Sunday, July 13, 2008

WickedPedia.commies - So what else is new?



Wikipropaganda
Spinning green.

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.
Storm'n Norm'n here...
Say, I have a question for Al Gore.
How does a volcano buy carbon credits?
Mount Saint Helen spewed out more pollution than all the cars ever manufactured and much more than all the people who exhale carbon dioxide and at least a few tons more than cow gas.
Where did it all go, big Al?
I suppose you never watched that old margarine commercial where it ends with, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." Well let me let you in on a little secret, Mother Nature takes pretty good care of herself and when you start messing with her she'll blow you away.

1 comment:

redhawk said...

Speaking of MORE LIES.. this one from another Gore Booster Station:
My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud, Iraq was assigned, with
> others of
> her detachment, to be escort/guard/ watcher for Martha Raddatz
> of ABC News
> as she covered John McCain's recent trip to Iraq. Katelyn and
> her Captain
> stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GI's walking past.
> They kept
> count of the GI's and you should remember these numbers. She
> asked 60 GI's
> who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4
> for Obama
> and 2 for Hillary. Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad
> to watch ABC
> news the next night because she was standing directly behind
> Raddatz and
> maybe they'd see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and
> emailed all
> the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn. Well,
> of course, we
> all watched and what we saw wasn't a glimpse of Katelyn, but got
> a hell'uva
> view of skewed news. After a dissertation on McCain's trip and
> speech, ABC
> showed 5 GI's being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in
> November; 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton. No mention of the 54

ABC only reported the fact that Milityary people polled 3 were Obama voters and 2 for Hillary.. FORGOT to report that %4 were for Mc Cain.. that is ABC version of Honest Reporting!
>