Y2Kyoto: Wikipedia’s Zealots

65 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Wikipedia’s Zealots”

1. RicardoVerde,
   Why submit to push marketing? … it’s just best to say “I sent a check off yesterday” … makes them feel good.
   John Cross – I sent a BIG check to Al Gore yesterday … you convinced me that the Sun has nothing to do with climate and man knows everything (at least where climate is concerned). Do you know where I can get a good used car?

2. John Cross: I respect your ongoing Scientific approach but where is your “gut intuition” , I’d say half the people out there got one sniff of “Global Warming” 8 or 10 years ago and immediately smelled a scam. Are you with me folks? Whats the percentage of people that are sceptical about all this? I’d like to know, and none of this asking people to in front of thier bosses, peers,etc.

3. Anthropogenic Global Warming is such a perfect cause for Libs, that if it didn’t exist they would hafta invent it … wait they didn’t just invent it did they?
   Well, let’s see. Basically, all the miracles created by man to achieve the highest levels in history of health, prosperity and happiness are destroying the planet. In fact, our very breathing creates CO2 and is therefore destroying the planet.
   The only thing that can save us now is a massive carbon tax, bigger government and less human productivity.
   By the way, aren’t we overdue for the next ice age?

4. If I were thinking of asking someone for information and knew they would lie, but didn’t know when they’d lie, I think I’d ask someone else.
   There are lies of omission and lies of commission. The first is aptly demonstrated when John Cross conveniently leaves out any measurements supporting his claim the cooler atmosphere can add heat to the warmer earth.

5. John Cross:
   ” …In fact, I think that Oreskes is quite accurate when she says: ‘Many details about climate interactions are not well understood’…”
   So is that the new “consensus” then? That climate change requires “more study”?
   I took peek at the Oreskes page on Wikipedia. Apparently her new (2007) study uses the criteria of a human effect on climate. So what? Even I wouldn’t disagree with that. The real question is how many studies express the view that humans are the dominant effect on climate.
   Regards, BRK

6. If it isn’t a breach of etiquette to link to my own blog, there’s more about Wikipedia bias (and Warman/Levant) here.

7. Wikipedia has been the greatest political coup carried off in the cyber age. The takeover of a reference encyclopedia by advocacy politics…gotta admit its pretty slick marketing for axe grinders…whether it was planned or spontanious, Wiki authoring is almost entierly done by special interest parties and the bulk of the info there reflects that bias.

8. Wikipedia has been the greatest political coup carried off in the cyber age. The takeover of a reference encyclopedia by advocacy politics…gotta admit its pretty slick marketing for axe grinders…whether it was planned or spontanious, Wiki authoring is almost entierly done by special interest parties and the bulk of the info there reflects that bias.

9. It seems more than a few peop[e are not understanding that this is Wiki editors themselves shoveling lies and propoganda. Not just your everyday moonbats.
   So, perhaps it’s a good reference for finding out about less politicized topics like Innuit soap carving, however, the fact that the site is owned and run by liars should give people pause to think and consider whether they should support or reference it at all.

10. Bob said,
    “Whats the percentage of people that are sceptical about all this? “
    I don’t know but take a look at this CTV.ca poll from April 21/22 2008,
    … … …
    With Earth Day upon us, what are you thoughts on global warming?
    Optimistic, we can stop it
    1187 votes (31 %)
    Pessimistic, we’re too far gone
    1155 votes (30 %)
    I don’t believe in it
    1498 votes (39 %)
    Total Votes: 3840
    … … …
    Close to half of them – average Canadians – do not believe in global warming.
    I’m sure some will want to dismiss this as being a un-scientific poll but before rejecting this poll consider this,
    The average scientific poll only asks a 1000 people,
    This poll was answered by almost 4000 people.

11. ol hoss: absorbed, transmitted or reflected. The 190 watts/m2 must go somewhere. Where does it?
    Regards,
    John

12. BRK: The funny thing is that this has always been the position of the scientific community on global warming.
    You also stated that:
    I took peek at the Oreskes page on Wikipedia. Apparently her new (2007) study uses the criteria of a human effect on climate. So what? Even I wouldn’t disagree with that.
    Well, ol hoss does disagree with it and is violating the laws of physics while doing it. Could you please convince him of it.
    Thanks,
    John

13. Perhaps all you scholars can get the answers YOU need at http://www.conservapedia.com. Seems to be right up your alley!

14. ol hoss: absorbed, transmitted or reflected. The 190 watts/m2 must go somewhere. Where does it?
    I don’t know “where does it”. Perhaps you should take some measurements.

15. Wikipedia is like letting the kids with the prettiest crayons and the most spare time write the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
    The truly gifted kids can draw a Monet with only red, blue, and yellow crayon and never draw anything bigger than a dot.