Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/17/2008 6:01:57 AM PDT by twntaipan
As I'm writing this column for the Financial Post, I am simultaneously editing a page on Wikipedia. I am confident that just about everything I write for my column will be available for you to read. I am equally confident that you will be able to read just about nothing that I write for the page on Wikipedia.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
If Global warming is a cult, then John McCain is one of its high priests.
The despots on the Left censor political dissent.
I had suspected this as soon as I read the page on the court case Al Gore lost in England. Someone (possibly the original author, but now I’m betting it was Tabletop) had taken each of the errors the judge documented and found “support” for it in one global warming cult tract or another.
is there another useful alternative to wikipedia on the web?
The Wikipedia article on Naomi Oreskes has the below references....so we'll have to see how long it stays up there.
References
Articles by and about Oreskes will stay forever. The Wikipedia propagandist accepts all she writes as the final word. Oreskes is one of the patron saints of the global warming cult.
Wow! I had no idea that existed. Thanks.
Just go to the revision tab - it’s all there. Rather fascination actually.
Yesterday, I added the following sentence to the introduction:
"However, according to the first chart in this article, global temperatures have not increased since 1998."
11 minutes later, William M. Connolley erased it. His only comment was, "yeah yeah."
Looking over the edit history, I see that William M. Connolley has a long term track record of erasing anything and everything that disagrees with his own ideas. He favors censorship. He is against the article being balanced.
It is a fact that global temperatures have not increased in the past decade. This goes completely against all the computer models and all the predicitons.
When confronted with evidence that contraditcs his theory, a good scientist will acknowledge the evidence. A bad scientist will try to pretend that the evidence doesn't exist.
Grundle2600 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
First off, "first chart in this article" is poorly worded. Secondly, the statement was wrong, and didn't even bother to look at the trend either. Also, you gave no source to back up this nonsense. Forth, your personal attack on William is unfounded. Just because he reverts pundits and cranks doesn't mean he "censors" anything. Please learn how to contribute constructively. Thanks. Voice-of-All 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As of April 17, 2008, it says this:
"The debate on Peiser's critique of Oreskes' essay continues, with some pointing to a letter that Peiser submitted to the Australian Media Watch that indicated that Peiser no longer maintains one of his criticisms, and that he no longer doubts that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact ... (h)owever, this majority consensus is far from unanimous", as evidence that Peiser is stepping back from his comments and conclusions on Oreskes' essay.[7] More recently, in an article in the National Post [1], a Canadian national newspaper[2], Peiser indicates that he did not retract his critique of Oreskes' paper, despite certain references to the contrary, and that he stands firmly by his initial position on Oreskes [8]. The article further claims that Peiser's views are being miscommunicated and that Peiser's comments are being distorted by environmentalists that are keen to discredit Peiser in order to reduce the impact that Peiser's work has had on the credibility of Oreskes' essay."
The trend is based on the fact that global temperatures this decade are considerably higher than the decades of the 1990s.
Ahhh. Thanks. Misinterpreted the article. I’d never heard of this Naomi person.
This is the exact reason why Wacky-pedia fails the sniff-test as an unbiased source of information.
I got into the same row as the author describes a couple of years back when I came across a mistake on their site. Proclaiming that “anyone can edit” I did so, but my edits were quickly undone and the lie replaced. We went back & forth until I was locked out.
The lie, and Whacky-pedia remain...I consider them synonymous...
150 years is not long in the great scheme (which makes some of the CO2-temperature theories suspect). When did accurate measurements of solar wind begin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.