Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!

Historien om hur Global Warming Hysterikerna SYSTEMATISKT FÖRVANSKAR OCH FÖRÄNDRAR biografier från vetenskapsmän som inte stödjer Global Warming Hysterin.

Är det inte underbart med dessa sanna förkämpar för vetenskap och sanning som systematiskt raderar ALLT som inte stämmer överens med deras religion!

Några citat:

”While I don’t know the exact nature of today’s modifications, it is clear that the AGW folks have been at work there, judging by a number of elements which are uncomplimentary and prejudicial and totally unwarranted on a general ”biography”. This is becoming commonplace – when the science does not support AGW, then attack the messenger trying to expose the hoax. There may be a silver lining here ( at Dr. Singer’s expense ) – the AGW hysterics are now clearly in panic mode.”

”Fred Singer replies:

1. Unfortunately, Jim Peden is correct. Unnamed parties have been inserting bizarre items into my Wiki biography. Larry Solomon has just published an article about this in the National Post.

The latest Wiki version makes me out to be some kind of wacko who believes in the existence of Martians.”

There is a well-organized team under a computer nerd called Kim Dabelstein-Petersen who are responsible for dive-bombing the biographies of anyone known to question the alarmist viewpoint on the climate. They did it to me. When I said I would sue, they said legal action would be ineffective because they shelter behind a jurisdiction of convenience in Florida, where the publication of lies is permitted. So I told them that I’d obtain an interdict from the Scottish courts, forbidding the Internet trunk carriers from carrying any Wikipedia inaccuracies about me. That got their attention. My page has been cleaned up and locked against further tampering (for the time being, at any rate).”

”Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions don’t last long, however – often just minutes – before the honest accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site. Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia’s 10 million pages to erase any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters by the dozens have been likewise demeaned – to check for yourself, just look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed. This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific database questioned the UN view of climate change.”

”For this reason, when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, 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. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. 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.

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop’s. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. ”Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!” Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop’s undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: ”Tabletop’s changes claim to represent Peiser’s views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop’s version.”

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop’s undid and protested: ”Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him.”

Tabletop parried: ”we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I — no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists.”

While I’ve been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia – or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen – beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots. ”

Artklarna finns här:

Wikipedia bias

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/04/wikipedia-bias-because-actual.html

Wikipedia’s zealots  

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=18300

Hide your name on Wicked Pedia  

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=18311

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Monday, April 28, 2008

Wikipedia bias

Because the actual temperature record of the last 10 years is decisively against them and the only ”science” that supports Warmism is speculative, the Green/Left normally rely very heavily on defamation of those who disagree with them in order to ”support” their theories. And, although Wikipedia is well-known as an unreliable source of political information, they of course do their best to debauch what appears there. As Fred Singer is a leading skeptic, his Wikpedia entry has recently come under heavy attack. I reproduce below some interesting comments about that from various sources:

Jim Peden writes

I note with interest that today ( 27 April 2008, at 15:49 ) Dr. Singer’s biography on Wikipedia was ”modified”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

While I don’t know the exact nature of today’s modifications, it is clear that the AGW folks have been at work there, judging by a number of elements which are uncomplimentary and prejudicial and totally unwarranted on a general ”biography”. This is becoming commonplace – when the science does not support AGW, then attack the messenger trying to expose the hoax. There may be a silver lining here ( at Dr. Singer’s expense ) – the AGW hysterics are now clearly in panic mode.

Under the GLOBAL WARMING section, we have

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: ”In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine – including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer’s group and Exxon – met at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty.” The plan was reportedly aimed at ”raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing scientific wisdom'” on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.

Fred Singer replies:

1. Unfortunately, Jim Peden is correct. Unnamed parties have been inserting bizarre items into my Wiki biography. Larry Solomon has just published an article about this in the National Post.

The latest Wiki version makes me out to be some kind of wacko who believes in the existence of Martians.

2. Global Warming: The Newsweek allegation is completely untrue. No one from my organization attended such a meeting at the American Petroleum Institute. The NY Times ran the story originally and retracted it later when it was shown to be incorrect. We complained to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham and to writer Sharon Begley. But Newsweek has never corrected its story.

3. NIPCC: On ABC World News (March 23, 2008) reporter Dan Harris asserted that (unnamed) scientists at NASA, Princeton, and Stanford referred to NIPCC as ”fraudulent nonsense.” On the ABC web story, he changed the words to ”fabricated nonsense” but never identified the scientists. I am pretty sure I know who they are (Hansen, Oppenheimer, and Schneider) and wonder if they really used the word ”fraudulent” or if Harris made it up. If we sue for libel, we could find out. But is it worth it?

As an aside, ABC clearly stated that the Exxon donation of a decade ago was ”unsolicited.” The Wiki account does not, and attempts to link it to NIPCC.

4. When all else fails, there’s always tobacco. I am nonsmoker, belong to an anti-smoking organization (ACSH), and hate cigarette smoke. But this does not affect my science. Expert epidemiologists, including those at the Congressional Research Service, all agree that EPA cooked the data in order to link ‘second-hand’ smoke to lung-cancer deaths. See, e.g., here or here

I wanted you to know all this but don’t really expect to change Wiki.

Viscount Monckton comments:

There is a well-organized team under a computer nerd called Kim Dabelstein-Petersen who are responsible for dive-bombing the biographies of anyone known to question the alarmist viewpoint on the climate. They did it to me. When I said I would sue, they said legal action would be ineffective because they shelter behind a jurisdiction of convenience in Florida, where the publication of lies is permitted. So I told them that I’d obtain an interdict from the Scottish courts, forbidding the Internet trunk carriers from carrying any Wikipedia inaccuracies about me. That got their attention. My page has been cleaned up and locked against further tampering (for the time being, at any rate).

Lawrence Solomon comments:

Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. ”Do you really believe in Martians?” I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington event. The answer was ”No.”

Wikipedia’s error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. The page that Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career by painting him as a political partisan and someone who ”is best known as president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and second-hand smoke and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax.”

Innocent Wikipedia readers would be surprised to learn that Dr. Singer is no conservative kook but the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Center; the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a commendation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research on particle clouds; and the recipient of a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of weather satellites. He is, in short, a scientist of the highest calibre, with a long list of major scientific achievements, including the first measurements, with V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space, the design of the first instruments for measuring ozone, and the authorship of the first publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation in the earth’s magnetic field to explain the magnetic-storm ring current.

Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions don’t last long, however – often just minutes – before the honest accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site. Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia’s 10 million pages to erase any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters by the dozens have been likewise demeaned – to check for yourself, just look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed. This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific database questioned the UN view of climate change.

The trollers insist on characterizing Fred Singer as believing in Martians, in reality it is the Wickipedian trollers who are from Mars. Read more on this here and as most honest professors do, discourage your children from relying on Wiki as an encyclopedia of truth on at least this issue. The Martians have turned it into yet another propaganda vehicle.

_______________________________________________________

National Post   April 13/2008

Wikipedia’s zealots   by Lawrence Solomon

As I’m writing this column for the Post, I am simultaneously editing a page on Wikipedia. I am confident that just about everything I write for my column will be available for you to read. I am equally confident that you will be able to read just about nothing that I write for the page on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia page is entitled Naomi Oreskes, after a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, but the page offers only sketchy details about Oreskes. The page is mostly devoted to a notorious 2004 paper that she wrote, and that Science magazine published, called ”Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” This paper analyzed articles in peer-reviewed journals to see if any disagreed with the alarming positions on global warming taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ”Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position,” concluded Oreskes.

Oreskes’s paper – which claimed to comprehensively examine all articles in a scientific database with the keywords ”climate change” – is nonsense. As Post readers know, for the last 18 months I have been profiling scientists who disagree with the UN panel’s position. My Deniers series, which now runs some 40 columns, describes many of the world’s most prominent scientists. They include authors or reviewers for the UN panel (before they quit in disgust). They even include the scientist known as the Father of Scientific Climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited climatologist in the world. Yet somehow Oreskes missed every last one of these exceptions to the presumed consensus, and somehow so did the peer reviewers that Science chose to evaluate Oreskes’s work.

When Oreskes’s paper came out, it was immediately challenged by science writers and scientists alike, one of them being Benny Peiser, a prominent UK scientist and publisher of CCNet, an electronic newsletter to which I and thousands of others subscribe. CCNet daily circulates articles disputing the conventional wisdom on climate change. No publication better informs readers about climate change controversies, and no person is better placed to judge informed dissent on climate change than Benny Peiser.

For this reason, when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.

Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, 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. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. 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.

Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop’s. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. ”Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!” Tabletop said.

I undid Tabletop’s undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: ”Tabletop’s changes claim to represent Peiser’s views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop’s version.”

Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.

Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop’s undid and protested: ”Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him.”

Tabletop parried: ”we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant.”

Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I — no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don’t suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet’s cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

While I’ve been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia – or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen – beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Energy Probe, and author of The Deniers.

This is the first in a continuing series. To read the second in the series, ”Hide your name on Wikipedia”, please see:

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=18300

________________________________________________________

National Post   April 19/2008

Hide your name on Wicked Pedia   by Lawrence Solomon

Last week, in my column on Wikipedia’s zealots, I described how the website’s editors patrol the website’s pages to enforce the conventional wisdom on climate change. Anyone skeptical of the United Nations’ – take on global warming gets swarmed – Wikipedia’s enforcers neutralize him and his comments or take him out completely. The Wikipedia site in this way has become a paragon of modern propaganda, operating under the illusion of Internet openness and respect for democratic process, while in reality inhabiting a fantasy world in which up is down and words mean whatever you want them to mean.

My column focused on a Wikipedia page for a U.S. scientist named Naomi Oreskes who had surveyed a major scientific database and amazingly found not one study – zero – that questioned the UN view of climate change. Many science writers and scientists immediately challenged Oreskes’s findings, among them a British scientist named Benny Peiser. Wikipedia editors whitewashed criticism of her study – thoroughly discredited though it was – and for good measure they trashed Peiser. I attempted to edit the Wikipedia page to note some of the criticism of Oreskes’s study, and to remove incorrect information about Peiser. My changes were repeatedly eradicated by a Wikipedia editor. I then wrote about my experience with Wikipedia in my column in the National Post.

To counter my criticism, the Wikipedia editor posted a rebuttal on the National Post’s blog, which I and a few other Post editors manage. I must confess that I took a mischievous delight at the thought of instantly deleting the rebuttal in revenge – something I am able to do. But that is not the culture in a newspaper. The Wikipedia editor’s comments are allowed to stand, and readers are allowed to assess them.

The Wikipedia editor justified his decision to remove my edits by saying that ”these kinds of edits are routinely reverted, especially when done on a biography of a living person – and doubly so – when the only documentation for the claims is an anonymous editor’s claim that ‘he got this from Peiser himself.’ (Yes – Mr. Solomon didn’t identify himself).”

This is a bizarre assertion. I identified myself in the many exchanges, repeatedly, as ”Lawrence Solomon.” It turns out this style of identification can offend and exasperate Wikipedians. The proper identification in the World of Wikipedia, a patient Wikipedian later informed me, begins with four tildes, as follows, ~~~~. This code then triggers the insertion of a Wikipedian-approved identity.

To be properly understood, the Wikipedia editor’s assertion about my acting anonymously must be cast in a deeper relief. In my world, the newspaper and public policy book publishing world, all works are signed. Readers readily know who wrote what and they can make judgments based on the credibility and reputation of the writer. In the World of Wikipedia, no articles are signed and anonymity reigns. Pseudonyms such as Tabletop and Coppertwig are the rule. Nothing is transparent.

And much is dark. Apparently, there is a very good and practical reason to maintain anonymity in Wikipedia. It can be Wicked Pedia. As Major Bonkers, a senior Wikipedian who befriended me advised, ”you appear to be editing under your real name. I have to say, based on my own experience that this could be a mistake; it’s relatively easy for a computer’s address to be traced to a geographical location and Google can start filling out the gaps. I’ve seen rival editors come out with ‘I know where you live’-type comments and worse. Whilst most of us are rational, sensible people, there are also people out there who are complete nutcases. Not that I want to put you off!” Gb, another kind Wikipedian, and one who has a high rank in the Wikipedian hierarchy, advised me to ”take Major Bonker’s suggestion to heart – if you’re planning on sticking around, using your real name may not be ideal.”

Of course, it is too late for me to become anonymous. References to my Wikipedia’s Zealots column now appears on several hundred blogs, along with my name. But how odd a thought that a writer would want anonymity. Or maybe not so odd. In the real world, those who want anonymity are either ashamed of their conduct – say, poison pen writers – or fear for their safety – say, writers inside China criticizing their government. In the world of Wicked Pedia, the same two reasons rule.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, and author of The Deniers.

This is the second in a continuing series. To read the first in the series, ”Wikipedia’s Zealots”, please see:

http://energy.probeinternational.org/climate-change/the-deniers

Etiketter: , ,

13 svar to “Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything critically of Global Warming!”

  1. Miljövän Says:

    Rena bedrägeriet

    John Coleman, grundare av The Weather Chanel och numera pensionär säger följande:

    Global uppvärmning d.v.s. Klimatförändring handlar inte om miljövård eller politik. Det är inte heller en religion. Det är inte något som man ”tror” på. Det är vetenskap; den vetenskap som kallas meteorologi.
    Det är mitt fält av livslång erfarenhet och specialitet. Och jag påstår att Global uppvärmning är en påhittad kris och totalt lurendrejeri.
    Jag påstår detta trots att jag vet att du nog inte tror mig, en TV -väderman, som utmanar en Nobelprisvinnare, Oscarspris och Emmy vinnare och tidigare Vise President av United States.

    Må så vara. Jag är uppretad över en otrolig media-glamour, den politiskt korrekta löjligheten och de oförskämda avfärdanden av motargument som levereras av Översteprästen för Global uppvärmning.

    Himlen faller inte ner över oss. Och naturliga cykler och avdrifter vad gäller klimatet är orsaken till eventuella förändringar som kan ligga framför oss. Jag är övertygad om att de kommande tjugo åren kan lika gärna innebära en avkylningstrend som en uppvärmningsperiod.

    Inom ett decennium eller två kommer detta skandalösa bedrägeri att avslöjas. När temperaturhöjningarna uteblir, när smältningen av polisarna inte sker, när kustöversvämningar och stormar inte sker som man förespått, kommer alla att inse att vi blivit duperade.

    Om ni har en halvtimme till övers, lyssna på denna engelska intervju med Coleman där han bemöter alla argument som vi dagligen matas med.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524

  2. Apocalypse? No! - Why there is no Global Warming Crisis « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] även följande inlägg: Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything cri…,  Over 500 scientists behind the Manhattan declaration!,  Climate change confirmed but global […]

  3. How we know that they, the Global Warming Hysterics, know they are lying « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] – At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!,  Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything cri…, Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?,  Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?,  Det råder […]

  4. mkurbo Says:

    I totally agree – I’ve been fighting the bias on AGW on WP for several years now – it’s insane !

    • sophiaalbertina Says:

      Mkurbo,

      Sorry to say but it is a sad statement of the present situation in journalism and parts of the science community.

  5. Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 70 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything c… […]

  6. Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 132 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything c… […]

  7. There will be no more warming for the foreseeable future. « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views!,  Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everythi…, Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press -2?,  Why Does Al Gore Hate The Press?,  Det råder […]

  8. Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 230 « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Wikipedia (Wicked Pedia) bias – Or How Global Warming Hysterics Systematically alters everything c… […]

  9. Anteaus Says:

    I can confirm the truth of this, and that it is still going on in 2012.

    On attempting to update some out-of-date information on ice core data my edits were reverted twice, once by an ordinary editor and then by an administrator (no names, but no surprises)

    What was even more controversial was that the deleted update contained quotes from NOAA and and the International Journal of Geosciences. Hardly fringe science. In fact, all carefully checked material.

    Clearly, the objective here is to keep Wikipedia OUT of date and INaccurate, where that suits the propagandists’ purposes.

    It’s time an approach was made to Google, to have Wikipedia’s search rankings reduced. It is no longer a trustworthy source.

  10. reviews Says:

    Hello there! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a
    team of volunteers and starting a new initiative
    in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us beneficial information to work on.

    You have done a extraordinary job!

  11. Abel Says:

    Lovely blog! I am loving it!! Will come back
    again. I am taking your feeds also.

  12. Melvina Says:

    This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your
    feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post.
    Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: