Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

5
0

Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History

By WillPowers follow WillPowers   2020 Mar 8, 9:35am 321 views   17 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


Wikipedia has deleted its ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’.

Stalin — who set the template for airbrushing inconvenient people out of history — would no doubt have heartily approved of this wanton act of censorship.

But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.

“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”

What this Wikipedia editor is saying, in other words, is that if you’re a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming then that automatically makes you not a scientist.

In fact many tens of thousands of scientists are sceptical of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, including some of the most eminent experts in the field, among them physicists Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Will Happer of Princeton.

SEE: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/03/08/delingpole-wikipedia-airbrushes-list-of-climate-sceptical-scientists-out-of-history/
1   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2020 Mar 8, 9:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Wikipedia is propaganda where it counts.
If you never heard of Dr. Robert Sarbacher, a preeminent physicist, a great inventor, a scientific consultant to the Department of Defense, a man with a Harvard degree, a rocket scientist, then it’s not surprising, because Wikipedia has a striking absence of information on him. In fact, the website only mentions Sarbacher in one paragraph in an article on UFO conspiracies, as if his many accomplishments and contributions to society never existed.

SEE: https://mojomorning.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-memory-hole.html
2   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Mar 8, 9:57am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

I avoid wiki. Do they still list Michael Mann and his hockey stick?

However it is true that 97% of scientist that believe in catastrophic man-made global warming also believe in climate change. The other 3% are idiots.
3   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2020 Mar 8, 10:40am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Onvacation says

However it is true that 97% of scientist that believe in catastrophic man-made global warming also believe in climate change. The other 3% are idiots.


Have you ever seen a debate between climate scientists arguing this issue? Or do you listen to propagandist like Al Gore, and base your misinformed opinion on that?
4   ad   ignore (0)   2020 Mar 8, 10:43am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Yes, Wikipedia is like Snopes. It is a poser doing the work of the Democrats or Left wing political establishment.
5   Ceffer   ignore (5)   2020 Mar 8, 11:02am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

ProgressivePedia has always been a collection of glorified editorials, sometimes containing facts. Many pundits aren't pundits because they speak facts, they are pundits because they are sounding boards to characterize mixes of fact, fiction, wishful thinking, and desired politicized mythologies in ways that grab the gnards of the readers. GONZO!

Randall Carlson describes how over time Wiki downgraded his profile from what he considered a reasonably descriptive few paragraphs to dismissive scrip that he was a conspiracy theorist and nutter. It was done in three phases.

These internet things start out posing as noble information warriors serving the public, and are eventually captured by the usual suspects to become organs of bullhorn agitprop and disinformation as per usual usual.

Nobility has an unusually short shelf life in the information goose stuffing highway. Crossed the Creepy Zone a while ago and embraced it for shekels.
6   rocketjoe79   ignore (2)   2020 Mar 8, 9:58pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

How about Dr. Judith Curry? She was a top scientist at the NOAA. When She expressed deep skepticism about how data was being analyzed and presented, she was hounded out of the organization. She also has deep reservations about the IPCC and it's treatment of climate information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
7   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Mar 9, 5:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

WillPowers says
Have you ever seen a debate between climate scientists

Yes. Michael Mann got his butt kicked.
8   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2020 Mar 9, 7:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Onvacation says
WillPowers says
Have you ever seen a debate between climate scientists

Yes. Michael Mann got his butt kicked.


Who was he debating and do you mean the film director, Michael Mann?
9   Malcolm   ignore (2)   2020 Mar 15, 8:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Onvacation says
However it is true that 97% of scientist that believe in catastrophic man-made global warming also believe in climate change. The other 3% are idiots.


2/3rds of published papers on the subject of climate change have no opinion on human impact. the 97% is of the third that express an opinion. The 3% is also out of the same third of papers.

1. There is no consensus.
2. Of those who express the opinion, no measure exists of how alarming it is as scientists weren't asked about the degree of danger.
3. The 3% is meaningless because only a very few people, including extreme skeptics would assert for certain that humans have NO impact on the weather or local climate. Even I wouldn't fall into that category, and I made a documentary film on the subject. I'm as skeptical as they come. That is why most papers and scientists who ignore surveys should simply be counted as undecided.
4. It is faulty to dismiss papers with no opinion, since the exercise was to determine the overall percentage of papers that make the assertion.

Yes, there are notable and very interesting debates on Youtube between the major players like Patrick Moore, Judith Curry and Dr Mann. For those who don't know, Michael Mann recently lost a lawsuit he initiated because he will not share data in his defamation suits, which would prove the climategate allegations of scientific fraud.

To clarify, Michael Moore is a film director, Dr Michael Mann is the famous "hockey stick" scientist who correlated tree rings with CO2 levels and temperature. He is the subject of the "trick to hide the decline" email which referred to substituting actual temperatures at a convenient point to hide the projected temperature decline indicated by the tree rings.
10   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Mar 15, 8:59pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

WillPowers says
Who was he debating and do you mean the film director, Michael Mann?


Malcolm says
Yes, there are notable and very interesting debates on Youtube between the major players like Patrick Moore, Judith Curry and Dr Mann. For those who don't know, Michael Mann recently lost a lawsuit he initiated because he will not share data in his defamation suits, which would prove the climategate allegations of scientific fraud.

To clarify, Michael Moore is a film director, Dr Michael Mann is the famous "hockey stick" scientist who correlated tree rings with CO2 levels and temperature. He is the subject of the "trick to hide the decline" email which referred to substituting actual temperatures at a convenient point to hide the projected temperature decline indicated by the tree rings.


Thanks Malcolm.

Can anyone name the top climate scientist that believes man made co2 will cause catastrophic climate change?
11   Malcolm   ignore (2)   2020 Mar 16, 1:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Onvacation says
Thanks Malcolm.

Can anyone name the top climate scientist that believes man made co2 will cause catastrophic climate change?


The lack of response is part of why climate alarmism is a religion and not a real scientific theory, subject to scrutiny and debate. No one has specific fears, they just know something bad is going to happen.

Pardon me for answering a question which was posed to other people. We can go all the way back to the 1800s, and before, when scientists started putting together the theories of climatology and weather forecasting, also known as meteorology. Some of these early scientists even pondered the possibility of the industrial revolution affecting climates. A 1922 report, which was carried in the Washington Post is one of the earliest sources of dire predictions of warming and sea level rise. It did not attribute it to humans, but specifically referenced climate change could submerge coastal cities.

However, the specific answer to your question is where did the current climate of hysteria come from? The answer is Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." The specific models presented in the film are from Dr Michael Mann's research on tree rings. This is where the hockey stick graph, presented in the film originated. This model has now been brought under serious question, by Dr Mann losing a court case because his data is damning to the supposed consensus.

In any case, he is the main source of the hysteria, which has turned into a bandwagon for the UN's IPCC and NASA and NOAA scientists, who now have made grandstanding on fear mongering, a living. Two specific names are James Hansen and Jay Zwally. They were with NASA's Goddard Institute and made outlandish predictions like Manhattan and Miami being submerged by 2016.

Apart from UN scientists trying to curry favor by blindly going along with a consistently failing model, most of the hysteria is self fed by media outlets, and blogs, trying to alarm people. They take generally benign scenarios and cherry pick the worst case and sensationalize conjecture.

No one denies climates change over time, but in order to prove near term dramatic climate change, predictions based on theory have to come true, and they simply haven't. Cherry picking random outliers to fit a predetermined model of an end of the world scenario is not science, it is a cult.
12   Expat01   ignore (2)   2020 Mar 16, 4:41am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Cherry picking, lying, fabricating. Why is the right so desperate to deny climate change? How is this a personal attack? An attack on Jesus? Or capitalism? Why would scientists make this stuff up? And why are you ignoring evidence that the climate is changing? Why are your anti-climate change heroes not experts in the field? Why are some generally recognized as being lunatics? Why do you believe some government officials but then claim without any basis that the government is lying?

Let's assume that you are correct. Climate change is not anthropomorphic, but it is happening. It's solar cycles or Heat Miser stirring things up. So what? Analogy: your house is on fire. The fire department asks you how it started. You say it was lightning. They say, "Oh, well, in that case, we will just let it burn because lightning is natural" So next time your house catches fire, be sure to tell the fire department that you set the fire.
13   theoakman   ignore (0)   2020 Mar 16, 6:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I am a firm believer in climate change and I'll even agree that humans have an influence on it. The percentage of that influence relative to natural occurrences is currently immeasurable given the complexity. Anyone that tries to tell you different is not practicing good science. Climatology is a field that is only in it's infancy. If you were to compare it to Physics, they are probably in the year 500 AD at best. What I can't stand is this idea that climate change brings widespread suffering and famine. It doesn't. It's been scientifically proven that just about every square inch of the Earth (even the Sahara) is greening over time. Presumably, this is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Global GDP, food production, and general standard of living has increased with temperature for the past 100 years. That's a positive correlation. The data does not reflect the media hysteria.
14   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Mar 16, 7:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Climate change is not anthropomorphic, but it is happening. It's solar cycles or Heat Miser stirring things up. So what? Analogy: your house is on fire. The fire department asks you how it started. You say it was lightning. They say, "Oh, well, in that case, we will just let it burn because lightning is natural"

Horrible analogy. A closer analogy would be that statistically, your house has a chance of burning down every 25 years, and since your house is 25 years old, you call a fire truck out. "Science" shows you house on fire, so ignore the reality that it isn't. A better approach would be that if lightning is a main cause of fire, install lightning rods with deep grounds. If old stoves are the issue, replace with modern stoves, and so on.

Your statement makes no sense anyway. If Climate Change is natural and not man-made, the "so what" acts as if we can throw a switch and lower the temperature. If it is natural, then efforts to lower CO2 levels from a trace element to a slightly lower trace element would have no effect.
15   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Mar 16, 7:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

theoakman says
I am a firm believer in climate change

So who's the scientist who you rely on to back up your belief? Not expecting a cogent answer.
16   Malcolm   ignore (2)   2020 Mar 16, 7:30am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Expat01 says
How is this a personal attack? An attack on Jesus? Or capitalism? Why would scientists make this stuff up? And why are you ignoring evidence that the climate is changing?


It has become a religion by alarmists who shout down and insult anyone, including their peers, who point out inconvenient facts. It's not people denying something when in one decade clear doomsday predictions are made to then point out in the following decade that they didn't come true. That is considered heresy, which is most definitely NOT scientific.

The reason scientists "make this stuff up" is to fit a predetermined narrative. Scientists like Patrick Moore and Judith Curry are proof of what happens when climatologists are discredited as deniers. It's not that they "make it up" out of the blue, it's that they fill in the pieces with alarming conjecture in their "publish or perish" culture.

The evidence is simply not there, people aren't "ignoring" anything. The proper question is what is it exactly that you fear? Just fearing "change" is not a compelling point, since "change" is incredibly ambiguous. That is why I compare it to a boogie man.
17   Booger   ignore (7)   2020 Mar 16, 6:23pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Wikipedia is a liberal etch-a-sketch.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions