digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at cbsnews.com

Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

cbsnews.com — In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it. 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • govsucks, on 07/08/2008, -9/+19WOW, what a strange thing!!! Collectivists silencing the views of the minority. This can't be, the left is so open minded and they have such high brows, they would NEVER do such a thing. /Sarcasm

    Don't expect this to make it to the front page, this will be censored as well by the pathetic collectivist cattle on digg.
  • nickrollout, on 07/08/2008, -8/+16It is ironic how some "scientists" who support the global warming theory want to suppress all discussion on this topic. A real scientist will never stifle discussion on a topic, because if your case is strong enough it will withstand scrutiny or discussion.

    This whole global warming debate is closer to the debating religion than science.
    • Math, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7Oh come on. Sometimes you shouldn't give equal time to two competing views. It's nothing to do with science, but more to do with educating people correctly.

      Why should you teach intelligent design in a science class, when there is no compelling evidence for it? If that's the case, why aren't children taught about the spaghetti monster in their religious classes? There are very vocal minorities that believe in intelligent design, that the moonlanding was faked, don't believe in global warming, etc... and most have their very specific anti-science agendas.
    • greenfyre, on 07/09/2008, -8/+6So which scientists are trying to stifle debate - list of names and sources please
  • dysan, on 07/09/2008, -9/+9This is not a controversial topic at all because there is consensus in the scientific journals and papers that it is happening. Go on search it, you can find out right now. There is little discussion on it because there is little dissent or unbiased evidence to be a counterpoint. It's just like the tobacco companies in the 1950s when faced with lung cancer, they tried to length the argument to prolong the business.

    Also just note that this is not written by CBS news, but is a column was written by Lawrence Solomon of the National Review Online, which clearly is not on board with a pro-Gore with agenda.
  • Catspaw, on 07/09/2008, -7/+11This is what to expect, given the amount of money being poured into this tripe.
    Dr Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, who headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He says the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government.

    The UN, which is controlled by the elite, is preparing to take over as the government for all the world’s nations under the pretext of saving the planet from “global warming.” It aims to implement Agenda 21, which is supposedly about “sustainable development.” On cursory inspection, 21 looks reasonable, however, as Dr Coffman has pointed out, the intention of the 40-chapter document is to reorganize the world around socialist, command and control regulation, as the elite view humans as earth’s primary contaminants. Consequently, their plan will bring about a profound reorientation of all society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. In other words, “global warming” is being used as a tool for tyranny of the highest order –for the New World Order, and carbon taxes herald the beginning of what will be a living nightmare for us if the elite have their way.



    • greenfyre, on 07/09/2008, -6/+6OK, you are quoting Coffman - does he have any evidence of his allegations about scientists, and would please share them, because of course the old "scientists on the take" conspiracy theory is pretty transparently horsehit to anyone who has spent any time in academia and scientific research.
  • greenfyre, on 07/09/2008, -11/+6Ahhh Lawrence Solomon, Master of the unsubstantiated claim - "never has one man claimed so much with so little evidence"

    "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?"

    Well, since it's a fact it's pretty easy. I recognize that it is a lot harder to get away with the lies and distortions the Deniers try to pass off, and I admire you for you tenacity in trying to pass off the same transparent nonsense over and over even as you are heaped with ridicule and scorn - it's downright inspiring.

    OK, Problem 1 - Solomon is being totally disingenuous about his wikipedia experience.

    "Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed."

    Since they have been verified repeatedly and are wildly admired I wonder where Solomon got that notion? Oreskes 'The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We Are Not Wrong? http://www.ucar.edu/governance/meetings/oct07/foll ...

    As ever he never references his absurd claims, and for some reason search engines can never find the sources for the stuff he says ... I guess they have a liberal bias too.

    "I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming"

    RotfL - He has profiled the usual collection of hacks and industry shills http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37379 , http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ ... and http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-war ... like Singer and Ball

    "British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser" Social anthropologist actually, but I am certain Solomon did not mean to accidently imply he might be a climatologist or in any field related to climate science.

    "but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right" I guess Solomon is counting on the reader not checking the entry which is in fact referenced http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_adm ...

    "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. — Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch, 12th October, 2006" http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777 ...

    So, you get a sense of just how credible a source Solomon is

    Problem 2 - Is he an idiot??? Or rather, does he think we're idiots? The science for climate change is NOT kept on wikipedia. What does or does not happen on wikipedia makes less than zero difference to the science.

    This whole stupid article is a really juvenile, pathetic attempt to distract the reader from the fact of the science, which incidently, some of it can be found at these links (not wikipedia)

    http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
    http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
    http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm
  • rickosborne, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Thanks for your extensive effort in replying to this article greenfyer - however what bothers me is the alleged editing bias at Wikipedia. If it's supposed to be by the people for the people shouldn't it list opposing views? Whether the editors agree or not? As nickrollout so wonderfully said, if something is true it should be able to hold up to discussion and scrutiny.
    • greenfyre, on 07/09/2008, -6/+3i) it's an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. It attempts to offer what can be defensibly called 'facts', not opinions.

      ii) Where there is legitimate uncertainty among credible ideas an encyclopedia should offer up the main arguments, for example those around "string theory" and "big bang".

      Creationism, Intelligent Design, Climate Change Denial, Racism and Racialism, Elvis and the Andromedans, Flat Earth etc are not credible ideas. There should be and are entries on all of these topics, but suitably catagorized for what they really are

      iii) where the "idea" can only be 'supported' by lies and misrepresentation (eg Intelligent Design, Climate Change Denial) it most certainly should not be given the appearance of legitimacy - an encyclopedia should describe it for exactly what it is - hoaxes and frauds.

      iv) "if something is true it should be able to hold up to discussion and scrutiny." Amen, _before_ inclusion, not after.

      The Denier position was scrutinized and tossed in the rubbish where it belongs
  • Technohamster, on 07/09/2008, -5/+4The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is meant to reflect what all the peer reviewed journals say.
  • mustangmike53, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3See, this is good. We get to see and hear from the very people who censor all dissent, and the mindset they work from. As we can see, they KNOW the Truth, and so they are not censoring dissent but are just editing out false data. Any criticism or disagreement is quickly addressed in an apparently scholarly manner, pronounced false, and thereby dismissed. Links are provided for easy reference.

    Funny how it's 100%. They've never come across a bit of data or interpretation of facts even slightly at odds with their conclusions that they've not been able to explain away. Of course, they've always got their fallback position of claiming bias on the part of the researcher in order to avoid dealing with any inconvenient science, so that helps.

    Wikipedia - not the real information, but an incredible simulation!
  • maxtangent, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4It is amazing that life on earth wasn't eliminated when it was warm enough for the Romans to grow grapes in Britain.
    Wheat used to be grown in Greenland - you know, the place that these scientists think should always be covered in ice.
    There was a time in Europe when people didn't bother having chimneys in their houses because they didn't need fires for heat.
    There have been numerous ice ages and what happens in between them? The planet warms up! Astonishing, I know, but it used to be taught in history books. Why isn't this material covered in them any more?
  • brad3378, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2A book by the same author of this article:
    http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists- ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.