Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

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

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Lawrence Solomon.

---

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.

As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.

Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.

And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.

“Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.

[hhbauer]

The same situation as for global warming exists at Wikipedia regarding whether HIV is the only, necessary, and sufficient cause of AIDS. What's more, for individuals like me (www.henryhbauer.homestead.com) who question the mainstream consensus, Wikipedia "bio" entries are written by fanatic defenders of the HIV/AIDS faith and are replete with misleading innunendo and straight-out lies; and attempts at correction are stonewalled.

As to global warming, first principles make quite clear that we cannot be sure that human activities, or carbon dioxide, are adding appreciably to the present warming. Ice ages have recurred every hundred thousand years or so for a long time, and the reasons for this cycling are not understood. Since we're only 15,000 years or so past the latest cold spell, of course things are warming up again, for those same reasons that we don't understand. How can we possibly gauge the possible influence of ONE FACTOR against all the unknown ones?

[doctor--o]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[jimmyc1955]

joyous88 - what position did I take? Bet you don''t even know my position. If you read what I said you should be able to repeat it.

[jimmyc1955]

joyous88 - And by the way, all those keys in the last row of your keyboard - those are punctuation keys. They are there to help you construct complete, accurate sentences or thoughts.

Ohhh my bad - you don''t have any of those do you?

[jimmyc1955]

joyous88 - well reasoned, thoughtful, thoroughly researched as usual.

You are the antithesis of truth, reason and logic. You have only vitriol and invective.

You don''t refute the issue of your acting solely on a faith you don''t understand. Your inability to defend that position tells me you are, in fact, the very thing you most despise: a blind follower of a religion where you are led by opinions of those whom you don''t know.

Frankly - at least Christians know they are acting on faith. You have yet to reason yourself to that position. But then thats probably too much to expect since reason isn''t your strong suit, its middle school name calling that you seem so proud of.

This is like have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. (I figured you would understand that one.)

[joyous88]

jimmyc1955 is just one more right wing ideologue,

strutting out his logical rehtoric in defense of his evidenceless position,

did you vote for bush?

That would explain your position

[co2max]

The IPCC is not a committee of scientists practicing science, though there are some scientists who serve on it. Instead the IPCC is a political organ dedicated to a specific agenda, sponsored by the U.N. and declaring truth only through what they say everyone else must believe, rather than what the facts really are.

I laugh at the U.N. and the Nobel prize. Any reliance on a consensus for deciding what the truth of science is must be misguided or just too lazy to research what is really going on in this world.

[co2max]

There are claims here that are those of old guys who will be aged off the internet, aged off the planet, voted into non-existence after *** up the planet and ruining for our grandchildren. What a bunch of whiny tripe!

Think of the world in which we live! We enjoy the splendor this earth affords because we have the technology to travel to all the corners of the globe or to know of them through direct evidence. Yet the scare mongers would have us eliminate the technologies of travel and communication in all its forms our of an unwarranted fear that we are destroying the world. It makes no sense.

[jimmyc1955]

Joyous88 - as to the Nobel committee - they gave a peace prize to a terrorist who perfected the tactic of bombing innocent people to achieve a political end. Excuse me if I don''t find the Noble committee a ringing endorsement of impartiality.

[jimmyc1955]

joyous88 - You seem to like implying that those who question the "facts" of global warming are "bible thumpers."

It is interesting to me that you so dislike the concept of faith when you yourself are a very large proponent of faith. It is highly unlikely that you make a living or have published scientific papers on climatology, paleontology, geophysics or any other earth based scientific discipline.

So your "knowledge" of global warming is aquired by reading a document published by those whom you do not know, don''t actually understand but who impress you as being knowledgeable - who also happen to say what you want to hear. You then act on that "knowledge" you acquired second hand that you are so certain about. That, sir, is faith.

I am sure you will claim you faith to be one grounded on fact - but you can''t prove those facts to any degree of satisfaction. You rely totally on facts others create - the very facts that are debated by many people. You choose to "believe" in one set of those facts.

YOu have a faith, a religion so to speak, your bible is the UN report and you act as blindly as any other new adherent to a faith - as if you were the only one with the "truth".

Your kind start wars over things you can''t possibly understand but insist are true.

[jimmyc1955]

It is the very attempt to close discussion and prevent new ideas or opinions that make the whole global warming issue not a scientific issue.

If I remember, there was a period in history where there was a "consensus understanding" on a topic and those who disagreed were forced to admit to their mistake and publically disavow their stance.

But the Inquistion was, I thought, long gone. Evidently in the environmental body Torquemada is still alive and kicking.

If you disagree, deny funding for research, refuse to publish the papers, reject applications for positions in universities and public institutions.

That is the current trend to seeking the truth.

Remember - Mankind "Knew" the world was flat

We KNEW the sun revolved around the earth.

We KNEW eugnenics as the only way to save the species.

All these had "scientific consensus" - each and every one was completely wrong.

[joyous88]

mr simple , how about Mr simpleton,

you are full of hot air, any one interested can simply READ, (that is if you did not go to a religious school) simply read the United Nations Intergovermental panel report on global warming.

this report won the Nobel Prize, this report was five years in the making, this report was put together by groups from every major country and every major scientific organization, the evidence for man made global warming is and was overwealming,

don''t believe it, than go back to your bible study and leave the rest of us to fix the probelm

[joyous88]

It is disgusting the the NRO can continue to print these LIES, lying to the american public should be punished, it should be illegal.

There is wide consensus within the scientific community about global warming, within the international community as well, global warming does
exist and it is getting worse.

the lying animals should be forced off the internet and the news stands, starting with bush, McBush, and cheney

[mr_simple]

"When the subject is a scientific issue, and one on which consensus has settled, there''''s really not much room for opinions that go against this scientific fact. It''''s a waste of time and, furthermore, dishonest to portray it otherwise."
Posted by jon2012 at 02:38 PM : Jul 09, 2008

The science is not settled. Science is never truly settled. Scientific findings are subject to review and scrutiny precisely for this reason, and so people aren''t duped by one flawed model. The outcome of one experiment does not make a law. Your closing the debate and not allowing dissenting arguements to be heard is counter to the scientific process and search for truth and understanding. That is intellectual dishonesty.

There is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

[ljub-2009]

"But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia%u2019s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people%u2019s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives."

Yep. That''s right. Because young people (the information technology generation who uses wikipedia) are liberal, and old people are mostly conservative...

Anyways, get used to it. Because we''ll be voting all you old, scared-of-change, don''t-want-change, fogies out of there in a quick, HOT second. You screwed up our world with overconsumption and poor policy (look at things now!); So, I really don''t think you have a right to complain.

Change is coming. Ignoring it only makes things worse (for us and your grandchildren).

[jon2012-2009]

That is pure Soviet era media control your talking about. Quash any opposition, uniform adherence to the public doctrine, dissenters banished to remote places to disappear without a trace.

Is that the America and world you want?
Posted by jimmyc1955 at 01:44 PM : Jul 09, 2008

When the subject is a scientific issue, and one on which consensus has settled, there''s really not much room for opinions that go against this scientific fact. It''s a waste of time and, furthermore, dishonest to portray it otherwise.

[co2max]

A highly noted geologist, Tony Hallam, has written extensively about his studies of mass extinction that have occurred over the past half-billion years. In his detailed review of the past 100 million years, which cast light on what probably happens during a mass extinction, Mr. Hallam, points out clearly that the geostratigraphic record shows few signs of polar glaciation for a majority of this period.

Take the reasoning to the next step . . . The Earth has a natural tendency to be warm, rather than cool (which is presently). If the warming of the globe really is happening in a meaningful way, then it is a natural progression toward its more normal state--at just a geologic "moment" before it cools again, which will spark the next polar ice advance (an ice age).

[jimmyc1955]

tejasdemo - This mindset is what most alarms me. Your suggesting that voices and opinions you don''t agree with must be silenced, restricted, prevented from getting a public forum. Your all for free speech - as long as its yours. But you want to prevent "propaganda" i.e. anything you disagree with from being heard.

That is pure Soviet era media control your talking about. Quash any opposition, uniform adherence to the public doctrine, dissenters banished to remote places to disappear without a trace.

Is that the America and world you want?

[jimmyc1955]

"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."


S0 - long before mankind appeared on the planet, the earth produced, naturally, a much higher CO2 level than we now have.

A few questions - What other atmosphiric gases were at higher levels than today?

You point out that the sun is much brighter today than in the distant past, how much of that increase is due to our current warming trend?

Did the planet survive the previous "no polar cap" conditions you describe?

What form of environmental change is acceptable? If mankind isn''t the primary cause but simply a mild contributor to change what are the risks to human like and welfare if we enact the drastic changes that enviromentalists insist we undertake and what benefits will they derive from those drastic changes?

I am tired of chicken little running around - its time somebody says ok - so the sky is falling - now what? This inane effort to prop up the sky is wasting time and energy.

[mr_simple]

You all kill me with your villification of the other. Just call people names and shout them down and maybe you''ll be right. How about trying to use some facts, like: The earth has been cooling down since 1998. 2007 was the coldest year in about 100 years. The hottest years of the last century were in the 1930s. The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest it''s been since we''ve been recording it. The oceans have not been warming. Sure, we saw about a .5 degree C rise in temp during the 1900s, but thats the same rise in temp as we had through the 1800s and 1700s. Infact, we''re still below the average temps for the last 3000 years. There is no empirical evidence to support AGW or any correlation between CO2 levels and avg temp. There is however ample evidence of a correlation between avg temp and solar irradiation and the cyclical nature of avg temp. You dont have to be a bible thuming ehack-job to not believe in anthropogenic global warming. You just have to not be easily swayed by rhetoric and hyperbole and maybe look something up for yourself. Try www.biocab.org for instance.