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.

[red1530]

Maybe the NRO should go check out the Global warming controversy page on Wikipedia.

[jimfinster]

It should be noted that Lawrence Solomon is not a climatologist, nor any sort of scientist at all. So why does he have any business editing a Wikipedia like this?

He is a vocal global warming skeptic, who wrote the following paper last year:

"In praise of Carbon Dioxide" by Lawrence Solomon



Hmmm, wonder where his funding comes from?

[andor3]

propagandists like NRO of course do not like Wikipedia because it is self-protected against their distortions and lies. it is similar to why burglars hate alarms and cockroaches hate sunlight.

[wogerwabbit]

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

[cofmanaaron]

Hmmm, have you guys considered that maybe the reason that the complete *** that the ''deniers'' have tried to put on the site haven''t got there is because they are so outside the mainstream of science on this issue. After all, there are still ''scientists'' who believe that the Earth is orbited by the sun. Are they correct? NO. There are Christian scientists who claim that the evidence for an old ( 5000 years) Earth is incorrect. As a geologist, I assure you the Earth is old. So maybe it is in the same vein that these rent-a-scientists like Singer, bought and paid for by Exxon et al., are not credible in the eyes of mainstream science. Global warming is a scientific reality. I''d challenge any unbiased and educated scientist to disagree, and yes, taking money from an oil company disqualifies you.

[ubrew12]

An excellent site for info on Global warming is www.RealClimate.org

Its byline is ''climate science from climate scientists'' tells it all. You go to the ''denier'' web-sites and you''ll find all sorts of PhD''s, just none in climatology! I ran across a website the other day dedicated to disproving Global Warming. The ''expert''? An electrical engineer!

[ubrew12]

linymo said: "global warming may have a degree of validity but it is from the sun and other natural stimuli"
Can you point me to data that says the solar constant has increased over the last 100 years? Cuz I can definitely point you to data that says CO2 levels have increased by 50% over the same time period.

[argdatme39]

Global warming huh? I saw an iceberg melt and under it was a tunnel made by man, so that tells me this is a cycle. What else will they sell us? Also recycling paper is not efficient at all. The government pays 9 billion a year to that industry to create jobs nothing else. Our money hard at work! But hey it does make since to recycle cans, that%u2019s the only one. But hey we are what we eat and the US feeds us this BS. Stop think, research everything. Have you heard of the ice age, maybe we created that by not burning enough fuel, HELLO. Have you seen all the fires in Ca as of late I bet that puts lots of pollution in the air! I wonder how cave man put out fires in there day, I mean they would burn out of control for a long time right%u2026oh I see that%u2019s how all that ice melted in the ice age. Come on.

[smurfcrusher]

National Review: Is A Stunning Example Of How The Propaganda Machine Works. Brought to you by your friendly partners in politics, Big Oil.

[smurfcrusher]

"propagandists like NRO of course do not like Wikipedia because it is self-protected against their distortions and lies. it is similar to why burglars hate alarms and cockroaches hate sunlight."

Posted by andor3

Dude! Pure poetry. Great analogy, but don''t expect burglars to become law-abiding citizens or cockroaches to transmute into butterflies.

Reasonable people not afraid of the truth of global warming must unfortunately shoulder the burden of solutions, since the republicons are happy as clams ignoring the problem and dooming our future.

[cofmanaaron]

argdatme39: In case you were wondering: 1. Icebergs melt off of continental ice sheets such as Greenland and float out to sea. The ice in these sheets move from the center where ice accumulates, to the edge where they melt. So, that tunnel had probably moved from the ice sheet center, or else it may have been formed by meltwater in the glacier. Glaciers always accumulate in one area and melt in another. What is striking is how fast the melting part is happening now.
2. Ice ages occur about every 100,000 years and are caused by changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere caused by changes in ocean currents upwelling deep water. The ocean current cycles are driven by different amounts of seasonal insolation driven by cyclic changes in Earth''s orbit. However,CO2 is rising far faster than at any time over the last million years, and temperature is rising pretty fast too. As for your wildfire statement, I really don''t know where you were going with that one.

[argdatme39]

cofmanaaron-
Yes they are melting, yes it is getting hot. Did you know NASA was wrong when they posted their hottest day%u2019s list? I am all for going green when it makes a difference. I do think we as a people (world) should take care of what God given us. Oil spills, Chinas great air quality those are no brainier. As far as global warming caused by my car I just don%u2019t know how far to take it, yes it%u2019s on the news, they make movies. Then I think about this co2 tax, how will that fix things, who gets the money. I say why not more solar, wind and yes the scary one nuclear power. How if you are green can you say okay to coal and no to nuclear power. This source of energy is far more efficient, far less pollutant and there has not been any issue in many, many years. That%u2019s right folks we right now do get some power form NUCLEAR Power and we are okay. The problem is some simple as it always is $$$$$$$. We get well you know and someone gets our hard earned cash. Such as the CO2 tax thing they talk about. Madness. Just an FYI I recycle, part of the team, just not brain dead.

[naucoming4u]

Wikipedia topics, especially subjects regarding science, are published by well educated/learned individuals who have (and site) sources of scientific FACT to back up the statements presented.

Of course, this is considered "propaganda" by mental midgets.

[naucoming4u]

I ran across a website the other day dedicated to disproving Global Warming. The ''''expert''''? An electrical engineer!

Posted by ubrew12 at 02:56 PM : Jul 08, 2008
...............

Of course, we run across people on these boards who still feel that the war in Iraq was a good idea and is successful... but they are typically experts in beer guzzling and NASCAR factoids.

[notblue]

Just because it''s on Wikipedia, doesn''t make it fact, kind of like the "facts" reported here at leftwing central. It is always interesting to hear the libs call everyone not in agreement with their ideology, mental midgets, idiots, etc. The truth is when one disagrees with a subject the intelligent route would be educated debate without the childish namecalling but not so for the libs that frequent these posts, they would much rather drink the kool-aide, bloviate, and insult than debate, that''s the leftwing way.

[heptagon-2009]

There''s a really good blog piece on Solomon''s "issues" at Wikipedia. See http://tugboatpotemkin.blogspot.com/2008/04/internet-wingnut-is-something-to-be.html .

[jimfinster]

Easy solution.

Lawrence Solomon can start his own version of Wikipedia, to present his own set of "facts". Maybe Fox News would fund it. It could be called Crappopedia.

[tejasdemo]

I continue to be amazed that CBS allows the National Nazi to publish this factless nonsense.

[pvperson]

"Wikipedia Is A Stunning Example Of How The Propaganda Machine Works".........I didn''t know FOX controlled Wikipedia.

[pvperson]

ejasdemo, I''m amazed at how OFTEN the NRO is in the opinion section. Seems every day and sometimes they are 2 out of 3 articles.

[noloyalisti]

The NRO should know about fascist propaganda. As far as this moron Lawrence, how dare he call himself an environmentalist and allude to ANY scientific reasoning. Does he know about the precautionary principle? What is so bad about conserving?

[jimfinster]

It is also amusing that he references Bennie Peiser, who is actually a UK social anthropologist. Not a climatologist at all. Sad.

[seafang]

" The NRO should know about fascist propaganda. As far as this moron Lawrence, how dare he call himself an environmentalist and allude to ANY scientific reasoning. Does he know about the precautionary principle? What is so bad about conserving?

Posted by noloyalisti at 04:52 PM : Jul 08, 2008 "

So just what does the precautionary principle say about starving tens or even hundreds of millions of people to death for lack of food due to the lack of petroenergy and chemicals to grow food worldwide.
And all for a thoroughly discredited thesis that Carbon dioxide causes global temperatures to rise.

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).

Even Al Gore''s ice core data in his book shows that it is changing temperaturesw which cause the CO2 to change 800 years LATER.

get some education and stop acting like sheep.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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!!

[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

[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.

[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.)

[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!)

[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...

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[oneworldusa]

There is no ''global warming.'' It''s just life, nature, progress and evolution utilizing the God-given resources with which to run our lives.

[juwboy]

At the present time, far more deaths are caused by cold winters than hot summers.

So, the Earth is TOO COLD.

We need MORE global warming, not less.

[mommakat64]

I hope that all of you libs will enjoy living in the communist/socialist American Union...because THAT is where this is all going. When the government takes over every industry and aspect of our lives...Maxine Waters has already slipped and said that the Dems want to "take over" the energy industry--NOT "regulate", but "take over"...I hope you will all be happen with the bits and pieces the wealthy "party leaders" flip your way. They won''t be happy until they tax us out of our homes and our jobs...RIGHT NOW, they want to tax gasoline until we can''t afford to get to work or buy food, and it''s going to be really cruel this coming winter when people can''t afford to heat their homes. They don''t seem to understand that they need to have the "new" fuels and energy up and running before they pull petrol out from under us. Sheez, why has "government" ever improved anything they''ve "taken over"?!?! And, I''m not talking about the poor--they are always on the edge, but their lot will get worse--just like it is in Africa.

[tidragon-2009]

Solomon is apparently illiterate.

Have you ever read Naomi''s papers?

Why did you say they''ve been widely ridiculed, yet were unable to produce an article of ANY sort to back that up, let alone one written by someone worthwhile in a peer reviewed journal?

The answer is quite simple: You don''t know what you''re talking about and are simply saying what you''re told to.

Your opinion is worthless because you are uninformed and failed to back up your argument. If you want to actually make a difference, you need to cite your sources, clearly something you''re unable to comprehend. But then again, you''re a conservative writer, and as we all know, the only way you end up being one of those is ignoring reality.

The point is to see reality. You obviously don''t understand that.

[bluestardad]

who cares?

[gunfighter51]

Wikipedia is a joke.

Just another arm of the liberal press.

[gmcnally2]

Wow, that was eye-opening. Just read the Intelligent Design article, or rather, rebuttal on Wiki.