Comments on: Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

National Review: Wikipedia Is A Stunning Example Of How The Propaganda Machine Works

[co2max]

This should not be a battle of public opinion.
Science doesn''t work this way, relying on the preponderance of written words to support a claim, regardless of what the truth is. So let Wiki do what it does--it''s a worldwide bulletin board used for tacking up anybody''s ideas for all to see.

Don''t rely on Wiki for facts ... instead, use it to find out what the Lowest Common Denominator is regarding issues such as climate change. Then go to real, authenticated science sources to find out the truth. It does good to find out what the journalistic left is cranking out as propaganda to sway the public.

[cofmanaaron]

I just read Seafang''s comment. As someone who has studied Paleoclimatology, I should put it in greater context for all of you, including our friend Seafang:
You''re right, CO2 levels were MUCH higher during the Cambrian period. However, through observations of Sun-like stars and empirical data of past temperature vs. Co2 levels, paleoclimatologists and astronomers have determined that our type of star gradually increases in luminosity, such that in the Cambrian, 500 mya, solar luminosity was at 50% of today''s levels. Oxygen isotope data show that temperatures were close to today''s values. So the effects of high CO2 and a dim sun counteract. In fact, about 1 billion years ago, as algae began to trap more and more CO2 and bury it in the deep ocean, it took too much CO2, sending the Earth into a temporary ''Snowball Earth''. When thinking of what global warming will do, think of the Cretaceous Period, 145-65 mya, when CO2 levels were about 4 times as high as today, and the tropics reached the south coast of Alaska and there were no ice caps. Global warming won''t kill everything, but it will make life hard on our descendants.

[yongamerica]

Interesting, but I thought any pages or parts of Wikpedia that were in dispute were still available to view through a link in the article thus allowing dissenters and liars to have their opinions or facts available for peer review.

[taddles3]

"Great post! I tried Conservapedia, looked up evolution. As a scientist, I don''''t know whether to laugh or cry. It is so bad, I just hope people don''''t take it as fact...

Posted by jimfinster at 12:19 AM : Jul 09, 2008"


They do, they are the faith based community, they take a lot of stupid things as facts, it fits thier worldview.

Facts, the LIBERAL BIAS

[taddles3]

"Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a %u201Cscientific consensus%u201D confirming their doomsday view of global warming?"


Facts, the LIBERAL BIAS.

[jimfinster]

So what''''s a conservative to do? Why, use "Conservapedia" ( http://www.conservapedia.com ) which humbly claims to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Unfortunately it''''s about as trustworthy as Fox News is "Fair And Balanced."

Conservapedia is every liberal''''s dream - it''''s so bad that it''''s obviously either a wonderful spoof (Note 1), or proof that conservatives really are knuckle-dragging buffoons. It blindly repeats the most ignorant creationism as if it''''s scientific fact (see the articles on Kangaroos or Baraminology). It''''s founder, Andrew Schlafly, homeschools 58 students (presumably not all his own children, which means he''''s not home-schooling).

Posted by PaulBurnett1


Great post! I tried Conservapedia, looked up evolution. As a scientist, I don''t know whether to laugh or cry. It is so bad, I just hope people don''t take it as fact...

[nearl4511]

Yes, Wikapedia tends to be left leaning as is sometimes inaccurate.....inaccurate just like 90% of any source or site on the web....it is often biased or smacks of some fabrication.

You have to take antyhing you read on the web with a grain of salt....especially editorials written by the NRO (their right leaning you know - - and oftern inaccurate!)

[paulburnett1]

The article states "Wikipedia is the people%u2019s encyclopedia only if the people are not conservative."

So what''s a conservative to do? Why, use "Conservapedia" ( http://www.conservapedia.com ) which humbly claims to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Unfortunately it''s about as trustworthy as Fox News is "Fair And Balanced."

Conservapedia is every liberal''s dream - it''s so bad that it''s obviously either a wonderful spoof (Note 1), or proof that conservatives really are knuckle-dragging buffoons. It blindly repeats the most ignorant creationism as if it''s scientific fact (see the articles on Kangaroos or Baraminology). It''s founder, Andrew Schlafly, homeschools 58 students (presumably not all his own children, which means he''s not home-schooling).

(Note 1: Poe''s Law %u2014 Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof.)

[irliberal]

If Solomon isn''''t right about global warming being wrong, there won''''t be a chance to fix the problem he wants us to ignore; the polar ice caps will be gone, tornadoes and hurricanes will kill thousands more per year than they do now, forests and tundras will whither and melt, animals will vanish, and coastal cities will be damaged beyond repair, with accompanying loss of life. The consequences for being wrong about the problem are enormous, so any person with training in the sciences knows the study must continue on the premise that it''''s happening, then test out the theories related to it. Political conservatives, however, engage in faith-based thinking and don''''t care about any of the physical consequences of choosing belief over fact; war and climate change are things that happen outdoors and us Peter Pans at NRO only need to close the miniblinds and turn on the tv to make it all go away...

Posted by razzl at 05:03 PM

Perfectly stated. Thank you.

[mcvet]

Posted by razzl at 05:03 PM : Jul 08, 2008

You DO NOT have to have any scientist or Fascist writter to tell you the climate is changing and changing fast... you can see it, feel it and it''s there! The people who NOW say we aren''t sure where it''s coming from were a year or so ago saying it didn''t exist. When you look at their record on the Enviroment and the Changes that need to be made, Con''s are the LAST people we should be listening too. Sieg Heil Bush

[mcvet]

The wiki thing was garbage when it came out. No one like them. It''''s propaganda run by idiots like wikiped. They edit out anything they don''''t like and say the facts are wrong when they are right there in the article. Wikis are garbage for the garbage to play with, rather than your life.

Posted by Sowhenyou at 05:49 PM : Jul 08, 2008

You just discribed the Bush White House in the run up to Iraq!! SIEG HEIL BUSH!!

[joyous88]

anyone at this stage who does not understand the fundamental truth about global warming; probably does not believe in evolution, and may even belief the earth to be flat,

,a conservative republicon in other words,

you know, bush, mcbushsame, cheney, all fascist morons

[babooph]

The Bush wedding,interviews with Gitmo guys who got out,coverup of war pix,hiding the trial of Waco people with the OJ trash-pulling C.Sci TV for exposing sweetheart deal between Govt. & major networks-Since Hoover is gone,who is now in charge of US propaganda ?Who chooses what to hide?

[sowhenyou]

The wiki thing was garbage when it came out. No one like them. It''s propaganda run by idiots like wikiped. They edit out anything they don''t like and say the facts are wrong when they are right there in the article. Wikis are garbage for the garbage to play with, rather than your life.

[noloyalisti]

That''s a good point. Is Seafang a geologist? He seems to have a lot of knowledge of CO2 fluctuations during the last 550 million years. Or is he an Exxon operative or religious nut? Because those people have been making up religious "facts" for a long time.

[sowhenyou]

The wiki thing was garbage when it came out. No one like them. It''s propaganda run by idiots like wikiped. They edit out anything they don''t like and say the facts are wrong when they are right there in the article. Wikis are garbage for the garbage to play with, rather than your life.

[jimfinster]

There''''s 550 million years of scientific data to show that changing atmospheric CO2 all the way from 7000 ppm during the Cambrian down to todays lowest of all time values in the 3-400 range, and that 20:1 change in CO2 did absolutely nothing to the global temperature, which has steadfastly refused to go above 22 deg C (71.6 F).

Posted by Seafang



Really? Please cite your sources for this unique data.




Posted by Seafang

[noloyalisti]

Who is discrediting the effects of CO2? Exxon and Chevron? Sure the levels have changed but not in 10 or 100 years. Try millions. It is the rate that is the killer. The only people who are questioning this are right wing political hacks and religious freaks who can''t stand our lowly place on the evolutionary scale. How else to explain the sheer ignorance of ignoring scientists and their voluminous data. Maybe we should start burning witches (or scientists) again.

[Razzl]

If Solomon isn''t right about global warming being wrong, there won''t be a chance to fix the problem he wants us to ignore; the polar ice caps will be gone, tornadoes and hurricanes will kill thousands more per year than they do now, forests and tundras will whither and melt, animals will vanish, and coastal cities will be damaged beyond repair, with accompanying loss of life. The consequences for being wrong about the problem are enormous, so any person with training in the sciences knows the study must continue on the premise that it''s happening, then test out the theories related to it. Political conservatives, however, engage in faith-based thinking and don''t care about any of the physical consequences of choosing belief over fact; war and climate change are things that happen outdoors and us Peter Pans at NRO only need to close the miniblinds and turn on the tv to make it all go away...

[sowhenyou]

The wiki thing was garbage when it came out. No one like them. It''s propaganda run by idiots like wikiped. They edit out anything they don''t like and say the facts are wrong when they are righ there in the article. Wikis are garbage for the garbage to play with, rather than your life.