academic freedom Climate change Culture Information Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design

Wikipedia erases list of climate skeptics

Spread the love

An editor offers a justification:

“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

James Delingpole, “Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History” at Breitbart

It’s become another dogma:

It is difficult to know to what degree the general public believes the direst forecasts of climate catastrophe after years of having been endlessly frightened by “expert” predictions that have repeatedly failed to materialize, but one thing is certain: the vast majority of us are not hearing both sides of the debate. With most other big controversies, mainstream news generally allow token counterarguments, at least occasionally. Not in this case. Dissent against the prevailing view that humanity drives “climate change” is essentially off-limits on most of the airwaves and in print. Censorship of the opposition is accepted as good journalistic hygiene. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times proudly declared it would no longer accept letters to the editor that challenged the validity of anthropogenic climate change.

Mark Mendlovitz, “Setting the Record Straight on the Climate Debate” at The Pipeline

Meanwhile,

An Associated Press headline from 1989 read “Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials.” The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.

Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending “cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere.” That claim came from an “international team of specialists” cited by The New York Times in 1978.

Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that “another ice age” was imminent. “Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest,” the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that “Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast.”

Sam Dorman, “Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions” at Fox News

Just two things:

  1. If an encyclopedia won’t provide information, people should patronize a different encyclopedia. Some of us don’t understand why anyone uses Wikipedia anyway. They are telling you that they are not in the information business. Did you happen to notice that?
  2. Even if everything is all pristine and honest with climate science today, the settled habit of simply censoring opposing views inevitably corrupts. Over time it corrupts absolutely. Darwinism is paying the price even now for that kind of thing, if we go by the defensive Darwinblather around the current, sublime embarrassment of de novo genes.


Why does Darwinism remind one of the propaganda of unfree countries? Never mind that the de novo genes have no apparent ancestors. Universal common ancestry, the supposed bedrock of the system, is not as important as simple, unquestioning obedience to the current pronouncements of the ideologues.

8 Replies to “Wikipedia erases list of climate skeptics

  1. 1
    ET says:

    Well, there is climate and it does change. So there’s that.

    But looking at this diagram it is mind boggling how anyone can say that CO2 is the problem.

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    We are definitely beyond 1984 territory with Climate Change and Evolution.

    Devotees of the above narratives know something isn’t tidy with either story, but part of the deal is buying into the lies, anyway. I’ve even had a super-smart prog buddy admit that it doesn’t matter if the narratives are true or false, they motivate him and his crowd, and so I can excuse myself and go try it with someone else.

    It’s madness, but hey, that’s what’s currently playing at the theatre.

    Andrew

  3. 3
    EricMH says:

    There seem to be a number of narratives like that (AI, coronavirus, cancer?, war on terror?). The participants know it doesn’t quite hold together, but they play along because it benefits them and rationalize it because somehow they benefit others. Essentially, they do research that is hard to explain to the general public, but requires lots of money, so they construct these easier to sell narratives that bring in the grant money and power for what they really want.

  4. 4
    Eugene says:

    “Political tags–such as …democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” – R.A. Heinlein

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    Considering what usually happens on Wikipedia pages, it’s better to have NO list than a list carefully edited by “Phillip Cross” to make the factual side look bad. With NO easy-to-find but deceptive list available, people will do their own sorting.

  6. 6
    BobRyan says:

    ET @ 1

    CO2 is too heavy on Earth to rise high enough to be a green house gas. They use Venus as the model, where the air is 90 times heavier than it is on Earth, which makes CO2 lighter than Venusian air.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    BobRyan- convection currents and wind move the CO2 to higher altitudes.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    Climate changes. So what? Naturalists want to keep living after ‘knowing’ their lives are purposeless, so they can ‘purposely’ cheat themselves creating a purpose they know is fake, for the purpose of keeping being alive for… nothing really.
    Then they get mad at certain people because those people use their minds to create ‘gods’ to give their lives meaning, but at the same time those religious beliefs are an inseparable part of some stupid, purposeless process named evolution that enhanced those behaviors to achieve…nothing.
    And we are all meat-robots.

    Think I am strawmanning? Think twice. Materialism is pure lunacy.

Leave a Reply