Beam me to Planet Gore !
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
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."
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...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2002545/posts
Nobel Prize-Winning Peacekeeper Asks UN to Admit Climate Change Errors
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | April 14, 2008 - 17:14 ET
When Global Warmingest-in-Chief Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, the media’s prideful gushing was so obvious it was almost sick-making.
Now, six months later, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”
Since it is a metaphysical certitude media will ignore this Prize winner, the following is a complete reprint of a letter sent to the IPCC on Monday (with permission):
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.
These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.
A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]
IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].
Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?
We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.
Yours sincerely,
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu
Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com
Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au
Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl
Read later.
They post manly, chestbeating challenges to their detractors, knowing also that if the challenges are met with facts, they'll just change the subject, move the goalposts and in general do a Lucy Van Pelt on the whole discussion.
And then set up shop on top of the wall at the bottom of the page again, to taunt you a second time...
Remember:
Its Cli mate Change not Glo o bal War r r r ming,
Oh its Cli mate Change not Glo o bal War r r r ming.
(sung to the tine of “Its Istanbul not Constantinople.”)
Has Wiki caught up yet? I’m sure they will soon.
Evidence against man-made global warming:
http://www.discovery.org/v/30