>>>The wikipedia articles site many, many Factual scientific references. If you choose not to read them, that's your own choice,
>>
>>I have read them.
>
>You read all 168 references? I seriously doubt that.
>And the 91 references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
>
>You read all those too?

Likely not all the current links as they change over time, but at one time, yes I read each footnote included in the multiple articles. I was doing a considerable amount of research to become informed for an investment project. I also perused the IPCC reports and have read a significant number of Science and Nature articles and various EPA findings. Now, I'm not going to claim to have read "everything" by any means, but I have read a significant amount of the available scientific information.

>>>Wiki's are not proof, they are unreliable and as I have already pointed out that at least 16 authors of the GW related wikis were banned because of biased writing and hijacking the pages. That's a fact.
>
>Red herring yet again. That's a fact. Pointing out past issues with the wikipedia page is irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant. It was only October last year that the bans occurred and the known participants operations lasted for 7 years, those unknown are still at it. Not only did they re-write entire pages but prevented the posting of information contrary to their beliefs. The entirety of the wikis as related to AGW are but fractions of the whole of the research and are inherently flawed specifically because they are subject to the honor system, a system which has been proven corruptable by the very editors who held sway over them.

>>>but to say I haven't provided any factual information is false.
>>
>>You have presented no factual information worth considering in the formation of my opinion
>
>The wiki includes references to actual science. You keep choosing to pretend those references don't exist.

You may be confusing our threads. Here I said you've not provided me with information worth considering in the formation of my opinion I have considered the information that the wikis contain. In addition, I've considered the sources, the scientists, the data, where the data came from, the history, the review process and the dissent.

>>See the difference?
>
>Do you?
>
>
>>My biases and opinions are based on my knowledge, which is subject to change by evidence, regardless of source.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>>>You are no better than I or anyone else despite your grandstanding to the opposite.
>>
>>"better" is a relative term and has nothing to do with the discussion. I believe I'm more informed based upon my years of following the debate and the relevant events. My conclusions are based on the evidence, not the least of which is the last 2 years worth of "really smart scientists" finally willing to come forward to expose the pressure which has been applied monetarily and professionally to go along with the "consensus". Many "really smart scientists" who were believers in AGW have understood that they've been had and are pushing for a cleaning up of their scientific community.
>
>And yet the majority of scientists say it's real. Here I'll pull your tactic: You haven't provided me any factual evidence that GW is fake. Just a warning though, any references that you may provide in the future I will then discard as being unacceptable references because they are not based on real science (I learn from the best!).

Did you just ask me to prove a negative?

>>>The majority rules in science because the majority have come to the same scientific conclusions, NOT because of a popularity contest.
>>
>>There is no majority rule in science. Facts rule.
>
>And the facts point to the fact that human impact has led to measurable global warming.

That something "points to" something does not make it fact.

>>Perhaps you'll appreciate this from the wiki on the subject. ;)
>>Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
>
>When scientists thought the world was flat, majority certainly was not right. GW is not based on hunches. The GW scientists are the ones saying the world is round.

What about the skeptics who used to be alarmists? Are they the flat or round earthers?

>It's inconceivable to think that the ridiculous amounts of pollution and gases we emit aren't haven't a serious impact on the earth.

That there's an impact is indispubible, considering Newton's third law and all. Claiming that reaction is serious is a relative term and will require definition and context to determine accuracy.

>If the majority of smart scientists say that affect is warming, that's good enough for me.

So to you it IS a popularity contest. Fair enough. I'll accept that your opinion will change soon then, seeing as the earth appears to be entering a multidecadal cooling cycle.

>Neither of us has conducted science.

I have conducted scientific experiments, however, I'll conceded that you likely meant GW science and I have not conducted any scientific activity related to global temperature trends.

>Both of us are just regurgitating what we choose to believe. Your belief is in the minority which makes you more defensive of your opinion.

What makes me defensive is where your line of thinking leads.
- They know better because they are smart
- They say we should do A
- You agree we should do A