Topic on Talk:Hollywood Global Warming

Read the Wikipedia link. It was a hoax article created, deliberately opaque, to demonstrate that the journal to which it was submitted published not based on scientific merits but on politics. It basically said that gravity was not a fundamental element of the objective universe but a right-wing political structure inherent to the reactionary nature of "the so-called scientific method" and that a proper "liberatory science" and an "emancipatory mathematics" would reveal that gravity was entirely unnecessary in a "properly progressive" scientific model.

The point I was making was that one voice saying "no, you're wrong" doesn't make you wrong. It should make you look closer at your work to make sure you're right, but simple disagreement doesn't invalidate your point. Yes, there are scientists that dispute the interpretation of evidence for global warming. But they are in the vast minority, and many of them aren't climatologists. And they have yet to offer anything in the way of a hypothesis, let alone a working theory, to account for the observations without invoking a global warming trend. That is the requirement of science -- if you disagree, come up with a better explanation, and let its strength -- not the volume of your voices, or your political allies -- win the day for you. Until they do so, global warming is the accepted explanation.

Pretending there isn't a consensus because you don't like the implications, or because it conflicts with your holy book of choice, or with your personal prejudices, doesn't change the truth -- any more than me proclaiming that you are not a human being but a sapient koala bear will make you fuzzy and prone to chowing down on eucalyptus leaves.

Anyway, the point is -- if your edit is only about changing the politics of the article, it will be reverted and it will be locked to prevent an Edit War.