Wikipedia Edit-Wars and Global Warming Zealotry

Even if you're less than concerned with Wikpedia, as I am, this is still a good article about the global warming cultists' insistence that nary a shred of information undermining their religion be available to the public.

In the case recounted there, there's a dispute over whether a global warming skeptic recanted her previous claims. The author of the article here says she didn't. The Wikipedia edit Nazi "Tabletop" claims she did.

That would seem like a normal sort of dispute without someone clearly in the right. After all, they both have "sources" who weigh in on whether the skeptic has recanted.

Except those sources aren't equal. The global warming zealot has distorted quotes pulled out of context.

The author of the article has the permission of the very scientist whose position is disputed to edit the entry to say "No, indeed, I stand by my previous criticisms of the global warming 'consensus.'"

Apparently the scientist herself isn't an authoritative enough source to convince "Tabletop" that she continues to be a global warming "consensus" skeptic. She feels her own "source" as to what the scientist's current beliefs are trumps the scientist herself.

And so it goes. Thuggery and Orwellian rewriting of the record, in accordance with the demands of the Party.

Thanks to jdub.

Related: Fresh discovery of world's oldest tree -- 9,500 years old -- demonstrates the summers were warmer back soon after the last Ice Age than they are now.

Most likely greenhouse gas warming due to rampant farting by mastodons.

posted by Ace at 12:41 PM

| Access Comments