Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 3

1080:

copyright, hence repeating them is not plagiarism. Surely that is elementary. "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." (RHD) As the claim was not made that the language was in any way the same, the assertion of "plagiarism" is just a POV attack. "The raw data from Mauna Loa is 'edited' by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis . With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown. The raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102 samples had no data, 1085 were not used due to up slope winds, 655 had large variability within 1 hour but were used in the official figures and 866 had large hour by hour variability and were not used. " does noot read anything remotely like "For 2004, 8784 hourly average data should have been sampled, but: 1102 have no data, due to instrumental errors (including several weeks in June). 1085 were flagged, due to upslope diurnal winds (which have lower values), not used in daily, monthly and yearly averages. 655 had large variability within one hour, were flagged, but still are used in the official averages. 866 had large hour-by-hour variability : -->

31: 736:

derived the figures from who, as the data is from 2004, and thus Plimer may have analysed the data (and perhaps published it elsewhere) before Engelbeen posted it. Equally the data that Plimer and Engelbeen used may have been a different data set than that used by Tans and myself. And finally, I don't know why Plimer and Engelbeen made that error - it may be that they used a different methodology than Tans (and I) went for. -

1366:. Your new link doesn't say anything about Plimer being a Liberal voter. Don't you think it's quite possible he could be a swing voter? I am generally a Labor voter, but I am sure as hell voting for the Liberals in the next NSW state election. If Plimer is a Liberal voter, or a member of the Liberal Party, that would be relevant to an article on Plimer. What you have included is only relevant to the article on the IPA. Okay? 2866:

which "investigates paranormal and pseudoscientific claims using scientific methodologies". Is it really there to allow his nomination for a "you're a tin-foil hat wearer" award to be included. If his membership of such a society is worth mentioning, it should be elsewhere. The info about being nominated for an award and not getting is crucial to the article how exactly? It should go.

2246:

another, but I still hope that there would be some (lenient) way to express this under the strict rules concerning living humans in Knowledge. My main concern is that to my eyes, this page is not balanced and flaunts Pilmer's possibly flawed claims without mentioning the controversy properly. Here's some pages to get started off with, maybe you can find a more objective source:

2702: 2353: 2472:

Going back to your objection to Lippard: it's in context (commenting about Plimer's fight with creationists) and balanced (Plimer wrote a book attacking creationists and spent all his money fighting them in court). Lippard's comment seem trivial in comparison. You may think this is all "silly", and I

1816:

It doesn't belong there either because it has nothing to do with the discussion. What you can't seem to see is that you have seized on a little incident of name-calling, and you are then reducing Monbiot's argument to name-calling. So you are making Monbiot sound like a little child. You, the editor,

1519:

Okay, you keep asking me to prove things; now you're asking me to prove what "denialist" means, a word that hasn't made it to dictionaries yet. This is extraordinary, given your involvement at the "climate change denial" article here at Knowledge, and your efforts at defining the said term as someone

1345:

The bigger problem is that you have misquoted Plimer again (I've looked at it now). You are presenting Plimer's view as a dogmatically held view. The source on the other hand shows Plimer as suggesting this as a possibility. A bit of googling shows that peer reviewed researchers have also put forward

139:

No, that's not quite right. I've edited the sentence to give it context, which is that this is their riposte to his book attacking them. In context, it's most enlightening. It's not a gratuitous attack by any means, but a response to an aggression from Plimer aimed at them. That changes the ballgame.

2784:

I think the comment questioning Plimer's membership of Australian Skeptics should be rewritten or removed. It is not correct to say that this group does not have members as such. I checked the Australian Skeptics website and while the requirement for joining is low (subscription to their magazine as

1341:

Plimer engaged with Monbiot "personally" so that means anything on Monbiot's blog is now fair game for inclusion? If you're trying to make an analogy with the open RS/N discussion, there isn't one here. You're not presenting Monbiot's response to an attack by Plimer. You're just presenting Monbiot's

1329:

We go round in circles a bit, don't we. If you like including negative statements about living people, you need high quality reliable sources. And this is what you don't have. What you have instead are opinion columns. Knowledge does not endorse name-calling. Name-calling is actually very silly. And

930:

It says: "In the book he also attacked numerous aspects of the Bible,..." I suspect that he didn't attack the Bible, but "attacked" (if you want to use that word) the idea that the Bible is literally, scientifically true in all aspects. There is a big difference. I love the Bible but I don't think

735:

The source will need to be particularly reliable, though. Strong claims need strong sources. In this case, I can confirm that Engelbeen and Plimer did make an error, rather than Pieter Tans - I've analysed the data as well, and the figures I got were a duplicate of Tans'. However, it isn't clear who

455:

No, here it is straight: Plimer wrote a book attacking the CMI and they responded to that book with rebuttals on their website. It stays because without it we're getting half the story. And if you manage to forum-shop it out, it will go to a page on the book. Note: their site does not attack Plimer,

2530:

I'm saying that Plimer makes an extravagant attack on this chap in his book, and so Gish's response, which you characterise as melodramatic in some way, may be justified. We may need to include more of Plimer's attack to put it in context properly, rather than simply deleting a well-sourced comment

2245:

Random person from the internet would still like the Pilmer page proper to indicate Monbiot's allegations that his simple questions about the validity of Pilmer's data went unanswered and instead Pilmer just sent back deliberately derailing questions. I know it is essentially one man's word against

1414:

as akin to "denier", and meaning "someone who denies", which is exactly what IP is. Agreed? Now on wp there is a drive to redefine that as someone in the pay of polluting industry to sow doubt about AGW. This is not a generally accepted meaning yet (unless you can point me to a source that shows it

1383:

I changed my mind about the quote-mining part in Philip Adams... I read the whole column carefully and concluded actually that the whole column does sound hysterical and silly and stops being funny and turns depressingly serious after a while... Oh well, I enjoying his columns on other matters. The

1332:

Although you can't see it, quoting Philip Adams' comment out of context makes him sound silly too. The reader doesn't realise that Philip Adams, a very amusing journalist, was writing comedy. What was funny in its original context, sounds childish and silly in its new context. If you respect Philip

3067:

Excellent, thanks. If the group is more noteworthy than I had first thought then his being 'made a life member' seems noteworthy enough. The changes that have since happened to the article seem fine. I'm still 'meh' over the placement, a passing thought is to rename the section from "political" to

2806:

I found three discrete nominations for Plimer, one of which was from a nominator who also nominated the Australian Skeptics "for their tacit defence of Ian Plimer’s rather irrational anti-global warming book." Nominations are just via an email from anyone in the community, as such Tim Flannery and

2445:

No, if you don't have time to do it properly, then we leave it out until someone does have time. My preference is to leave the whole thing out because I think creationism is silly, arguing with creationists is silly, and writing about people who argue about creationists is silly. It's your idea to

2333:

due to other factors. It's due to vibration consolidating the coral island sand, it's due to the extraction of water, and it's due to the extraction of coral island sand for road making and air strip making," he said. "It is these processes that don't get considered in what is a relative sea level

2284:

Dear Random Person From the Internet, you prove a point here that Ratel and others would do well to heed: when you use Knowledge to promote your favourite controversy, it doesn't matter what side of the argument you happen to be on; you end up inadvertantly promoting the other side equally. You're

1762:

If you want me to read the rules, then tell me which rule says that please. Because it doesn't. In any case, at best, as I said, the source has the same value as an op-ed. So let's just call it an op-ed, rather than wasting more time arguing about nonexistent rules. Yes, there was some altercation

1742:

No, Monbiot was involved in a personal and well-publicised altercation with Plimer, so this is not 3rd party commentary but part of Plimer's life history and part therefore of his biography, just like Gish. And Monbiot's blog is published under the aegis of a RS, which makes it acceptable (see the

1554:

pejorative, why remove it? The source is not bulletproof, but it does provide some evidence. Remember that all the provisions for impeccable sourcing in BLPs relates to contentious or negative material, not uncontroversial statements. If you feel the source is inadequate, why not use an inline tag

2865:

Why is this information in the section on "Political affiliations"? I can see a reason for the Global Warming Policy Foundation as they appear to "challenge policy measures envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming", but the Australin Skeptics are a non-profit organisation

1239:

and appears to be advancing a view that Plimer must be a Liberal voter. (Presumably by applying the logic that All Climate Change Skeptics are Rightists; Plimer is a skeptic; therefore Plimer votes Liberal.) An actual connection with the Liberal Party seems to be unsourced. Being a member of IPA

1079:

And, as ever, Blogs are not RS. They, in fact, tend to be editorial in nature rather than actual journalistic endeavors. Nor is PRWatch.org a RS as near as I can tell for WP. In fact, it is a very highly POV site indeed. As for the "plagiarism" claim -- numerical facts are not susceptible to

2562:

Hey, we cannot control what people say and cannot censor their comments if they overreact! That's what happened and that's what Gish said. It's history. I'd also like to rewrite a lot of stuff to make it read better, but that's not our job here. Things happen in life, and if you go through life

1896:

You're right that I don't like name calling. Monbiot has made an actual argument, and all you want to cover here is, "Monbiot called Plimer a Climate Change Denialist!" But forget about what I like, and forget about what is and what is not good encyclopaedic style. You haven't found a reliable

1194:

Before writing the book, Plimer stated that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges. This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and

159:

I see the material has been restored to the text again, as usual, and without any interest that it is not reliably sourced. So what's that about? Ratel's opinion on what's enlightening is not relevant. The fact that scibaby tried to remove it doesn't stop it being a BLP violation. Do I need to

2279:

Plagiarism, not citing sources and essentially inventing data are more-or-less the gravest crimes in the sphere of science, so it would be of tremendous importance to get this issue solved either way and either up on the Knowledge page, or then completely taken off (with perhaps remarking the

2807:

Nicole Kidman also received 2009 Bent Spoon nominations. So I think that the statement that he received a nomination is misleading without this context. It should either be removed or put in the context that the nomination does not necessarily support the majority of the group's members. --

2766:

The article mentions Ian Plimer is a member of "Australia Skeptics". The Australian Skeptics don't have members as such. They run events and provide outlets for people to investigate paranormal and pseudo-science. You can subscribe to their magazine but you don't actually join anything.

1520:

who is in the pay of industry, or self deceived. It appears that it has become convenient for you here, just for a sec, to pretend it's a purely inoffensive term meaning, "he who denies" something. Can we be serious please? We both know it is an offensive term, and everyone knows that.

2563:

attacking people and trying to belittle them in public with stunts like Plimer did to Gish, you provoke real anger. It's not a wp editor's job to sanitize events to make someone look good by suppressing or censoring comments from people who hated him. I hope you can understand this.

302:

I left out self-published because I was trying to keep it simple. Anyhow, you seem to be saying that the creation.com website, published by "Creation Ministries International", is not "self-published" because "Creation Ministries International" is not a "self". Is that correct?

3045:

The outcome of the Federal Court case was not clear-cut but Plimer says he won. "The battle that we won hands down, and wanted to win, was the public one," he says. "I wanted people to associate the word 'creationism' with the thought that, hang on, this might be a bit dodgy."

2124:

Okay, this has gone far enough... I have no choice but to raise another noticeboard incident. None of these are reliable sources, as far as I can see. We have opinion piece, opinion piece, blog, environmentalist website, and blog. I have found you one reliable source, here:

2208:

Instead of getting your panties in a knot every 5 minutes, why don't you calm down and see what other editors have to say here? Knowledge is a co-operative effort. If you'd just stop posting fraught messages every few minutes, maybe someone else will make a comment.

2473:

agree that trying to convince people of things can be silly (as I personally discovered in the last day), but Plimer did not think so and lost his shirt in the endeavour. That's what he believes, that's who he is, and our beliefs on the issue matter not at all.

2285:

quite right; this article presently promotes skepticism, contra Ratel's wish to promote Plimer's flaws. "There Is No Such Thing As Bad Press," and Plimer knows this, and indeed has made comments about how this negative attention has helped sell so many copies.

2733:

I hd thought it reasonable to identify Monbiot by one of his books as opposed to just as being a writer for the Guardian. This was reverted as "overkill" although it is well-sourced, indeed. Is it overkill to identify who the protagonists are in a section?

1175:

weight with elevation to lead; source is an op-ed and unsuitable for disparaging labelling of living person as a "denialist"; wikilink to "climate change denialism" therein, implying by stealth that Plimer is the sort of bad faith "denialist" described at

2322:

Plimer told Radio Australia that Pacific island nations are seeing changes in sea level not because of global warming but due to "vibration consolidating the coral island sands", extraction of water, and extraction of sand for road and air strip

796:

Glad to hear it. IT must have been your "And, um, who cares?" that made me think otherwise; I hope you'll admit that it is easy to read that as you not caring. I'm puzzled by your assertion that this talk page isn't the place to discuss it

2130:

His most acerbic critic, George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, accuses Plimer of fudging and manipulating data for his own purposes. In response, Plimer accuses scientists and commentators who disagree with him of doing something very

1240:

doesn't imply that you're a member of the Liberal Party, or even that you're a Liberal voter. Is there evidence that Plimer is actually a Liberal voter rather than, say, a swing voter or a Labor voter? If not, this needs to be removed.

1949:"An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." 1250:

Plimer has been called a denialist by more than one source. He does use denialist arguments throughout his book. But because of the particular meaning attached to the word in wp via the wikilink, I am not averse to removing the

2608:

If you want to remove the phrase that explicitly links the IPA to the Liberals, I don't object although it makes the page less transparent to readers. Not knowing what the IPA is, most will be left nonplussed. Is that the aim?

345:

More or less. Is calling a website of a large (multi-thousand member), multinational, religious organisation a "SPS" that is not reliable even when responding to charges directed specifically at it? Not an open and shut issue.

2981:

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist and academic. He is a prominent critic of creationism and of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. He has authored approximately 60 academic papers over 36 years, and six

3068:"social" (in line with how we have politics as a sub-cat of sociology) so that it doesn't seem out of place, but am not unduly bothered by it as it's linked and people can read the AS article themselves if they wish. Thanks. 2543:

Yes, but it would need very strong weight and very reliable sourcing before you'd include this over the top response from Gish. Gish says "the most disgusting thing he's seen in his life." C'mon, did Plimer expose himself?

1998:

Sigh, you have missed the point. You are using this not only as a source for the Monbiot insult, but also for the whole episode. Where are the reliable sources covering that this debate was proposed in the first place?

2909:

I have seen the discussion, and I disagree with it. Being named for this award by one of Australia's most well known and published scientists is a very notable occurrence in Plimer's life. It should not be suppressed.

2955:

Plimer is under something of a cloud among the Australian Skeptics, but his association with rational skepticism is longstanding and well known. Is the question merely whether he was a member of a particular group?

1263:

The Gish thing can be expanded to justify the inclusion. Plimer goes to great lengths to attack Gish personally in his book, even making a play on his name ("Gishing", IIRC). Perhaps more of that attack can be

1352:

Dead horse beating, well yes. So far there are four editors supporting my view, while two suggest that perhaps you could include this if you fixed weighting and toned it down. Let's wait for the discussion to

1431:

This is not agreed; the word "denialist" simply does not mean merely "someone who denies." It is widely regarded as a deeply offensive term, which likens the climate change skeptic to the Holocaust denier.

3057:

This does strongly suggest to me that Plimer has been a hero of the rational skeptics although, since he has espoused the contrarianism of climate change skepticism, he has lost support among that group.

1593:

You have not shown that it is controversial except in your mind. Where do we have proof that this link is controversial? And since when was an archive repository considered unreliable? Got a link to RS/N?

1723:

is again. It says "George Monbiot's Blog." I am not certain it's the same value as a normal internet blog, but I don't think it would appear in print, and at any rate, it's at best the same as an op-ed.

1197:

appears to be editorial sarcasm and needs to be toned down or removed. It may be original research & synthesis too; I haven't examined this closely yet. Plimer made one of his famous mistakes here,

1817:

are in fact the one who wants to focus on name calling, not Monbiot. (And of course the sentence doesn't make any sense as you've got the grammar all wrong, making Plimer call himself a denialist...).

2935:

Hello, this is not a forum for your opinions. Where is your source that this is a "bad faith" nomination? There is ample proof that Plimer's book fudges the science, so the nomination is logical.

1763:

between Monbiot & Plimer. But you are not using it in that context. You are simply using Monbiot here, gratuitously, to call Plimer a "denialist." It is, therefore, very explicitly ruled out.

2320:

I seem to have got the wrong sentence here. It was the next sentence that seemed to be presented in this text as something Plimer held as factual compared with what was in the source. You've got

1228:

Plimer has said that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry, and "probably destroy it totally", as well as creating "massive unemployment".

190:, including scientists and many with doctorates, even lawyers — not to be dismissed without debate. Is this a cue for you to go forum shopping again because you are against consensus here? 186:

It's reliable for what it is: a reaction to a book, by Plimer, attacking them. They are personally involved. This is not some gratuitous opinion off the web. The organisation is run by a

2621:

If you want some brief explanation of what IPA is, that's one thing. But what we currently have is a vague connection with the Liberal party that raises more questions than it answers.

1450:

Fair enough, that's your view, and if you can present evidence that it is "widely regarded as a deeply offensive term" (which should be easy, right?), we can talk about changing it.

106:

considered controversial? I mean, just because they are Creationists doesn't mean they are wrong about everything, and just because Plimer isn't, doesn;t mean he is right, yes?

2989:

Plimer is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He was previously a Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

1270:

Comment is apposite in that it underlines other such comments from the CMI and the many critics of H+E. Lippard is an expert skeptic and published his criticisms of Plimer.

401:

such that it is the sort of high-quality reference suitable for disparaging remarks against living people in BLPs. These are seriously the arguments you want me to take to

2582:

Gish has obviously said a lot of things that you haven't chosen to include. There is no good reason to include in a BLP a creationist's view that Plimer is "disgusting."

1257:

You won't be able to exclude the Monbiot stuff. Plimer engaged with him personally, so he's not an outside commentator but an involved party, in the same way the CMI was.

2336:

He presented it as a possibility; the article has him presenting it as a fact. So on El Nino, it's probably okay now, as what sounded like sarcasm has now been removed.

397:) because they are responding to allegations made by an anti-creationist (Plimer) against themselves(???). And you want to claim further that a creationism website has 1338:

I didn't say the link was pejorative. I said it was not based on a reliable source. You already know this, and agreed in an identical context on the Paltridge page.

2802:

I also followed up on the assertion that the Australian Skeptics appear to disown Pilmer and I think this is not supported via the link provided. Reading through

1167:

This list is probably incomplete but I'll set the agenda here in the hope that the editors who inserted the problematic material might agree to remove it again.

1673:

As you already know, a web archive is not a reliable source. That is why it was removed from Garth Paltridge, after consensus from the BLP/N. Please stop this.

1356:

Lippard might be relevant if it was in the context of a properly balanced criticism/discussion section of Plimer's anti-creationism views. Presently, it is not.

763:

If find it interesting that AH and WVB don't even *care* about this issue. They are interested in writing a good biog of IP, not a hagiography, I would hope

160:

escalate this -- you both know you can't win this -- or would you like to agree to abide by the rules? This will avoid wasting more of the community's time.

1209:

emphasis is given to this incident and poor old Gish's trauma. (Is Gish okay now or is he still undergoing psychotherapy after Plimer's debating theatrics?)

547:

But that is the great virtue of it: it can be trivially checked. Did you bother, before calling it unreliable? Or would you rather just not know the truth?

1186:

This is not based on a reliable source, and is a guilt by association type claim, may or may not be true, NRSP may or may be really nice people, and so on.

957:

The article needs to be written in a encyclopaedic neutral way, and supported by reliable citations. I support Steve here , keep the wording mellow, also

2770:

In fact the Australian Skeptics appear to disown Ian Plimer as their Web site shows him as a nominee for their 2009 Bent Spoon award for pseudo-science.

1281: 1951:

And moreover, this was a direct altercation between Monbiot and Plimer in which both participated, so this would be valid material in any event.

1493:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation

1233:

Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia.

2821:

I have to second Catherine's comments. Many of the 'skeptic' organisations are peopled by anthropogenic climate change deniers, surprisingly.

1349:

Gish, so you're saying you feel that you can prove (=original research) that Plimer is a real nasty person by analysing all his attacks on Gish?

1218:

This doesn't seem to be balanced criticism and more like another editorial excuse to mention someone's view that Plimer makes a lot of mistakes.

595:

It's obviously true. Plimer's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Is he notable enough for RSes to pick it up? Monbiot, where are you?

1184:

In 2007, Plimer was listed as an "allied expert" for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group .

487: 1081:

0.25 ppmv, were flagged and not used." Absent any cogent assertion of plagiarism, all you can do is cite an opinion of an author as opinion.

2146:

Actually, I didn't notice but that article seems to be pro-Plimer. I chose it because it is the only article that comes up in a news search.

1203:

Gish accused him of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous, calling it "the most disgusting performance I have ever witnessed in my life".

880: 2265: 2253: 1148: 2828: 121:

The point is, it's not reliably sourced. It's a website. It's making negative statements about a living person. Ergo, it can't be used.

1260:

This may be SYN, I'll check. It is correct, nonetheless, but I'm not averse to removing the comment about the normal scientific view.

2850: 622:

And, um, who cares? What has this got to do with writing a neutral presentation of the reliable sources with respect to Ian Plimer?

2921:

What rubbish, a bad faith nomination by a partisan opposer of him and he did not get the award the content is of no value at all.

267:, where the source would perfectly acceptable, don't you, since the book itself references the site? Is that what you're seeking? 1254:

The link to the NRSP is pejorative in what sense? Are they not good people? The organisation's own website archive is unreliable?

1569:

all the provisions for impeccable sourcing in BLPs relates to contentious or negative material, not uncontroversial statements.

861:"Horn: Mr Plimer, how do you respond to people who are continually saying that you in fact have plagiarized most of your book?" 2250: 2057: 802: 768: 552: 519: 486:(outdent) I have raised the second objection at RS/N; the first probably needs to go to BLP/N and I'll do them one at a time 111: 2247: 1720: 1544: 2126: 3073: 2871: 931:

you can take every story in it at full face value. I would be very offended if someone said I had "attacked the Bible."

3034: 1359:

Okay, but I have subsequently found that you have also distorted the original source... that will need to be fixed too.

2602: 2446:

put this material in, and if you want to put the material in, you need to commit to doing it properly, or not at all.

1943:

No, it is not a violation. Statements in BLPs must come from RSes and The Guardian and its op-eds/columns are RS. The

2060: 1066: 700:

I care that he has plagiarised someone. And I suspect many others do too. If this is reprinted in an RS, in it goes.

3022:

Er, actually that above piece is obviously a direct quotation from an earlier version of this article. Oh well. --

1342:

gratuitous unprovoked personal attack. (Assuming you aren't also distorting the original context; I haven't looked.)

819:

It never ceases to amaze me the varying threshold for notability and sourcing requirements from article to article.

2408:

I didn't say he's been misrepresented; I said there's no balance. It's just an idea out of context by Jim Lippard.

1189:

The climate change denialist attack by Monbiot is sourced to Monbiot's blog, is Monbiot's Opinion, and needs to go.

1099:

Right-wing blogs promote global warming skeptic who falsely claims volcanoes to blame for CO2 in the atmosphere.

38: 2054: 3038: 3037:

is better. It's the blog of Plimer's publisher, Connor Court, and reprints an article by Penelope Debelle in the

798: 764: 548: 515: 107: 89: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2843:

Perhaps the skeptics are skeptical of all religious "beliefs", including those of climate change alarmists...

1854: 2269: 1152: 2128:. You can use that. I believe the following paragraph contains all the information we need for this article: 1641:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.

1216:

He was criticised for making false claims and errors in his debates with creationists by skeptic Jim Lippard.

1136:

Please can I suggest adding the following link to a transcript of aninterview with Plimer here from ABC-TV's

3069: 2867: 2832: 2812: 2793: 2719: 2657: 2626: 2587: 2549: 2505: 2451: 2413: 2341: 2290: 2151: 2137: 2004: 1902: 1822: 1768: 1729: 1678: 1618: 1580: 1525: 1470: 1437: 1391: 1371: 787: 627: 495: 410: 308: 226: 165: 126: 2854: 3059: 3023: 3013: 2957: 936: 2426:

Ok, let's get Plimer's words to balance it then. You do it this time, ok? I've added a lot to the page.

2254:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

1567:

The source is not bullet proof, and it's not reliable. It's a web archive for heaven's sake. Meanwhile,

1362:

I didn't say that IPA didn't have ties to the Liberal Party; what I said is this is not relevant. It is

1177: 911: 824: 671: 574: 534: 2808: 2789: 1897:

source; you are basing the episode on a blog. It is, therefore, a BLP violation. Now please remove it.

2926: 2900: 2886: 2846: 2824: 2775: 2771: 2261: 999: 966: 1035: 510: 2364: 2314: 2715: 2653: 2622: 2583: 2545: 2501: 2447: 2409: 2337: 2286: 2147: 2133: 2000: 1898: 1818: 1789:

You're right about the incorrect placement of Monbiot's comment. I moved it to where it belongs.

1764: 1725: 1674: 1614: 1576: 1521: 1466: 1433: 1387: 1367: 1280:

have close ties to the Liberals, that's uncontested anywhere. Plimer's politics are pretty clear

783: 623: 491: 406: 304: 222: 161: 122: 2803: 2739: 2377: 1410:

See, I don't see this as (to use your words) a "negative statement". Most people see the term

1121: 1086: 932: 3041:, an Adelaide newspaper. Here he's talking about his court case against a church minister: 1462: 1309: 907: 820: 667: 570: 530: 2251:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/01/heaven-earth-answers-plimer

1145: 1021: 883:

brings up a lot of interesting links... I had no idea. Some of this may be include-worthy.

2922: 2896: 2882: 2711: 1363: 1236: 1206: 1172: 995: 962: 741: 47: 17: 2881:

I agree, it is worthless tin hat nomination by an opponent which was not awarded to him.

2248:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

3012:

I'll keep searching and see if I can find something directly attributable to Plimer. --

3093: 2743: 1697: 1062: 858: 779: 402: 256: 102:

I'm sure all right thinking people agree that Creationists are wackos, etc etc, but is

2396:

How has he been misrepresented? I'm glad you agree that his views belong on the page.

2256: 1572: 1404: 663: 260: 2895:

Ratel has replaced the award story, it appears he has not seen the discussion here.

2735: 2373: 2066: 1944: 1719:

I'm referring to his blog at the Guardian, yes. That's what it is; a blog. Here it

1704: 1117: 1082: 659: 2993:

He was awarded the Clarke Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales in 2004.

2390: 1643: 1303: 1100: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3077: 3062: 3026: 3016: 2960: 2941: 2930: 2916: 2904: 2890: 2875: 2858: 2836: 2816: 2797: 2786: 2779: 2755: 2723: 2686: 2661: 2645: 2630: 2615: 2591: 2569: 2553: 2537: 2509: 2479: 2455: 2432: 2417: 2402: 2381: 2345: 2294: 2273: 2215: 2155: 2141: 2075: 2008: 1957: 1906: 1863: 1826: 1795: 1772: 1749: 1733: 1713: 1682: 1652: 1622: 1600: 1584: 1561: 1529: 1474: 1456: 1441: 1425: 1395: 1375: 1316: 1290: 1156: 1125: 1107: 1090: 1073: 1056: 1043: 1029: 1003: 989: 970: 952: 940: 915: 889: 868: 848: 828: 806: 791: 772: 745: 706: 675: 631: 601: 578: 556: 538: 523: 499: 462: 414: 352: 312: 273: 230: 196: 169: 146: 130: 115: 2966: 2936: 2911: 2750: 2681: 2640: 2610: 2564: 2532: 2524: 2474: 2427: 2397: 2359: 2309: 2210: 2070: 1952: 1858: 1790: 1744: 1708: 1647: 1595: 1556: 1496: 1451: 1420: 1285: 1102: 1068: 1051: 1038: 1024: 984: 947: 884: 863: 843: 737: 701: 596: 457: 347: 268: 191: 141: 946:

That could be changed to "numerous aspects of traditional Christian belief".

840: 1335:

If you respect Knowledge, please follow its rules about reliable sourcing.

255:

You left out "self-published" in your quoted sentence. Is creation.com a "

187: 3048:

The Australian Sceptics were so impressed they made Plimer a life member.

2063: 1346:

similar views. The cause of the El Nino is still not properly understood.

389:

So let me get this straight, you're saying creationists are likely to be

219:

Never use ... websites ... as a source for material about a living person

456:

only points out his errors. This is not libellous, BLP-sensitive stuff.

2302: 569:

Its my understanding that Knowledge is about verification, not truth.

2372:

Sea-level bit still needs to be rewritten for accuracy & NPOV. --

1116:

Opinions about "right wing blogs" are not relevant to this article.

2785:

correctly noted above)this is listed under the title "How to Join"

1049: 2749:

Isn't Monbiot wikilinked for that sort of data? If not, I'll fix.

511:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/plimer_the_plagiarist.php

263:. And you do realise that we can simply fork a page on his book, 488:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#creation.com_website...

25: 778:

I am indeed interested to know if the story is true but this

104:

Creationists claim Plimer makes numerous scientific errors.

839:

Interestingly, Plimer is also accused of plagiarism by CMI

2053:

We don't need more sources, but they are there anyway, eg

1020:

David Hone, Climate Change Advisor for Royal Dutch Shell,

2991:

He is also a prominent member of the Australian Skeptics.

2280:

debunking of the debunking to emphasise end of debate).

1146:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm

1419:). That's why I agreed to the removal of the wikilink. 2788:

so this is an advertised mechanism for membership. --

1495:. The inline citation exists. Your case here is weak. 1333:

Adams, as I do, don't mine for quotes in his columns.

1212:

Telling lies for god (still being discussed at RS/N).

1171:

lead -- a "denialist poster-boy" (Phillip Adams). --

259:" website? Not really, given wikipedia's description 1384:

point still stands that reliable sources are needed.

2257:

http://campaigns.wikia.com/Plimer_questions_Monbiot

2308:Can you specify exactly how I have misquoted him? 1947:restrictions about columns like Monbiot's reads : 1853:Your arguments increasingly seem to boil down to 983:Rephrased in an attempt to answer these points. 2804:the list of nominations for the 2009 Bent Spoon 1140:news program to Plimer's Wikipage &/or the 1065:discusses the denialism represented by Plimer. 1491:As I thought, zero evidence. BURDEN refers to 8: 1646:has never been impugned, AFAIK. Check RS/N. 399:a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy 1703:Are you referring to Monbiot's column at 1132:Lateline link for external sites perhaps? 2969:press release announcing Plimer's book: 1037:Keep an eye out for follow-ups on RSes. 3085: 2500:It's in the context of a court case... 658:, you should have no problem finding a 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3094:"Ian Plimer's Bloopers — a selection" 2710:I have raised the remaining items at 2327:"The change in relative sea level is 1545:Natural Resources Stewardship Project 906:, none of them are reliable sources. 782:page is not the place to discuss it. 7: 3096:. Creation Ministeries International 1330:what's silly is not encyclopaedic. 1205:is way over the top and seems that 2651:IPA, a free market think tank, ... 24: 1048:Ian Plimer's mining connections. 2729:overkill to name Monbiot's book? 2700: 2351: 2300: 1613:Please read what I wrote again. 1163:list of BLP and other violations 29: 1273:Remove quotes, but leave words. 2069:about the debate, but not RS. 1034:Plimer accused of plagiarism. 221:are you unable to understand? 1: 3078:07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 3063:05:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 3027:05:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 3017:04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2961:04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2942:01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2931:01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2917:01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2905:01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2891:00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2876:00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC) 2859:07:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 2837:02:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 2817:07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 2798:07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 2780:17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2756:05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 2744:15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 2295:06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 1222:Other less serious problems: 1157:07:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 1126:19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC) 1108:17:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) 1091:22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 1074:04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 1057:21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 188:long list of respected people 2724:05:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 2687:02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2662:23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2646:09:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2639:Ok, how would you rephrase? 2631:08:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2616:01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2592:08:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2570:09:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2554:07:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2538:01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2510:08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2480:02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 2456:23:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2433:09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2418:07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2403:01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2382:17:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 2365:08:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2346:07:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2315:01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 2274:20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) 2216:16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 2156:15:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 2142:15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 2076:15:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 2009:12:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1958:10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1907:08:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1864:07:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1827:04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1796:08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1773:08:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1750:08:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1734:07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1714:01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1683:08:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1653:02:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1623:23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1601:08:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1585:07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1562:01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1555:like rather than deletion? 1550:If IP's link to the NRSP is 1530:08:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1475:23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1457:08:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1442:07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1426:01:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1396:00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1376:00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 1317:23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1291:23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 1044:23:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 1030:08:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 1004:22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 990:23:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 971:17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 953:00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 941:17:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 916:14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 890:13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 869:13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 849:13:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 829:14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 807:12:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 792:11:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 773:10:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 746:03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 707:01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 676:14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 632:00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 602:23:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 579:21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 557:20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 539:19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 524:17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 500:00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 463:13:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 415:09:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 353:07:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 313:02:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 274:02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 231:01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 197:01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 170:00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 147:15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 131:11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 116:10:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC) 2974:About Professor Ian Plimer: 2603:Institute of Public Affairs 2067:this is an interesting page 1571:is just false. Please read 3121: 2531:from a well known person. 1575:(I mean, really read it.) 529:An completely unreliable. 3039:The Advertiser (Adelaide) 1707:when you say his "blog"? 879:Wow. A Google search for 842:. Scan page for 'plagi'. 2325:whereas the source has 666:that makes note of it. 1061:Author and politician 2728: 1226:Scare quotes used in 1178:climate change denial 881:"Ian Plimer" plagiar* 505:Plimer the plagiarist 42:of past discussions. 3007:Professor Ian Plimer 1267:Dead horse, beating. 799:William M. Connolley 765:William M. Connolley 549:William M. Connolley 516:William M. Connolley 108:William M. Connolley 2762:Australian Skeptics 2712:WP:BLP/N#Ian Plimer 926:Attacking the Bible 662:that complies with 3070:Gerrard Winstanley 2868:Gerrard Winstanley 2301:Plimer's views of 1417:generally accepted 1142:Heaven & Earth 961:is a bit weasely. 2849:comment added by 2827:comment added by 2264:comment added by 1855:WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT 1385: 1314: 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3112: 3105: 3104: 3102: 3101: 3090: 2939: 2914: 2861: 2839: 2753: 2707: 2704: 2703: 2684: 2643: 2613: 2567: 2535: 2477: 2430: 2400: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2312: 2276: 2213: 2073: 1955: 1861: 1793: 1747: 1711: 1650: 1598: 1559: 1499: 1454: 1423: 1382: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1288: 1201:In the sentence 1144:page too? See : 1105: 1071: 1054: 1041: 1027: 1022:deconstructs H+E 987: 950: 887: 866: 857:And again here: 846: 704: 599: 460: 350: 271: 194: 144: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3120: 3119: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3099: 3097: 3092: 3091: 3087: 2937: 2912: 2844: 2822: 2764: 2751: 2731: 2705: 2701: 2682: 2641: 2611: 2606: 2565: 2533: 2528: 2475: 2428: 2398: 2394: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2329:quite commonly' 2310: 2306: 2259: 2211: 2071: 1953: 1859: 1791: 1745: 1709: 1701: 1648: 1644:www.archive.org 1596: 1557: 1548: 1497: 1452: 1421: 1408: 1310: 1302: 1286: 1165: 1134: 1103: 1069: 1052: 1039: 1025: 1018: 985: 948: 928: 885: 864: 844: 702: 597: 507: 458: 348: 269: 192: 142: 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 18:Talk:Ian Plimer 12: 11: 5: 3118: 3116: 3107: 3106: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3030: 3029: 3010: 3009: 3003: 3002: 2996: 2995: 2985: 2984: 2977: 2976: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2863: 2862: 2763: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2730: 2727: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2634: 2633: 2605: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2557: 2556: 2527: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2421: 2420: 2393: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2349: 2348: 2305: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2266:128.40.254.133 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2144: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1737: 1736: 1700: 1698:George Monbiot 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1588: 1587: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1445: 1444: 1407: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1360: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1274: 1271: 1268: 1265: 1261: 1258: 1255: 1252: 1242: 1241: 1230: 1220: 1219: 1213: 1210: 1199: 1190: 1187: 1181: 1164: 1161: 1149:124.182.226.16 1133: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1112: 1096: 1094: 1093: 1063:Clive Hamilton 1017: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 994:Thanks Ratel. 976: 975: 974: 973: 927: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 895: 894: 893: 892: 874: 873: 872: 871: 852: 851: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 812: 811: 810: 809: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 656:obviously true 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 562: 561: 560: 559: 542: 541: 506: 503: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 257:self-published 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 217:Which part of 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 152: 151: 150: 149: 134: 133: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3117: 3095: 3089: 3086: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3061: 3056: 3055: 3050: 3049: 3043: 3042: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3028: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3015: 3008: 3005: 3004: 3001: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2992: 2987: 2986: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2975: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2968: 2963: 2962: 2959: 2943: 2940: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2915: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2829:210.84.32.163 2826: 2819: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2805: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2768: 2761: 2757: 2754: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2726: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2688: 2685: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2652: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2644: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2604: 2601: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2568: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2526: 2523: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2481: 2478: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2434: 2431: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2392: 2389: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2363: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2324: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2304: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2217: 2214: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2132: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2077: 2074: 2068: 2065:.... and btw 2064: 2061: 2058: 2055: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1959: 1956: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1865: 1862: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1797: 1794: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1748: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1706: 1699: 1696: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1654: 1651: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1553: 1546: 1543: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1500: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1455: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1418: 1413: 1406: 1405:Phillip Adams 1403: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1337: 1334: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1318: 1313: 1307: 1306: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1289: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1191: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1162: 1160: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1067: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1055: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1023: 1015: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 992: 991: 988: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 951: 945: 944: 943: 942: 938: 934: 925: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 891: 888: 882: 878: 877: 876: 875: 870: 867: 862: 859: 856: 855: 854: 853: 850: 847: 841: 838: 837: 830: 826: 822: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 808: 804: 800: 795: 794: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 776: 775: 774: 770: 766: 747: 743: 739: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 708: 705: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 633: 629: 625: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 603: 600: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 580: 576: 572: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 558: 554: 550: 546: 545: 544: 543: 540: 536: 532: 528: 527: 526: 525: 521: 517: 513: 512: 509:This is fun: 504: 502: 501: 497: 493: 489: 464: 461: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 354: 351: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 314: 310: 306: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 275: 272: 266: 262: 258: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 198: 195: 189: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 171: 167: 163: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 153: 148: 145: 138: 137: 136: 135: 132: 128: 124: 120: 119: 118: 117: 113: 109: 105: 97: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3098:. Retrieved 3088: 3047: 3044: 3011: 3006: 2999: 2990: 2988: 2980: 2973: 2964: 2954: 2864: 2820: 2809:Catherine111 2801: 2790:Catherine111 2783: 2769: 2765: 2732: 2709: 2699: 2650: 2607: 2529: 2395: 2374:Pete Tillman 2350: 2332: 2328: 2326: 2321: 2307: 2278: 2244: 2129: 1948: 1705:The Guardian 1702: 1640: 1568: 1551: 1549: 1492: 1461:Please read 1416: 1411: 1409: 1331: 1304: 1277: 1243: 1232: 1227: 1221: 1215: 1202: 1193: 1183: 1166: 1141: 1137: 1135: 1111: 1098: 1095: 1060: 1047: 1033: 1019: 958: 933:Steve Dufour 929: 903: 860: 762: 655: 514: 508: 485: 398: 394: 390: 265:Telling Lies 264: 218: 103: 101: 98:Creationists 70: 43: 37: 2851:97.118.18.1 2845:—Preceding 2823:—Preceding 2716:Alex Harvey 2654:Alex Harvey 2623:Alex Harvey 2584:Alex Harvey 2546:Alex Harvey 2502:Alex Harvey 2448:Alex Harvey 2410:Alex Harvey 2391:Jim Lippard 2338:Alex Harvey 2287:Alex Harvey 2260:—Preceding 2148:Alex Harvey 2134:Alex Harvey 2001:Alex Harvey 1899:Alex Harvey 1819:Alex Harvey 1765:Alex Harvey 1726:Alex Harvey 1675:Alex Harvey 1615:Alex Harvey 1577:Alex Harvey 1522:Alex Harvey 1467:Alex Harvey 1434:Alex Harvey 1388:Alex Harvey 1368:Alex Harvey 1301:(\x.BLP!) 1244:Responses: 908:WVBluefield 821:WVBluefield 784:Alex Harvey 668:WVBluefield 624:Alex Harvey 571:WVBluefield 531:WVBluefield 492:Alex Harvey 407:Alex Harvey 395:less biased 393:reliable (= 305:Alex Harvey 223:Alex Harvey 162:Alex Harvey 123:Alex Harvey 36:This is an 3100:2009-07-13 2923:Off2riorob 2897:Off2riorob 2883:Off2riorob 2772:Aussiejohn 2525:Duane Gish 996:Off2riorob 963:Off2riorob 2938:► RATEL ◄ 2913:► RATEL ◄ 2752:► RATEL ◄ 2683:► RATEL ◄ 2642:► RATEL ◄ 2612:► RATEL ◄ 2566:► RATEL ◄ 2534:► RATEL ◄ 2476:► RATEL ◄ 2429:► RATEL ◄ 2399:► RATEL ◄ 2361:► RATEL ◄ 2311:► RATEL ◄ 2212:► RATEL ◄ 2072:► RATEL ◄ 1954:► RATEL ◄ 1860:► RATEL ◄ 1792:► RATEL ◄ 1746:► RATEL ◄ 1710:► RATEL ◄ 1649:► RATEL ◄ 1639:BLP says 1597:► RATEL ◄ 1558:► RATEL ◄ 1498:► RATEL ◄ 1463:WP:BURDEN 1453:► RATEL ◄ 1422:► RATEL ◄ 1412:denialist 1287:► RATEL ◄ 1264:included. 1251:wiiklink. 1192:The line 1104:► RATEL ◄ 1070:► RATEL ◄ 1053:► RATEL ◄ 1040:► RATEL ◄ 1026:► RATEL ◄ 1016:Resources 986:► RATEL ◄ 949:► RATEL ◄ 886:► RATEL ◄ 865:► RATEL ◄ 845:► RATEL ◄ 703:► RATEL ◄ 598:► RATEL ◄ 459:► RATEL ◄ 349:► RATEL ◄ 270:► RATEL ◄ 193:► RATEL ◄ 143:► RATEL ◄ 90:Archive 7 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2847:unsigned 2825:unsigned 2334:change." 2262:unsigned 2131:similar. 1743:rules). 1364:WP:SYNTH 1276:The IPA 1237:WP:SYNTH 1207:WP:UNDUE 1173:WP:UNDUE 1138:Lateline 959:numerous 3000:Source: 2736:Collect 2323:making. 2303:El Nino 1353:finish. 1159:StevoR 1118:Collect 1083:Collect 780:WP:TALK 654:If its 403:WP:RS/N 39:archive 2982:books. 1573:WP:BLP 1305:Verbal 1198:right? 1195:ocean. 664:WP:BLP 261:WP:SPS 2965:From 1945:wp:RS 738:Bilby 660:WP:RS 16:< 3074:talk 3035:this 2967:this 2927:talk 2901:talk 2887:talk 2872:talk 2855:talk 2833:talk 2813:talk 2794:talk 2776:talk 2740:talk 2720:talk 2680:Ok. 2658:talk 2627:talk 2588:talk 2550:talk 2506:talk 2452:talk 2414:talk 2378:talk 2342:talk 2291:talk 2270:talk 2152:talk 2138:talk 2062:and 2059:and 2056:and 2005:talk 1903:talk 1823:talk 1769:talk 1730:talk 1679:talk 1619:talk 1581:talk 1526:talk 1471:talk 1438:talk 1392:talk 1372:talk 1311:chat 1282:here 1278:does 1153:talk 1122:talk 1087:talk 1000:talk 967:talk 937:talk 912:talk 902:And 825:talk 803:talk 788:talk 769:talk 742:talk 672:talk 628:talk 575:talk 553:talk 535:talk 520:talk 496:talk 411:talk 391:more 309:talk 227:talk 166:talk 127:talk 112:talk 3033:Ah 1552:not 1415:is 1235:is 904:Wow 3076:) 3060:TS 3058:-- 3024:TS 3014:TS 2958:TS 2956:-- 2929:) 2903:) 2889:) 2874:) 2857:) 2835:) 2815:) 2796:) 2778:) 2742:) 2722:) 2714:. 2660:) 2629:) 2590:) 2552:) 2508:) 2454:) 2416:) 2380:) 2344:) 2293:) 2272:) 2154:) 2140:) 2007:) 1905:) 1857:. 1825:) 1771:) 1732:) 1721:it 1681:) 1621:) 1583:) 1528:) 1473:) 1465:. 1440:) 1394:) 1386:. 1374:) 1284:. 1155:) 1124:) 1089:) 1002:) 969:) 939:) 914:) 827:) 805:) 790:) 771:) 744:) 674:) 630:) 577:) 555:) 537:) 522:) 498:) 490:. 413:) 405:? 311:) 229:) 168:) 129:) 114:) 86:→ 3103:. 3072:( 2925:( 2899:( 2885:( 2870:( 2853:( 2831:( 2811:( 2792:( 2774:( 2738:( 2718:( 2706:Y 2656:( 2625:( 2586:( 2548:( 2504:( 2450:( 2412:( 2376:( 2357:Y 2340:( 2289:( 2268:( 2150:( 2136:( 2003:( 1901:( 1821:( 1767:( 1728:( 1677:( 1617:( 1579:( 1524:( 1469:( 1436:( 1390:( 1370:( 1180:. 1151:( 1120:( 1085:( 998:( 965:( 935:( 910:( 823:( 801:( 786:( 767:( 740:( 670:( 626:( 573:( 551:( 533:( 518:( 494:( 409:( 307:( 225:( 164:( 125:( 110:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index