Why do you frequently see AGW alarmist using sources like Wikipedia or using politicians?

Question

They could just make it say what they want it to say

Answer 1

because they are the only sources that tell them what they want to hear unlike the hundreds of other sources that say otherwise

Answer 2

You've never tried entering incorrect information on something contentious into Wikipedia have you? It's not that easy. There is a great interview with Jimbo Wales floating around on C-Span, I recommend you watch it to get an idea of how the process works. Or better yet, go to the wiki discussions and watch the process in action. Wikipedia may not be completely authoritative, but the idea that it is flat out wrong is right-wing paranoid fantasy.

Let's guess who's going to get best answer on this question, I vote for Dr. Jello.

I'm not going to be wrong.

Answer 3

I just use Wikipedia when it's a listing of verifiable facts, not opinions. It can be a good place to find them gathered together and stated simply. Here's an excellent example, there's nothing but EASILY verifiable facts gathered here. I'd have to list many websites to get them all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I challenge anyone to find me something not true in that.

I quote politicians when the nonsense that this is a "liberal" thing is posted, because it shows the lie in that statement. Not to prove global warming.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Most of my links are to scientific facts.

Answer 4

My main source is the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) and Stern Review on the economics of climate change. I hope I am not an alarmist but I am trying to tell things as they are. There is such a lot of scepticism at the moment.

Answer 5

I don't know about the wikipedia thing but using politicians is how they gain control. Convince congress and they can actually change the way we do things. All at a great cost mind you. Believe me, there are big bucks to be made on global warming and the average Joe will be handing out what little he has left.

Answer 6

Because there is no real scientific arguments for their agenda. Even the precious IPCC won't agree with the human caused C02 emissions as a PRIMARY cause of global warming. Don't believe me? Why don't you read the IPCC's fourth assessment? Scroll down to page 115 of chapter one "Historical Overview of Climate Change Science." Then after you've read that page, tell me the most important green-house gas.

Answer 7

Because Wikipedia is an easy source to link for graphs.

If you don't trust Wikipedia, you can just go straight to the source of the information, which is linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry.

Dismissing evidence because it's from a Wikipedia page is just a lazy cop-out. You're one click away from the source of the info.

Politicians are only referenced when a global warming denier claims that global warming is a liberal hoax.

gcnp - deniers almost always pick Jello, so you're likely right. I'm not betting against it. Though technically Jello did not answer the question, and thus violated the community guidelines. His answer should be reported and removed.

Answer 8

There's a reason why believers "liberally" use Wikipedia.

Answer 9

Its there best source of info