climate scientists all], are skeptics. Stephen Schneider, father of the global warming scare, wasn't a climate scientist at all, but a rather mechanical engineer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:42, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::On this question of what's fringe and what's not, I note that Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer, [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/ leading climate scientists all], are skeptics. Stephen Schneider, father of the global warming scare, wasn't a climate scientist at all, but a rather mechanical engineer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:42, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::::If a conservative, liberal, libertarian or authoritarian makes relevant and factual claims when discussing politics, environment, economics, etc. I’ll patiently listen. When people make crackpot claims I’ll display the contempt they deserve. By the way, lunatic fringe, fringe, skeptics and denial all have different meanings. I reserve lunatic fringe for the extraordinary. The Volt is not for everyone, that doesn’t mean the car is a failure. Many ridiculous claims were made in the articles you recommended. Auto plants periodically close for numerous reasons and the Hamtramck closure was not remarkable. One of the writers made a comparison to a BMW 3 series and the Volt. I own both, I prefer the Volt. And the tripe seemed to go on and on. The climate scientists you mentioned are among the 1% of climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d rather discuss such matters on the relevant talk page. As for Dr. Schneider, he was ''also'' a mechanical engineer.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 13:19, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::::If a conservative, liberal, libertarian or authoritarian makes relevant and factual claims when discussing politics, environment, economics, etc. I’ll patiently listen. When people make crackpot claims I’ll display the contempt they deserve. By the way, lunatic fringe, fringe, skeptics and denial all have different meanings. I reserve lunatic fringe for the extraordinary. The Volt is not for everyone, that doesn’t mean the car is a failure. Many ridiculous claims were made in the articles you recommended. Auto plants periodically close for numerous reasons and the Hamtramck closure was not remarkable. One of the writers made a comparison to a BMW 3 series and the Volt. I own both, I prefer the Volt. And the tripe seemed to go on and on. The climate scientists you mentioned are among the 1% of climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d rather discuss such matters on the relevant talk page. As for Dr. Schneider, he was ''also'' a mechanical engineer.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 13:19, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::::Am to understand that 99 percent of scientists agree with you, and only 1 percent agree with me? There was a survey a while back that found that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the Earth is warmer now than it was a century ago. But of course I don't dispute that, and neither does Lindzen, Christy, or Spencer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
I think we're getting a little further beyond the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be a debate ground for global warming - that's not really necessary. The article should be about the car. Link to global warming in a comment about how the car is targeted towards the environmentally friendly crowd - but what are we doing talking about Limbaugh and Fox on this talk page? Norman's right the original article was terrible and borderline parody. So far you guys have done a good job improving it.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)
I think we're getting a little further beyond the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be a debate ground for global warming - that's not really necessary. The article should be about the car. Link to global warming in a comment about how the car is targeted towards the environmentally friendly crowd - but what are we doing talking about Limbaugh and Fox on this talk page? Norman's right the original article was terrible and borderline parody. So far you guys have done a good job improving it.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:This car's primary notability is as a money pit. It's GM's attempt to follow California's idiotic regulations and appease the environmentalists. Sales are insignificant. The politics of this issue belongs in the lead section. We are not ''Consumer Reports''. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
==Further Reading==
==Further Reading==