Talk:Guy McPherson

	This Global warming related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

(create an archive)

Comment

This page is filled with incorrect statements: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guy_McPherson

My revisions don't stick. Somebody with a lot more time than me is interested in spreading lies.

Have you any advice on how to proceed? ^{— Unsigned, by: Guy McPherson / talk / contribs} 21:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please be more specific about which statements are incorrect. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

^ FuzzyCatPotato of the Barbarous Playstation 2s (talk/stalk) 21:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Nearly all comments are biased against the evidence I present. Consider this minor example: "McPherson wildly distorts climate science -- especially developments about methane emissions from the Arctic -- to support his conclusions."

It's utter nonsense. I report evidence from the journal literature. Johnson is unqualified to comment on the topic, and Tobis makes no relevant statements. Both critics rely on libel to further their cases.

I'm accused of vandalism, without supporting evidence. This entire page is an unsupported attack on my work, rooted in reason.

The initial response to my post in this space is typical of the responses to my work. Ad hom is the standard approach. The evidence I present is irrefutable, so it is not refuted. Instead, the critics "shoot the messenger." ^{— Unsigned, by: Guy McPherson / talk / contribs} 21:48, 26 July 2015

The response in this talk page, where we asked you what parts of the article you had complaints about or the actual article, where presumably you were the person edit warring and leaving no edit summaries?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Spin up your irony meters folks: McPherson castigates his critics for using ad hominem and then dismiss their criticism using... vague and ad hominem attacks ("unqualified to comment on the topic" and "makes no relevant statements"). Brilliant riposte. Try actually addressing where and why the article and your critics are wrong and it'll be possible to have a discussion rather than a row.

As for the vandalism, at least User:NeartermExtinction claimed to be McPherson, but perhaps that long talk page'ish edit to the article (and an earlier whitewash effort) was the work of a very dedicated impersonator? ScepticWombat (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The email I just received is even better. WalkerWalkerWalker 10:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Source number 11 on guy McPhersons wiki leads to a penis enlargement cream, pretty funny, but is that intentional?

Whoops see subject. ^{— Unsigned, by: 199.116.118.238 / talk / contribs}

Thanks for the "heads up". I fixed the links. Eventually all crank websites get bought by boner pill companies. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You will die for that pun. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)