>At the risk of pointing out the obvious about GW wikis.
>http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all-pages

This article merely points out that editors with GW agendas have been banned from editing the GW page. This says nothing about the accuracy of the GW page on wikipedia. It's a red herring in the context of this discussion.


>The entire house of cards regarding this hoax is collapsing. It's perfectly acceptable to admit when you've been had.
>http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=d033f2b569efb82f9f3a710a95e33ac8&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201


You're happy with that statement? Sorry, I'm not smart enough to analyze all the data and come up with my own opinion, so I'm going to believe the majority of the really smart scientists who maintain GW is real and not the minority who claim it's false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


Given your opinion on shale mining, offshore drilling, etc. your opinion on GW is not surprising. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree here.