There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
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.
- Please be more specific about which statements are incorrect. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:40, 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)